Is it time to ban unions?

Sleepy

Has the union had it's day? At this stage I'm begininning to think so and that an all-out-ban on unions might be a good idea. I can't remember the last time a union did something positive. The only industrial action that ever seems to be effective is that taken by the public sector who work in monopolisitic areas where they can hold the country to ransom every time they fancy a new car. The last 2/3 strikes by the IBOA were crushed (and they're in an environment where approx. half of their workers are referred to at this stage as the "yellow-packs").

Irish unions have gotten overly militant and seem to be absolutely blind as to the laws of modern economics and business. If the only thing that can save the majority of worker's jobs is downsizing, then downsizing must take place. There is no reason to go on strike over this. It's just the way of the world. While the private sector have usually proven to be quite effective at getting rid of their union problems at thsi stage, the public sector are completely hamstrung by them. Instead of making people redundant when their jobs don't exist any more, they pay them to do nothing because to do otherwise would mean no bus service/train service/electricity supply/rubbish collection/education for our children/etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....

In my opionion we need to replace unions with a national wage bargaining body whose function is to take the workers' side in wage agreements. I can see the argument for a need for them in the private sector (though the majority of Irish workers at this stage choose not to join a union) but to argue that there's a purpose for them for the public sector seems ludicrous.

Set the payscale, agree on index-linked inflationary raises and have a round of collective bargaining every 5 years or so to re-negotiate the payscale. With this system there would be no unions to strangelhold our country every time that downsizing is required in government departments/CIE etc. and the public sector might finally be able to shed it's inefficiency and reputation for being a working holiday for those incapable of finding "real jobs" and become productive, efficient and (almost as importantly) a manageable organisation which could actually carry out the work needed to implement government policy and the running of this country.

and maybe then we could tackle the idea of getting a decent government in place.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sleepy
I can't remember the last time a union did something positive.

Are you in one?

Sleepy

Not in my current company no. I've been a member of Mandate in the past though.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sleepy
Not in my current company no. I've been a member of Mandate in the past though.

So when you were a member of Mandate, were you calling for the union to be disbanded and banned?

gom

many people do not have the intellect to act for themselfs and the union is there for those workers. IT helps them communicate with management and it helps them to get through things in work that they would not otherwise know about.
While you might feel that your union is pointless and protesting is a waste of time and businesses money then surely you have no clue what unions do most of the time.

I agree that protests are Dead. But not Unions.
If anything they have an even greater place in our globalised society informing foreign firms/management about local employment law that they would not otherwise know existed...

Unions are far from dead and voicing statements such as yours is similar to this

Socilitors should be abolished in Criminal Trials so as to avoid the trial going on for too long.

If you feel your union isn't representing you then don't join or voice your concern.
Everyone needs a representive of some sort. Employers have Accountants, Consultants, Solicitors... etc. The least an employee should have is a union rep....

Batbat

I thought you said is it time to ban onions!, and I found myself thinking hmm yes good point, I need to get to work

chewy

but i wouldn't ban them, they are needy they don't do what they're supposed to too much beauracy greedyness but they are a necessary evil....

go a give em a mighty kick up the butt, try and put some structures in aplce which would make them more efificent but why ban them?

DadaKopf

Unions haven't done anything?

And here was me thinking that after 100 years, TU workers have finally managed to secure themselves liveable wages after centuries of market exploitation.

Irish unions have gotten overly militant and seem to be absolutely blind as to the laws of modern economics and business.

Maybe they're not blind. Perhaps they consciously oppose a system that, without forms of protection, would cause workers' real incomes decline. And anyway, Irish unions militant? As militant as in France or Italy? Hardly.

But if you're talking about banning unions, they I suppose we should also ban IBEC.

RainyDay

Why ban them, unless you have something to fear? The Foxrock Ladies Knitting Club haven't done anything useful for years - should we ban them also?

If unions are as ineffective as you imply, they will die off of their own accord soon.

Twas interesting to note HP now recognising the IBOA union (following the transfer of BOI staff to HP under the outsourcing deal) - first time for HP worldwide!

Sleipnir

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Unions haven't done anything?

