Central Bank: 800,000 adults don't want a job

[Leo]

No I didn't. Quote me on it if I did.

In response to:

No, I would like to see no drivers at all. They are completely unnecessary

You said:

That's a classic. Motionless trams!

I was referring specifically to LUAS trams and the need for that service to be reliable due to its strategic importance in transporting tens of thousands of other workers to their place of work. That is what we were talking about.
What you and Purple are now talking about is a diversion to avoid answering the question.
The LUAS tram service, as being delivered by Transdev, requires a driver to drive the trams. Isn't that right?
A driverless LUAS tram, as we know them today, would be a motionless tram. Isn't that right?

Oh, so now we're just talking about today. Maybe you could have made that clearer rather than seek to redefine the scope and limits of discussions after the fact.

Anyway, Alstom already have the automation technology, back to talking about the not too distant future. The Luas should be fully automated.

 

[TheBigShort]

I think he will have to pay his staff 1 euro per hour more, what do you think?

I don't know, you tell me.

You have argued that that paying the minimum wage leads to high staff turnover making it an unreliable business model.

To be more specific, a less reliable service than if wages were higher.

I've asked you to tell me what you think he would do but you have not yet answered.

I don't know what he would have to do. It's quite plausible that he would have to increase wages of higher workers. Increasing the minimum wage can drive up wages.
When the minimum wage went from 8.65 to 9.15 per hour that was an effective 5.7% increase.
Did you get a 5.7% increase? I didn't.

 

[TheBigShort]

You said:

Sorry, I should have said "motionless LUAS trams", because it wasn't abundantly clear to you that when I referred to the capital city's transport network (just to be clear, when I say capital city, I'm referring to Dublin) that I was referring to LUAS.

Oh, so now we're just talking about today. Maybe you could have made that clearer rather than seek to redefine the scope and limits of discussions after the fact.

If you want to divert to technological advances in transport networks that's fine, I don't take issue with that. But if I want to know what you and others think about paying wages over and above minimum wage for tram drivers (LUAS ones) then I think that's fair game too.

Anyway, Alstom already have the automation technology, back to talking about the not too distant future. The Luas should be fully automated.

If you think the LUAS should be automated, great! Can you give us an example of where a city centre has a fully automated tram system rolled out?

 

[Firefly]

Increasing the minimum wage can drive up wages.

I agree.

 

[TheBigShort]

I agree.

Great, we agree on something. Can I ask what was the point of your interjection?

 

[Firefly]

Great, we agree on something. Can I ask what was the point of your interjection?

I was just looking for confirmation on what you believed the effects of increasing the minimum wage are.

 

[TheBigShort]

I was just looking for confirmation on what you believed the effects of increasing the minimum wage are.

I responded to a comment that LUAS drivers were grossly overpaid. Since then the topic has diverted to the effects of increasing the minimum wage, sub-saharan farmers, junior doctors, the definition of a pizza worker's and new automated tram technologies.
Not one reasoned argument as to why LUAS drivers shouldn't be paid what they agreed with their employer.

 

[Leo]

If you want to divert to technological advances in transport networks that's fine, I don't take issue with that. But if I want to know what you and others think about paying wages over and above minimum wage for tram drivers (LUAS ones) then I think that's fair game too.

I've no problem with Luas drivers, or any sector being paid more than minimum wage, the market should set the appropriate wage. Given the number of applicants per open positions, it is clear they are currently paid a lot more than is required.

 

[Firefly]

I responded to a comment that LUAS drivers were grossly overpaid. Since then the topic has diverted to the effects of increasing the minimum wage, sub-saharan farmers, junior doctors, the definition of a pizza worker's and new automated tram technologies.
Not one reasoned argument as to why LUAS drivers shouldn't be paid what they agreed with their employer.

I'm certainly not saying it's your fault, but for some reason, anytime you are involved in a thread it seems to take on a life of its own and goes off in multiple tangents!

 

[Firefly]

I've no problem with Luas drivers, or any sector being paid more than minimum wage, the market should set the appropriate wage. Given the number of applicants per open positions, it is clear they are currently paid a lot more than is required.

I agree. I remember reading that during the strike the operators of the LUAS were inundated with CVs. I guess that's my issue with unions....they server to retain / improve the pay / conditions for its members over and above the market rate.

 

[Leo]

I agree. I remember reading that during the strike the operators of the LUAS were inundated with CVs. I guess that's my issue with unions....they server to retain / improve the pay / conditions for its members over and above the market rate.

More than 2000 applicants for 29 jobs.

 

[TheBigShort]

I'm certainly not saying it's your fault, but for some reason, anytime you are involved in a thread it seems to take on a life of its own and goes off in multiple tangents!

Surely that should read, "anytime we are involved in a thread..."

 

[Firefly]

Surely that should read, "anytime we are involved in a thread..."

True to be fair!

 

[TheBigShort]

I've no problem with Luas drivers, or any sector being paid more than minimum wage, the market should set the appropriate wage. Given the number of applicants per open positions, it is clear they are currently paid a lot more than is required.

