First Jack O'Connor, now David Begg - are the unions scared of FG

Maj Malfunction · 18-02-2011 4:43pm

The Unions love affair with "entitlements" has the country in a mess.

Under the Croke Park agreement I am entitled to paid lots of money even it doesn't make any sense for the common good of the country. Where is the socialism in that?

Union wage agreements and entitlements have over 250,000 construction workers either on the dole or emigrated to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Qatar etc etc. It's not the developers either who have suffered, its the tradesmen, apprentice's, engineers, architects who have suffered. It's pretty telling when approx 60-70% of the people you worked with four years ago are now working overseas!

Enough of the Union's guff, I hope FG stick it to them and put them back in their place.

Gilmore is busy running down FG and telling everyone how he'll screw all his voters for €3000 a year while FG are busy telling us that they'll stick it the Unions and tax us all €1795 a year, saving us all money! Labour are looking pretty stupid tbh.

Idbatterim · 18-02-2011 4:47pm

could the entire prison service not be privatised? I think were way past the point of debate over their ridiculous pay, pensions and conditions... The funniest thing is that even if Labor formed a majority government, they would lead us down the path of ruin even quicker, resulting in us missing IMF targets and CPA being ripped up! With FG I think the end result may well be the same, but they could probably bring us a bit further down the road... then again I think were all sick of kicking the can down the road, at this stage if the s**t is going to his the fan, Id prefer it happened sooner rather than later!

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 4:47pm

almighty1 wrote: »

Leafy work conditions? Try being a prison office in mountjoy, a nurse in St James on Saturday night or a fireman at a fatal road crash. :rolleyes:

Or a pointless pen pusher in the HSE

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 4:54pm

Maj Malfunction wrote: »

Union wage agreements and entitlements have over 250,000 construction workers either on the dole or emigrated to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Qatar etc etc. It's not the developers either who have suffered, its the tradesmen, apprentice's, engineers, architects who have suffered. It's pretty telling when approx 60-70% of the people you worked with four years ago are now working overseas!

I dont see the correlation with union wage agreements and the collapse of the building boom, which has lead to the loss of jobs wihtin the construction sector.

Can you explain to me how the union wage agreements have directly caused the destruction of the building trade which was built on the back on an unsustainable building boom which was aided by risky lending practises and unrealistic property prices.

almighty1 · 18-02-2011 4:54pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Or a pointless pen pusher in the HSE

Cmon Tim :rolleyes:. My post was in response to a sweeping generalisation that all PS sit in cosy offices doing nothing. Although I agree that there is alot to change in the PS I was just pointing out that not every part of the public service is "leafy".

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 4:58pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

could the entire prison service not be privatised?

Everything can technically be privatised so yes.

Should it be?

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think were way past the point of debate over their ridiculous pay, pensions and conditions... The funniest thing is that even if Labor formed a majority government, they would lead us down the path of ruin even quicker, resulting in us missing IMF targets and CPA being ripped up! With FG I think the end result may well be the same, but they could probably bring us a bit further down the road... then again I think were all sick of kicking the can down the road, at this stage if the s**t is going to his the fan, Id prefer it happened sooner rather than later!

If the end result in the same, how is one better than the other?

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 5:00pm

almighty1 wrote: »

Cmon Tim :rolleyes:. My post was in response to a sweeping generalisation that all PS sit in cosy offices doing nothing. Although I agree that there is alot to change in the PS I was just pointing out that not every part of the public service is "leafy".

It's not fair for you to try and guilt trip anyone who is critical of how their taxes are been wasted. I hate this "oh we're alll should be bowing to the nurse who handed us a towel and was nice to granny" - they are paid to their job.

Stop expecting all this special treatment.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:06pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not fair for you to try and guilt trip anyone who is critical of how their taxes are been wasted. I hate this "oh we're alll should be bowing to the nurse who handed us a towel and was nice to granny" - they are paid to their job.

Stop expecting all this special treatment.

I dont recall seeing the poster you quoted saying anything of the sort.