And here was me thinking that after 100 years, TU workers have finally managed to secure themselves liveable wages after centuries of market exploitation.


Maybe they're not blind. Perhaps they consciously oppose a system that, without forms of protection, would cause workers' real incomes decline. And anyway, Irish unions militant? As militant as in France or Italy? Hardly.

But if you're talking about banning unions, they I suppose we should also ban IBEC.

So holding the country to ransom for an 18.5% pay-rise and a one fifth ownership of a company that belongs to all the citizens of the Irish republic, not just the union menbers, is only "liveable wages"?

Really, is that all? What are they on at the moment 50c an hour?

The point is that unions make unreasonable demands and don't care about the general publics opinion of it. They don't care that it's greedy or that they're making others miserable, they just care about themselves.

Sleepy

Ban them because they impede progress. To be fair, unions once had their place in the working world. However, this was back when we were an undeveloped country, before we had labour laws, when people were working 80 hour weeks in unsafe conditions with no choice in the matter.

Replace them with a national level organisation to represent workers rights etc. I would see this organisation as being state run (hell the civil servants need something to do) with volunteers from the workforce adopting the current role of the shop stewards. Essentially, a national workers union but one with a qualified team at the top (not just the most popular workers) that could bargain with the government/industry on behalf of all workers, not just it's own particular faction.

Take a look at the Fortune Top 100 Places To Work list and see how many of them are unionised. It's a very small number. Good businessmen understand that the best way to handle workers is to treat them well. Margaret Heffernan dealt with her union problems excellently in Dunnes by negotiating a raise for staff with them, allowing them to announce "their victory" in the negotiations and then issuing her own announcement granting staff twice the raise the union had promised. Brilliant business move - it broke the union's back whilst motivating staff.

Unfortunately, not everyone's in a position to do this. Should a government try the same approach it would break the bank. Until the public sector do the same amount of work, with the same level of holidays and give up their "job for life" security they cannot expect the same level of pay as those in the private sector. However, because these people have militant unions, they try to compare a school teacher who works from 9 to 4, for less than 9 months of the year to "similarly qualified professionals" i.e. workers in the private sector, who while they too spent 4 years in college, work 10 - 11 months of the year and long past 5/6 o' clock. This simply isn't comparing like with like and despite this these unions can hold the country to ransom for over-inflated pay demands.

Hence, to my mind unions should be banned - the public sector abuses them (and to be honest are so pampered that they don't need them) whilst the private sector plain doesn't have use for them any more given that most private sector workers are no longer in unions. They've outlived their usefulness to the point where the only ones that actually do anything (outside of shop steward activities such as attending disciplinary hearings etc) are those that damage the country.

Sleepy

Originally posted by DadaKopf
And here was me thinking that after 100 years, TU workers have finally managed to secure themselves liveable wages after centuries of market exploitation.

DadaKopf, you seem to misunderstand the concept of a market. The workers of a hundred years ago were victims of class exploitation, not market exploitation. Unless you're a communist (which I'll take the liberty of doubting) surely you can agree that a free market is more efficient for both suppliers and consumers than a centrally planned system?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sleepy


In my opionion we need to replace unions with a national wage bargaining body whose function is to take the workers' side in wage agreements. I can see the argument for a need for them in the private sector (though the majority of Irish workers at this stage choose not to join a union) but to argue that there's a purpose for them for the public sector seems ludicrous.

You obviously don't realise that there is more to trade unions than pay negotiations.

My own union are currently advising two members of staff on an unfair dismissal case they are taking against the company (a case they would not be able to take without that help), and had to take the company to the Labour Court last year when they refused to pay a round of Sustaining Progress despite having the cash to pay. Then they had to return to get them to pay it immeadiately, instead of when they felt like it (as they claimed they were entitled to do under the Court's ruling). In fact, my union have not had a Labour Court ruling against them in my time with the company (since the start of 1999), and we always deal with the company through state-established industrial relations channlels.

They do far more which I choose not to detail here.

Oh, and its a commercial semi-state I work for. Ludicrous me ar*e!

