Originally Posted by Kevin Doyle

Any formula that can accurate quantify risk will invalidate it as a risk.

Risk will always have a degree of uncertainty regardless of how measured it is.

A risk is a gamble.

Originally Posted by Rebel CNC

Well of course it does - what do you expect? An 800,000 page report outlining details of every worker.

Find any report including INTO/ASTI reports and they'll work off averages...and rightly so.

Even in the midst of the benchmarking grab, no union or representative body came out and said "I know this one lad and he found it really, really difficult to get a €xxk mortgage "


It'd be like Lenihan or Harney justifying the medical card withdrawal by saying "I know this old guy and he's loaded"!!

Originally Posted by Kevin Doyle

I'm not being silly at all.

They do not lend because the they place a higher monetary value on Job security , they lend because that job security lessons the risk of the loan being defaulted.

Again this does not translate into a monetary value. Being able to get oneself into debt is not a justifiable reason to cut somebody’s salary.

Again, the BMA looked at SoT and dismissed it as unquantifiable (they actually stated it was irrelevant) in the last round of benchmarking. So this entire sub thread is really of no relevance what so ever.

Originally Posted by Kevin Doyle

I dont, Banks do, in part, along with credit history, salary and any verifiable disposition toward saving.

If you lower someones salary you also lower their credit rating (the amount they can borrow) as salary is and always will be considered among the primary factors much more so than SoT.

Originally Posted by Dreaded_Estate

i see you have completely ignored the method i proposed to quickly value job security. Economic Value of Job Security = Probability of losing job X Salary
What do you think?

Originally Posted by Conor

You've got something screwy there. If salary = €100k, and probability of losing job = 0, you're saying the economic value of job security is zero.

There's an indicative methodology here, but I'd caution that it's very weak, and the figures used are purely plucked from the air for indicative purposes.

Originally Posted by riker1969

OBVIOUSLY (YOU NUT)-would not expect that detailed report but would it overload your brain if they gave the average age and average experience of a professsion such as Teaching. Perhaps-throwing in the number of years temporary a teacher normally is (before Permanency) would break down the brain cells but the first 2-surely not??!

Originally Posted by DeathKnell

See.. Why should teachers be paid by time served and age.. It should be performance related..!!!!!

*hears sound of another can of worms opening*

Originally Posted by hopi watcher

How can that be measured and particularly when you are talking about net pay as opposed to a bomus system?

Originally Posted by Dreaded_Estate

i see you have completely ignored the method i proposed to quickly value job security. Economic Value of Job Security = Probability of losing job X Salary
What do you think?