No it doesn't. It simply means that the terms that the company is offering is attractive to a large pool of prospective applicants. Ask yourself, which came first, the job offer or the job applicant? Obviously it was the job offer. These are the terms that the company has set out in order to attract the required applicant. If there is a large response, it doesn't mean that those 2,000 applicants all meet the criteria that the company is looking for. For instance, if a number of applicants were workers with skillsets that, in ordinary times, would afford higher rates of pay than what was on offer, working 9 -5 Mon to Fri, no shiftwork, no public holidays etc...then its possible that in any short-listing process, those workers could be classed as 'over-qualified' by the company. In turn, assuming the economy returns to normal, those workers will be up and leaving when the opportunity affords it to them.
Also, applicants who perhaps have just left school, and have no track record of working shifts would also be crossed off the short-list.
On the otherhand, a taxi driver who wanted out of the taxi business due to depleting returns, may see the opportunity of LUAS work as more steady, more social and in turn may have a proven track record of working shifts, late at night, weekends etc. This prospective employee may be considered by the company as more suitable, than say, an unemployed chemist.

In the end, perhaps only 250 of the 2,000 had realistic prospects of getting the job.

 

[Firefly]

No it doesn't. It simply means that the terms that the company is offering is attractive to a large pool of prospective applicants. Ask yourself, which came first, the job offer or the job applicant? Obviously it was the job offer. These are the terms that the company has set out in order to attract the required applicant. If there is a large response, it doesn't mean that those 2,000 applicants all meet the criteria that the company is looking for. For instance, if a number of applicants were workers with skillsets that, in ordinary times, would afford higher rates of pay than what was on offer, working 9 -5 Mon to Fri, no shiftwork, no public holidays etc...then its possible that in any short-listing process, those workers could be classed as 'over-qualified' by the company. In turn, assuming the economy returns to normal, those workers will be up and leaving when the opportunity affords it to them.
Also, applicants who perhaps have just left school, and have no track record of working shifts would also be crossed off the short-list.
On the otherhand, a taxi driver who wanted out of the taxi business due to depleting returns, may see the opportunity of LUAS work as more steady, more social and in turn may have a proven track record of working shifts, late at night, weekends etc. This prospective employee may be considered by the company as more suitable, than say, an unemployed chemist.

In the end, perhaps only 250 of the 2,000 had realistic prospects of getting the job.

You make some valid points, but we simply don't know the quality of applicants. I'm sure if no applicants applied you would be arguing that the wages are too low!

 

[TheBigShort]

You make some valid points, but we simply don't know the quality of applicants. I'm sure if no applicants applied you would be arguing that the wages are too low!

The point I'm trying to make is that wages are not simply set by market supply and demand. It is a factor of course, but any company worth its salt is also analyzing the prospective applicant to meet the criteria it has set out for itself to meet the objectives of the company. That criteria will invariably add value to the position.
Labour is not a commodity to be bought and sold at will. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.

When Pat Kenny left RTE for Newstalk, there was media speculation of a number of high profile candidates to take his position on radio and TV. Just because the number of prospective applicants outnumbered the vacancy by at least 5 to 1, doesn't mean that the wage paid should be driven down on that basis alone.

 

[Firefly]

The point I'm trying to make is that wages are not simply set by market supply and demand. It is a factor of course, but any company worth its salt is also analyzing the prospective applicant to meet the criteria it has set out for itself to meet the objectives of the company. That criteria will invariably add value to the position.

I take your point. Lots of other considerations are taken into the account - the skills, experience, personality etc. However if the company sifts through all of the applicants and ends up with say 3 times more suitable applicants than positions it will surely (and rightly) try to offer the lowest wage it can.

Labour is not a commodity to be bought and sold at will. Slavery was abolished a long time ago.

I think you are conflating slavery with short term work requirements. Slavery was forced, lots of labour today is required at a short-term notice for a short period of time. We did up the house this year...I needed a plasterer for a specific 3 day period. Was that slavery?

When Pat Kenny left RTE for Newstalk, there was media speculation of a number of high profile candidates to take his position on radio and TV. Just because the number of prospective applicants outnumbered the vacancy by at least 5 to 1, doesn't mean that the wage paid should be driven down on that basis alone.

I agree...as above, if 2 people meet the requirements and all things being equal then whoever works for the lower rate would get the job

 

[TheBigShort]

I take your point. Lots of other considerations are taken into the account - the skills, experience, personality etc. However if the company sifts through all of the applicants and ends up with say 3 times more suitable applicants than positions it will surely (and rightly) try to offer the lowest wage it can.

Which it tried to do by reneging on its agreed commitments.

I think you are conflating slavery with short term work requirements. Slavery was forced, lots of labour today is required at a short-term notice for a short period of time. We did up the house this year...I needed a plasterer for a specific 3 day period. Was that slavery?

Ok, I'll give you that one.

I agree...as above, if 2 people meet the requirements and all things being equal then whoever works for the lower rate would get the job

Not necessarily, just because someone can do the job cheaper, does not necessarily mean they meet all the criteria that the employer has set in its objectives. If the company operated a 50/50 gender balance and there was a deficit of females in the post, the company may be inclined to meet the higher wage demands of a female candidate than that of a male candidate.

 

[Firefly]

Not necessarily, just because someone can do the job cheaper, does not necessarily mean they meet all the criteria that the employer has set in its objectives. If the company operated a 50/50 gender balance and there was a deficit of females in the post, the company may be inclined to meet the higher wage demands of a female candidate than that of a male candidate.

That's what I meant by meeting the requirements. In your example, two female candidates with the same qualities present for one job. All things being equal, if one applicant will work for less than the other they should get the gig.

 

[Firefly]

Ok, I'll give you that one.

I'm going to print this off !!!