In a way he’s an embarrassment because what should be the roar of a whole people across the width of this sorry corrupt little island is instead reduced to one lone man bellowing on his own.

Of course, he’s entitled to his views, and to express them, and there is some validity to them, too.

But, he was not merely shouting from the sidelines, he was trying to stop the march and turn it into an argument.

Nor do they deserve to be. It’s a march, not a meeting or a debate. Even if it were, no participant is entitled to impose himself by shouting abuse.”

This doesn’t make sense to me. Of course everyone is entitled to expect civil treatment in public but as long as this man doesn’t raise his fists, he’s entitled to say what he likes and make his point. Democracy is not held in a forum chosen by etiquette. Of course there are limits, but he is within his rights to say his piece. It’s on the road for crying out loud.

Besides, I agree with his main argument; the country is badly run and corrupt because everyone in power seems to be in bed with each other. It’s blindingly obvious to everyone now the country’s in recession.

TDs & MEPs on a workers wage don’t get paid a workers wage but they redistribute their wage that is fixed by Parliament to their parties under strict SIPO rules and to community campaigns.

so if a trade union leader has 6 directorships and a main job, its not about the sum total and take home pay and returning the monies to the boards he is a director on. Take the monies and distribute it accordingly but at the end of the day don’t expect respect when you are living on a income(s) ten times the salary of your membership.

If the main requirement for a union leader is that s/he remain “connected” – and I agree that it *is* an important requirement – then I suppose that reducing pay to that of the average would do something to bring that about.

What I suggest that you have to consider whether it would have other, less desirable, effects. Trade unionists – the teachers’ unions have been especially vocal on this of late – know as well as most that if you want to get good staff, you have to pay a wage that matches the challenges of the job.

Also, I suggest that it would be more useful to pay the rate for the job and to build in a mechanism which ensured that leaders who failed to represent the membership faced the sack. Because, as we can see from the example of the teachers as well, paying “top-dollar” does not guarantee a top performance.

For a trade-union leader, to become disconnected from the membership is to fail to do the job properly.

My suggestion of union leaders pay levels is a firm one, it is less likely that the union leaders on 10 times the salary of the union member is in touch with the members reality. This is borne out seeing how disconnected the leaders are while round the table of ‘partnership’ with politicians that earn 10 time what their constituents earn. Out of touch – disconnect.

Begg would not work on 10% his salary, a better candidate should be elected. The layers below the ICTU high command are the very well paid leaders of each of the unions. Expect change not to come from the top. The members on the unions demanded this first march after the sell out of the labour movement (Gilmore then ICTU) calling off March 30th 2009 protest.