Unions

This is an area i know very little about, so please bear with me if i ramble a bit.

In this age of the welfare state is there any real need for unions, especially in Government run agencies? Employees are protected under law for working conditions, wages, holiday stats, firing practices etc. I understand and applaud the need and achievements of unions in the far distant past, but nowadays in this workers utopia, should they wield that much power? Is there really a need for unions? I don't think so. They've served their purpose and are just destroying everything they've worked for.

This is leading into a bit of a rant, due to the current postal dispute. I work for a small-medium sized business, and since the majority of payments come by post, this dispute is affecting us in quite a considerable way. We haven't received a cheque from Dublin in three days, despite assurances from clients that they've been sent (grand, some are lying, but some i trust have apparently posted them). We're not that bad off due to CC (and post from other areas) transactions, however what abt smaller businesses in and around the Dublin Area that are frozen by this dispute?

basically, i'd like to know your views on this actual dispute, and Unions in General. Should the law restrict Unions, or abolish them completely in certain areas?

Oh, btw, my view is the restriction of Union Powers, or the ability for Employers to prohit the allowance of unions within their business.

(This thread in the Business section has some info abt the dispute: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148513 )

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Should the law restrict Unions, or abolish them completely in certain areas?

No.

They're about the only organisation in the country that can actually stand up to government policy. And the inconvienence they cause others is a byproduct of their primary function - to look out for their members. It may be personal bias from seeing how Eircom is now treating it's employees, but frankly I don't see anything that says that that's an unnecessary function.

Should their actions bring financial risk to other businesses when other methods may have worked? Seems to me that they went too far in this dispute.

Victor

But they already have restrictions on them. While some parts of some unions are either abusing or misusing their rights, they are rights that have been necessary.

they are rights that have been necessary

They were necessary, but are they necessary now? The Law protects employees now. What purpose do unions serve?

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sparks
No.

They're about the only organisation in the country that can actually stand up to government policy. And the inconvienence they cause others is a byproduct of their primary function - to look out for their members. It may be personal bias from seeing how Eircom is now treating it's employees, but frankly I don't see anything that says that that's an unnecessary function.

most union leaders have been in bed with the government for the last few years through the partnership agreements, look how miffed the bus drivers were when the union leaders pulled the rug on the strike on the 18th.

Current union leaders are in the main ineffective IMHO.

laoisfan

my own opinion is get rid of unions - thank god the company i work for does not have them.

not only the possible postal-strike but look at CIE!!

there should be some sort of cover in place in the event of a strike which could possibly cripple this country.

they cannot hold this country to ransom!!!

--laoisfan

spanner

i am in principle pro union however they are becoming more and more useless. the people who are in the strongest unions are mainly in the public sector like teachers etc. and these are the people who dont really need a union. really the public sector are well paid and looked after.
in the private sector unions are nearly obslete and the ones that are around are really there for show. workers realise that if they strike for better pay the company can up and leave to cheaper workforce. so the employer holds the power of the workers. because the communist ideal of the "workers untied" will never happen.

in my opinion, and it pains me to say it the government are looking after the lower paid workers better than the unions. with the introduction of minium pay and the many different labour laws.

Part of the problem that i have is how these actions affect the rest of the country. The transport strikes have affected me at times (Waiting three hrs for a city bus because the drivers took an unannounced 3 hr strike) , but for the most part i could shrug them off. The Postal dispute on the other hand threatens many businesses that just cannot afford to have a delay in at least three days cheque post.

Hairy Homer

How well up on the law are you? How competent are you to argue a legal case? When are you aware that your rights are being infringed? Where is it legally permissible for example, to draw the line between a boss demanding a fair level of commitment and indulging in bullying harrassment?

When does making somebody's life a misery reach the point of justifying a constructive dismissal suit?

If you know the answers to all these, if you are able to represent yourself in any dispute arising from the likes of this and are able to run rings around the professional lawyer that the employer will have paid to represent their side of the case, then you don't need a union. If you can't, then it's useful to have a body of people with negotiating expertise to keep employers honest.

In America, they don't have unions. Instead they have lawyers, and Human Resources executives whose justification for existence is that they minimise the risk of a company being sued by its own employees.

I submit that our way is less confrontational in the long run.

Sparks

Originally posted by laoisfan
they cannot hold this country to ransom!!!

Well, obviously that's wrong in the capability sense. But on the "should they?" question, you're missing the point. A union exists to safeguard the interests of it's workers. No-one else. That's the whole point. It's not a union's job to restructure the company to keep it solvent, it's the union's job to ensure that said restructuring does not cost jobs or lower pay for it's members. And that's the rub. Modern management theory says that restructuring that keeps a company afloat by throwing a few tens or hundreds of workers overboard or reducing their pay; while union policy says that that's unacceptable.

The solution isn't to restrict union activities, it's to find a third solution to get around that impasse.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
They're about the only organisation in the country that can actually stand up to government policy.

I'm curious about that logic.

The government ignore mass protests at will - as you frequently bemoan (and I agree) - but mass protests by Unions are somehow effective?

Not only that, but if the major problem with government is its corruption, why are Unions no different? Why aren't the leaders of large unions as corrupt as politicans, if we posit that they assert a comparable amount of influence within their own sphere?

I'm unconvinced that unions are needed.

Some do a good job, but others seem to be out to screw the employers (whoever they may be) for as much as possible, which to me is no more laudable than employers who are out to screw employees or customers for as much as possible.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
The government ignore mass protests at will - as you frequently bemoan (and I agree) - but mass protests by Unions are somehow effective?

Well, yes - at least from the point of view of the unions. It's not so much an ideological standpoint that they take as a highly pragmatic and selfish one - but that is their mandate. Take the Eircom privatisation - because of union action, the union members benefitted enormously from the privatisation, instead of being screwed out of both benefits and their tenure.
From the point of view of the self-interest of the average Eircom employee, the unions did a great job. And the same is true of many other union actions. They may not benefit anyone else - but that's not their intended goal.

Not only that, but if the major problem with government is its corruption, why are Unions no different?

I didn't say they weren't. IMHO, they're every bit as corrupt. But they also happen to be necessary for the workers who are their members.

Some do a good job, but others seem to be out to screw the employers (whoever they may be) for as much as possible, which to me is no more laudable than employers who are out to screw employees or customers for as much as possible.

Agreed, and if you could get rid of the latter, I'd say the former weren't really needed - but you can't. So if you're going to have one side of an adversarial system, you're going to need the other for any kind of balance.

BuffyBot

At times the amount of bile spilled at unions by people I've spoken too surprises me. You would wonder how they would feel if they found themselves in a situation where being a union member would be advantageous.

I wonder how many of the people who have voted against unions in this pole have ever been in a situation where the backing of a union would have been a big help to them.

As bonkey pointed out, some unions are worse than others. Some of them do a damn good job protecting the rights, welfare and interests of the workers they represent.

ixoy

I'm working for an American-owned company. Naturally, that means the concept of "union" is alien to them. We've seen a 0% pay increase this year (meaning our wages are effectively reduced because of inflation) and, in some respects, increasing work conditions. I believe in the concept of an "honest day's work for an honest day's pay" and feel somewhat shafted but I have no forum to turn to. A union might be good in this regard. I however recognise the trend of the real-world and how markets, and the flow of capital, must by neccesity dictate policy.

However, currently the unions are trying to hold out in an untenable position. An Post needs to make cuts. There is no choice in this. The new mailing centre was unveiled as a means to the end. The offshoot of this was, as reported, a reduction in the available overtime. This was - I believe - meant to have been compensated for and it's the degree of compensation that is the point to be argued. However, I'm finding it hard to find symapathy for their plights. Real world economics demands you HAVE to make the cuts - are the people ignorant of how things operate? Do they not realise there is no choice in the matter? And, more importantly, do they really care - from a humanitarian point of view - what the effect of their actions are?