Sleepy

commercial semi-state

And the oxymoron of the day goes to!

If you'd go into more detail on which farcical "company" (nothing personal, just the estimation I hold for every public sector "business") you work for and the full details of the situation, I'd be very surprised if you could prove to me that the pay raise they were fighting for was a) deserved b) not achieved over the barrell of the gun of unjustified industrial action.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sleepy
I'd be very surprised if you could prove to me that the pay raise they were fighting for was a) deserved b) not achieved over the barrell of the gun of unjustified industrial action.

I don't need to prove anything you moron. It was part of the Sustaining Progress national pay agreement (you know, the sort of thing you're championing here), which you would know if you read my previous post in its entirity.

D-Generate

I understand the need for unions for the private sector of the finance world, however the unions for those working for state-run bodies have a tendancy to be greedy and inconsiderate to the rest of the country. The unions can ask for pay rises safely from the government because they know that in the vast amount of cases the government will fold in order to keep the country running smoothly. CIE workers, looking at you right now...

At least the government held out during the teachers strike. Worst strike ever run. If you are looking for public support don't involve children in your fight dumbasses.

bobbyjoe

Don't think we should ban unions.

Anyway we'd need a referendum to ban unions as being in one is a right in the constitution.

Article 40.6.1 subsection (iii) protects the right of citizens to form associations and unions.

Unions do a lot more than just look for pay rises, they protect employees from unfair dismissal, create equality, stop bullying, health and safety issues, got holidays/sickleave/overtime etc, training + loads of other stuff

How can teachers strike without effecting students?

AngelofFire

I have never come across a more dubious suggestion in this forum before. unions are there to stand up for workers.Employers and business groups cannot be trusted to voluntarily respect the rights of workers.for example the collective wealth of the top 10 business employers increased last year by 30% well beyond that of the minimum wage,these are the same people who are complaining about excessive labour costs.(so much for unions calling for "over inflated pay demands") the minimum wage in this country is high but it does not cover the cost of living in ireland.One who is earning the minimum wage must work a 40 hour week to earn a meagre €280 we all know that in the context of a 21st century ireland that that is not a lot, especially when you consider the cost of rent,mortgage,stealth taxes etc.If we ban unions and take a "laissez faire" attitude towards business and the economy, the gap between the rich and the PAYE sector will open up even further.

D-Generate

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
How can teachers strike without effecting students?

I just think it was a horribley thought out decision. If you are going to go on strike you will want the support of the people, especially if you are going to go up against the government because remember what the people want the people should get. However they messed it up by involving children in their dispute. Parents got mad that a) kids were being used as political blackmail and b) kids were getting time off school and parents had to organise supervision themselves. One of the schools functions is basically to care for teh children while their parents work. Maybe if they had just done the no supervision during lunchtime rather than giving the pupils the day off they might of fared better.

arcadegame2004

In spite of my vehement criticisms of the trade-unions, even I am not calling for them to be banned. I accept the need for trade-unions to exist in order to represent the concerns of their members to management.

However, I do believe that we need to consider introducing greater restrictions over the right to strike - a right that I feel is being abused. National-pay agreements should be made legally binding, with strikes that contravene their terms e.g. striking to achieve a pay demand significantly higher than that allowed for in the NPD, being illegal.

The ASTI strike action in support of a madcap 30% pay claim, as well as the claim for and 18% wage-hike by ESB officers, are clear examples and strikes of that kind should be illegal, with the trade-union involved being fined for such breaches.

bobbyjoe

D-Generate: Maybe if they had just done the no supervision during lunchtime rather than giving the pupils the day off they might of fared better

Think thats what they did do, the school management closed the schools for health and safety reasons due to there being no supervision.

Anyway the OP is about banning Unions which I would be against, or even restricting them or making strikes illegal (except the cops or army).

In the US didn't the employers just hire the local mafia guys to break strikes by kicking the crap out of the strikers. Hoffa springs to mind great movie.

Also I don't think that every individual can be an expert in labour law or have to negotiate their own pay, better to come together and do it as a union.

