You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.And private sector wastage is paid for by the taxpayer (aka the consumer) through the prices paid for goods and services.
You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.And private sector wastage is paid for by the taxpayer (aka the consumer) through the prices paid for goods and services.
LOLYou could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.
You could drive a bus through the holes in that logic.
More to the point is it driven by an NBRU or a SIPTU driver!?Although is it Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus or a private company ?
I believe the UK transport system is far superior to the Irish one. They actually have rail links to their airports, for example. As far as I'm aware, most of Thatcher's transport policies haven't been reversed by New Labour.
To be honest, Irish transport infrastructure is an embarrassment.
Of course you have choices with public sector services. If you don't like the way the Irish public sector works, go find another public sector that better meets your needs. It's slightly more difficult than changing bank, I grant you. But it is an option.I don't care about inefficiency and waste as long as I have the option of not subsidising it. I do with private sector services (e.g. the bank I use) but I don't with public sector services.
Nice theory. Pity it doesn't work in practice. Markets are not perfect. Consumers display intertia.So what? Your assertion in a later post that we pay for these mistakes as consumers shows the typical socialist lack of understanding of free market economics. With competition if one company screws up and adds cost to their product they cannot pass this cost on if it means that their good or service will be uncompetitive as a result.
DiarmudC's comment applies here. Here's the corrected version of the first sentence.The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their middle class public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership. They have also demanded that direct taxation is not increased to fund these lavish tax increases. They did this in the full knowledge that this would result in an increase in indirect taxation (bin charges, water charges etc). These charges have a higher proportional impact the lower the income is of the person paying them. This goes against everything that unions fought for in their early years before they sold out the poor and became a lobby group.
It doesn’t matter how smart or well someone works in a badly run organisation. Unions prevent management from managing. They prevent the lazy and the incompetent from being sanctioned and they prevent the hard working and smart from being rewarded. In short they set the bar as low as possible and they do everything to ensure that it stays there.
So when did they introduce a second department of Foreign Affairs? If I don’t like the service I get from the department of social welfare which other department of social welfare should I call? (What are you talking about ?)Of course you have choices with public sector services. If you don't like the way the Irish public sector works, go find another public sector that better meets your needs. It's slightly more difficult than changing bank, I grant you. But it is an option.
The customer can choose not to move in the private sector, they have no choice with the public sector. Choice, get it? Individual freedom rather than collectivism.Nice theory. Pity it doesn't work in practice. Markets are not perfect. Consumers display intertia.
I no more want IBEC or the SFA than SIPTU usurping the function and duty of our elected government. I don’t like any of the lobby groups that have their feet under the table of government. My point is that unions within the euphemistically called social partnership framework sold out the poor long ago. They led the charge when the “give us the money but don’t increase direct taxes” policy was floated by all the smart lads at the “partnership” talks.The unions have pushed hard for pay increases for their lower class, middle class, and upper class public sector members for the last ten years as part of the agenda they set within social partnership, in partnership with IBEC, SFA, the farmers, the NGOs and indeed the Govt themselves.
Capital spending is an investment for a return. Increasing pensions looks after vulnerable elderly members of society. I realise they don’t pay the union dues that keep the fat cats at the top of (the ironically named) Liberty Hall in double chins so they of little interest to unions that are nothing more than lobby groups for middle class employees in (for the most part)protected sector of our economy. The thread is about Benchmarking which is a phenomenon which affects all tax payers in this country. Unfortunately most private sector tax payers feel its affect negatively. That’s what the thread is about so why would I bring capital spending into it? If you wish to introduce a straw man argument then by all means fire away but don’t expect me to do it for you.Your economic arguement is of course selective in the extreme. There is no logic in blaming increases in indirect taxation on public sector salaries. This assumes that overall tax income was static, i.e. no growth in corporate tax, no growth in CGT, no growth in the numbers paying income etc - all flawed assumptions. Why single out public sector salaries? Why not blame the transport infrastructure spend? Or the capital programme spend in the health sector? Or all those pesky OAPs and other social welfare recipients who sought and received increases? Or all those farmers who get paid for not growing produce? The only reason for blaming public sector salaries is to scapegoat.