Has anyone actually got any figures on the average pay an An Post worker receives (including their golden "overtime" wrangling bone)? I'm interested in seeing, for the point of view of further argument, if I can empathise with them or if they are on a comparable level to private sector. Given that the unions are mostly representing public services, I think it's fair to compare and contrast the demands and situations of the two sectors.

Sand

Has anyone actually got any figures on the average pay an An Post worker receives (including their golden "overtime" wrangling bone)? I'm interested in seeing, for the point of view of further argument, if I can empathise with them or if they are on a comparable level to private sector. Given that the unions are mostly representing public services, I think it's fair to compare and contrast the demands and situations of the two sectors.

Ive no links,but I heard on the radio that the average pay is about 22-24k, and with overtime it can rise as high as 40k. Hence the uproar from the unions and the need on An Posts side to reduce that overtime bill.

However, I'm finding it hard to find symapathy for their plights. Real world economics demands you HAVE to make the cuts - are the people ignorant of how things operate? Do they not realise there is no choice in the matter? And, more importantly, do they really care - from a humanitarian point of view - what the effect of their actions are?

Unions currently exist to attempt to insulate their members from reality. Inside their mindset the company does not exist to make a profit, with job creation a benefit of this. Instead the company exists to provide jobs, with profit being a possibility. If the company doesnt make a profit then the government should bail it out/nationalise it or something. This is especially prevalent in state owned enterprises. CIE, Aer Rianta, An Post and so on. Unions arent entirely a good or bad thing - they shouldnt have the sort of power they currently have to grind an entire city to a halt for example. The best way to lessen the impact of unions is privatisation and competition. If an Post had competitors, then people would simply use a competitor whilst the strike was ongoing meaning that the issue would be the unions and an posts problem and no one elses.

Unfortunately, unions are amongst the strongest opponents of privatisation and competition. Youd need a Margret Thatcher to break them to be honest. And theres not a single politician around with the sort of pig headedness. Not in Ireland anyway.

I didn't say they weren't. IMHO, they're every bit as corrupt. But they also happen to be necessary for the workers who are their members.

No theyre lousy to be honest. I used to work part time in Tescos. When there was a strike I voted for it, to support the permament members. The management were quite heavy handed, making thinly veiled threats that upset some of the permaments. We did the whole picket line thing as well. At the end of the day the union which had called out the strike accepted a slight pay rise that was *below* the minimum wage that was introduced shortly afterwards - the level of which was well known even then. As such the workers didnt benefit an iota. They would have got the minimum wage anyway.

The only conclusion is that the union was benefitting more than the workers were. Unions dont protect anyone unless theyve got a vested interest in doing so.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Youd need a Margret Thatcher to break them to be honest.

And that's assuming you think it'd be a good idea in the first place - and I've seen several sources saying that the union-busting antics of the Iron Bitch have led to a poorer economic climate in the UK, so I'd tend to think not. As I said above, labour relations is an adversarial system - and the unions are the employee's side of things. If you can come up with a better system, wonderful - but if you can't, you'll have to either accept unions or serfdom.
(And since the only seriously proposed alternative in recent history has been communism, I don't forsee you advocating an alternative Sand )

The only conclusion is that the union was benefitting more than the workers were.

No, it's not. You could also conclude that your particular union wasn't very good at negotiating. There are anecdotes that support that conclusion better than your conclusion - the Eircom privatisation deal is the one I've already given, but it's the one I'm most familiar with.

As I've said, unions are essentially amoral in the wider social sense. They don't care about the company's wellbeing unless it's literally about to fall over (and with CEOs and management earning large salaries in most large companies, they feel justified in this), and they aren't meant to. If they did, they wouldn't be doing their stated job which is to look out for the interests of their members. It may be a mercenary, feck-the-other-guy-over-a-barrel sort of mindset, but it's honest in it's own way at least.

Moriarty

Originally posted by klaz
Should the law restrict Unions, or abolish them completely in certain areas?

Yes.

I'd entirely echo what sand just said ^, he got there before me and there's no point repeating it all.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
They were necessary, but are they necessary now? The Law protects employees now. What purpose do unions serve?

The law also protects murder victims. Sometimes "the law" is too late for those not able to stand up for themselves. how about we get rid of laywers and police, after all, the law will protect you.

Originally posted by bonkey
Some do a good job, but others seem to be out to screw the employers (whoever they may be) for as much as possible, which to me is no more laudable than employers who are out to screw employees or customers for as much as possible.

The alternative is individual employees trying to screw a well funded HR department. Do you honestly expect that to happen? One well known Irish food company was in and of of the Labour Court every 2-3 weeks about 2 years ago, losing every time, yet not adjusting their behavior to comply with the law. Are minimum wage workers meant to fund a lawsuit against a multi-national?

The law also protects murder victims. Sometimes "the law" is too late for those not able to stand up for themselves. how about we get rid of laywers and police, after all, the law will protect you.

Extreme case, but i'll follow up a bit.

The law protects your rights to be safe & secure. The Gardai and in extreme cases the army are there to protect you. Both subject to the law and appointed by the State under the consitution. By your reckoning, since murders occur, we should abolish the whole lot and let evryone fend for themselves.

Unions were a great concept. I emphasise the "were". There is no need for them now. The law protects the employee for their rights. The Employee can, if they see fit, find out whether their rights have been abused from many independent agencies, and if need be proceed towards compensation. However, Unions these days go crazy whenever anything happens. What happened to the rights of the employer to continue building their businesses without interference from rank amatuers?

What if a Union being told of law-offs decides to strike since they can't bear to let those poor employees leave. Instead of the few employees being laid-off, the whole company goes bust, and nobody receives any kind of compensation?

If you can come up with a better system, wonderful - but if you can't, you'll have to either accept unions or serfdom.

Not quite. restrict the powers that Unions can forcebly use. Keep them within a system that doesn't either threaten the existance of the business or threaten the existance of other businesses, that rely on their working.

How well up on the law are you? How competent are you to argue a legal case? When are you aware that your rights are being infringed? Where is it legally permissible for example, to draw the line between a boss demanding a fair level of commitment and indulging in bullying harrassment?

Homer, I've been working for the last 7 years. In various types of jobs, and during that time i've learnt my rights. I may not be a solicitor to know the ins and outs of the whole law system, but i have enough cop-on to head to the Internet, ask friends, or seek legal advice to find out if my rights have been compromised.

And if i feel my rights have been infringed, i'm well capable of seeking legal help either completely with my own cash or through any of the solicitors that service people on lower wages. You see, if i get beaten to an inch of my life, and i want to press a civil case, i don't have a union to go to, I go to a solicitor.

If you know the answers to all these, if you are able to represent yourself in any dispute arising from the likes of this and are able to run rings around the professional lawyer that the employer will have paid to represent their side of the case, then you don't need a union. If you can't, then it's useful to have a body of people with negotiating expertise to keep employers honest.

Yes, thats all well and good. But what about when the Union steps outside of these bounds? How do you feel when a union decides that the "rights" of the employees outweighs the viability of the company's success?

At the end of the day, your having a job does not give you the right to hold a employer at ransom, considering you wouldn't have that bloody job without their enterprising ways. A state funded organisation is slightly different but these Unions haven't realised yet that milking the cow to death is not serving their members all that well. especially since state funded businesses are becoming a thing of the past, thank god.

Naturally, that means the concept of "union" is alien to them

ioxy, unions are definetly not an alien concept to American businesses. The Majority of european' unions are based on the structures that American unions developed. Read abt the Unions and their fights with the car Industry, especially in regards to the Ford Company. American unions, and they do still exist, are just not as popular these days, since they got their rights and were satisfied with them.