Sleepy

Unions are nothing more than small self-interest groups. With the freedom of information these days, there's no excuse for someone not to know their own rights and to be fair to them (even though I can't stand the bastards) the government have gone a long way towards improving the general publics knowledge of their rights with regard to employment/consumerism etc.

Banning industrial action would probably be a better solution than my own of banning unions. However, what power has a union without the threat? Irish unions are just greedy and (imho) a large force behind the massive inflation in this country. With unions demanding chunks of the publics assets, insane wage increases etc. how can we consider them anything other than greedy?

Arcadegames suggestion that any union stepping out of line with national wage agreements is imho an extremely good one. In fact I'd go one further: any union trying to break from the agreements should lose the raise/benefits they negotiated in that round of bargaining. Yes, this would make the negotiations more toughly fought but at least once bargaining concluded, there would be certainty as to the cost of labour which would allow business and the state to plan and budget effectively for the next X years.

Earthhorse

You're right Sleepy there aren't many places on the Forutune 500 best places to work that are unionised but they didn't become that way because of a lack of a union. Most of those places are simply benevolent employers, which is great, but unions are mostly needed where the employer is not benevolent.

A few years ago the UCD canteen staff went on strike, if I remember because women weren't being paid the same as men or else it was simply because of poor wages. It's all very well saying people can be aware of their rights in this age of information but one person kicking up a fuss doesn't do anything. Unions help people exercise their rights.

If you want to ban anyone for impeding progress, ban management!

jackofalltrades

Irish unions are just greedy and (imho) a large force behind the massive inflation in this country

Unions are so greedy that there they looking out for the needs of the marginalised in our society through looking for better social equality in the Program for Prosperity and Fairness.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Earthhorse
If you want to ban anyone for impeding progress, ban management!

Amen to that!

Before you ban unions, ban ridiculus golden handshakes for leaving CEOs, ban bonuses for managment in loss making companies, ban massive downsizing in very profitiable companies, ban inept customer support, ban monopolising mergers etc etc

There is a lot wrong with business that I would ban long long before I go near the unions.

arcadegame2004

Trade-unions constnatly bring up the issue of inflation in wage-negotiations to support demands for how much their pay-rises should be, i.e. wanting to keep the 'real value' of their money.

It seems ironic then that they contribute to inflation by trying to obstruct competition in the electricity, airport and other sectors. By protecting their beloved monopolies, they ensure that prices would be much higher than otherwise would be the case. Isn't ESB planning a 14% hike in charges per unit?

cdebru

It seems ironic then that they contribute to inflation by trying to obstruct competition in the electricity, airport and other sectors. By protecting their beloved monopolies, they ensure that prices would be much higher than otherwise would be the case. Isn't ESB planning a 14% hike in charges per unit?

arcadegame you really show your ignorance here


just to point out a few things
there had not been any esb price increases for years
then they introduce competition and we have about 4 or 5 in the last 3 yrs

the eu rules are that the goverment cannot force the esb to sell on electricity at below the cost to produce it to competitors
so they forced up the price to the consumer ie me and you so that their can be a margin for the private companys when the market is opened up to the private sector

this also happened in the telecoms sector
does nobody remember the flat rate local call
done away with just before the market was opened

what they do is put up the prices before letting in hte private sector
then they come in reduce the price abit and tell us how great competition is

same will happen once aer rianta is split up airport charges will go up
to support 3 companys and board of directors
then they will privatise reduce the cost slighty and tell us about the benefits of the private market


public transport there had not been a fare increase for ten years now they are planning on opening up the market
3 or 4 increases in the last couple of years
this is just to make the business more attractive to the private sector

people like you sicken me at the end of the day the only power any worker really has is the right to withdraw their labour
you only have to look at the disgraceful treatment of those workers who
in the past could or historically did not exercise this right

nurses gardai soldiers junior doctors
the goverment and employers took advantage of these people

someone else who stated that the majority of irish people choose not to join a union
is nonesense
the majority of irish dont have the chance to join a union
i have worked in the past for companies that did not allow unions
i am lucky enough now to work in a company that is unionised
and i know which i prefer
and i know where i feel more protected

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004


The ASTI strike action in support of a madcap 30% pay claim, as well as the claim for and 18% wage-hike by ESB officers, are clear examples and strikes of that kind should be illegal, with the trade-union involved being fined for such breaches.

so you believe that company directors and politicians who demand/give themselves similar pay increases(as they have done) should be fined also.