In response to a suggestion that all public sector workers have easy jobs he pointed out some of the sections that make up the public sector.

I dont see what the issue is in discussing what a job entails when we are talking about what value that job is worth to irish society and also when you deem it perfectly acceptable to declare all public sector workers as useless paper pushers!

Edit: Another point is the public sector has been accused of destroying the construction industry on this very thread now if that is not an attempt to win over support through a "guilt trip" what is it?

almighty1 · 18-02-2011 5:11pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not fair for you to try and guilt trip anyone who is critical of how their taxes are been wasted. I hate this "oh we're alll should be bowing to the nurse who handed us a towel and was nice to granny" - they are paid to their job.

Stop expecting all this special treatment.

You really are missing out on my point entirely aren't you? What I'm trying to argue (that areas of the public sector are "leafy") has nothing got to do with this supposed pandering you are referring to.

We don't expect any special treatment Tim. Is obviously in your agenda to give us our own special treatment.

Dubh Geannain · 18-02-2011 5:17pm

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Ugh!!

TO UNION OFFICIALS!!

It you want Labour elected, just shut up! Silence will be your greatest friend over the next week.

Too late for me. Begg and O'Connor have ensured Sinn Féin will be above Labour on my polling card.

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 5:33pm

almighty1 wrote: »

You really are missing out on my point entirely aren't you? What I'm trying to argue (that areas of the public sector are "leafy") has nothing got to do with this supposed pandering you are referring to.

We don't expect any special treatment Tim. Is obviously in your agenda to give us our own special treatment.

We are entitled to express how much or how little value for money we get when paying our taxes. It is unfair for anyone in the public sector to try and stop that discussion taking place and using emotional arguments.

I never called all public sector people wasters. My issue is with the way if someone makes any sort of comment about wages and cost we hear the proverbial

"oh how about you say that when you need an ambulance driver".

almighty1 · 18-02-2011 5:39pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are entitled to express how much or how little value for money we get when paying our taxes. It is unfair for anyone in the public sector to try and stop that discussion taking place and using emotional arguments.

I never called all public sector people wasters. My issue is with the way if someone makes any sort of comment about wages and cost we hear the proverbial

"oh how about you say that when you need an ambulance driver".

Of course you are entitled to express your opinion Tim but it had no relevance to the original argument in relation to the "leafy" public sector condition debate I was having.

My response was in direct response to that. I wasn't looking for pity or pandering but simply disproving that simplistic statement from whoever Mr Anti-Public-Sector was.

I hope I wont have to explain this point for a 4th time.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:40pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are entitled to express how much or how little value for money we get when paying our taxes. It is unfair for anyone in the public sector to try and stop that discussion taking place and using emotional arguments.

I never called all public sector people wasters. My issue is with the way if someone makes any sort of comment about wages and cost we hear the proverbial

"oh how about you say that when you need an ambulance driver".

Again tim your wrapping a piece of text in quotation marks as if someone said it on this thread, when they did not!

If it is fair to discuss the wages as a portion of our tax then it is also justified to mention the work these people carry out.
Other wise you seem to be suggesting a utopian society where everyone is paid the same regardless of work, if your not then a persons wage is going to be directly related to the functions performed in the earning of that wage.
In which case pointing out the functions of these jobs is relevant in a dicussion which has narrowed its focus to their wage.

Nelson Muntz · 18-02-2011 5:44pm

The unions & PS defenders love to hide behind front line workers when discussing the cost of the PS.

Do they think the general population is stupid? No one is saying get rid of nurses or guards or firemen. It is the 3000 people in the HSE that don't even know what their job is & 3000 people in the HSE HR dept that should be trimmed down.

Despite what the beardies tell you, there are plenty of useless admin staff in the PS that serve no purpose.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:47pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

The unions & PS defenders love to hide behind front line workers when discussing the cost of the PS.

Do they think the general population is stupid? No one is saying get rid of nurses or guards or firemen. It is the 3000 people in the HSE that don't even know what their job is & 3000 people in the HSE HR dept that should be trimmed down.

Despite what the beardies tell you, there are plenty of useless admin staff in the PS that serve no purpose.

How do you know there are 3000 people in the HSE who dont even know their job?

How can you be sure there are 3000 redundancies needed in the Hr department of the HSE?

almighty1 · 18-02-2011 5:49pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

Despite what the beardies tell you, there are plenty of useless admin staff in the PS that serve no purpose.

I agree. At worst lots of these functions could be absorbed into other people functions.

Nelson Muntz · 18-02-2011 5:54pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How do you know there are 3000 people in the HSE who dont even know their job?

How can you be sure there are 3000 redundancies needed in the Hr department of the HSE?

First part was on newstalk the other day

Second part, I never said to make them all redundant. I just don't think 3000 HR staff when a recruitment freeze is in place are required.

On another note, why do we still have the same amount of construction industry related PS staff as during the boom? There is 0 construction. Why do we need the same amount of PS staff now?

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 5:55pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

First part was on newstalk the other day

Second part, I never said to make them all redundant. I just don't think 3000 HR staff when a recruitment freeze is in place are required.

On another note, why do we still have the same amount of construction industry related PS staff as during the boom? There is 0 construction. Why do we need the same amount of PS staff now?

What was the source on newstalk, how credible was the source?

Trimmed = cut. Or is that just my understanding fo the word trim?

GalwayGunner · 18-02-2011 5:58pm

almighty1 wrote: »

You really are missing out on my point entirely aren't you? What I'm trying to argue (that areas of the public sector are "leafy") has nothing got to do with this supposed pandering you are referring to.

We don't expect any special treatment Tim. Is obviously in your agenda to give us our own special treatment.

I'd really love to know what teachers/nurses/ambulance drivers/gardaí were expecting the first day they walked into the job:

"What do you mean this isn't a 9 to 5 job?!"
"Wait - are those sick people over there?!"
"Why are all those little people running around screaming - what am I supposed to do with them?!"

Stop expecting special treatment for the jobs you do - you do a job and you get paid. As much as you'd like to expect it you're not going to get canonised or get a statue erected in your honour. You knew what the job was when you went in - the same way Private Sector employees knew that they wouldn't get a job for life, or 3/4 months holidays a year, or a state pension in the jobs they chose. You are not automatically better people because of it. Your job suits your aptitude - you picked it freely so deal with it.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 6:00pm

GalwayGunner wrote: »

I'd really love to know what teachers/nurses/ambulance drivers/gardaí were expecting the first day they walked into the job:

"What do you mean this isn't a 9 to 5 job?!"
"Wait - are those sick people over there?!"
"Why are all those little people running around screaming - what am I supposed to do with them?!"

Stop expecting special treatment for the jobs you do - you do a job and you get paid. As much as you'd like to expect it you're not going to get canonised or get a statue erected in your honour. You knew what the job was when you went in - the same way Private Sector employees knew that they wouldn't get a job for life, or 3/4 months holidays a year, or a state pension in the jobs they chose. You are not automatically better people because of it. Your job suits your aptitude - you picked it freely so deal with it.

Another person for made up quotes and assumptions based only on how good they sound in your rant! :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 6:01pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Again tim your wrapping a piece of text in quotation marks as if someone said it on this thread, when they did not!

They didn't say it verbatim but that's the sort of thing I heard 10,0000000 times.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-02-2011 6:04pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They didn't say it verbatim but that's the sort of thing I heard 10,0000000 times.

So every one of the 300,000 public servants has on average said this to you 330 times :eek:
You sure know a lot of public servants.

No one said it but it makes your argument look less ridiculous when you use made up quotes, isnt that the real reason?

wellsir · 18-02-2011 6:09pm

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

I dont support any political party but I would like to see a FG OM if it would mean that something was done about the public sector reform that the country desperately needs
Labour will just pander to their friends in the unions :mad:

Couldn't agree more.

We need some old blushirt principals....spend the money in your pocket and nothing else. give us the hardship now and lets get on with it...ffs
Fooking unions with their time off to cash cheques bull**** and their heads with them massive salaries.
makes my blood boil
:mad:

:mad:

gizmo555 · 18-02-2011 6:25pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How can you be sure there are 3000 redundancies needed in the Hr department of the HSE?

3,000 is an exagerration.

But the head of HR in the HSE is on the record as saying (during an RTE radio interview late last year) that he has about 2,000 staff in his department and that he only needs 700, or at most 800.

Tim Robbins · 18-02-2011 6:32pm

The examiner has a piece talking about Fine Gael giving out the Unions...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/home/fg-faces-union-fury-145719.html

liveline · 18-02-2011 8:37pm

Its a pity Enda Kenny doesn't have the balls to stand up to the unions

http://www.breakingnews.ie/election/news/kenny-apologises-to-begg-after-vested-interests-website-reference-494053.html

There seems to be a mindset that the unions represent poor unfortunate down trodden workers. But the reality is that a lot of these workers are privileged public sector workers who are overpaid, underworked and entitled to extraordinarily generous pensions.

I know quite a few people that work in the public sector. And there seems to be quite a divide. There are those who want serious public sector reform. They want to be paid based on performance, not length of service. They do the job that needs to be done, not just what's in their job description. They don't give a damn about having security of tenure because they know they work hard. And they are constantly frustrated by the militant attitude of their colleagues.

Then there's the other lot. They only do exactly what's in their job description (if even).. they moan about having to contribute towards their own pension. They show complete ignorance when they claim that they gained nothing from the Celtic Tiger. These people have often never had a real private sector job and come from public sector families.

The problem is the unions represent the second type. They represent the lazy and incompetent. But yet hard working decent public sector workers are scared to stand up to the unions.

In the private sector, it seems to be going the same way. The union leaders constantly vilify the self-employed. They constantly talk about 'working people' as if self-employed people just sit on their arses all day and let people make loads of dosh for them. When I was a student I worked for a multinational for about a year that is unionised. I always remember the shop steward being the most arrogant and lazy person in my department. He would start fights with management for no apparent reason and constantly found something to complain about. One day this guy asked me to join the union. When I told him I wasn't interested, he threw a wobbly, eventually telling me to "F-off". The funny thing I realised was that the unions helped keep people like him in jobs. They always look out of the Lowest Common Denominator.

The fat cats like Jack O'Connor, David Begg and Blair Horan have helped destroy our country. Our politicians clearly aren't prepared to take them on. They only way we can stand up to their bullying tactics is if decent hard working union members do it themselves.

henryporter · 18-02-2011 8:49pm

ouch Kenny just lost whatever pair of balls he had been growing over the past two weeks:mad:

femur61 · 18-02-2011 9:00pm

Of course he saw his wage increse in the celtic tiger years and if numbers are reduced the subscriptions to unions will decline. But i kno people in PS have cancelled subscription to their union.

blue_steel · 18-02-2011 9:03pm

so much for enda standing up to the unions. Guess his PR gurus reminded him that there are several hundred thousand union members who intend to vote in this election. Labour will determine who forms the next government.

sollar · 18-02-2011 9:16pm

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

First part was on newstalk the other day

Second part, I never said to make them all redundant. I just don't think 3000 HR staff when a recruitment freeze is in place are required.

Newstalk are hardly reliable, aren't they owned by the biggest tax avoider in the state.

Also, how would they possibly know these things. There has never been a study done its all just guessing.

As for HR - 3000 don't even work in HR.

Dyr · 18-02-2011 9:25pm

telekon wrote: »

Yes. We can all agree with that.

I said the unions were "some bit culpable"...which they were.

Whats the problem??

Problem is that I don't think its true. You could argue that they make us uncompetitive or that they're adding to our national debt now that we're in hock to the IMF but the unions are not the people who blew the arse out of our economy.

Idbatterim · 18-02-2011 10:00pm

Id definitely put the unions up there with the most culpable for the current crisis. The thing is though, that buck stops with the government, we elect them to make decisions in OUR interest. The government were the ones that approved bench marking, the massive increase in PS numbers etc... Effectively all a union is, is a business that tries to get as much money for as little work as possible. They really are a parasites! I could understand the purpose of unions during the Industrial Revolution etc, but there are no so many labor laws, appeal processes etc, that I really wish they could be banned!

macbog · 18-02-2011 10:36pm

blue_steel wrote: »

so much for enda standing up to the unions. Guess his PR gurus reminded him that there are several hundred thousand union members who intend to vote in this election. Labour will determine who forms the next government.

Workers voting for FG would be like turkey's voting for christmas !

kildarecommuter · 19-02-2011 10:34am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Id definitely put the unions up there with the most culpable for the current crisis. The thing is though, that buck stops with the government, we elect them to make decisions in OUR interest. The government were the ones that approved bench marking, the massive increase in PS numbers etc... Effectively all a union is, is a business that tries to get as much money for as little work as possible. They really are a parasites! I could understand the purpose of unions during the Industrial Revolution etc, but there are no so many labor laws, appeal processes etc, that I really wish they could be banned!

And if the Labour Laws are axed where will you be then?
I work in the Private Sector always have and am in middle management but having worked in both unionised and non unionised employments I can say generally speaking the unionised ones had better conditions.
A unoin is not a business its the members who decide union policy so the policy goes up not down as in a business.

murf313 · 19-02-2011 11:13am

danbohan wrote: »

how can we justify having higher public sector salaries than Germany, the country which is bailing us out

reading posts on the boards from public sector workers they do try and justify their excessive salarys , cost of living here ,dont you know , hopefully a very strong fine gael govt will bring some reality to their pampered lives

Excessive salaries?? Like to generalise much???

I nearly choked on my grape that my servant was putting in my mouth when I read that..... :rolleyes:

blue_steel · 19-02-2011 1:02pm

danbohan wrote: »

how can we justify having higher public sector salaries than Germany, the country which is bailing us out

reading posts on the boards from public sector workers they do try and justify their excessive salarys , cost of living here ,dont you know , hopefully a very strong fine gael govt will bring some reality to their pampered lives

Private sector workers here are paid more than their counterparts in Germany as well. So if you follow your rationale to its conclusion then all workers should take a pay cut. IE INCREASED TAXES! This is something which most left-wingers (inc LAB) support but most ring-wingers (inc FG) don't. Your tirade against the public sector is simply a smoke screen to externalise the problem and avoid taking any of the pain yourself. Its human nature to look for a scape goat and a minority to blame, but the more broad-minded among us have risen above these baser instincts.

tomo536 · 19-02-2011 1:21pm

telekon wrote: »

Very true. When I think of Jack O'Connor I think of the time he was loudly booed by fellow workers while going on off on one of his Big Jim Larkin-esque speechs at one of the rallys and unfairly attacking Pat Kenny on his 'trophy house'.

Oh Jack, you and your €124,000 salary make me laugh...

was at that rally and how jack was going to bring us to phase two which would have been strike action,then he disappeared into a black hole for awhile,then came back and sold us down the river.I was a member of siptu,and after jack did this no more siptu for me shower of idiots who only look after themselves

Lockstep · 19-02-2011 1:25pm

Independent maintains public sector unions were mainly involved with FF whereas private sector unions maintained links with Labour.

Link

jonnyone · 19-02-2011 8:49pm

blue_steel wrote: »

so much for enda standing up to the unions. Guess his PR gurus reminded him that there are several hundred thousand union members who intend to vote in this election. Labour will determine who forms the next government.

Thats democracy.

Killer Pigeon · 19-02-2011 9:13pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Independent maintains public sector unions were mainly involved with FF whereas private sector unions maintained links with Labour.

Link

What about ICTU?

Lockstep · 19-02-2011 11:03pm

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What about ICTU?

ICTU aren't affiliated with Labour. Nor do they have official links with them.

ftnbase · 20-02-2011 9:32am

Lockstep wrote: »

ICTU aren't affiliated with Labour. Nor do they have official links with them.

