Irish Ferries

D'Peoples Voice

Does anyone know the facts around this Irish Ferries crisis?
I'm not talking about Irish Ferries making staff redundant because the staff refused to re-negotiate for lower wages, so that Irish Ferries could compete with low cost airlines!
I'm talking about the weekend hassle in Walse.
We have the reports of the 4 SIPTU representatives claiming that they took over the control room because they saw armed people boarding the ship. They claim this is the routine since the terrorist attacks of Septmeber 11th 2001. They claim they will not leave the ship, for fear of it falling into the hands of armed individuals, when it's not their boat, it's their employers, why should the 4 workers care what happens it?

If this is true, then surely when Irish Ferries said that the "armed individuals" were not terrorists but members of a security firm that they hired, then the 4 SIPTU workers should say, RIght we make a mistake, and come out!

Why do I get the feeling that this initial report was complete Sh1t! and the SIPTU workers never thought these people were terrorists, but that if the new crew took over the running of the ship, then SIPTU would not be able to blackmail Irish Ferries!
Anyone else get that feeling about these scumbags! How come when there was a plane containting terrorists that landed in Standstead in the late nineties, the British had a crack anti-terrorist team to take over the plane. Why can't the British send in the same team against these 4 people who refuse to hand over a ship that does not belong to them?

Victor

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/11/26/story232163.html

Irish Ferries denies tear gas report
26/11/2005 - 10:29:12

Irish Ferries have denied a report published in today's Irish Independent that the company sanctioned the use of tear gas by security personnel on board its vessels Isle of Inishmore and Ulysses.

The company also denies reports that security personnel on board were equipped with weapons.

Irish Ferries have cancelled all weekend crossings due to industrial action as the tense stand off between the company and workers shows no signs of abating.

SIPTU members remain in control of two of the company's vessels which have been prevented from setting to sea now for two days.

The action came to a head on Thursday when overseas' workers and security staff were deployed on board the Isle of Inismore and Ulysses ferries.

The worker’s union is now threatening to mount blockades of ports unless the security personnel and agency crews are removed.

I would however note:

http://faqs.irishferries.com/faq/if/1244.asp

Conditions of Carriage

Irish Ferries Ltd. (hereafter called the carrier) Incorporated in Ireland, Registered Office: Alexandra Road, Dublin 1.
The attention of passengers and goodsowners is drawn to the restriction of their rights and the limitations of the carrier's liability by the carrier's conditions of travel, which also cover periods preceding and following the period of carriage on the vessel.


The following items are classified as dangerous and may not be transported for reasons of safety and security.

....

Tear gas, mace or CS gas devices.

...

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73194
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=73156
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1892869,00.html
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=163907078&p=y639x7784
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1514484&issue_id=13332 (subscription)

Villain

The Tear gas story stems from a phone conversation an Indo jouranalist had with an Irish Ferries employee who stated that the idea of using of Tear Gas in previous disputes was thought about. There was reports that the security personnel had weapons but Irish Ferries denied this.

shltter

The workers are well aware of who the people on board are now
The point is that not even the captain was informed that they were coming aboard
For all the staff knew they could have been terrorists

The staff are now demanding that the Security people are removed from the ship and the replacement crew that are there to take the jobs of the current workers.
It is an industrial dispute and I hardly think sending in the anti terrorist unit is needed to end an industrial dispute
BTW are you in Human Resources in Irish Ferries by any chance

D'Peoples Voice

shltter wrote:

The workers are well aware of who the people on board are now
The point is that not even the captain was informed that they were coming aboard
For all the staff knew they could have been terrorists

BTW are you in Human Resources in Irish Ferries by any chance

I was waiting for someone to accuse me of being in HR in Irish Ferries or something similar. I'm not, but I don't buy that sh1t at all.
Forget the immigrant workers willing to work for pittance at the expense of Irish people on the ship. That's irrelevant and for another thread!

I'm just concerning myself with the action in Wales. You say "For all the staff knew they could have been terrorists ". What I would love to know is whether anyone here in Ireland seriously believed this? This was a story fed to the media, and we bought it! Were people thinking that Al Qaueda were going to use the ship to ram into Dublin Port? I mean seriously, I find it incredulous to believe that these people thought that's who these strangers were. Are we to believe that thinking these people were Al Qaueda, some of the workers thought lets lock the control room and save the ship of our employers (who don't give a toss about us). If they had a cook like Steven Seagal, they'd be sorted:D
I'm a cynic, and I believe shltter that when you say "The workers are well aware of who the people on board are now", you are mistaken. I believe these people knew immediately who the strangers were. That's why I call them scumbags. They lied, lied and lied to the Irish people. Why is it when it was abundantly clear who this people were, these workers didn't come out! That's bloody suspicious! The fact is, they used such allegations of terrrorism to get the media spotlight on them.
Perhaps I'm biased here, but many of us have had to bite this bitter bullet of redundancy, yet few of us sought to deceive the people of Ireland in this way!