Victor

How about we ban political parties also?

AngelofFire

Originally posted by Sleepy
Unions are nothing more than small self-interest groups.

As opposed to big business who are not also small self interest groups?

arcadegame2004

AngelofFire, if you can point out to me which part of the Program for Prosperity and Fairness allowed teachers a pay-rise of 30% I'd be grateful.

cdebru, you are just about protecting the remaining bastions of union-domination, i.e. semi-state monopolies.

Tell me the incentive that state-owned monopolies have to lower prices and improve their quality of service?

A private-sector company can only survive by providing goods and services at a price the consumer is willing to pay. When Bank of Scotland entered the mortgage market they offer mortgages at a lower rate than any of the other banks.

It is more democratic to allow the people the right to choose.

same will happen once aer rianta is split up airport charges will go up

No they will have to compete against each each other to attract airlines. They can do that on the basis of charging less than their competitors.

All monopolies other than in the rail-sector are WRONG.

cdebru

airlines will go where the people are
shannon can not compete with dublin
because nobody will drive from dublin to shannon to catch a flight because it is cheaper
and chances are that shannon will not be able to stay open on its own
and we are saddling dublin airport with a massive debt which they will have to finance by raising charges another hair brain scheme brought to us by seamus brennan and his pd friends
talk sense
why is a monoply ok in the rail sector
because you cant defend the mess that britain made of its rail
well guess what they also made a mess of their bus market
california made a mess of deregulating its electricity market
and our goverment has lost any control it had over a vital piece of our infrastructure
by selling our telecommunications network to private companies
some things are public services and profit should not be a consideration

Raskolnikov

Workers should be offered a pay increase inline with inflation, and/or according to the current market demands for the particular position. If they decide not to accept then maybe they should consider finding a job that can meet their wage demands.

Originally posted by DadaKopf

And anyway, Irish unions militant? As militant as in France or Italy? Hardly.

The strength of the union movement and the inflexibility of working conditions in countries such as the ones you mentioned above are one of the primary reasons for the stagnation of those European economies. If the demands of the union workers are met then it'll mean either an increased tax burden (public owned companies), price increases or unemployment.

As for the ESB workers, it seems to me that they're making a ridiculous claim just so when they get to the bargaining table they'll settle on a portion of what they originally demanded in the hope of appearing reasonable.

billy the squid

I know of one particular large employer in my locality that will not allow unionisation whatsoever. What I would like to know is it legal for companies to forbid union members from working for them.

cdebru

you have a right to join a union as we live in a free country
however this right is not protected in law
so if you lose your job because you joined a union your employer would not have broken the law
your only redress would be an unfair dismissal case
or a rights comissioner
but as far as i know that is not binding on employers
so basically they have you over a barrel
which is why most irish people dont chose not to join a union they are afraid to join

arcadegame2004

Well BillytheSquid, it is sometimes the case that US companies in Ireland offer high salaries in return for such bans. Seems reasonable to me.

cdebru

Well BillytheSquid, it is sometimes the case that US companies in Ireland offer high salaries in return for such bans. Seems reasonable to me

but then your not a very reasonable person

Earthhorse

Employers constnatly bring up the issue of inflation when making price increases i.e. rising wages force them to increase prices to protect the "real" value of their margins.

It seems ironic then that they contribute to inflation by raising prices and thus, the cost of living for employees. By protecting their beloved margins, they ensure that prices would be much higher than otherwise would be the case.

cdebru

inflation is just a fact of life
prices go up wages go up

Raskolnikov

<snip>

Wrong thread.

bobbyjoe

It is more democratic to allow the people the right to choose.

And Unions are fairly democratic organisations aren't the leaders voted in by the membership. Members have a vote wether to strike or not. If more than half of the members vote to strike does that not mean that there is something seriously wrong?

MogwaiFearSatan

"Has the union had it's day? At this stage I'm begininning to think so and that an all-out-ban on unions might be a good idea. I can't remember the last time a union did something positive. "


This is singularly the most stupid, ill-informed statement I’ve read on these boards. if you don't feel that the unions of this county haven't contributed to your current standard of living then I would suggest that you ....

cdebru

This is singularly the most stupid, ill-informed statement I’ve read on these boards. if you don't feel that the unions of this county haven't contributed to your current standard of living then I would suggest that you ....

you hit the nail on the head
it s one of those that you dont want dignify with a response but should not go unchallenged at the same time

The Corinthian

The role of unions is as a counterbalance to management, or more correctly the owners. For example, HR departments represent the best interest of the company, not it’s employees. Principally, HR managers are largely there to facilitate the hiring and firing of employees in an economical and legal manner. Thus without proper representation employees end up being represented by HR managers who will not inform them of anything other than the bare minimum necessary to cover the company legally. This is where unions can and often are very effective, in that they can represent the employee.

The problem with unions however is that many are now bloated and outdated organisations, representing little more than the egos of the union apparatchiks. However, banning worker representation would not be the answer, union reform and modernisation would.

Originally posted by Wicknight
Before you ban unions, ban ridiculus golden handshakes for leaving CEOs, ban bonuses for managment in loss making companies, ban massive downsizing in very profitiable companies, ban inept customer support, ban monopolising mergers etc etc

These are companies, not charities. CEOs often get ridiculous golden handshakes when leaving, because they founded the company at great personal financial risk and hard (and initially unpaid) work. Downsizing very profitable companies will often make them even more profitable. Not all that occurs in Capitalism is simply motivated by greed, and frankly even if it was, so what? Do you think they’re doing it out of a sense of sharing?

Paladin

Of course unions impede justified dismissal of incompetant staff.

Almost everyone has had that teacher or lecturer that is so ridiculuously incompetant that he/she significantly retards a students education in that area. They really cant be fired unless they do something illegal. Being terrible at the job is not reason enough.

This extends beyond education and the public sector. Everyone knows of incompetance in jobs, but unless you are temp staff at something like Tesco its difficult to dismiss someone. A fantastic employee can be fired before an incompetant one if they were hired after the incompetant one and the company has to lay off workers (Last in first out policy is used in most companies).

Unions have their good and their bad points I guess

lucernarian

Banning Trade Unions remins me of Fascism, or more correctly, Totalitarianism.

You cant expect Unions to examine the competence of staff but someone should do that.

Cork

What is laughable is when public service unions think workers deserve a stake in the company.

Why does the same not apply for private sector companys?

Do they see the state as a soft torch.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork

Why does the same not apply for private sector companys?

Don't Ryanair have an employee share ownership scheme?

And isn't it Google have something similar?

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
What is laughable is when public service unions think workers deserve a stake in the company.

Why does the same not apply for private sector companys?

It often does. The most progressive private sector companies often provide workers with a stake in the company via stock awards, stock options or discounted stock purchase schemes.

Originally posted by Cork
Do they see the state as a soft torch.

Never heard of a 'soft torch'. Do you mean one of the rubber ones that the Gardai carry?

Cork

Originally posted by RainyDay
It often does. The most progressive private sector companies often provide workers with a stake in the company via stock awards, stock options or discounted stock purchase schemes.

What have the public sctor workers done to deserve a stake in their company?

Why should the state be expected to hand over up to 15% of a company to the workers?

These workers have already been paid for their labour.

There is a company in te news at the minute - where the union is highlighting the shortfall in the pension fund.

Who does this union expect to pick up the tab?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork


There is a company in te news at the minute - where the union is highlighting the shortfall in the pension fund.

Who does this union expect to pick up the tab?

Enlighten us Cork. Tell us who they expect to pick up the tab. While you're at it, tell us who is responsible for the deficit, and who holds responsibility for the pension fund under the rules drawn up by the trustees of the fund. Inform us of how the ESB pension fund is administered.

Can't do that? Thought so.