Johnmb

Personally, I don't think the workers in An Post should have been suspended. If I was their employer, I wouldn't have suspended them, I would have fired them and advertised their jobs. That is exactly what I would do to any of my employees if I bought new equipment and they refused to use it. If you want to work for me, you use the equipment I tell you to use, and you do the work I tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else. If you want to work for An Post, you use the equipment they tell you to use, and you do the work they tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
If I was their employer, I wouldn't have suspended them, I would have fired them and advertised their jobs. That is exactly what I would do to any of my employees if I bought new equipment and they refused to use it. If you want to work for me, you use the equipment I tell you to use, and you do the work I tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else.

And that attitude is precisely why I say unions must continue to exist and operate in the manner in which they do, and that labour relations is an adversarial situation. Johnmb may be expressing it very directly and aggressively, but that's basicly the sentiment that has been seen by eircom employees, aer rianta workers, ASTI teachers, Aer lingus pilots, everyone.

And while I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, I know I wouldn't work for you without a union johnmb.

monument

I agree with bonkey.

They are need, but they abuse their position.

I don’t believe in the kind of security some state company employees want. In general I also don’t agree with privatisation, however because unions abuse their position so much it may be the only way for some state owned companies.

If I was their employer, I wouldn't have suspended them, I would have fired them and advertised their jobs. That is exactly what I would do to any of my employees if I bought new equipment and they refused to use it. If you want to work for me, you use the equipment I tell you to use, and you do the work I tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else.

I agree totally. When did employees gain the right to decide what work they do within a business? The An Post workers basically decided that they had more power than their employers, and as a result, should have been kicked out of their jobs for bad work practices. Unions are there to protect the rights of the Workers, right? Well, when did unions decide that they and the employees run the company?

And while I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, I know I wouldn't work for you without a union johnmb

In his statement, not once has he mentioned any expression that he would disregard your rights to fair wages, decent work conditions etc. All he's saying is that either you do your job, or you get fired. Seems very reasonable and logical to me. If you won't do your job, surely you shouldn't be getting paid, should you?

seedot

Sparks is dead on when he talks of the adversarial nature of employer / employee relationships. The scare stories about unions and their impact on businesses are just that - scare stories. During the Celtic tiger the share of money going to profits as opposed to labour rose dramatically - in part due to the weaknesses of the unions for last 15 years.

Unions do have huge, recent, limits to their powers - look at the 1990 Industrial Relations Act which prohibits strikes for political purpose etc. Between this and social partnership the unions have been v. effectively neutered.

The idea that we have all the rights we need and just need to be aware of them is a bit silly. Where did these rights come from? And I'm not talking about 19th C struggles that are all done and dusted: the minimum wage, the increase in redundancy payments, extensions to maternity benefit - all things won in the last 15 years (I know contradicts my earlier point about social partnership but I think the problem is unions have focussed on a 'rights' based approach which was not good for workers or the general population).

The problem I see with unions is they are setting themselves up for a fall by focussing on public sector and declining manafacturing jobs and creating a split between these (generally older) people and all the new jobs. They are purely focussed on existing members - see what happened in Eircom and is about to happen on the buses - existing workers get their conditions guaranteed but new workers have no such guarantees. So of course people (correctly) view the trade unions as just another sectional interest; sort of an IFA for public sector workers, rather than a 'progressive' force or a true countervailing power in the labour market.

And johnmb - I wouldn't work for you in a fit, with or without a union. Been there, done that, had my head wrecked by crap bosses already.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
And that attitude is precisely why I say unions must continue to exist and operate in the manner in which they do, and that labour relations is an adversarial situation. Johnmb may be expressing it very directly and aggressively, but that's basicly the sentiment that has been seen by eircom employees, aer rianta workers, ASTI teachers, Aer lingus pilots, everyone.

And while I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, I know I wouldn't work for you without a union johnmb.

Whether or not you were a member of a union wouldn't change a thing. If you worked for me, you would do the work I told you to do, with the equipment I told you to use, otherwise you would be fired. The union wouldn't change a thing, they would just take some money off you.

Originally posted by seedot
And johnmb - I wouldn't work for you in a fit, with or without a union. Been there, done that, had my head wrecked by crap bosses already.

Well, none of my current, or past, employees seem to think I am a crap boss. They get paid for their time, and what I have them do during that time is up to me. They know that, and they are happy with it. Why should they care what machines I have them using?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by klaz


Homer, I've been working for the last 7 years. In various types of jobs, and during that time i've learnt my rights. I may not be a solicitor to know the ins and outs of the whole law system, but i have enough cop-on to head to the Internet, ask friends, or seek legal advice to find out if my rights have been compromised.

And if i feel my rights have been infringed, i'm well capable of seeking legal help either completely with my own cash or through any of the solicitors that service people on lower wages. You see, if i get beaten to an inch of my life, and i want to press a civil case, i don't have a union to go to, I go to a solicitor.

[/B]

Well that was rather my point. Is shelling out for a solicitor on your own steam always the best option?

Basically you have a right in a democracy to act on your own behalf or have somebody to represent you. That somebody may be a legal advisor or it may be a trade association. The employers exercise that right. I'll bet your employer is a member of IBEC or the SFA or something like that. And boy do they have influence. I mean, one of their leading members is sleeping with Mary Harney!!!!!

I am a union member. It's my right.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
I agree totally. When did employees gain the right to decide what work they do within a business?

Don't go moving the goalposts - we're talking about how they did their job, not what job they did.

The An Post workers basically decided that they had more power than their employers, and as a result, should have been kicked out of their jobs for bad work practices. Unions are there to protect the rights of the Workers, right? Well, when did unions decide that they and the employees run the company?

Who said that they were deciding that they run the company? They're deciding that they won't do their job with a set of tools that the management ordered them to use unilaterally after management agreed to run a pilot scheme and then discuss it with the workers.

In his statement, not once has he mentioned any expression that he would disregard your rights to fair wages, decent work conditions etc.

And at no point did he say he would regard them either. And if someone is that aggressive and frankly, arrogant, about how they'd treat their employees, I won't be betting on them looking out for their employee's best interests.

All he's saying is that either you do your job, or you get fired.

No, he's not - he's saying "do it the way I tell you or you're fired". That's an important distinction - I'll explain why in a moment.

Originally posted by Johnmb
Whether or not you were a member of a union wouldn't change a thing.

But it would. That's the point. A union has more weight than one solitary worker, that's why they exist. You can fire a single employee relatively easily - but can you cope with the losses caused by your entire workforce downing tools? Usually not!

If you worked for me, you would do the work I told you to do, with the equipment I told you to use, otherwise you would be fired.

And there's where the distinction I mentioned above comes in. If you point me towards unsafe tools and tell me to do a job, there is no way on earth that I'll risk my health for your profit - and you cannot legally fire me for that. And the union would be there to remind you of that, and would have experts to confirm it and so on. Furthermore, unless I'm unskilled labour, you don't have the qualifications to tell me how to do my job, that's why you hired me in the first place. So you're micromanaging badly, and that will do the business more harm than my refusal to do the job in a manner prescribed by yet another know-nothing manager. And if you do know what you're talking about, you're a manager who's playing foreman rather than doing his own job, and again, that's more harmful to a business than I am.

So basicly Johnmb, your attitude is not correct, from either the legal viewpoint, the union's viewpoint, or the management viewpoint.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
But it would. That's the point. A union has more weight than one solitary worker, that's why they exist. You can fire a single employee relatively easily - but can you cope with the losses caused by your entire workforce downing tools? Usually not!
If my entire workforce downed tools, my entire workforce would be fired. They know the situation when they take the job, if they are not happy with it, they shouldn't have taken the job.

