"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[Purple]

JJM , of course it was the Government who initiated this - they realised that to get the Croke Park Agreement across the line they had to offer certain guarantees .
The same applied to Irish Water - the service level agreements were initiated by the company.
Jeez , you'd swear that Unions were the only party involved in binding Agreements.

Yes, the government know that the Unions will hold a gun to their head if they seek to get rid of people who have no job to do. Saying that the government did it is like blaming an abused spouse for taking actions to avoid abuse. The government is constrained by the fact that they are looking to minimise the hurt inflicted on the poor and vulnerable whereas the Unions don't care about anything other than their members.

 

[Purple]

Not in isolation. An increase in CT to fill the void in public finances would be a fair trade off.

I'd stop wasting money first but after that if we need more I've no problem with an increase in CT.

I like it. It exposes the true nature of the capitalist system we live in. The narrow vision of maximising profits regardless of the social consequences.

What, by lifting 4 thousand million people out of absolute poverty over the last 30 years? Why do Western socialists think that poverty should only be looked at in relative terms, and only in the context of the country they live in? Why should people who are a different colour not have the same opportunities we have?

American worker's did / are complaining. Now we are complaining, others will too. The race to the bottom is a recipe for conflict and tension.

see above. American "workers" are complaining because billions of people in Asia and elsewhere are now competing with them. Wage inflation will erode the massive returns on capital now being seen. I do think the issue of how a few thousand people are becoming billionaires needs be be looked at but that's nothing to do with this issue.

There is plenty of evidence. See bailouts for BoI, AIB, Irish Permanent etc. Compare with bailouts for homeless people.

Are you really suggesting that is a good comparison?

It's evidence that available resources will not necessarily be used to help homelessness or vulnerable in society.

They will if we, through our parliament choose to do so. They definitely won't if they are not available due to waste and inefficiency.

No, I'm suggesting that your suggestion of a 50% pay cut for ESB worker's may be somewhat flawed.

I never suggested that course of action. I was simply pointing out that very high pay rates for highly paid employees in State monopolies/semi-States/ State sector (in this case ESB employees) has a knock-on impact on the poor and the vulnerable.

Trade Union membership has been in decline for decades. Homelessness and hospital waiting lists are increasing. There is no correlation.

There are fewer people in the private sector in Unions because the Unions have closed down the private businesses they were involved in.
They are however a key player in every government decision about how the country is run and hold an effective veto over all changes, having to be bribed if any progress is to be made.

No. You referenced 3,000 jobs at Irish Water with nothing to do. As far as I know, Irish Water is still a functioning entity with a hugely significant role to play in managing the infrastructure of water in this country.
I suggested that the commercial side of Irish Water may be somewhat redundant. I suggested an orderly winding down as preferable to pushing people out en masse.

Again, I gave an example of what we see when a light is shone on the structure of a State run service. Before Irish Water the delivery of our water was so inefficient that it required 3000 more people than would be necessary in a well organised structure.
How many other areas of service delivery could be looked at in the same way?
Do you think it is a good thing to organise the delivery of State services in such an inefficient way?
I know it's a 20 year project to fix it but do you think it should be done and, crucially, do you really think the Unions will be a productive and positive player in such a process?

They serve their members to the empowerment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular. Credit to all those who are members and those who support them.

Can you explain why you hold that opinion? I really am interested because I can only see them doing harm to society at large. To me they are the same as IBEC and the Construction Industry Federation and all the other vested interest groups.

 

[Firefly]

For one, it's not in the private sector.

Why should that matter?

 

[TheBigShort]

What, by lifting 4 thousand million people out of absolute poverty over the last 30 years?

Considering the wealth and technological advancements over that period, that there is even one person in absolute poverty is shameful.
A dismal return, beset by the concept of profit making, regardless of the social consequences.

Why do Western socialists think that poverty should only be looked at in relative terms, and only in the context of the country they live in?

Who said they do? There should be no-one on this planet at risk of starvation or malnutrition. Unfortunately, charities geared to the elimination of poverty have become big business. High salaries for top executives, tax breaks for wealthy donors, lucrative TV advertising campaigns. It's all part of the capitalist circus that undermines the efforts of aid worker's and those that seek true social progression.

Why should people who are a different colour not have the same opportunities we have?

Who said they shouldn't?

Are you really suggesting that is a good comparison?

