CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Next thing will be the demand for everyone to work through their lunchtime, never get time off for hospital appointments/dental appointments, never be given compassionate leave, get up half an hour before going to bed, eat a handful of gravel, live in a hole in the middle of the road, &c. That is a childish response and of course misses the point entirely Plenty of people I work with and plenty of my friends call in sick the odd time after being out drinking. I because of my fathers influence drag myself out of bed and go into work hungover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 hang your bonus whether contractual or not surely has to be dependent on performance I doubt any bank is performing well My bank made a profit this year. My section, Capital Markets, made a big profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't understand that statement? I was making the point that you were only talking about now with regard to the effectiveness of unions in a private sector scenario whereas you had been complaining that over the past x years a gap had occurred between public sector and private sector pay. Perhaps the private sector workers might have got together in those times if they were indeed being screwed over by their bosses (highly likely) and stood up for themselves. In those circumstances they might now be railing against the system which has failed them rather than against other people who are not allowing themselves to be screwed over as much. I see, in some cases I'm sure you're right. The private sector is a big sector though so it's hard to know who has been exploited and who has not. But the Public Private gap was that the Private Sector was paid more than the public sector, which was correct at the time. Benchmarking came in and addressed that inbalance, but the problem occured when the benchmarking had achieved it's purpous. It then over the past 5 or 6 years widened the gap the other way in which Public were payed more than private. It was always talked about and the Government said they would address it but large budget surpluses made it very hard to tackle when we were awash with money. The failure to tackle that has contributed to our current situation, those surpluses were because of Stamp Duty on property and capital gains taxes, revenue which has dried up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 That is a childish response... Perhaps it was. I felt, however, your point about having 'a very strong immune system' in the context of your comments about everyone else not being as hardy or hard working, together with the inference that I drew that some of this indolence on the part of others was because they didn't have the attitude that dragged them to work with a fever just because they 'never take a sick day', warranted something of that sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 So tell me, which union are you in CV? I'm not in a Union because I don't need one. I left my previous job because I got a better one where I currently am. I was promoted inside my first year and have had two excellent annual reviews, if I don't like something in my current job I'll look for another one. But obviously during a recession there will be limited employment opportunities so people have got to stick with what they have. Thats the Private Sector, you can leave your job if you don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It was always talked about and the Government said they would address it The point is that it was not necessarily up to the government to address it by reducing public sector pay or public sector pay increases but for the private sector workers to bind together and address what they felt as an injustice with their private sector bosses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm not in a Union because I don't need one. Your problem with your bonus might suggest otherwise. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 That is a childish response... Perhaps it was. I felt, however, your point about having 'a very strong immune system' in the context of your comments about everyone else not being as hardy or hard working, together with the inference that I drew that some of this indolence on the part of others was because they didn't have the attitude that dragged them to work with a fever just because they 'never take a sick day', warranted something of that sort. No, sick people should stay at home. But you must admit plenty of sick days are "casual sick leave". I'm saying that because my father was a very hard worker he always told me if I worked hard I'd be rewarded for it. Now he was from a different time but it's something I myself like to maintain. I just won't take casual sick leave because of him thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 BTW CV do you count as the public sector doctors nurses paramedics police army etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm not in a Union because I don't need one. Your problem with your bonus might suggest otherwise. :? No it wouldn't. Not getting my bonus, although not fair, is a necessary sacrafice. Why? Simple, the Government need to get pay cuts from the Public sector to help stabilise the budget defecit. This shows international markets we are tackling the problem and our AAA rating will be reaffirmed by Moodys this month. This in turn means our cost of borrowing will be less and hence lessen the debt burden on our country. Now I can understand people hate bankers, it would make the Governments