Borzoi

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Perhaps I'm biased here, but many of us have had to bite this bitter bullet of redundancy, yet few of us sought to deceive the people of Ireland in this way!

Perhaps you are. From listening to an early interview with the engineers, they reacted to a percieved threat. Obviously it was sorted out who the threat was in reality very shortly, but the engineers had a sit in position, so why move? I don't think that anybody was 'deceived' here, you clearly weren't. Neither side in this ugly dispute have behaved very well but it's been a long time since company stooges were used as part of an industrial dispute.

D'Peoples Voice

Borzoi wrote:

From listening to an early interview with the engineers, they reacted to a percieved threat.

But do you honestly believe them when they say this? They said Terrorist threat.This is my bone of contention!
The last time I travelled by sea was in the early nineties, and we had to go through security. Therefore if the engineers thought these people were carrying weapons, it says a lot for their respect of the security procedures at Dublin Port & elsewhere.
You see I believe that at no stage did the engineeers ever believe these people were terrorists. That was all spin!
I just want to see is there anyone else out there who believes that the engineers knew very quickly who these men were, and that the engineers did the best to make sure the ship could not be sailed and their jobs replaced!
The whole terrorist thing is heap of sh1t!

HelterSkelter

Maybe you are right and the whole terrorist thing is a heap of shít, but so what. This is as much a propaganda war as anything else and you can be sure the management are telling as many porkies which I don't see you knit picking about.

D'Peoples Voice

HelterSkelter wrote:

Maybe you are right and the whole terrorist thing is a heap of shít, but so what.

Because the media would have us think different. The media are putting these SIPTU workers up as heroes like those of Connolly, Pearse & Michael Collins etc. We're led to believe that when these men saw what looked like terrorists, they could have taken the easy option and left the ship, but instead they risked their own lives, and risked never seeing their family members again, by running to the control room so that this ship could not use be used as a terrorist vehicle. They knew that the terrorists would not think twice about killing them, but these men were thinking of all those people back home who could be killed by these terrorists. These men put thier lives on the line for us!

HelterSkelter wrote:

This is as much a propaganda war as anything else and you can be sure the management are telling as many porkies which I don't see you knit picking about.

No-one really has any respect for management over their so-called wage offer to existing staff, but at least they didn't resort to telling lies to the people of Ireland like the Union workers!

shltter

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Because the media would have us think different. The media are putting these SIPTU workers up as heroes like those of Connolly, Pearse & Michael Collins etc. We're led to believe that when these men saw what looked like terrorists, they could have taken the easy option and left the ship, but instead they risked their own lives, and risked never seeing their family members again, by running to the control room so that this ship could not use be used as a terrorist vehicle. They knew that the terrorists would not think twice about killing them, but these men were thinking of all those people back home who could be killed by these terrorists. These men put thier lives on the line for us!

I have not heard anyone compare them to collins or anyone else

They percieved a possible threat and they followed company procedure and locked themselves in the control room where they are safe and secure and in control of the ship.

I think you are getting carried away on the whole terrorist angle I listened to one of the men who is in the control room on the radio the other day and all he said was that they had not been informed that these people were coming aboard and for all they knew they could have been terrorists

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

No-one really has any respect for management over their so-called wage offer to existing staff, but at least they didn't resort to telling lies to the people of Ireland like the Union workers!

Perhaps you should listen more closely to what the management have said because I have heard them saying various things that are lies
eg
That all the other operators on the Irish Sea have already outsourced and that IF is only catching up. That is a blatant lie

The company is in Dire straits and they have to do this to survive that is a lie they made 10 million euro last year

That the money they are offering the outsourced workers is an agreed union rate that is a lie

Seth Brundle

* Nobody is being made redundant. They are being displaced by cheaper labour. Redundancy suggests that the position will no longer be there which isn't the case.
* Irish Ferries need to reduce costs or they will be gone within 2 years.
* Apparently 90% of staff accepted the severance package voluntarily as they believe that they will easily find alternative work.
* Our Socialist Taoiseach's government decided last year to oppose an EU plan on this kind of thing. This is despite Bertie claiming that he did everything he could to prevent the Irish Ferries situation.
* An Irish Ferries worker on board one of the ships was on the radio the other day. He claimed that there were no weapons etc. and that they were fine and that it was business as usual.
* Irish Ferries have done absolutely nothing illegal. They are just being morally wrong but this is business. I would like to know what the potential foreign workers think of their new jobs and the payment for it.