In terms of your belief that additional government resources would be used to help vulnerable and needy, yes.

They will if we, through our parliament choose to do so.

Eh, our parliament has chosen, as a matter of public policy - across all political divides. See the mission statement for Dept of Housing, read constitutional on fundamental rights, read UN Declaration of Human rights to which Ireland is a signatory and then ask yourself, why do we not put in the resources for homeless people and families?
On the other hand, before bank bailout, the only public policy was not to interfere in the market!

I never suggested that course of action.

very high pay rates for highly paid employees in State monopolies/semi-States/ State sector (in this case ESB employees) has a knock-on impact on the poor and the vulnerable.

With respect that is a lame comment. I have already pointed out some of the numerous variables that may lead to inaccurate and misleading perception of higher wages.
I have also shown clear evidence of where State resources are not used for the purpose of helping poor and needy, and instead the wealthy and greedy.

There are fewer people in the private sector in Unions because the Unions have closed down the private businesses they were involved in.

Again, totally disingenuous.

Do you think it is a good thing to organise the delivery of State services in such an inefficient way?

No, but it was public policy, up until recently, to organise it that way. Reform can take time and unlike branded products, people are entitled to some dignity when determining their futures. Something that is in very short supply in private sector.

I know it's a 20 year project to fix it but do you think it should be done and, crucially, do you really think the Unions will be a productive and positive player in such a process?

Yes, productive and positive, particularly in the area of decent working conditions and pay.

Can you explain why you hold that opinion?

The trade union movement is by no means perfect, innocent or without its failings. But in terms of securing better working conditions for worker's, as a whole, without we would be all worse off. Five day week, maximum working hours, minimum wage, rest breaks, holiday pay etc, none of which was given gladly by employers.
In terms of vulnerable and poor, the trade union movement in Ireland was born out of the vulnerable and poor. And despite what you may think about the State having additional resources if public sector worker's cut out wastage, the reality is those resources do not always find their way to the vulnerable and poor.
The best care vulnerable and poor people get is generally at home with their loved ones. If those homes have steady incomes, instead of no incomes at all, then it saves the State a massive fortune. Trade unions fighting to retain jobs, overall are serving the State.

 

[TheBigShort]

That's the way of the world in the private sector - companies close down / relocate / expand all the time and people move on

Yes it is, and all too often worker's are left high and dry by their employers as they turn up for work only to find the gates closed, or notified at a moment's notice that they won't be receiving their last pay cheque, redundancy or their pension fund had been wiped out.
Are there criminal sanctions for this behaviour?
Thankfully, the worst of that appears to be over and decent employers will treat their employers with the dignity they deserve. This is more typically found in the public sector in my opinion. So instead of just making 3,000 people redundant because they currently have nothing to do, do what a decent employer in the private sector would do.
1) offer voluntary redundancy over and above statutory offering those nearer retirement a real choice.
2) let contracted staff see out their contracts. They will have to be paid off anyway, and better that they aren't claiming job seekers allowance too.
3) While the worker's may have nothing to do in their current positions, a skill set review will show if there is something else available that they could be doing elsewhere. Public sector agreements have redeployment clauses.
4) Facilitate an orderly winding down of operations and assist with reasonable re-training programs during this duration.

Rather than have working people endure the indignity of being dumped on the dole queue on mass, like out of fashion stock, and the knock on negative effect to ancillary trade, think about an orderly winding down of operations to minimise the impact to the community as a whole.

 

[Firefly]

Yes it is, and all too often worker's are left high and dry by their employers as they turn up for work only to find the gates closed, or notified at a moment's notice that they won't be receiving their last pay cheque, redundancy or their pension fund had been wiped out.
Are there criminal sanctions for this behaviour?

I agree with you there. A lot of the time there is no respect at all shown for workers and if there is anything illegal done the company should face the law like everyone else.

Thankfully, the worst of that appears to be over and decent employers will treat their employers with the dignity they deserve. This is more typically found in the public sector in my opinion. So instead of just making 3,000 people redundant because they currently have nothing to do, do what a decent employer in the private sector would do.
1) offer voluntary redundancy over and above statutory offering those nearer retirement a real choice.
2) let contracted staff see out their contracts. They will have to be paid off anyway, and better that they aren't claiming job seekers allowance too.
3) While the worker's may have nothing to do in their current positions, a skill set review will show if there is something else available that they could be doing elsewhere. Public sector agreements have redeployment clauses.
4) Facilitate an orderly winding down of operations and assist with reasonable re-training programs during this duration.