And there's where the distinction I mentioned above comes in. If you point me towards unsafe tools and tell me to do a job, there is no way on earth that I'll risk my health for your profit - and you cannot legally fire me for that.
No, but if I point to towards safe tools that operate differently from the old ones, and you refuse to use them, I can legally fire you for refusing to do the work I require of you. I'm not running a day care centre, I'm running a business.

And the union would be there to remind you of that, and would have experts to confirm it and so on.
The union wouldn't be reminding me of that because I don't deal with unions. They may point it out to my employees, and they may remind me.

Furthermore, unless I'm unskilled labour, you don't have the qualifications to tell me how to do my job, that's why you hired me in the first place.
I do have the qualifications to tell you how to do your job if you work for me. If you have any suggestions as to how to do things differently then I'm all ears, but if I don't like those suggestions I won't implement them and you'll have to accept that if you want to continue working for me.

So you're micromanaging badly, and that will do the business more harm than my refusal to do the job in a manner prescribed by yet another know-nothing manager.
Firstly, putting in new machinery is hardly micromanaging. Secondly, you have to learn to accept that many managers know a lot more than the people who report to them, that is why they are managers. In my company, my father runs the day to day operations. Nobody working there is more qualified than him (including me), that is why he is the manager. Do what he says, or you're fired, I won't question his decision. I run the overall business. I am also more qualified than most of the other workers (certainly for doing what I do, but also I am more qualified than some for doing what they do).

And if you do know what you're talking about, you're a manager who's playing foreman rather than doing his own job, and again, that's more harmful to a business than I am.
No, the fact that I know what I'm talking about comes from the fact that I served my time learning the business before I became the Director. The fact that my father knows what he is talking about comes from the fact that he is one of the best at what he does, and he either directly, or indirectly, trained in, or with, most of the people who are in the same business and run other companies. Managers are paid to manage the workers, that is their job.

So basicly Johnmb, your attitude is not correct, from either the legal viewpoint, the union's viewpoint, or the management viewpoint.
My attitude is correct from the legal viewpoint, you just created a strawman to argue against. The union's viewpoint is irrelevant to me, as I didn't hire a union. The management viewpoint is the same as mine, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the roles of various managers.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
If my entire workforce downed tools, my entire workforce would be fired. They know the situation when they take the job, if they are not happy with it, they shouldn't have taken the job.

If you sack your entire workforce for striking, apart from the labour courts having a word with you, you'll experience severe cash flow problems at the worst. I don't know of any good managers who'd adopt such an attitude when the financial penalties are so high. Don't forget - you're firing experienced, skilled workers, and then looking to hire new workers past picket lines who don't know the job, all the while fighting off legal problems from the labour courts.

No, but if I point to towards safe tools that operate differently from the old ones, and you refuse to use them, I can legally fire you for refusing to do the work I require of you.

I'm pretty sure you can't fire an employee who has a legitimate grievance. I know no union would let you do so.
And from your attitude, I see no evidence to suggest you wouldn't put your employees health at some risk to make more profit - after all, you're not exactly treating them in a cooperative manner. You're treating them in the standard adversarial manner, but demanding that they not be allowed an equal stance.

I'm not running a day care centre, I'm running a business.

From what it sounds like, you're not running it very well.

The union wouldn't be reminding me of that because I don't deal with unions.

That's illegal, you know.

They may point it out to my employees, and they may remind me.

Last time I looked, unions were made up of employees. Some of the largest unions may hire employees to do work, but that's relatively rare. So it would be an employee of yours who'd point it out to you.

I do have the qualifications to tell you how to do your job if you work for me.

*lol*
Really? So you are qualified to run all aspects of a business and have four or five different degrees as well as several years of experience in all areas of the business, eh?

If you have any suggestions as to how to do things differently then I'm all ears, but if I don't like those suggestions I won't implement them and you'll have to accept that if you want to continue working for me.

Johnmb, that's never going to be a problem - because there's no way on this earth that I'd ever think so little of my physical or mental health to work in such an environment.

Firstly, putting in new machinery is hardly micromanaging.

Except that it is, if you do so unilaterally and without consultation with those who know what they're doing!

Secondly, you have to learn to accept that many managers know a lot more than the people who report to them, that is why they are managers.

A manager who knows more than the people he/she manages? I'll believe in that when I see it - and I think that may mean I believe in the tooth fairy first.

In my company

I get the distinct impression that this company is a small business, family run, with maybe four to five employees, probably doing something which is either unskilled, like a general shop, or highly technical, like printing, where experience determines qualification, as opposed to a large business, where it's a different kettle of fish entirely Johnmb. What I have learnt of unions has been from what has happened within Eircom - which is a wee bit bigger than that.

My attitude is correct from the legal viewpoint, you just created a strawman to argue against.

No, I provided the first example of why your philosophy of management could be outrightly illegal. If you have a better example that illustrates its weaknesses, put it forward.

The union's viewpoint is irrelevant to me, as I didn't hire a union.

Again, in a small business, that may be true - but in the medium-to-large business world, it's not. And you cannot legally ignore a union anyway - they can sue you for it.

seedot

Great post Sparks - one minor quibble. There is no right to union recognition in Ireland - unlike the US you can't vote to force an employer to recognise the union and negotiate directly or even collectively with the workers.

SIPTU in particular has become quite exercised about this lately : Oxigen workers, Ryanair etc.

But this is another right yet to be won.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
If you sack your entire workforce for striking, apart from the labour courts having a word with you,
Unless they take a day off and make an appointment to see me, they will have a hard time having a word with me.

you'll experience severe cash flow problems at the worst. I don't know of any good managers who'd adopt such an attitude when the financial penalties are so high.
There are no high financial penalties for me. I run my business well, and owe no creditors. Therefore, if production ceased, I would easily be able to survive long enough to decide whether to replace the fired workers, or just call it a day.

Don't forget - you're firing experienced, skilled workers, and then looking to hire new workers past picket lines who don't know the job,
firstly, there are other people who are qualified to do the work that can be hired. Secondly, new people can be trained in.

all the while fighting off legal problems from the labour courts.
I wouldn't have any legal problems. If you don't do the work you were hire to do to my satisfaction, you are fired, simple as that.

I'm pretty sure you can't fire an employee who has a legitimate grievance. I know no union would let you do so.
The union wouldn't get a say in the matter. If it was a legitimate grievance the courts would support them. Not being happy about your employer getting in new machines is not a legitimate grievance.

And from your attitude, I see no evidence to suggest you wouldn't put your employees health at some risk to make more profit - after all, you're not exactly treating them in a cooperative manner. You're treating them in the standard adversarial manner, but demanding that they not be allowed an equal stance.
Well, no employees, past or present, would seem to agree with you.

From what it sounds like, you're not running it very well.
I'm making profits, and have employees who can do the work and are happy doing it. I would call that running the business well.

That's illegal, you know.
No it's not, and I defy you to show me any legislation that says otherwise.

Last time I looked, unions were made up of employees.
You didn't look very hard. Union members are employees, but the unions are not run by them.

Some of the largest unions may hire employees to do work, but that's relatively rare. So it would be an employee of yours who'd point it out to you.
And as an employee of mine, I'd listen. However, I wouldn't let him/her speak for everyone else if it were something that effected everyone else.

Really? So you are qualified to run all aspects of a business and have four or five different degrees as well as several years of experience in all areas of the business, eh?
I have one degree, along with professional qualifications. I have several years experience in my field, and I have served my time as an apprentice in the specific trade that my company is engaged in. The only person who could claim better qualifications is my father, but his experience is exclusive to the trade in question. One of the employees is better at operating a couple of the machines than me, and a few others are faster than me with other aspects. However, I know what has to be done, and how it has to be done. If I seen a new machine that was better than the existing ones, I'd get it and my employees would use it. If they refuse because they weren't consulted, they know just to stay at home.