Why did SIPTU not raise the same level of fuss a year ago when the Rosslare-France staff were displaced?
In saying this, I was on the Irish Ferries MV Normandy when it was stopped in Roscoff last June. The staff (Irish & foreign) were very good (polite, helpful, etc.) but I am deeply unsatisfied with the lack of communication from Irish Ferries on the matter either before or after the event. Due to this I will not use their services again.
I can also avail of a free ticket to travel to the UK on an Irish Ferries ship (which incidentally they are reluctant to give info about). I got this because I sailed to France during the summer with them. I will not be using it!

parsi

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

But do you honestly believe them when they say this? They said Terrorist threat.This is my bone of contention!
The last time I travelled by sea was in the early nineties, and we had to go through security. Therefore if the engineers thought these people were carrying weapons, it says a lot for their respect of the security procedures at Dublin Port & elsewhere.
You see I believe that at no stage did the engineeers ever believe these people were terrorists. That was all spin!
I just want to see is there anyone else out there who believes that the engineers knew very quickly who these men were, and that the engineers did the best to make sure the ship could not be sailed and their jobs replaced!
The whole terrorist thing is heap of sh1t!

It might be but its not beyond the bounds of possibility :

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/20/spain.ferrybomb/

These days terrorism or the fear of it is used by Governments to mould what we do - no harm someone else using the same excuse...

CiaranC

We're led to believe that when these men saw what looked like terrorists, they could have taken the easy option and left the ship, but instead they risked their own lives, and risked never seeing their family members again, by running to the control room so that this ship could not use be used as a terrorist vehicle. They knew that the terrorists would not think twice about killing them, but these men were thinking of all those people back home who could be killed by these terrorists. These men put thier lives on the line for us!

When you are finished being all clever, perhaps you should go read up on how a ship works. The captain and his officers are the legal entity in charge of the vessel, and are duty bound to protect it. An unannounced 'security force' arriving on the ship falls well within the bounds of a potential threat.

Victor

kbannon wrote:

* Nobody is being made redundant. They are being displaced by cheaper labour. Redundancy suggests that the position will no longer be there which isn't the case.

....

* Irish Ferries have done absolutely nothing illegal. They are just being morally wrong but this is business. I would like to know what the potential foreign workers think of their new jobs and the payment for it.

I thought it was illegal to make people redundant, only to hire different people to do the same job.

Why did SIPTU not raise the same level of fuss a year ago when the Rosslare-France staff were displaced?

Because the change was done by agreement, which doesn't expire until 2006/7

secret_squirrel

kbannon wrote:

* Irish Ferries need to reduce costs or they will be gone within 2 years.

Says them :rolleyes: They already get a massive tax break from the Irish Govt that was pretty much specifically set up for them. It droppped their tax liability (from memory) from something like 60m to 6m. I hardly think employing a few irish staff is too much to ask.
This all seems part of their insane attempt to compete with low cost airlines.

* Apparently 90% of staff accepted the severance package voluntarily as they believe that they will easily find alternative work.

Err Says IF mgt. If somebody said to you take redudancy or a 50% paycut - which would you take? I would note that IF mgt also ignored a proposal from the LRC aimed at mediating this issue.

They are just being morally wrong

So isnt what the siptu staff did a valid protest against that?

Im no socialist but this seems like capitalism gone insane to me.

Victor wrote:

thought it was illegal to make people redundant, only to hire different people to do the same job.

It is but there are a couple of loopholes that can be exploited, using contract staff. But apparently they are still on fairly dodgy legal grounds which is why they are trying to force all their staff to take the lump and go.

Personally I wont be using irish ferries again. They have gone too far. Their boss makes Michael O'Leary look like a communist.

gjim

Could someone explain who the injured party is here? From my understanding, 90% of the workers happily accepted the generous severence offer. The remainder get to work on under their current conditions. The eastern Europeans anxious to try to get a leg up in the world will have an opportunity to earn many multiples of what they'd get on their own ships.

If you're of a particular ideology, then of course you'll perceive that either the behaviour of SIPTU or that of the management is completely reprehensible. If you're in the media or a politician then you'll want to wade in shouting an opinion to attempt to interest the public in a non-story. If you're gullible (or ideologically inclined) then you'll join in with gusto.

