Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
COLUMNIST JOHN WATERS is no longer writing for the Irish Times.
A spokesperson at the editor’s office said Waters had “decided to stop contributing columns”.
Waters had written a regular column in the newspaper each Friday for more than two decades, but his articles had not appeared since late January. In its place, the Irish Times had run columns by broadcaster Olivia O’Leary and journalist Kathy Sheridan.
The replacement columns had featured a sentence at the end of each piece saying that John Waters was on leave but that sentence did not run beneath today’s column.
Waters had been a regular freelance columnist at the Irish Times since 1991, but was not on staff. He is also a former media correspondent at the newspaper.
“The editor does wish him well in his future endeavours and recognises his fine contribution to journalism,” the spokesperson for Irish Times editor Kevin O’Sullivan told TheJournal.ie.
Waters is believed to have been unhappy at the Irish Times in the wake of the homophobia debate which ignited after Rory O’Neill – aka Panti – appeared on RTE One’s The Saturday Night Show and was asked to name commentators who he believed were homophobic.
Waters was one of several people named by O’Neill, and who later received a financial settlement from RTE over the comments.
The Phoenix magazine reported last month that Waters also sent legal letters to the Irish Times over a column by journalist Una Mullally about the homophobia debate, demanding a retraction and an apology from his employer.
Waters is also a columnist for the Irish Mail on Sunday.
A call to John Waters was not immediately returned.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Sold out once again by the unions. Trying to cast your vote was like trying to get a seat on the Titanic.
@Martin Forde: pull your subs and stop whinging. Or why don’t you get involved with your union and organise for better results. You obviously have all the answers.
@Martin Forde: rubbish.. If u didn’t vote. It’s you’re own fault.
@Martin Forde: I cast my vote with no difficulty whatsoever
@Martin Forde: I was able to vote online no problem. It took less than a minute.
@Martin Forde:
Ye should have pushed a few oul wans an kids overboard.
@Martin Forde: I voted against, it was incredibly easy to cast my vote, I got numerous reminders and explainers on how to do so
@Martin Forde: why would you want a seat on the Titanic? The lifeboat would be a better choice
Will be enough to cover the price of leaving the light while using the toilet over Winter..well done
@Clevie Sal: It’s outrageous, they should have given you a 100% increase, a medical card and rent allowance. They probably should have given you a 3 bed social house too since Christmas is coming up, and maybe a penguin bar as icing on the cake. You would still find a way to complain. Probably give out that you didn’t get the full pack of penguin bars
@Tom Jacob: you must be new here Tom?! Welcome to the Journal my man!
@Tom Jacob: no Tom. Only those that don’t want jobs are entitled to all that. The rest of us must continue to work hard to pay for the poor cret ins.
Correctional addition; ‘that’s a massive pay decrease (relative to inflation)’. In real terms, its a large pay cut in a time when the government has a budget surplus. If we were in the middle of a massive recession I’d be less sympathetic.
@Jim Smith: Yeah it doesn’t look like the Irish economy is in a very good state of this is all they can ‘afford’ for the public sector. Or maybe the Irish government don’t even care for their workers who are critical to the functioning of the state, NeverMind regular citizens.
@Jim Smith: Unfortunate thing is that for most of the employees the govt takes the half if not more back in taxes…… With regard to buying power and covering rising costs its a further hit because of the tax take. For example if inflation goes up by 10% and wages rise by 10%. Gross salary might be 10% higher but net salary is less than 10% higher than the net salary was before the increase. So buying power is reduced further. Salaries need to out pace inflation for buying power to remain the same
@Paul Hedderman: Given the present world economic crisis, expecting salaries to outpace inflation is fantasy. It would be more akin to reality if the Govt and Unions addressed the inefficiencies in the public sector before pumping millions into it, including pay rises not attached to properly implemented productivity agreements
@Barrycelona: Up until this year, salaries have been outpacing inflation for quite a while
@Barrycelona: Did I say anything along the lines of expecting it?!?!…… Just making the point that even if salaries rise on par with inflation, buying power still reduces. Making people aware of the fact which many don’t know…… I’m well aware of the current climate!