Johnmb, that's never going to be a problem - because there's no way on this earth that I'd ever think so little of my physical or mental health to work in such an environment.
Which would be your lose. It is quite a laid back environment. As long as the work gets done everything is quite flexible.

Except that it is, if you do so unilaterally and without consultation with those who know what they're doing!
I know what I'm doing, so I don't need to consult anyone else. As does my father. He recently bought a new machine, and the only consulting he did was with me regarding if we could afford it. It is a machine that does something we couldn't previously do. They employees didn't complain, they just learned how to use it, and they use it now whenever they are told to.

A manager who knows more than the people he/she manages? I'll believe in that when I see it - and I think that may mean I believe in the tooth fairy first.
Well, people with that attitude I generally find to be jealous of the success of others. It is especially true in accounting, people like to think that the boss didn't earn anything, and conveniently forget that the boss has already served his time.

I get the distinct impression that this company is a small business, family run, with maybe four to five employees,
My own company, yes. However I also work full time elsewhere in accounting, in a much larger company.

probably doing something which is either unskilled, like a general shop, or highly technical, like printing, where experience determines qualification, as opposed to a large business, where it's a different kettle of fish entirely Johnmb.
No, my employees are very skilled. I know from experience that unskilled people cannot do the work, unless they are very motivated and are willing to learn. Once they do that they gain the skills.

What I have learnt of unions has been from what has happened within Eircom - which is a wee bit bigger than that.
They don't seem to have achieved much in the longer term.

No, I provided the first example of why your philosophy of management could be outrightly illegal. If you have a better example that illustrates its weaknesses, put it forward.
You brought up dangerous equipment, which is not the issue arising from the An Post example I origianally referenced.

Again, in a small business, that may be true - but in the medium-to-large business world, it's not. And you cannot legally ignore a union anyway - they can sue you for it.
You can legally ignore a union, they cannot sue you for it. The constitution allows people join unions, it doesn't force employers to deal with those unions.

Don't go moving the goalposts - we're talking about how they did their job, not what job they did.

Sparks, we're talking about their jobs. They were told to use machinery related to the jobs they were hired for. They refused. They're employed in a business, which is run by the owners/managers, its not a democracy. They're paid to obey orders.

Who said that they were deciding that they run the company? They're deciding that they won't do their job with a set of tools that the management ordered them to use unilaterally after management agreed to run a pilot scheme and then discuss it with the workers.

they're deciding what jobs they want to do. They were Hired by An Post. You agree with that? Surely you see that they are employees and as such have no say in the running of the company, or what jobs people do.

And at no point did he say he would regard them either. And if someone is that aggressive and frankly, arrogant, about how they'd treat their employees, I won't be betting on them looking out for their employee's best interests.

Sparks, might i ask if you have a job, and what type of work you perform? Because, as far as i can see, you wouldn't last very long in a job with that attitude.

Cause i can tell you as someone who has been both a manager and a general employee, if anyone approached work with that attitude they'd be warned in an instant. And two written & one verbal warnings later, they'd be gone. And another person who wants a job, and is willing to work would be hired. Its as simple as that. I work for a business not a charity .

No, he's not - he's saying "do it the way I tell you or you're fired". That's an important distinction - I'll explain why in a moment.

Sparks, its his company. If you want to decide what work to do, or how to do it, go out and start a business. Otherwise, do the job you were hired to do.

So basicly Johnmb, your attitude is not correct, from either the legal viewpoint, the union's viewpoint, or the management viewpoint.

Sparks are you sure abt this legal standpoint that you're offering as fact? cause as far as i'm aware, a union cannot be prevented from having a presence or members in a company, but the management does not have to deal with them.

ixoy

Most workers will have signed a contract of some sort, correct? This contract will generally state the grounds for employment, with some leeway for changes in working practices. To what degree are these contracts legally binding? If an An Post worker signs the contract that details their duty, but not necessarily the precise manner in which they have to carry them out, does the employee have a right then to argue the particulars of how the job is done as long as the equipment is provided to allow them to complete their dutes as per their contract? Recently they changed the tool I use to work with, meaning I have to adapt to some new working practices. Should I strike over it, given I received no prior consultation?

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
Unless they take a day off and make an appointment to see me, they will have a hard time having a word with me.

You can be as belligerent as you wish, but the legal system will continue to act the same and you'll either comply or be penalised.
That's not, by the way, a "so there!" comment, it's just pragmatism.

There are no high financial penalties for me. I run my business well, and owe no creditors. Therefore, if production ceased, I would easily be able to survive long enough to decide whether to replace the fired workers, or just call it a day.

Then you must be running a small, and rather remarkable business. My congradulations - but it doesn't work that way for medium to large businesses.

firstly, there are other people who are qualified to do the work that can be hired. Secondly, new people can be trained in.

Again, you're having to hire across picket lines and you're losing time and money in retraining.

I wouldn't have any legal problems. If you don't do the work you were hire to do to my satisfaction, you are fired, simple as that.

And if you can prove that that's the cause of the dismissal, then you're correct - but then again, can you? And can you afford the legal costs and time lost? Business, don't forget, is generally amorally pragmatic rather than ideological and most unions know this and use it, as they're meant to.

The union wouldn't get a say in the matter. If it was a legitimate grievance the courts would support them. Not being happy about your employer getting in new machines is not a legitimate grievance.

No, unless you can support the argument that those machines are a cause for a legitimate grievance, and again, that means legal costs and time lost in the labour courts...

Well, no employees, past or present, would seem to agree with you.

How many people is that, in total?

I'm making profits, and have employees who can do the work and are happy doing it. I would call that running the business well.

And as I said, it sounds like the profile of a small business.

You didn't look very hard. Union members are employees, but the unions are not run by them.

Incorrect - that only applies to a very few, very large unions, and usually those are actually comprised of several unions from several different areas who come together to increase their bargaining ability.

And as an employee of mine, I'd listen. However, I wouldn't let him/her speak for everyone else if it were something that effected everyone else.

So you'd talk to all of them individually? Now I know it's a small business. Companies like Eircom have thousands of employees - you couldn't talk to them without a representative. And you can't just fire them all if you want. And that is the difference between your level of business and the level at which the large unions you read about in the papers operate.

Except that it is, if you do so unilaterally and without consultation with those who know what they're doing!
I know what I'm doing, so I don't need to consult anyone else.

The joys of the sole trader, that. Try that attitude in a large company and you'll have serious problems out your ears in a day or three.
Try it in a semi-state company or similar and you'll have them within hours.

Well, people with that attitude I generally find to be jealous of the success of others.

*lol*
And it's not possibly because of experience? You're not the only qualified professional with years of experience you know...

I get the distinct impression that this company is a small business, family run, with maybe four to five employees,
My own company, yes. However I also work full time elsewhere in accounting, in a much larger company.

Again, what kind of size are we talking? Are we talking about companies on the order of Eircom/An Post/ESB or are we talking more like a few dozen people?

No, my employees are very skilled. I know from experience that unskilled people cannot do the work, unless they are very motivated and are willing to learn. Once they do that they gain the skills.

So it's the second scenario then.

They don't seem to have achieved much in the longer term.

Yes, they have. Just because you don't happen to know about it, doesn't mean they haven't achieved a great deal from their perspective.

You can legally ignore a union, they cannot sue you for it.

Yes, my error. However, from a purely pragmatic point of view, you can't ignore a union in a large business, you stand to lose too much if you do so. As a result, large unions are rarely ignored, which is an excellent thing for their members.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Sparks, we're talking about their jobs. They were told to use machinery related to the jobs they were hired for. They refused. They're employed in a business, which is run by the owners/managers, its not a democracy.

