Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
14 to 16hover11 wrote:Rowley: New 4% wage offer costs $2.5b in back pay alone
https://newsday.co.tt/2022/06/19/rowley ... pay-alone/
While I empathize with the state, the workforce was under serious strain over the past couple of years...
The applause and verbal "thank you"s are well appreciated, but 4% won't cut it.
Lesson from this: Don't let 2 negotiating periods meet up...
Is the president being paid 2b to fund the increase? Where are the cuts and increases coming from?hover11 wrote:Time to consider the president office redundant as it is a burden to the tax paying citizens
The president is a redundant post ....surely even you can agree it is pointless. With the cost of housing and salaries aside from basically being a rubber stamp on bills to be passed and waving during independence parade please tell me what her purpose is....I didn't ask if we spending billions....fact is taxpayers money is leaking out on a redundant postwing wrote:Is the president being paid 2b to fund the increase? Where are the cuts and increases coming from?hover11 wrote:Time to consider the president office redundant as it is a burden to the tax paying citizens
matr1x wrote:It was great. Went to the vene protest and carried bottles of cold water. Can't believe they had their kids out there with no water on a hot day.
Also I see your AG in trouble. Stories about social development siphoning close to a billion dollars. Damn.
hover11 wrote:Rowley: New 4% wage offer costs $2.5b in back pay alone
https://newsday.co.tt/2022/06/19/rowley ... pay-alone/
While I empathize with the state, the workforce was under serious strain over the past couple of years...
The applause and verbal "thank you"s are well appreciated, but 4% won't cut it.
Lesson from this: Don't let 2 negotiating periods meet up...
This is what I dont understand this will actually breathe some life into the economy. Where business can actually pick up putting spending power back into the working class but the rum shop economist imbert believes he knows betterKronik wrote:hover11 wrote:Rowley: New 4% wage offer costs $2.5b in back pay alone
https://newsday.co.tt/2022/06/19/rowley ... pay-alone/
While I empathize with the state, the workforce was under serious strain over the past couple of years...
The applause and verbal "thank you"s are well appreciated, but 4% won't cut it.
Lesson from this: Don't let 2 negotiating periods meet up...
Now they saying 2.5b it costing for backpay, but 25% of that will be taxed $625m.
And like you say don't let the negotiation periods meet up, all the time the money sitting in the govt accounts getting interest (whatever little it was), when that money was due to be paid to the workers years ago. Why they don't put the breakdown as to how much it costing per outstanding period, because that's backpay for what, the past 8 years? Always trying to exaggerate costs and throw big numbers to justify not paying ppl.
Majority of that money (minus the tax) going right back into the economy for you to purchase items (and pay an additional 12.5% tax)
Everyone agrees that an increase is justified, the problem is where the funding is coming from, whether increased taxes, hsf, cut backs in other areas or just use all the windfall money. We know this government cannot increase revenue, so it looks like someone will have to suffer for the public servants to get their increase.hover11 wrote:This is what I dont understand this will actually breathe some life into the economy. Where business can actually pick up putting spending power back into the working class but the rum shop economist imbert believes he knows betterKronik wrote:hover11 wrote:Rowley: New 4% wage offer costs $2.5b in back pay alone
https://newsday.co.tt/2022/06/19/rowley ... pay-alone/
While I empathize with the state, the workforce was under serious strain over the past couple of years...
The applause and verbal "thank you"s are well appreciated, but 4% won't cut it.
Lesson from this: Don't let 2 negotiating periods meet up...
Now they saying 2.5b it costing for backpay, but 25% of that will be taxed $625m.
And like you say don't let the negotiation periods meet up, all the time the money sitting in the govt accounts getting interest (whatever little it was), when that money was due to be paid to the workers years ago. Why they don't put the breakdown as to how much it costing per outstanding period, because that's backpay for what, the past 8 years? Always trying to exaggerate costs and throw big numbers to justify not paying ppl.
Majority of that money (minus the tax) going right back into the economy for you to purchase items (and pay an additional 12.5% tax)
MaxPower wrote:matr1x wrote:It was great. Went to the vene protest and carried bottles of cold water. Can't believe they had their kids out there with no water on a hot day.
Also I see your AG in trouble. Stories about social development siphoning close to a billion dollars. Damn.
Nice to hear bro.
Rest assured, their thirst was quenched by the supporting public.
X10000The_Honourable wrote:Listen, politicians always finds the money that benefits them and their pockets. Let the public servants get their just due, especially since they are enduring inflation.
That being said, there are non-performers in the public service. At the risk of upsetting the PSA, the state needs to go in hard and weed them out even if it means changes in legislation. This is one area that the government will receive public support on.
Guess what, it's the politicians who in charge of the treasury and they not touching their cut. So guess what, they will rather increase taxes, or cut somewhere else if they can't find the money somewhere. Depending on politicians to do the right thing is wishful thinking. So it's between a rock and a hard place. Like I said earlier, the government keeps getting a positive appraisal every five years significant help from public sector voters.hover11 wrote:X10000The_Honourable wrote:Listen, politicians always finds the money that benefits them and their pockets. Let the public servants get their just due, especially since they are enduring inflation.
That being said, there are non-performers in the public service. At the risk of upsetting the PSA, the state needs to go in hard and weed them out even if it means changes in legislation. This is one area that the government will receive public support on.
Politicians find money for everything else so what is the issue now.How many non disclosure agreements this government has currently? They find the money though. So what's the problem now. You the employer know you have a collective bargaining agreement every three years that is not the workers' fault that you reneged on your obligations.
The PNM is boasting that they made billions in profits from Petrotrin, maybe thats where it is coming from . Other than that what are they doing with these profits that they speak off.wing wrote:Everyone agrees that an increase is justified, the problem is where the funding is coming from, whether increased taxes, hsf, cut backs in other areas or just use all the windfall money. We know this government cannot increase revenue, so it looks like someone will have to suffer for the public servants to get their increase.hover11 wrote:This is what I dont understand this will actually breathe some life into the economy. Where business can actually pick up putting spending power back into the working class but the rum shop economist imbert believes he knows betterKronik wrote:hover11 wrote:Rowley: New 4% wage offer costs $2.5b in back pay alone
https://newsday.co.tt/2022/06/19/rowley ... pay-alone/
While I empathize with the state, the workforce was under serious strain over the past couple of years...
The applause and verbal "thank you"s are well appreciated, but 4% won't cut it.
Lesson from this: Don't let 2 negotiating periods meet up...
Now they saying 2.5b it costing for backpay, but 25% of that will be taxed $625m.
And like you say don't let the negotiation periods meet up, all the time the money sitting in the govt accounts getting interest (whatever little it was), when that money was due to be paid to the workers years ago. Why they don't put the breakdown as to how much it costing per outstanding period, because that's backpay for what, the past 8 years? Always trying to exaggerate costs and throw big numbers to justify not paying ppl.
Majority of that money (minus the tax) going right back into the economy for you to purchase items (and pay an additional 12.5% tax)
pugboy wrote:better have court clothes and be ready to prove they sleeping
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 84 guests