But really WTF is the big deal here? The shrill indignation and sanctimonious claptrap is a load of hot air over absolutely FA. Every other part of our economy is subject to global competition and shipping is no different.

shltter

gjim wrote:

Could someone explain who the injured party is here? From my understanding, 90% of the workers happily accepted the generous severence offer. The remainder get to work on under their current conditions. The eastern Europeans anxious to try to get a leg up in the world will have an opportunity to earn many multiples of what they'd get on their own ships.

If you're of a particular ideology, then of course you'll perceive that either the behaviour of SIPTU or that of the management is completely reprehensible. If you're in the media or a politician then you'll want to wade in shouting an opinion to attempt to interest the public in a non-story. If you're gullible (or ideologically inclined) then you'll join in with gusto.

But really WTF is the big deal here? The shrill indignation and sanctimonious claptrap is a load of hot air over absolutely FA. Every other part of our economy is subject to global competition and shipping is no different.

90% of staff did not accept the offer

And happily accepted it how do you know how they felt about it as the option they were given is accept this redundancy offer or stay and have your pay cut by upto 50% and have no holidays

And you are wrong as I have already stated people who want to remain on with the company are being offered vastly worse pay and terms and conditions.

The workers being brought in will be housed on the ship for months on end with none of the protections available to Irish workers

This is wrong for many reasons including the fact that it plays into the hands of racists and the anti immigration platform types.
If Irish ferries get away with this then other companies in Ireland will undoubtedly be tempted to follow suit.
A policy of bringing in cheap foreign labour will result immigrant ghettoes were these people will be forced to live as they could not afford to live anywhere else as they would be earning minimum wage or in the IF case less than minimum wage.
Using immigrants as a source of cheap labour to exploit will lead to nothing but trouble in the long term as what you woould be creating is an exploited underclass who will eventually lash back as we have seen in France in the last few weeks.



If we are bringing immigrants into this country we should treat them with dignity and repect that any human being deserves and pay them and give them the same rights and entitlements that Irish workers get.

If you are concerned about giving these people a leg up well give them a proper leg up and pay them the going rate and give them the entitlements that we all expect.

Mailman

"could someone please explain who the injured party is"

Answer: The taxpayer - you and me.

The management have given the emplyees a fairly good deal and made their lives miserable to ensure that they'll take it but they aren't paying the redundancies entirely themselves.

Every employee made "redundant" will have to sign a form stating that they are redundant. This form will be sent to the Dept. of Enterprise trade and employment and Irish Ferries will claim millions back in statuatory redundancy payments.
The taxpayer is paying part of these redundancies which aren't even real redundancies.
Irish ferries are using a system designed to protect Irish workers, paid for by the public, to reduce their cost base.
Redundancy payments are there to protect workers not bankroll greedy companies who want to put Irish workers on the dole.

Mailman

I'm pissed off with the Media, Politicians and the Unions haven't explained this point to the Public.
the public don't understand how redundancies work so they fall for the spin that Irish ferries throws out.

Hotblack Desiato

It's not a redundancy situation if you're employing replacement workers for the ones you're sacking.
This also means that lump sums received by the employees will be taxable... one of the bones of contention of those willing (under severe duress) to accept the offer.

This flag of convenience thing is a total crock. If you're operating an airline between Ireland and Britain you can't register under the flag of, say, the Bahamas and pay the crew half nothing, so why should shipping companies be allowed to do so?

TempestSabre

The worring part of all of this is that is a trend that if it succeeds can sweep through lots of sectors. Replacing Irish workers with cheap contract rates that do not fall under Irish law. I know a balance has to be found or you end up like germany. But we're a long way from that.

John R

The Irish and EU governments also are at fault, the standard employment regulations in place across the EU are not applicable to shipping because the major shipping companies have worked very hard to keep that loophole open.

The employment of very cheap labour mainly from Asia for low-grade positions is standard practice in deep-sea shipping, over the last decade it has spread to the officer classes with a large influx of (semi) qualified officers from India willing to work for fractions of salaries paid to Europeans.

The EU has covered shipping with other areas of law that benefits them, no duty free sales are allowed on ships that travel between two EU countries and workers are certainly not tax-exempt, even when the majority of their time in work is spent in international waters.

gjim

90% of staff did not accept the offer

What percentage accepted the offer? Every media source has given this figure. If you've a reference to some other figure, then please enlighten us instead of just dismissing this widely quoted figure without any qualification.

And happily accepted it how do you know how they felt about it as the option they were given is accept this redundancy offer or stay and have your pay cut by upto 50% and have no holidays

Without know what exactly the change in terms and conditions were, I call bull on your claim that the staff choosing to remain were to be subjected to a 50% pay cut and would have to work every single day of the year without a single days holiday. This is a prime example of the hysterical claims and hot air that surround this issue.

This is wrong for many reasons including the fact that it plays into the hands of racists and the anti immigration platform types.

Jeezus that's pretty twisted logic; we should fight against our eastern European neighbours getting a leg up because it'll rile up the racists and anti-immigration types?

Answer: The taxpayer - you and me.

All redundency payments are tax deductable no matter what. This is a matter for interpretation by revenue not some tax break offered by the government. A redundency payment is judged - entirely reasonably - as an expense for a company. That like saying that "the tax payer is paying for the electricity bill of company X".

This flag of convenience thing is a total crock. If you're operating an airline between Ireland and Britain you can't register under the flag of, say, the Bahamas and pay the crew half nothing, so why should shipping companies be allowed to do so?

More hot air. Are you claiming that workers for Air Baltic, for example, are subject to Irish statutatory entitlements and labour regulations just because the airline lands in Dublin?

The worring part of all of this is that is a trend that if it succeeds can sweep through lots of sectors.

This is a frequent claim but one I don't accept. We have the legislation and mechanisms which guarantee all Irish employees certain rights and the fact that one shipping company serving Dublin port pays less than Irish minimum wage doesn't change this.

I'd imagine that many of the foreign ships going in and out of the port are manned by workers earning far less than Irish minimum wage and with far less statutory protection. How come there's no screaming about this? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that SIPTU don't feel threatened by losing members in a strategic industry? If it's purely out of concern for the conditions of workers in general, then surely they'd have been blocking these ships years ago.

The hypocracy of the management is pretty obvious. That of SIPTU is a little more subtle but clear enough if you look at their response to the situation with a bit of perspective.

Sorry lads, not convinced. It still sounds like shallow indignation over nothing to me.

Mailman

Gjim with regard to redundancy payments you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Redundancy payments are not tax deductible. Statuatory Redundancy payments are paid by the employer and re-imbursed in part by the Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Totally different - it isn't a business expense. It's a rebate to the employer for making a payment on behalf of the government to the former employee.

http://www.entemp.ie/employment/redundancy/guidelines.htm.

Retire from the debate until you are better informed.

MrPudding

Mailman wrote:

Gjim with regard to redundancy payments you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Redundancy payments are not tax deductible. Statuatory Redundancy payments are paid by the employer and re-imbursed in part by the Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Totally different - it isn't a business expense. It's a rebate to the employer for making a payment on behalf of the government to the former employee.

http://www.entemp.ie/employment/redundancy/guidelines.htm.

Retire from the debate until you are better informed.

The question is, are they being made redundant or are they being bought out?

http://www.entemp.ie/employment/redundancy/guide.htm

etemp.ie wrote:

A redundancy situation arises where an employee's job ceases to exist, and the employee is not replaced for such reasons as rationalisation/reorganisation, not enough work available, the financial state of the firm, company closures etc.

This is clearly not the case for the Irish Ferries workers. I think under these terms the employee's payment may well be taxable. Also I would assume that Irish Ferries will not be entitled to a rebate from the government.

That is my reading of it anyway. But I have been wrong before.

MrP

Mailman

Exactly.

irish Ferries are forcing their employees to collude with them and sign a form stating they have been made redundant when it is obvious to everyone that they are just being replaced in their workplace by a non-Irish worker.
The workplace is the same, the role is the same.
Irish ferries are trying to argue that because they are putting a cypriot flag on the ship that the job moved to another country and they see this as a loophole or at least gives them the wriggle room they need.

Mailman

For the record my position is that if Irish Ferries were willing to pay the full contract buy-out amount without a contribution from DETE and employees pay tax on the lump sum(which would probably have to be increased just to keep them no worse off financially) then there would be no problem.
It would still be atrocious behaviour on the part of management and bad for the economy as a whole but perfectly acceptable as they would have bought the jobs out fair and square.

shltter

gjim wrote:

What percentage accepted the offer? Every media source has given this figure. If you've a reference to some other figure, then please enlighten us instead of just dismissing this widely quoted figure without any qualification.

where does the figure come from Irish ferries the media has just been repeating the figure provided by the company.
The SUI accept that about 90% of its members accepted the offer but says many feel they had no choice and that they were effectively constructively dismissed
Siptu says that nowhere near that percentage of its members accepted the offer which seems to be born out by the fact that its mebers voted 3 to 1 for industrial action just a couple of weeks ago if the company went ahead withs its plans
How could 3 to 1 of siptus members vote for industrial action if the plan went ahead if 90% had accepted the offer

gjim wrote:

Without know what exactly the change in terms and conditions were, I call bull on your claim that the staff choosing to remain were to be subjected to a 50% pay cut and would have to work every single day of the year without a single days holiday. This is a prime example of the hysterical claims and hot air that surround this issue.

The conditions for staff staying is to work 26 weeks a year as they work week on week off that equates to no holidays
I believe they work 80+ hours in the week they work

the figure of upto 50% wage cut was widely quoted by the SUI on this weeks questions and answers

It has told them they must sign up to the offer by this weekend or accept lower pay and an erosion of their working conditions.

Anyone who opposes the move has been told they will be sacked with just their statutory entitlement of two weeks' pay per year of service.

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/09/28/story222877.asp

gjim wrote:

Jeezus that's pretty twisted logic; we should fight against our eastern European neighbours getting a leg up because it'll rile up the racists and anti-immigration types?

gjim wrote:

No we should bring in our neighbours or anyone else on the same wages and terms and conditions as Irish workers enjoy if you use immigrants to undercut wages of Irish employees you are obviously going to breed resentment towards immigrants it is pretty common sense

Victor

gjim wrote:

I'd imagine that many of the foreign ships going in and out of the port are manned by workers earning far less than Irish minimum wage and with far less statutory protection. How come there's no screaming about this? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that SIPTU don't feel threatened by losing members in a strategic industry? If it's purely out of concern for the conditions of workers in general, then surely they'd have been blocking these ships years ago.

Actually, as the representative of the International Transport Union in Ireland, SIPTU has done a lot representing mostly foreign staff, who are sometimes owed wages for months on end.

SeaSide

they didn't do much for the Gama workers until embarased into it

Metrobest

Alan Ruddock of the Sunday Times had a very interesting column last week. He described SIPTU and its ilk as Ireland's "dying wasp", delivering, he hoped, its final sting. And boy how these trade unions have stung us already! Pass the bottle of vinegar, Alan!

I don't think reality has sunk in for the trade union members crying about the loss of Irish jobs at Irish Ferries with "Irish" work practices. Irish Ferries cannot afford to carry on like it is; it will go bust and there'll be no jobs - for anyone.

For too long, cosseted by overgenerous terms and conditions, Irish Ferries workers have burdened the company with high costs and low productivity. A friend of mine used to work for Irish Ferries. On his (frequent) downtime on the mainland, he regaled me with tales of the on-board shenanigans of the Irish staff. The welfare of passengers was a secondary concern; more important was that the workers had a great, cushy time on-board enjoying regal terms and conditions. He'd come back LOADED with money to spend as you don't get a chance to spend money when everything's provided for you on board a ship.

Such conditions might have worked ten years ago when the only cheap mode of transport was the boat and Aer Lingus, with its similar staffing arrangements, was fleecing its passengers. Time have changed. Low cost airlines have entered the market. Irish Ferries has to move into the real world. It has to lower its cost base. The only way to lower the cost base is to take out the high cost of an unproductive, overpaid workforce. Yes, that's tough for the workers but I imagine the exceptionally generous redundancy package will help soothe the blow as they ponder their next move in a full employment economy.

The arguments about maltreatment of Eastern European workers are spurious nonsense. The unions cry crocodile tears and mutter darkly about exploitation and race to the bottom. That would be shocking; but it's not true. Living on board, getting all your meals for free, paying zero tax, is not being exploited. It's called opportunity to make great money 100% of which can be saved as the staff member incurs no expenses. The same arrangments apply for many Irish workers "toiling" aboard cruise ships; you don't hear SIPTU calling for days of protest about that, do you?

Eastern European workers will jump at the chance to work on Irish Ferries because they'll be able to save tonnes of money and they'll have a great time. It's a nice job for a young person who lives to travel and meet people. Passengers will encounter a happy, contented workforce delighted to be given an oppourtunity to make money in a nice environment. It'll be step up from the surly SIPTU member scowling at you because their tea break was supposed to happpen three minutes ago. The Eastern Europeans won't be exploited. Irish Ferries is not stupid enough to do that - you don't keep a productive workforce productive if you exploit them.

Victor

Metrobest wrote:

For too long, cosseted by overgenerous terms and conditions, Irish Ferries workers have burdened the company with high costs and low productivity. A friend of mine used to work for Irish Ferries. On his (frequent) downtime on the mainland, he regaled me with tales of the on-board shenanigans of the Irish staff. The welfare of passengers was a secondary concern; more important was that the workers had a great, cushy time on-board enjoying regal terms and conditions. He'd come back LOADED with money to spend as you don't get a chance to spend money when everything's provided for you on board a ship.

They work 84 hours (7x12 hour shifts) over 7 days and then have 7 days off. Much like many night nurses (they work 8pm - 8am)

johnnyrotten

Next Friday 9th Dec Protest march against the disgraceful attempt by Irish Ferries to Buy cheaper labour. Starts at 1.30 pm at Parnell Square to Leinster House

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

Alan Ruddock of the Sunday Times had a very interesting column last week. He described SIPTU and its ilk as Ireland's "dying wasp", delivering, he hoped, its final sting. And boy how these trade unions have stung us already! Pass the bottle of vinegar, Alan!

I don't think reality has sunk in for the trade union members crying about the loss of Irish jobs at Irish Ferries with "Irish" work practices. Irish Ferries cannot afford to carry on like it is; it will go bust and there'll be no jobs - for anyone.

For too long, cosseted by overgenerous terms and conditions, Irish Ferries workers have burdened the company with high costs and low productivity. A friend of mine used to work for Irish Ferries. On his (frequent) downtime on the mainland, he regaled me with tales of the on-board shenanigans of the Irish staff. The welfare of passengers was a secondary concern; more important was that the workers had a great, cushy time on-board enjoying regal terms and conditions. He'd come back LOADED with money to spend as you don't get a chance to spend money when everything's provided for you on board a ship.

Such conditions might have worked ten years ago when the only cheap mode of transport was the boat and Aer Lingus, with its similar staffing arrangements, was fleecing its passengers. Time have changed. Low cost airlines have entered the market. Irish Ferries has to move into the real world. It has to lower its cost base. The only way to lower the cost base is to take out the high cost of an unproductive, overpaid workforce. Yes, that's tough for the workers but I imagine the exceptionally generous redundancy package will help soothe the blow as they ponder their next move in a full employment economy.

The arguments about maltreatment of Eastern European workers are spurious nonsense. The unions cry crocodile tears and mutter darkly about exploitation and race to the bottom. That would be shocking; but it's not true. Living on board, getting all your meals for free, paying zero tax, is not being exploited. It's called opportunity to make great money 100% of which can be saved as the staff member incurs no expenses. The same arrangments apply for many Irish workers "toiling" aboard cruise ships; you don't hear SIPTU calling for days of protest about that, do you?

Eastern European workers will jump at the chance to work on Irish Ferries because they'll be able to save tonnes of money and they'll have a great time. It's a nice job for a young person who lives to travel and meet people. Passengers will encounter a happy, contented workforce delighted to be given an oppourtunity to make money in a nice environment. It'll be step up from the surly SIPTU member scowling at you because their tea break was supposed to happpen three minutes ago. The Eastern Europeans won't be exploited. Irish Ferries is not stupid enough to do that - you don't keep a productive workforce productive if you exploit them.

Any prove that Irish ferries is in danger of going out of business because that is not what the company jointly appointed by IF and the Unions said when they did an Audit

If this is the only way why haven't stena gone this way

What are the over generous conditions that you say exist examples please

If the current workforce is unproductive how come the company made over 10 million euro profit last year

What good is a full employment to someone who has trained to be an officer or crew member on a ferry

Being paid 3 euro a hour is exploiting them if it was not then why not ask Irish people to work under those conditions or indeed any other citizen of an established EU member state
If you think it is so great why did you not apply for one of these jobs

And the arguement that IF are not stupid does not really stand up the evidence of the last couple of weeks would not support that contention.

The arguement about Low fares air lines is spurious they are in a different market

Victor

shltter wrote:

The arguement about Low fares air lines is spurious they are in a different market

Not quite, the airlines have taken the traditional market of people driving to the UK.

SeanW

Yeah, Mickey O Leary's not much use to you if you have to take your car to Britian or France or you've got a containerload of low value goods to shift.

shltter

Victor wrote:

Not quite, the airlines have taken the traditional market of people driving to the UK.