@Paul Hedderman: Very true but taxation always seems to be a separate argument. Part of the voter base also thinks that someone anything over 37k a year is part of some upper class. USC is just a convoluted mess but I’ve seen a poll where the options were ‘reduce taxes’ or ‘increase spending’. The vast majority choose ‘increase spending’. One unscientific news paper poll but I don’t doubt that it represents the mood of the majority. We as a country seem to want higher taxation (once it’s somewhat stealthy) and then we fight and beg for funds. In theory, would a couple with kids rather pay 1000 less in taxes or get an 600 euro child care benefit and a free tooth cleaning? I’d bet the latter sadly.
With inflation at 8% this year alone, that’s a massive pay decrease. It could be up to a 10% pay cut across the board if a slowdown or recession doesn’t hit. Harsh on them.
@Jim Smith: it is not a pay decrease, it is completely false/exaggerated to say so. Will it cover all rising costs, no it won’t, but will wages be higher, yes they will so they will help towards rising costs. Will most private sector employees see a 6.5% pay rise in the next 12 months? Like hell they will. I’ll take my 6.5% and be glad and grateful of that bit extra in the full knowledge that I’m lucky to be getting anything extra
@Jo H: It is a pay increase in nominal terms but a pay decrease in real terms. If you don’t know or don’t understand what this means, then you are a precise example of something called the “money illusion”.
@Kevin Collins: it’s more money in their pay cheque tomorrow than today. Their employer is giving them more money. It’s an increase.
@Kevin Collins: I don’t need a lesson, or to have it implied that I don’t understand thanks. I fully get the concept, but it doesn’t alter the fact that there will be more money in my wages next week than last, and that is a pay rise.
@Jo H: you clearly do not understand the concept. You have just agreed to a pay cut not a payrise. Yes your wages have nominally increased but they will buy you fewer things. Your money is now worth less and thus it is a pay cut. Nominal increase minus inflation = real decrease. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is.
@Jo H: In nominal terms = pay increase.
In real terms, your pay in the public sector has been decreasing year-on-year. Therefore it is a salary that has been changed to something in real terms that is less 5 years ago. Also known as a decrease.
A standard public servant would be better off 5 years ago on their salary then than on this ‘increase’ today. Period.
@Kevin Collins: I do understand. However, I believe that more money in my wages to go toward the rising cost of living is better than not getting an increase in my wages towards it. I don’t think it would have been possible to get a better pay deal and I’m glad to have gotten something versus nothing. A pay rise to out pace the cost of inflation simply will not happen.
@Kevin Collins: if there was no opportunity to get an increase by way of negotiations they would have the same pay tomorrow as they do today. What would you call this?
Instead they have had an opportunity and agreed 6.5%. This is more money. It is not a negotiated decrease, or an agreement to a pay cut. They’ve lessened the gap between their income and inflation. It’s not closed, but it’s improved , the gap is shrunk. They are better off.
When there was deflation after the financial crash no one was going around saying they got a pay increase, just like now they don’t say 6.5% more is a decrease.
@Jo H: Of course, we all need extra money but this idea of seeking wage rises that mirror the level of inflation is self-defeatist. Funding a 6.5% pay increase across the public sector has the effect of further reducing already depleted services. Given the mega complaints by the public sector about working conditions or essential personnel not being able to afford accommodation in Dublin or the need for more teachers or nurses, go out the window and clearly show how disingenuous their unions are about creating better working conditions or properly working public services for the rest of us. They refuse to acknowledge their shortcomings which makes it nearly impossible to attach properly implemented productivity agreements to pay rises. If they were more efficient, they could be getting proper pay rises by getting themselves onto a higher pay grade, while the unions create better working conditions or more Govt funding. Given the size of the public service in this country, they are doing themselves the most damage. They are not owed a living by society but need to improve the lot of society.
@Barrycelona: I wasn’t suggesting it should have been more. I was pointing out to other commenters that to say it it a pay decrease is a falsehood, that just because it wasn’t as high as they would have liked or wanted doesn’t make it so. I actually agree with you that increases at a level matching inflation shouldn’t be sought, and furthermore don’t think they would have been successful even if they had
@Paolo Fandango: Exactly!
@Jim Smith: Yes but when the slowdown or recession does hit their jobs will be safe and they’ll have greater purchasing power.
@Jim Smith: public sector are actually getting a 6.6 percent increase. Plus the 1% already due in October , which makes it 7.7% increase from now until next October. The figure in the article above is wrong as 1.01* 1.03*1.02*1.0175 , means a 7.7 % increase. Also factor in 600 energy credits and increase of take home pay due to tax cuts ,especially, if you are getting over 40,000 gross.
However this won’t cover next years inflation.
@Kevin Thompson: That’s over 2 years so you’d have to double your inflation numbers to compare
@Jo H: It’s not an exaggeration. I’m in the private sector. I go to my paymasters if inflation is rampant and tell them to pay me the new going rate. If they don’t I leave the project and they have to hire my replacement from the market at the higher rate. This is happening in the public sector when staff leave for the private sector. I know because I do contract work for a very large semi private body. Having a skilled and trained worker leave and then be replaced by a higher paid worker from the job market actually costs more for the business/tax payer. It creates more inefficiencies rather than solve them. The semi private body that I currently do contract work for is bleeding staff due to the pay and is hiring contractors at a higher market rate to replace them. It pains me as a tax payer.
@Jim Smith: I’m glad you work in an area that allows you to have that sort of leverage, but the vast majority of workers, particularly private sector do not. I only left the private sector 5 years ago and let me tell you, if I looked for a pay increase to match inflation or I was leaving, I’d have been told not to let the door hit me on the way out! You can’t really believe the average office or retail worker has that sort of power?
Seems reasonable. If you add in what everyone is getting in terms of energy credits (not taxed), plus adjustments to the tax bands in the budget, it’s actually closer to parity with inflation, though not quite there. At least it provides a bit of certainty and allows better financial planning for the next while. There’s also the fact of it being backdates to February, meaning above bit of extra cash for the winter. I don’t really see that there’s room for much of any more to add to this, there is definitely a need to keep a bit of tax revenue in reserve for next year. Could have been a lot worse.
@Michael Garvey: Energy credits are temporary ie once off as far as we know. Gas and bills in general being a lot more expensive seems permanent due to government policies. If living with a working member of the opposite sex, dole is 9 months before you are cut off. The government is creating uncertainty. Perhaps spending a billion a year on fighting Russia was a bad idea with our current hospital and housing crises. 47m to give free school books to children. A billion to fight Russia. It doesn’t add up.
@Jo H: Of course, we all need extra money but this idea of seeking wage rises that mirror the level of inflation is self-defeatist. Funding a 6.5% pay increase across the public sector has the effect of further reducing already depleted services. Given the mega complaints by the public sector about working conditions or essential personnel not being able to afford accommodation in Dublin or the need for more teachers or nurses, go out the window and clearly show how disingenuous their unions are about creating better working conditions or properly working public services for the rest of us. They refuse to acknowledge their shortcomings which makes it nearly impossible to attach properly implemented productivity agreements to pay rises. If they were more efficient, they could be getting proper pay rises by getting themselves onto a higher pay grade, while the unions create better working conditions or more Govt funding. Given the size of the public service in this country, they are doing themselves the most damage. They are not owed a living by society but need to improve the lot of society.
@Barrycelona: I think you might find no increases would lead to a lot of the talent leaving meaning more dead wood and more poor productivity.
I was a siptu member and I found out that siptu give a donation to the workers party out of every members union fees , but u can write to siptu and ask them not to give them anything from your own payment, that’s a fact you can contact them and ask yourself if you don’t believe me
6.5%. Roughly the same percentage increase as the pensioners and disabled.
I got an extra rise .
Left the union and now have my subs to spend on rent.
Public sector greed again while poor low income families are struggling to pay their bills. This out of touch brigade, are looking for more money. While, a staunch supporter of the union movement in general . Public sector unions are a disgrace and so out of touch with the real world .
have your say