job of negotiating those pay cuts harder if those Greedy bankers got bonuses. So despite this simplistic view of all bank employees, I understand it and for the sake of the country we all need to make sacrafices. Well, except the Public Sector that is. Can you see why I might have some beef with them right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It was always talked about and the Government said they would address it The point is that it was not necessarily up to the government to address it by reducing public sector pay or public sector pay increases but for the private sector workers to bind together and address what they felt as an injustice with their private sector bosses. But then one would always be higher than the other and then they'd play an endless game of catch up, which would result in spiraling wages, which would result in higher inflation, which would result in higher wage demands. It's a tricky thing to balance. Paying people more money isn't always the answer. It's a cruel thing to say but in the complex world of Economics it's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 BTW CV do you count as the public sector doctors nurses paramedics police army etc. Doctors in Ireland are a disgrace by the way. Paid 250k a year, well over double an NHS doctor. It's a problem we have because we've a two tier medical system so Government has to negotiate with doctors to get them to work in Public Healthcare as well as the Private. But I mean, all sectors of the Public Sector. People who are paid by the Government. You're naming the few who it's hard to ask pay cuts from. But the majority just work office jobs in various deartments and administration. On a side note. Police here in Ireland are vastly underpaid. It's a disgrace for the work they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 No it wouldn't. Not getting my bonus, although not fair, is a necessary sacrafice. Why? .... So you chose not to have your bonus? Or your bonus was suspended and you have come up with a scenario where you don't blame those people who have taken the decision and instead blame workers in the public sector? My bank made a profit this year. My section, Capital Markets, made a big profit. Sounds like they've made part of this profit on the back of cutting employee's salaries (or rather their bonus) and that they have sold it to all of their employees with this public sector pay deal guff. You've been had, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 5, 2009 Moderator Share Posted February 5, 2009 I see no problem with bonus based salary schemes, and in industries like banking where success is subject to some very definable measures I think it works very well. In other industries it works less well, and in some, not at all. I realise that I understand the work I do more than I understand the work that others do, and I understand that this will always be the case. I don't disagree with CV on any of his comments on banking or bonuses. I do disagree with the slightly psychotic blaming of the big bad wolf or public sector, which is for the most part just the same people working for another boss. I suspect that if CV tried it he'd be horrified by how similar it is to working in any job. I realise that the Irish system is different, but in a world where public services have moved so far towards a private sector ethic and have for the most part all been subject to some sort of breaking up or farming off of the parts that make them up I think the line between public and private is at best fuzzy and at times invisible. The wider points on the Irish economy as a whole are altogether more serious, times are tough I'm afraid, and worrying about the luck of others isn't going to make them any easier. If the grass is greener on the other side, sometimes cutting it won't make your side any greener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 But then one would always be higher than the other ... No it wouldn't. It would only be so if one group were wanting to outdo the other. I'm not surprised though that you have viewed it in terms of a wage race. It's a cruel thing to say but in the complex world of Economics it's a fact. No it isn't a fact and don't go into some patronising 'complex world of economics' shite. Next thing you'll be saying it has to do with complex algorithms and spreadsheets that no one else can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 BTW CV do you count as the public sector doctors nurses paramedics police army etc. Doctors in Ireland are a disgrace by the way. Paid 250k a year, well over double an NHS doctor. It's a problem we have because we've a two tier medical system so Government has to negotiate with doctors to get them to work in Public Healthcare as well as the Private. But I mean, all sectors of the Public Sector. People who are paid by the Government. You're naming the few who it's hard to ask pay cuts from. But the majority just work office jobs in various deartments and administration. On a side note. Police here in Ireland are vastly underpaid. It's a disgrace for the work they do. I am naming over 2 million people in the UK who do think does the jobs like cleaning hospitial for a pittance and other stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sounds like they've made part of this profit on the back of cutting employee's salaries (or rather their bonus) and that they have sold it to all of their employees with this public sector pay deal guff. You've been had, mate. You are entitled to your opinion. I was angry at the time because we were told