Rather than have working people endure the indignity of being dumped on the dole queue on mass, like out of fashion stock, and the knock on negative effect to ancillary trade, think about an orderly winding down of operations to minimise the impact to the community as a whole.

That's all very reasonable for companies with the time and money to do so but when a company is shutting down it is usually doing so because it has no time nor money.


In any case the key responsibility for finding employment lies with the worker themselves. Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual hoever, I rarley see socialists make these points....it seems like the employer is responsible for everything! Companies close and leave staff go all the time, just as people leave companies to work elsewhere all the time. It's the nature of the world we live in and at the end of the day, an employment contract is just that. I've often seen workers who have been let go from a factory on tv saying things like "I gave them 25 years". Were they not paid? It could be argued that the company gave them 25 years! When someone who works somewhere for 25 years leaves, you never hear the company giving out that they gave them 25 years! If either side break a contract then they should be held accountable however apart from that nobody owes anyone anything more.

 

[TheBigShort]

but when a company is shutting down it is usually doing so because it has no time nor money.

It doesn't happen overnight though does it? Typically debtors have 30 days to pay outstanding invoice before they are technically in arrears. It will be 3 months of arrears before a creditor initiates formal legal action. Legal action initiated will take a further 30 days (minimum).
That's four months of not paying bills, rent, invoices etc. Four months (minimum) to notify staff of impending receivership or bankruptcy or whatever, four months for employee representatives to enter negotiations to agree change, amend work practices, including pay cuts and redundancy, to implement a survival plan if feasible.

Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual hoever, I rarley see socialists make these points..

??? - Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual.
There, it's been said, by a leftie.

it seems like the employer is responsible for everything!

The employer is responsible for what the employer is responsible for, that's all, nothing else. This includes the payment of wages due and providing minimum notice for staters.

Companies close and leave staff go all the time, just as people leave companies to work elsewhere all the time. I

Usually, with the minimum required given, no issue there. I was focusing on instances where no notice is given and wages, redundancy etc are still due.

It's the nature of the world we live in and at the end of the day, an employment contract is just that.

There are legally binding requirements in an employment contract, including minimum notice, including payment of wages. I am focusing on instances where no notice is given.

I've often seen workers who have been let go from a factory on tv saying things like "I gave them 25 years". Were they not paid?

In most instances yes. What is the point here? You seem to be talking about something different.
The issue of 3,000 staff in Irish Water with nothing to do was raised, and how it is costing €millions in waste. I have suggested a number of proposals for the orderly winding down, including attractive redundancy packages, honouring contracts, re-training and re-deployment.
Good private corporations will often provide such options too, providing plenty of notice of impending restructuring or redundancies.
I accept, for smaller entities, it is not always feasible, but there is a minimum window (at least four months) before any business needs to close.
Large corporations in the private sector have the wherewithal to treat their employees with dignity through the proposals I have suggested.
Large organizations in the public sector should be allowed the same scope, and more if feasible, to do the same.

When someone who works somewhere for 25 years leaves, you never hear the company giving out that they gave them 25 years! I

I am aware of plenty of instances where employers try to entice employees to stay by offering better terms and conditions. But all this is mute. If someone wants to leave a job they are entitled to do so. They typically will have to provide minimum notice, failing that, the employer can withhold holiday payments due etc.

If either side break a contract then they should be held accountable however apart from that nobody owes anyone anything more.

And, to emphasis the point, it is the breaking of the contract, by failing to provide minimum notice, failing to pay wages due, failing to honour pension agreements is what I was talking about.

 

[Firefly]

It doesn't happen overnight though does it? Typically debtors have 30 days to pay outstanding invoice before they are technically in arrears. It will be 3 months of arrears before a creditor initiates formal legal action. Legal action initiated will take a further 30 days (minimum).
That's four months of not paying bills, rent, invoices etc. Four months (minimum) to notify staff of impending receivership or bankruptcy or whatever, four months for employee representatives to enter negotiations to agree change, amend work practices, including pay cuts and redundancy, to implement a survival plan if feasible.

I agree with you there. I think there is often a lack of integrity shown where a company shuts shop and informs workers by text and it's very poor form. Of course I've often heard of people who inform their boss by text they are not coming back to work also.

??? - Personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual.
There, it's been said, by a leftie.

Thanks. I wish more people would acknowledge this. If they did they wouldn't be so tied to a single employer. Rather than go on strike they could easily just work for someone else.

The employer is responsible for what the employer is responsible for, that's all, nothing else. This includes the payment of wages due and providing minimum notice for staters.

Usually, with the minimum required given, no issue there. I was focusing on instances where no notice is given and wages, redundancy etc are still due.

There are legally binding requirements in an employment contract, including minimum notice, including payment of wages. I am focusing on instances where no notice is given.

And, to emphasis the point, it is the breaking of the contract, by failing to provide minimum notice, failing to pay wages due, failing to honour pension agreements is what I was talking about.

I agree with all of this. If there is a law broken the company / individual should be held responsible.

I accept, for smaller entities, it is not always feasible, but there is a minimum window (at least four months) before any business needs to close.

There may be a window but for many small businesses they might be fighting tooth and nail until the last hour to remain open. Just like most people don't leave a job until they find a new one, a small business will keep its cards close to its chest.

Large corporations in the private sector have the wherewithal to treat their employees with dignity through the proposals I have suggested.
Large organizations in the public sector should be allowed the same scope, and more if feasible, to do the same.

Personally, I like your proposals, however unless they are enshrined in law it's a moral argument and a company can accept or reject them.

 

[TheBigShort]

Of course I've often heard of people who inform their boss by text they are not coming back to work also.

Of course, me too. And if the employment contract contains a provision for an employee to provide minimum notice, then at least an employer can withhold wages, holiday pay due.

If they did they wouldn't be so tied to a single employer. Rather than go on strike they could easily just work for someone else.

What is wrong with working for the same employer? What is wrong with employing the same employees long term?

I agree with all of this. If there is a law broken the company / individual should be held responsible.

Yes, there are laws, but unfortunately adequate redress is often futile in insolvency cases.
But the primary point is, you appear to agree that in cases of redundancy that as much advance notice is preferable to assist with as much as possible with an orderly winding down and re-deployment of the workforce?
If you agree, do you think that these measures should, preferably, be applied to public sector worker's as well as private sector worker's?
Or do you think it preferable that contracts are broken at sudden notice, all part of way it is in the private sector?

 

[Firefly]

Of course, me too. And if the employment contract contains a provision for an employee to provide minimum notice, then at least an employer can withhold wages, holiday pay due.

That's true and if a company breaks a contract they can be taken to court.

What is wrong with working for the same employer? What is wrong with employing the same employees long term?

Absolutely nothing wrong with either. In fact in a lot of cases it's a preferable outcome for both the company and the employee. The point I am making is that (as you agree), personal responsibility for work ethic and marketable skills must lie with the individual. Being tied to / dependent on a single employer is not a healthy strategy in my opinion.

Yes, there are laws, but unfortunately adequate redress is often futile in insolvency cases.

I agree with you there but the point is that the company is insolvent so there is simply no money there. That's why there are insurance products for such things.

But the primary point is, you appear to agree that in cases of redundancy that as much advance notice is preferable to assist with as much as possible with an orderly winding down and re-deployment of the workforce?

I am not saying that. Each company and each worker should honour their contract to each other. If a company decides to go over and above that by providing extra assistance to its staff then fair play, but it's at the discretion of the company to do so.

If you agree, do you think that these measures should, preferably, be applied to public sector worker's as well as private sector worker's?
Or do you think it preferable that contracts are broken at sudden notice, all part of way it is in the private sector?

As above, each participant should honour their contract. In the case of Irish Water, I would expect the company to provide some/all the measures you have outlined, however based on the 3000 surplus staff they have I haven't heard of any moves to reduce staffing levels. This just means that millions of taxpayer's money are being diverted from other areas.

 

[Deiseblue]

Wherever did people get the idea that Irish Water employ 3000 surplus staff ?
At inception Irish Water needed a minimum of 2000 staff to maintain water services , I have never seen a reference to 3000 surplus staff outside of this thread.
Even Prof. John Fitzgerald stated that Irish Water needed 1700 staff , on being queried on Prime Time he said that " he was not sticking to that figure " which he admitted could be higher.
Entering 2015 Irish Water had shed 10% of staff due to natural attrition & the process continues due to the high average age of local authority workers seconded.
To suggest that Irish Water are employing 3000 surplus staff is frankly ludicrous.