No, it's not. Which means that if the workers decide to all quit, the management has no way to stop them. Which is why negotiation with unions tends to be an excercise in amoral pragmatism.

They're paid to obey orders.

Actually, they're not - soldiers are paid to obey orders, not civilians...

they're deciding what jobs they want to do. They were Hired by An Post. You agree with that? Surely you see that they are employees and as such have no say in the running of the company, or what jobs people do.

As I've been trying to point out, negotiation with unions isn't about what you think is right or wrong. It's about what they can get for their members and they don't give a rat's behind what you lose in the process - and that's their job. It's an adversarial system, not a love-in.

Sparks, might i ask if you have a job, and what type of work you perform? Because, as far as i can see, you wouldn't last very long in a job with that attitude.

I do, I'm a researcher in college at the moment. I've no idea what that does for your suggestion, since the facts of life in regard to unions are not of my invention...

Cause i can tell you as someone who has been both a manager and a general employee, if anyone approached work with that attitude they'd be warned in an instant. And two written & one verbal warnings later, they'd be gone. And another person who wants a job, and is willing to work would be hired. Its as simple as that. I work for a business not a charity .

And as I've said, you wouldn't last ten minutes in a negotiation with a union in a large company like Eircom or the ESB with that approach.

Sparks, its his company. If you want to decide what work to do, or how to do it, go out and start a business. Otherwise, do the job you were hired to do.

That works when it's his company. Don't forget, in places like eircom, employees aren't just union members - they're shareholders as well. In eircom, for example, the union members hold over 30% of the shares...
As I said, the facts of life at this level are different than at Johnmb's level.

Sparks are you sure abt this legal standpoint that you're offering as fact?

No, an error on my part regarding the legality of ignoring unions, as I said.
However, the fact is - you can't ignore a large union and remain unaffected. That's just the way it is, and it's a good thing from the perspective of the workers.

bonkey

Originally posted by seedot
During the Celtic tiger the share of money going to profits as opposed to labour rose dramatically - in part due to the weaknesses of the unions for last 15 years.

Thats not really true, though, is it.

The unions were asked to sign up to these various "growth pacts" which would cap their limits, etc. etc. etc. to do all sorts of good. Whether or not they could have held out for more might seem important, but consider the flip-side....

Job-markets which were non-unionised became an employees market. IT, in particular, had salaries that were rising at least as quickly as Dublin house-prices. It became a bidding war to see who got to hire anyone who might have been halfways decent.

In a boom-time, unions hold their employees back. Always have, always will. The reason that this is not a problem is because when the bust comes, the union will try and prevent its employees from getting shafted by salaries falling more rapidly than they rose.

And johnmb - I wouldn't work for you in a fit, with or without a union. Been there, done that, had my head wrecked by crap bosses already.

I dunno. I know what johnmb is driving at, and to a large part I can agree.

For example, if - as an IT employer - I were to ask an employee to go and learn a new skill (lets say C#) because I had a need for it, then I would expect them to go and learn it. If they refused on the grounds of "I don't like Microsoft", or "I refuse to work with C#", then I would quite probably fire them for being incapable of doing their job.

Sure, as Sparks rightly points out, if an employer asks you to do something unreasonable, then they would be wrong in firing you.....but what qualifies as unreasonable? Here's an example :

When I worked in a large Irish bank, there was a daily "ritual" carried out by the porters. The morning papers were all delivered to one location, at which point it was one specific person's job to split the bundles for delivery to the various areas. If that person was missing, it was considered - by the union - unreasonable to ask another porter to do the splitting. Also, there were a number of porters who's first job in the morning was to deliver the papers after they'd been split into the right bundles. It was unreasonable to ask them to do any other part of their daily work until this job was complete.

So, if the "paper-spliiter" was out, then everyone sat around until the shop steward came down, officially assigned someone to split the papers, after which they could be delivered, and after which the porters could do the rest of their daily jobs.

So lets not get carried away with "fringe examples" to try and show that managers/unions are good or bad.

jc

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
You can be as belligerent as you wish, but the legal system will continue to act the same and you'll either comply or be penalised.
That's not, by the way, a "so there!" comment, it's just pragmatism.
I'm not being belligerent, I'm stating a fact. Unless a law has been broken, the Labour court has no bearing on me. It doesn't matter if they like what I have done or not.

Then you must be running a small, and rather remarkable business. My congradulations - but it doesn't work that way for medium to large businesses.
Nothing remarkable about it, I just made sure I didn't go into debt to start it, and I have kept my own job. As it expands, nothing else will change, I still won't go into debt, and therefore no union will be able to hold me hostage.

Again, you're having to hire across picket lines and you're losing time and money in retraining.
I might not be earning as much money, but that doesn't mean that I'd be losing any money. there is a difference.

And if you can prove that that's the cause of the dismissal, then you're correct - but then again, can you?
I don't have to. I just have to state that it is the cause of the dismissal. It is up to the dismissed employee to prove that there were other grounds.

And can you afford the legal costs and time lost?
I would simply apply for costs. A judge doesn't need me there to decide if a disgruntled employees claims are bogus, and if he insists on going to court, the judge can require that a deposit to cover my costs is paid first.

Business, don't forget, is generally amorally pragmatic rather than ideological and most unions know this and use it, as they're meant to.
And as long as big businesses are afraid to take on the unions (who only look out for themselves, not the employees), that won't change.

No, unless you can support the argument that those machines are a cause for a legitimate grievance, and again, that means legal costs and time lost in the labour courts...
Only for the former employee. He is the one who has to show he has a grievance. Claiming that he doesn't like the colour of the new machine, or that it causes him to get his work done earlier so I don't have to pay overtime is not a legitimate grievance (the latter is most likely the reason for getting the new machine in the first place).

How many people is that, in total?
Including formaer employees of my father, probably a one or two hundred people over the years.

And as I said, it sounds like the profile of a small business.
It's a profile of a business model that works. Unions should not be allowed to run roughshot over employers, or their employees.

Incorrect - that only applies to a very few, very large unions, and usually those are actually comprised of several unions from several different areas who come together to increase their bargaining ability.
And given that this started with a reference to the An Post situation, that is exactly what we are talking about (plus the fact that my personal experience is with SIPTU, as an employee BTW).

So you'd talk to all of them individually? Now I know it's a small business. Companies like Eircom have thousands of employees - you couldn't talk to them without a representative.
It doesn't take much to gage the opinions of them without having to go through a union.

And you can't just fire them all if you want. And that is the difference between your level of business and the level at which the large unions you read about in the papers operate.
If I were the management of the likes of An Post, it would have been made clear to all the unions that this B/S will no longer be tolerated. The unions would be put in their place pretty quick, as the people who hired me would have been aware as to what would happen from the start, so the unions would not be able to force my resignation.

The joys of the sole trader, that. Try that attitude in a large company and you'll have serious problems out your ears in a day or three.
Try it in a semi-state company or similar and you'll have them within hours.
I've done it in what is practically a civil service job. I have put the union in their place, as an employee. While my managers may be afraid of the union, I am not, and that wouldn't change if I were to become a manager.

And it's not possibly because of experience? You're not the only qualified professional with years of experience you know...[/]
It is my experience. When I was serving my time in practice, the amount of audit seniors who thought that they were better than the managers or partners was a joke. They conveniently forgot that the managers and partners were already qualified, and could easily do our jobs. The reason they didn't is because that's what they hired us for, but we had to do things their way.

Again, what kind of size are we talking? Are we talking about companies on the order of Eircom/An Post/ESB or are we talking more like a few dozen people?
In my full time job, there are several hundred people. In my specific section, about 200 (70ish permanent).

Yes, my error. However, from a purely pragmatic point of view, you can't ignore a union in a large business, you stand to lose too much if you do so. As a result, large unions are rarely ignored, which is an excellent thing for their members.
No, it's an excellent thing for them, and a select few members who run things. It is not excellent for all there members.

ixoy

Thanks for that example bonkey - you've got a perfect example of why I often detest the practices of unions. It's obviously perfectly reasonable - from a logical point of view - to get someone else to cut the papers. What that would appear to be is a pointless, time consuming (and possibly expensive in trying to implement it) display of power - don't tell us what to do, etc. Being a reasonable person, I despise that sort of petty power feud as it's a microscopic example of the larger problem that prompted this thread - principally a union's use of power to pig-headedly obstruct progress for others in order to assuage its members that it is in control as much as the more (to my mind) authorative force of management.

I'm very much with kaids and johnmb in this debate. I am, incidentally, in the IT sector and - contrary to what motivated the public service demand for fair wages - I am not a highly paid private sector member nor have I access to unions to back me on my demands. I think the corporate environment breeds a mindset, generally, of an "honest day's work for an honest day's pay", and an acceptance of the trends of the market. Massive corporations, particurlarly those founded in the public service, seem to have a mindset of "us against them" aggravated by unions lobbying for power. And I think that it's very hard for me, and others, to see a different point of view on some matters. I may understand the mandate of unions, but I can't morally agree with their practices.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Johnmb
I don't have to. I just have to state that it is the cause of the dismissal. It is up to the dismissed employee to prove that there were other grounds.

I'm open to correction here, but isn't this the only area of Irish law where jurisprudence works the other way: it's up the the employer to prove that the employee was fairly dismissed?

Johnmb

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm open to correction here, but isn't this the only area of Irish law where jurisprudence works the other way: it's up the the employer to prove that the employee was fairly dismissed?

Given the specific example, I fired the employee for failing to do his job. It would be up to the employee to prove that the new machine he was refusing to use was dangerous. Refusing to use it just because I didn't consult him would not be adequate.

oscarBravo

I remember a "team building" exercise once, many years ago. The object of the exercise was to improve negotiation skills.

The participants were divided into two teams, and given entirely arbitrary perspectives to argue - they had nothing personally to gain or lose in the negotiations. The union types on each team quickly gravitated to the lead negotiation positions, and quickly dragged the process into deadlock.

At each break in the negotiations, each team would regroup to discuss progress. I can remember the union lads encouraging each other with "they're on the ropes, one more push and we'll have them." I suggested, once, that a proposed compromise might moved things forward - I got a pitying look, and the deadlock continued.

Nothing was resolved. The deadlock continued until the time allotted for the exercise expired. That has always been my experience of our adversarial IR climate: no-one wins. In the unlikely event that unions and employers in this country ever figure that out, we may begin to make some progress.

ArphaRima

Unions are invaluable.
I have had my job threatened 4 times in the last 2 years. On the first count I would have been out on my ass. And 3 months later a contract worker would have taken my place. Why? They would have had to pay him a lot more. But he would have little or no leave, no pension contributions , and wouldnt rise on a pay scale. The company was making record profits, growing unprecidently, and still is. They are still vying for my job.

My union is keeping it.

Not only that but it secured 3 pay increases and managed to stave off countless managerial fishing exercises on working conditions to get us to work illegal hours.

My union has striked twice in the last 45 years.
No doubt the union is needed in society. However from appearances the likes of the an post CWU is tarring many, with its blocking tactics. (still dont know much about the bus driver dispute)

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Johnmb
Given the specific example, I fired the employee for failing to do his job. It would be up to the employee to prove that the new machine he was refusing to use was dangerous. Refusing to use it just because I didn't consult him would not be adequate.

That's fair enough. My point was, however, that if he took an unfair dismissal claim against you, the onus - in law - is on you to prove that the dismissal was fair. Again, I'm open to correction.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by fluffer
They are still vying for my job.

My union is keeping it.

Doesn't much sound like a job I'd want to keep, tbh.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
Business, don't forget, is generally amorally pragmatic rather than ideological and most unions know this and use it, as they're meant to.
And as long as big businesses are afraid to take on the unions (who only look out for themselves, not the employees), that won't change.

You see, you're just ignoring the point. It's not about fear or what you feel is right or wrong, it's about cost/benefit analysis and pragmatism.

And as I said, it sounds like the profile of a small business.
It's a profile of a business model that works. Unions should not be allowed to run roughshot over employers, or their employees.

One point has nothing to do with the other - and the latter point is correct only in the extent that it acknowleges that labour relations operate on an adversarial model. Ideally, neither side should dominate - and in fact, in practise, that's how it works. But large industrial actions like those in the news, get lots of mindshare and so lots of people have a very unbalanced view of union activities. The simple fact is that they generally don't need to go that far - management tends to negotiate long before it gets that bad.

So you'd talk to all of them individually? Now I know it's a small business. Companies like Eircom have thousands of employees - you couldn't talk to them without a representative.
It doesn't take much to gage the opinions of them without having to go through a union.

Pardon me, but you're just plain wrong there.
How exactly do you get the opinions of somewhere north of ten thousand employees scattered from kerry to donegal to manchester, who spend their days not only in offices and depots but on the road, and working in the field?

And you can't just fire them all if you want. And that is the difference between your level of business and the level at which the large unions you read about in the papers operate.
If I were the management of the likes of An Post, it would have been made clear to all the unions that this B/S will no longer be tolerated. The unions would be put in their place pretty quick, as the people who hired me would have been aware as to what would happen from the start, so the unions would not be able to force my resignation.

Which is why you would never have been hired. And had you ever gotten to the table to try that line, we'd have seen threats of industrial action in so short a time as to qualify you for an entry in the guinness book of records

I've done it in what is practically a civil service job. I have put the union in their place, as an employee. While my managers may be afraid of the union, I am not, and that wouldn't change if I were to become a manager.

When you say you "put the union in it's place", what exactly do you mean? Because frankly, I find it hard to believe that you managed to have the union back off on a negotiation by sheer arrogance and aggression and the level of ideology you're exhibiting here...

They conveniently forgot that the managers and partners were already qualified, and could easily do our jobs. The reason they didn't is because that's what they hired us for, but we had to do things their way.

That's not how it works in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, even in research fields.
Hate to tell you, bt there is no santa clause, virginia

In my full time job, there are several hundred people. In my specific section, about 200 (70ish permanent).

A medium-sized business, in other words. Have you any first or second-hand knowlege of how this works in large businesses?

No, it's an excellent thing for them, and a select few members who run things. It is not excellent for all there members.

Tell that to the average eircom employee, who now enjoys tenure, a controlling interest in the running of the company, a decent pay level, and protection from the "lets sack everyone" approach that the company is taking. Tell it to CIE workers who were looking at huge losses in earnings if the company was restructured as management had wanted. Tell it to Aer Rianta workers, who faced the same thing. Tell it to everyone who's flown with Aer Lingus for the last two years, because they'd have been flying under the care of jetlagged, overworked, fatigued pilots had their union not gone on strike over management's attempts to get around JAR regulations on the matter. And the list goes on...

Johnmb

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That's fair enough. My point was, however, that if he took an unfair dismissal claim against you, the onus - in law - is on you to prove that the dismissal was fair. Again, I'm open to correction.

No, IIRC I would just have to prove that I had fairs grounds for the dismissal (such as the employee wasn't doing his job). I wouldn't have to prove that I didn't fire him because I wanted to give the job to someone else. It would be up to the employee to show that he was doing the job, and that the real reason I fired him was because I wanted a better looking, female, assistant.

No, it's not. Which means that if the workers decide to all quit, the management has no way to stop them. Which is why negotiation with unions tends to be an excercise in amoral pragmatism.