about our bonuses and the amount we were getting. Then the Irish Times got wind of it and phoned the banks saying they were running it as the front page article on their Saturday Paper. The Government and Bank Executives had hasty discussions and because of the importance of the Public Sector cuts being negotiated at the time put pressure on for bonuses not to be paid. Since they are contractual the bank has to pay them, so they were deferred indefinatly, and a pess release was issued to that effect. The Irish Times changed their story. We were contacted on the weekend by our managers and informed of all this so we didn't find out in the papers. People were less than happy believe me, "slaved away in this most difficult year, somehow achieving our ovjectives and then having our reward taken away by the f*ckin Irish Times" to quote a manager in my department. I do understand the situation both the Government and Executives were in. This seems the only option available. Ireland is sinking into a black hole, everyone is going to feel pain, you can suck it up and get on with it or go complain and go on strike. None of this will change the cold hard facts that we're in a bad situation and strike will only make things worse. We need to be brave like we were in the 80's and work together to get out of this. Problem is this country is full of greedy, selfish cowards and we don't deserve to get out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Interest rates cut again to new lowest ever level, now at 1%. As previous cuts have made little/no difference, is this now just deepening the problems of savers without creating any actual economic benfit? Five reasons why a rate cut is wrong The Bank of England has cut rates again. This is another policy mistake. More panic cuts are not the answer to our economic crisis. Policymakers are desperately trying to boost the flagging economy and encourage more spending, lending and borrowing, but lower rates are a very crude weapon. They punish those who have got money to spend while benefiting the very groups (the banks in particular) whose actions caused the mess in the first place. There are five reasons why rates should not have been cut again today: 1. It damages confidence. When people see policymakers panicking they reduce spending and retrench. 2. There has not been enough time for past cuts to work. Monetary policy operates with a lag. Continued economic weakness does not necessarily demand more rate cuts. If a patient fails to recover immediately the sensible doctor either gives the medicine time to work or changes the treatment, rather than constantly doubling the dose. An overdose could prove fatal. The same may apply to rate cuts, however frustrating that might be for policymakers desperately wanting to do something. 3. It damages savers and pensioners. Millions of pensioners, who rely heavily on savings interest, have seen their incomes slashed and are reducing their spending. Cutting rates is like cutting the state pension. Disgracefully, pension credit means-tests still assume pensioners are earning 10% (yes, 10%) interest on their savings. This pushes more people into poverty and damages consumption. If half of Britain's 12 million pensioners have £10,000 of savings, recent rate cuts imply £10 a week less income – more than £3bn a year less to spend. 4. It may not work anyway! Lower rates will not necessarily boost lending, as lenders will increase their margins and raise charges on loans. The problem is the availability of credit, not the price. 5. There is a huge inflation risk. Concerns about deflation are misguided – this is a temporary statistical phenomenon after the sharp price rises of 2008. Dramatic rate cuts, printing money to offset bad loans, and pumping billions into the failed banking system is setting up inflation for the future. This will mean more hurt for savers as the value of their savings is slashed by inflation. Instead of interest rate cuts we need the government to get involved more directly. A government-sponsored lending body would get loans to viable businesses more quickly. Cutting direct taxes by reintroducing the 10p tax rate and changing the ludicrous assumption of pensioners earning 10% on their savings would offer a far more effective stimulus than hoping lower rates will eventually kick-start lending by bankrupt banks. The government should take charge and the Bank of England should resist aggravating future inflation with more damaging rate cuts. • Dr Ros Altmann is an economist and expert on pensions policy, savings and retirement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I am naming over 2 million people in the UK who do think does the jobs like cleaning hospitial for a pittance and other stuff Come on Ian, now you are having us on. It's a long time since hospitals were properly cleaned. Now if there was any job that would benefit from bonus initiatives......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 5, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted February 5, 2009 I do think a tax exemption for savings income may help a bit, make it more attractive to savers, increase the banks coffers, improve lqiuidity, loosen the lending policies. Massachusetts subsidizes the savings banks (local equivalent of building societies, since most are still mutually owned) by exempting the interest they pay from [state] income tax, thus assuring a more ready supply of funds for these banks to lend (they generally do so more conservatively than the other banks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts