I hate the way you two do that.
Central Bank: 800,000 adults don't want a job
- Thread starter Protocol
- Start date
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
That is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the title of this topic was misleading with regard to the content of the report. That the title could be construed as meaning that there are 800k working people who were simply unhappy in their jobs as much as meaning that there were 800k adults who couldn't be bothered working.
Either way, like I said 'catchy headline', but misleading.
I don't think they said they don't want to work.
Students not wanting to work? What are they studying for?
Stay at home parents? A job in itself.
Carers? A low paid undervalued job.
Disabled/sick? A possibility that they can't work, or can't get work, as distinct from not wanting to work?
Unemployed are officially classed as people without a job but actively looking for a job.
My point was that the employment rate reflected a large number of jobs where the job holder would like to work more hours, but currently only hold positions that provide significantly less than 40 hrs. Hence the reports conclusion that there is no wage inflationary pressures.
Agreed.
You wil forgive me I hope for having glazed over some of the proceeding posts.
I would just like to return to the previous matter, of the Luas Driver. Not only grossly overpaid but bloodyminded and indulged by his employer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...se-it-was-too-close-to-end-of-shift-1.3204703
I would just like to return to the previous matter, of the Luas Driver. Not only grossly overpaid but bloodyminded and indulged by his employer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...se-it-was-too-close-to-end-of-shift-1.3204703
There's nothing unusual about that in the Public Transport sector. In fact the only thing that is unusual is that the employer sanctioned the driver. The CIE group companies would be too frightened of the unions to do that.
Reading this I was thinking of how often that last route has been late whereby the driver could reasonably expect to finish after the due time. I mean if this happened regularly / all the time I wouldn't like it either, but then I note:
It was also noted that the driver’s team leader had told him that he could leave the city centre terminus five minutes early to ensure that he got back to the Red Cow Station with time to spare before the end of his shift.
And I thought "Ah here"
Just to add....leaving 5 minutes early is not much good to someone depending on the last tram though is it?
Don't be silly, that doesn't matter, to the Company, the Driver or the WRC.
LUAS and so many other public utilities are run not for the benefit of the customers or the taxpayer but for the benefit of the staff and management.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
You have identified one instance of an employee reneging on his/her responsibility to perform his job for which s/he was paid for, and for that another (lazy) generalised attack on public sector workers.
I identified one instance of an employer reneging on their responsibility to pay wages as agreed for work performed, and yet not one ounce of indignation against anyone - except those that actually stood up and fought their corner.
That is the second time on this thread that you have called me lazy, you really have to try to learn to play nicely, or you will end up with no friends.
While of course people who don't want to work for their money can be found anywhere, I suggest that it takes a certain mentality for the employer to agree to reorganise the work for their convenience.
"the driver’s team leader had told him that he could leave the city centre terminus five minutes early to ensure that he got back to the Red Cow Station with time to spare"
and when even that did not satisfy him, to let it go with a warning.
"the claimant was exposed to being dismissed for his conduct and that the employer did indeed apply leniency by giving him the lesser sanction"
And what about poor Mrs Byrne who arrived at the tram stop with 3 minutes to spare only to discover that the tram was gone cause the driver wanted to finish up. Mrs Byrne, who pays her fare and who's taxes subsidise the LUAS drivers' grossly inflated wages.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I didn't call you lazy, merely suggested your generalised comment about public sector workers was lazy.
Well, to be consistent then, public and private sector ultilities are not run for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers but for the benefit of staff and management?
With respect, that wasn't the employer, but another employee.
Mrs Byrne was certainly inconvenienced. What is your point? I'm not defending the employee who didn't complete his/her shift.
On the other hand, the tens of thousands of people who were inconvenienced during the LUAS dispute, what about them?
What do you think of an employer that reneged on agreements made with employees, inconveniencing tens of thousands of people?
I agree. The mobile phone companies. the banks, the electricity companies. None of these are run for the benefit of their customers.
But private companies are not often monopolies and never have political masters.
My taxes are not being used to pay the grossly over inflated salaries in any mobile telephone company.
When my AIB relationship manager (this is a long time ago) promised me something and then didn't deliver, I closed my account.
The senior management don't have to run these organisations with one eye on the voters.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
So what? What difference does it make? If companies are not being run for the benefit of customers, as you say, who cares if it is a monopoly or not? Either way, customers aren't benefiting.
No but your disposable income is.
And what? Open another account in a different bank? That isn't being run for the benefit of customers, as you say?
That'll show them!
RichInSpirit
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,149
Make that 800001, given financial independence i'd happily join the other 800000. ☺