I see unions that do all they can to protect the weak and dishonest and prevent chance and a focus on focusing public services on the public.Your description of union activity bears no resemblance to the real-world activities of the two union officials in my immediate family. I really think you are living in the past. Perhaps you've been watching reruns of 'On the buses' or some other seventies stuff. This isn't Ireland. [And let's not forget of course that not everyone in the public sector is unionised, and shock/horror - some private sector staff are unionised!]
Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here. This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs. Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?So when did they introduce a second department of Foreign Affairs? If I don’t like the service I get from the department of social welfare which other department of social welfare should I call? (What are you talking about ?)
The customer can choose not to move in the private sector, they have no choice with the public sector. Choice, get it? Individual freedom rather than collectivism.
Indeed you were.Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here.
The system is perfect, only the people are flawed. Is that it?This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs.
No. Competition is a valuable tool as it penalises waste and inefficiency. Unions are the champions of socialism. They serve their members, not the people. They are a vested interest group that seeks to suck resources from the many and concentrate them in the hands of their middleclass members. Collectivism never benefits the many.Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?
It's always fun.I'll get back on the other weak arguments later on
Don't work too hard; you'll have the union down on top of you.have to go serve the public now.
The crux of their position is that they will abide by the findings of an independent body as long as they like the findings. If they don't they will break their word, showing that their leaders were lying from the start, and screw the country for more money.Now that the nurses union are threatening to use the 'nuclear option' I wonder what the reaction would be if it was an employer who threatened a 'nuclear option' ?
Aren't such threats a form of intimidation ie 'give me what I want or else' ?
This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs.
I no more want IBEC or the SFA than SIPTU usurping the function and duty of our elected government. I don’t like any of the lobby groups that have their feet under the table of government.
Excellent post. I couldn't have put it better myself.Anyone who thinks that IBEC/SFA represent the country's employers, IFA represent the country's farmers and SIPTU and ICTU represent the country's workers is either codding themselves or has a vested interest in maintaining this pretence.
IBEC/SFA (ultimately the same organisation, btw, SFA is a direct subsidiary of IBEC) is dominated the the major employers including the banks and semi-state bodies such as RTE, ESB etc. Hence the existence of ISME and other bodies outside the partnership process.
IFA represents only the large better-off farmers. Hence the proliferation of other farm representative organisations outside the partnership process.
ICTU, SIPTU and the other unions represent a declining share of the country's workers, predominantly those in the highly-protected public sector.
The "Partnership" process is a scam.
This is the ultimate in one eyed, self serving, I'm all right Jackism. This is what the Unions are all about at the moment. You're doing a great job of proving everyone else's point.Sorry - I do realise I was a little obtuse here. This choice is to move to another country which better meets your needs. Find a Thatcherist regime somewhere that will create a divided society by exploiting public sector and other workers for the benefit of the few. Isn't that the ultimate step towards the great God of competition?
I don't read the Daily telegraph so I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.I'll 'fess up to a Duran Duran single, but not the whole album. And never the Miami Vice suit.
I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?
But back to the more important issues. Purple's tenuous linking of union lobbying on public sector to indirect taxation holds no water. There is no logical reason to link these two together. Public sector pay is no more or less responsible for increases in indirect taxation than any other aspect of public spending.
On the broader issue, this kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad' - 'private sector good, public sector bad' over-simplified analysis does not shine any light on important and complex issues. If anyone really wants to address the issues that do exist in the public sector, some deeper thinking will be required.
But maybe it's just easier to parrot out Daily Telegraph headlines....
I'll also 'fess up that my emigration suggestion was slightly tongue-in-cheek. It does seem like the only solution for someone who is hugely unsatisfied with the entire Goverment, the public sector, and the political system. It is highly unlikely that any of these will fundamentally change over the next 20-30 years, so what other options are available?
The fact that there are 900,000 people in this country who no pension provision at all would suggest otherwise.I'll take these moans seriously when you provide meaningful comparisons. So for private sector employees, how are their pensions funded (majority funded by the employer, right?).