Will ICTU, SIPTU and their cronies will have a "Thanks for supporting Labour" training fund set up after the election and then have investigations as to where the money went before the election after that?

What is certain is that the changes that are vital in the Public Sector will NOT happen if Labour are part of the next Government - they must keep their promises to the brethern. The Public Sector changes are essential.

Labour want power for themseleves - as do all other parties. Labour staff expect a 50% increase in their salaries after the election if they get into Government.

I listened to Eamon Gilmore talking about the fear of FG single party government and how bad it would be for the country. If he thought it would be that bad why does he not propose a coalition as an option for the people instead of those silly "Gilmore for Taoiseach" posters - pigs will fly and all that.

Tim Robbins · 20-02-2011 10:44am

Good article about the links between Labour and the Unions, in yesterday's Indo.

ftnbase · 20-02-2011 11:06am

Labour an d the Unions - great combination to ensure our future prosperity.

CDfm · 20-02-2011 11:18am

Lockstep wrote: »

ICTU aren't affiliated with Labour. Nor do they have official links with them.

Thats like saying the knights of columbanus arent affiliated to the catholic church.

In theory , of course it is true, but in practice they are one and the same

The Unions calls for people to vote labour is canvassing on a grand scale.

ftnbase · 20-02-2011 11:30am

I agree with CDfm. Labour and Unions are joined at the hip.
Gilmore is panicking because of the FG opinion poll results and is looking for support from the "bearded ones". Because of Labour's left/right "every thing to everyone" policies they can not admit that they are supported by the Unions but it is clear for the past few days that the are.

If the Unions made statements like this 20 years ago people would have listened. Now, the public, including Union members, realise that Unions have been on the same Gravy Train as the politicians for years and ignore their utterances.

CDfm · 20-02-2011 11:56am

ftnbase wrote: »

If the Unions made statements like this 20 years ago people would have listened. Now, the public, including Union members, realise that Unions have been on the same Gravy Train as the politicians for years and ignore their utterances.

I wondered where the child benefit cut accusation came from with labour with no apparent reason.

The answer seems to be that SIPTU have 44% female members. So it Labours way of going after a demographic. Its a spin .

Isn't it a bit insulting to female voters to pull that crap in 2011.

Wilser1 · 20-02-2011 1:52pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Good article about the links between Labour and the Unions, in yesterday's Indo.

Political donations?
Just look at the 5 workers in the Davenport Hotel who have had their contracts ripped up and offered new contracts with their minimum wage reduced by €1.
Their employer is no less than Noel O'Callaghan who generously donates to Fine Gael's election campaign. Thats the kind of country he wants, the poor made poorer and the wealthy, influential, who are able to pay €150 for dinner with Fine Gael, made wealthier.
An unfair, divided society.

Lockstep · 20-02-2011 2:01pm

CDfm wrote: »

Thats like saying the knights of columbanus arent affiliated to the catholic church.

In theory , of course it is true, but in practice they are one and the same

The Unions calls for people to vote labour is canvassing on a grand scale.

'The Unions' aren't a homogenous entity. The Independant article already noted that public sector unions had more to do with FF whereas private sector unions were affiliated with Labour. The public sector did well off FF during the Celtic Tiger and it is public sector workers who make up the majority of union members.

Proof that they are 'one and the same?'

ftnbase · 20-02-2011 2:11pm

Lockstep wrote: »

'The Unions' aren't a homogenous entity. The Independant article already noted that public sector unions had more to do with FF whereas private sector unions were affiliated with Labour. The public sector did well off FF during the Celtic Tiger.

Proof that they are 'one and the same?'

There are not too many Unions coming out to support FF, FG or SF.

The Unions were Labourites until they got on the Bertie Bandwagon for their own sake - there is no money left for the junkets so they are retrenching back to their roots in the hope that Gilmore and Labour will give them more handouts for their support.

Lest we forget many members of the old Workers Party (now Labour) were trade union officials.

Nothing changes.

First Jack O'Connor, now David Begg - are the unions scared of FG

Comments