 

[TheBigShort]

Duplication

 

[TheBigShort]

Wherever did people get the idea that Irish Water employ 3000 surplus staff ?

Purple alleged it.I suspected it was dodgy, but took it at face value nonetheless.

I have never seen a reference to 3000 surplus staff outside of this thread.

Purple, you are up. Some references please

Then again there are 3000 employees in Irish Water which Irish Water said they don't have a job for.

 

[Leo]

Wherever did people get the idea that Irish Water employ 3000 surplus staff ?
At inception Irish Water needed a minimum of 2000 staff to maintain water services , I have never seen a reference to 3000 surplus staff outside of this thread.
Even Prof. John Fitzgerald stated that Irish Water needed 1700 staff , on being queried on Prime Time he said that " he was not sticking to that figure " which he admitted could be higher.
Entering 2015 Irish Water had shed 10% of staff due to natural attrition & the process continues due to the high average age of local authority workers seconded.
To suggest that Irish Water are employing 3000 surplus staff is frankly ludicrous.

It was widely reported across all media at the time and since. IW execs publicly stated early in 2014 they needed less than 2000 staff, but were forced to take on more than 4000 from the LAs and employ them on service level agreements up to 2025. Then in November 2014 they were put under pressure by the government to reduce costs by €80 by 2020 and given the green light to offer voluntary redundancy to some of its then 4,500 strong workforce.

 

[Deiseblue]

Leo , I certainly never remember any media reports stating that Irish Water employed 3000 surplus staff .
If the amount of staff fell by 10% due to natural attrition entering 2015 it follows that a further similar amount of staff have been lost in subsequent years due to the high age profile of seconded staff.
Irish Water in a statement to Irish Industrial News stated in 2014 that a figure of 1700 for the number of water staff required was never put forward by the company , it further stated that current water staff levels " are required to maintain continuity of service in the initial phase .Irish Water will not be funded to pay for surplus staff . "
The company hoped to shed further staff in coming years by way of a redundancy scheme but it must be noted that the Union have voted for industrial action if the reduction is arbitrarily introduced , indeed the Union feel staffing levels need to be maintained at current levels.
Natural attrition & perhaps an agreed voluntary redundancy package if it can be proved that staffing levels are too high - the only way to go as anything else has been rightfully precluded by the Government .

 

[Leo]

Leo , I certainly never remember any media reports stating that Irish Water employed 3000 surplus staff .

I don't think they ever quantified how many were not doing anything productive, but IW management were very vocal in the early days that they did not want to be forced to take on these staff. In the end they took on 4000 staff from the LAs to add to the 700 they already had on board.

 

[Deiseblue]

Leo , I would refer you to my previous post where Irish Water stated that as at 2014 that the staffing levels at that stage were required in the initial phase to maintain continuity of service .

 

[Purple]

I don't think they ever quantified how many were not doing anything productive, but IW management were very vocal in the early days that they did not want to be forced to take on these staff. In the end they took on 4000 staff from the LAs to add to the 700 they already had on board.

That's where I got the 3000 from; They had 700 and were forced to take on an extra 4000. 700 + 4000 = 4700.
They said they need 1700. Therefore 4700 - 1700 = 3000. I am reasonably confident that my maths is correct.
The 1700 figure may not be accurate so the end figure may be 2700, 2500 or, if they were efficient, more than 3000.

My initial point was made as an example of how inefficient organisations can become. The people working in those inefficient organisations can be hard working and carry our their job efficiently. The question is would those jobs be necessary if the structure of the company or organisation was efficient?
I am not suggesting that the excess employees in Irish Water should just be turfed out in the Street. I am saying that a combination of bad management, Unions who are stronger than that management, and nobody looking for efficiency or value for money at an organisational level is the ideal environment for waste. While those conditions exist money will always be wasted and services will always be lacking. Again; the Irish Water example is just that; an example. It is what happened when the the organisation tasked with the delivery of a public service or utility is planned from scratch and doesn't evolve organically.

 

[Deiseblue]

Purple alleged it.I suspected it was dodgy, but took it at face value nonetheless.



Purple, you are up. Some references please

TheBigShort - from the horse's mouth .

Irish Water unequivocally stated in 2014 that a figure of 1700 for the number of water staff required was never put forward by the company rather they felt that at the initial phase current levels of staff were required to ensure continuity of service.