If all the workers decided to quit, their contracts would come into force, depending on what was agreed at the point of employment. More than likely every one of those employees would be forced by law to serve out a two week period. Again depends on the contract.

Actually, they're not - soldiers are paid to obey orders, not civilians...

If i have a job, i'm paid to obey the wishes of my employers i.e. do the job i was employed for. If i don't, i'm likely to be fired. All very logical and above board. If my boss tells me to do something that falls within the role of my job, i'm obliged to do so, or my contract is likely to be in breach. If my boss tells me strip naked and run around like a chicken, then i have the right to say no.

As I've been trying to point out, negotiation with unions isn't about what you think is right or wrong. It's about what they can get for their members and they don't give a rat's behind what you lose in the process - and that's their job. It's an adversarial system, not a love-in.

And i've been trying to point out that Unions need to be restricted in what they do to achieve this. For the most part Union leaders are employees and in some cases not even directly related to the industry concerned, which means they're rank amatuers when it comes to determining what is good for the company. What they're deciding is whats good for the employees, but unfortuenly they don't realise or don't want to realise that their actions may lead to worse conditions in the future.

I'm not concerned whether its right or wrong. I'm concerned that Unions decisions badly affect other people outside their own employees.

I do, I'm a researcher in college at the moment. I've no idea what that does for your suggestion, since the facts of life in regard to unions are not of my invention...

You're a researcher at the moment. Funded by the State? And i assume that you have had jobs in the private sector, run by companies that wish to make active profits? just curious where you're drawing all this expierence abt unions, and the culture within general employment. Sorry, Large companies.

And as I've said, you wouldn't last ten minutes in a negotiation with a union in a large company like Eircom or the ESB with that approach.

True. But then I wouldn't be negotiating. My solicitor(s) would provide the facts of the case against the employees, point out where they broke their contracts, and then point out that I have a company to run, and if their other members wish to have jobs, it might be best for them to stop trying to make my business unprofitable.

You see, i have worked in large companies, EsatBT for example, and i've been in companies that have had unions. And know what? I had no interest in Union Politics. I did my job, got paid, and was happy to be receiving my wages. If i had a problem i mentioned it to my manager, and the problem was mor often than not resolved.

You keep on making this braod sweeping impression that everyone joins the unions. They don't. Within Eircom, theres many employees that don't join the Union because they don't trust their motives, and rightly so.

That works when it's his company. Don't forget, in places like eircom, employees aren't just union members - they're shareholders as well. In eircom, for example, the union members hold over 30% of the shares...

Ahh but thats different. You're taking about Shareholders, not Unions in general. But at the end of the despite the size of the companies, the only difference is that Eircom, has always had problems with its employees, whereas he doesn't. Eircom has had problems with profitability, and quality of services whereas he doesn't. Anyone see where i'm leading here?

As I said, the facts of life at this level are different than at Johnmb's level.

Not Facts merely perceptions. You see this is not set in stone. Not all unions function the way you see them or the way i see them. Just as his business has alot more similiarities with large companies like Eircom, than you do as a past employee of one.

However, the fact is - you can't ignore a large union and remain unaffected. That's just the way it is, and it's a good thing from the perspective of the workers.

Can you provide a few links to show this "fact"? I cringe whenever people use the word fact in this forum. Its an opinion. Its not set in stone.

ArphaRima

Doesn't much sound like a job I'd want to keep, tbh.

Trust me, it's worth it.

Can you provide a few links to show this "fact"? I cringe whenever people use the word fact in this forum. Its an opinion. Its not set in stone.

http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=52981

http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=strike

Fact.
No-brainer really. If most of the employees do not go to WORK. The WORK does not get done.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
You see, you're just ignoring the point. It's not about fear or what you feel is right or wrong, it's about cost/benefit analysis and pragmatism.
I'm thinking long term. It may hurt in the short term, but the unions only have to be sorted once.

Pardon me, but you're just plain wrong there.
How exactly do you get the opinions of somewhere north of ten thousand employees scattered from kerry to donegal to manchester, who spend their days not only in offices and depots but on the road, and working in the field?
By asking. If the company is that big, it will have a dedicated HR department. How do you think the unions manage? There is nothing stoping large companies from doing the same thing, and many do.

Which is why you would never have been hired. And had you ever gotten to the table to try that line, we'd have seen threats of industrial action in so short a time as to qualify you for an entry in the guinness book of records [/i]
As I would have said in the interview, it will hurt at first, but in the long run the company (including its competent employees) and customers will benefit.

When you say you "put the union in it's place", what exactly do you mean? Because frankly, I find it hard to believe that you managed to have the union back off on a negotiation by sheer arrogance and aggression and the level of ideology you're exhibiting here...
Two separate incidents. First their failed attempt to force me to join. Secondly their negotiated adjustments to working time and pay. It suited a few of the more senior members, but not the rest of the employees. But they didn't get a choice. I am still on the old hours and pay, because it suited me to stay there, and I made it clear to the union that I would take legal action against them if they made any attempt to force me to comply with their agreement. My manager has also made it clear to them that he will not get caught in the middle of our arguement. They backed down on both occassions.

That's not how it works in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, even in research fields.
Hate to tell you, bt there is no santa clause, virginia
That is how it works in most businesses. the manager is there because he/she know what needs to be done and how to do it. If the employee was truely as gifted as many seem to think they are, they would have no problem getting a job somewhere else. the reason they can't is because they are often not as gifted as they think they are. Most top managers can easily get a job elsewhere, that is because they are more gifted than many employees would like to give them credit for.

A medium-sized business, in other words. Have you any first or second-hand knowlege of how this works in large businesses?
It fails under the legal definition of a large business. If my specific section were to be taken out, then my specific section would be a medium enterprise.

Tell that to the average eircom employee, who now enjoys tenure, a controlling interest in the running of the company, a decent pay level, and protection from the "lets sack everyone" approach that the company is taking. Tell it to CIE workers who were looking at huge losses in earnings if the company was restructured as management had wanted. Tell it to Aer Rianta workers, who faced the same thing. Tell it to everyone who's flown with Aer Lingus for the last two years, because they'd have been flying under the care of jetlagged, overworked, fatigued pilots had their union not gone on strike over management's attempts to get around JAR regulations on the matter. And the list goes on...
I'll tell it to those people as soon as the government removes the monopolies and companies can compete. Then, when most of those people lose their jobs, I will tell them that it was there own fault. Where it not for the unions trying to stop every new idea, the company would have been in a much stronger position to compete when the monopoly was lost.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats not really true, though, is it.

The unions were asked to sign up to these various "growth pacts" which would cap their limits, etc. etc. etc. to do all sorts of good. Whether or not they could have held out for more might seem important, but consider the flip-side....

Job-markets which were non-unionised became an employees market. IT, in particular, had salaries that were rising at least as quickly as Dublin house-prices. It became a bidding war to see who got to hire anyone who might have been halfways decent.

In a boom-time, unions hold their employees back. Always have, always will. The reason that this is not a problem is because when the bust comes, the union will try and prevent its employees from getting shafted by salaries falling more rapidly than they rose.
Even during the last few years of recession the average CEO salary increased 6% whilst they laid of millions of employees and are sending jobs overseas.

I know you are talking about Ireland, and I can't really speak about that because I wasn't around nor have I read up on it.
I can speak about the situation in America that is an example of what happens when unions are weak,
While everyone has the right to join a union in America, it's often undermined by the company and the government doesn't really enforce that right.
It might be the reason that real wages have declined in America as opposed to CEO salaries increasing dramatically (sorry I've read this from various sources a while back, so no links).
Now the boom in the '90's did increase salaries, but not in real terms. As well we saw the lovely effects of outsourcing, in terms of lower real wages and lost benefits.
At the same time salaries for CEO's were out of this world.