The figure of 1700 was floated by Prof. John Fitzgerald of the ESRI , he could not substantiate nor outline a basis for his figure , when queried on this figure on Prime Time he stated he " was not sticking to that figure "

 

[Purple]

Considering the wealth and technological advancements over that period, that there is even one person in absolute poverty is shameful.

A dismal return, beset by the concept of profit making, regardless of the social consequences.

That's alazy answer and not up to your usual standards.
The wealth and technological advancements over the previous 30 years was just as significant but during that time poor countries were socialist so they remained poor or got poorer. It was only after they embraced capitalism that they became wealthy and freer.
You seem to labour under the misconception that socialists are somehow more ethical or honest, more interested in their fellow man than capitalists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Who said they do? There should be no-one on this planet at risk of starvation or malnutrition. Unfortunately, charities geared to the elimination of poverty have become big business. High salaries for top executives, tax breaks for wealthy donors, lucrative TV advertising campaigns. It's all part of the capitalist circus that undermines the efforts of aid worker's and those that seek true social progression.

There's a great TED Talk about the charity industry. You should listen to it.
The issues which cause poverty are corruption, Trade and Conflict.
We can fix the Trade issue by removing the barriers we place on the poorest in the world and let them sell their goods to us fairly. We can also stop dumping our subsidised produce on them and allow them to earn a decent wwage (fair days pay for a fair days work, remember that one?), but no, to white Western rich socialists that's called a "Race to the Bottom". I do hope the irony is not lost on you.

We can also do something about the conflict and corruption by not invading them, not undermining their governments, not allowing our companies to behave in ways which would not be allowed in the West. Great strides have been made here (thanks to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton) but Chinese companies have filled the void.

Eh, our parliament has chosen, as a matter of public policy - across all political divides. See the mission statement for Dept of Housing, read constitutional on fundamental rights, read UN Declaration of Human rights to which Ireland is a signatory and then ask yourself, why do we not put in the resources for homeless people and families?

Because so much of it is wasted there's too little left.

On the other hand, before bank bailout, the only public policy was not to interfere in the market!

No, the policy was to regulate the market. As I and others have frequently pointed out the free market is an artificial construct which relies on governments to exist. We as a State (i.e. the State employees paid to do so) utterly failed in their duty.

With respect that is a lame comment. I have already pointed out some of the numerous variables that may lead to inaccurate and misleading perception of higher wages.

I disagreed with you assertions in that matter.

I have also shown clear evidence of where State resources are not used for the purpose of helping poor and needy, and instead the wealthy and greedy.

Do you think there is a correlation between wealth and greed? I find that greed knows no colour, creed, race or income bracket. Are we back to the arrogant and elitist assertion that socialists are somehow better and more ethical and moral than the rest of us?

Again, totally disingenuous.

How so?

No, but it was public policy, up until recently, to organise it that way. Reform can take time and unlike branded products, people are entitled to some dignity when determining their futures.

I agree.

Something that is in very short supply in private sector.

What makes you come to that opinion?

Yes, productive and positive, particularly in the area of decent working conditions and pay.

How do decent working conditions and pay increase the productivity of an organisation which is structurally inefficient? You have just summed up the problem; Public Services run primarily for the benefit of the employees of those Public Services.

The trade union movement is by no means perfect, innocent or without its failings. But in terms of securing better working conditions for worker's, as a whole, without we would be all worse off. Five day week, maximum working hours, minimum wage, rest breaks, holiday pay etc, none of which was given gladly by employers.

I agree, they did great work. Just like the Suffragettes. Unlike the Suffragettes they didn't change with the times still think it's 1920.

In terms of vulnerable and poor, the trade union movement in Ireland was born out of the vulnerable and poor. And despite what you may think about the State having additional resources if public sector worker's cut out wastage, the reality is those resources do not always find their way to the vulnerable and poor.

The reality is that the Trade Unions are like the pigs in Animal Farm. They now only serve their own selfish interests and are willing to walk over anyone they need to in order to serve those interests.

The best care vulnerable and poor people get is generally at home with their loved ones. If those homes have steady incomes, instead of no incomes at all, then it saves the State a massive fortune. Trade unions fighting to retain jobs, overall are serving the State.

Another classic false dichotomy. Trade Unions fighting to save jobs in the Public Sector which add no value to that sector are costing jobs elsewhere and damaging the economy and society.