How much of Irish ferries income comes from Freight

People using the ferry are generally doing so because they have to ie bring a car truck etc
Obviously there are people who fly and rent rather than ferry but for most people especially with kids who need a car in France or the UK much prefer the handiness of loading up their own car with everything they need rather than have ryanair charge through the roof for overweight baggage




Ferries are not realy going to be able to compete for foot passengers no matter how cheap they get

It is a different market

gjim

irish Ferries are forcing their employees to collude with them

This is a very biased view of the situation. The collusion is mutually beneficial - the workers will end up pocketing upto four times what they would have gotten otherwise. I'm sure, the workers would be delighted with you Mailman if you managed to convince the government that the severence money couldn't be treated as redundency. Of course this wouldn't happen either because it's in the government's interest to see that the workers being let go are well looked after in the hope that the fuss goes away. So the government, the management AND the workers are happy to collude on this. I don't see the black and white good guy/bad guy division here unless you've some sort of ideological leaning which immediately identifies one or other of the parties as being always at fault.

How could 3 to 1 of siptus members vote for industrial action if the plan went ahead if 90% had accepted the offer

I dunno - maybe they only constitute 1 in 10 of the workers? I did a bit more googling and everywhere says between 85 and 90% had accepted the redundency package. Don't you think that if this was a massive conspiratorial lie fashioned by the media and Irish Ferries management, that the unions might have countered it at this stage with an alternative figure? Given the lack of any claim anywhere to the contrary, it seems reasonable to me to accept this figure.

The conditions for staff staying is to work 26 weeks a year as they work week on week off that equates to no holidays
I believe they work 80+ hours in the week they work

So what is the change in conditions? How many hours a week do they work at the moment and how many weeks a year do they work at the moment? One news report I read said the new terms and conditions were arrived at by the Labour court.

So are we at least agreed that it doesn't represent the first step "in a race to the bottom"?

Mailman

Gjim, I thought I told you to retire from the arguement until you were better informed.

Ideologically, for me the redundancy payments act is there to protect me or anyone else who looses their job. It is not a tool to be used to hasten the redundancy of a worker because they have been replaced by a lower cost worker in the same job in the same location. This is the only way to look at the redundancy payment acts. If you are looking at it any other way then your reasoning is twisted or morals suspect.
In these terms it is a black and white issue and what Irish Ferries is doing is wrong, wrong wrong.

When the DETE get the redundacy form they assume the worker who signed it was made redundant and they accepted the redundancy offered to them so the DETE pay out and don't investigate any further.

Here the workers are being forced to sign a redundancy form through constructive dismissal. No doubt references would be with-held until the form was signed too.
For employees it is the best option that appears to be open to them. If they do not sign they get paid nothing and Management will use environmental push factors, trumped up disciplinary procedures and whatever subtle tools are available to them to push them out.
If they go to EAT the most they will be given in compensation is two years loss of earnings. The EAT does not award punitive damages - it is not empowered to award punitive damages. They'll wait months or years for a hearing and the maximum they get awarded is 2 years loss of earnings.

The employer is constructively dismissing them and giving them the carrot of a lump sum tax free courtesy of the DETE.
Irish Ferries are buying the workers off with the redundancy. The workers are complicit. SIPTU are sticking their oar in because it isn't of the interest of Irish workers in general in Ireland even though the workers in Irish Ferries have been bought out.
They are bought off, if they want to take a case for constructive dismissal at a later stage they can but if they win they'll have to hand back the cheque for redundancy as they have asserted that they were not made redundant but actually dismissed.

Irish ferries are paying the workers off with a payment vastly in excess of what the EAT could ever give them but this pay off is being partly financed by the taxpayer, you and me for a bogus redundancy.

Irish labour laws are shockingly biased toward the Employer in this country. Thankfully most employers don't know just how biased the laws are and abide by what laws they are aware of because they don't want the bad publicity associated with wrongful dismissal rulings.
In the case of Irish Ferries they don't give a damn about their reputation and it has liberated them to act however they please.

It's out of character for SIPTU who have historically been a useless shower of wasters but in this case they are doing precisely what a union is meant to do which is protect the working man against the worst excesses of capitalism.
SIPTU are definitely not acting on behalf of Irish Ferries workers here, they are working on behalf of workers in general.

shltter

gjim wrote:

.


I dunno - maybe they only constitute 1 in 10 of the workers? I did a bit more googling and everywhere says between 85 and 90% had accepted the redundency package. Don't you think that if this was a massive conspiratorial lie fashioned by the media and Irish Ferries management, that the unions might have countered it at this stage with an alternative figure? Given the lack of any claim anywhere to the contrary, it seems reasonable to me to accept this figure."?

Ok try to open your mind to this fact the only people who know exactly how many people accepted the offer is Irish Ferries
If you read the same figure in 1000 different places it does not make it any more right as it all comes from the same source

The seamans union accept that the vast majority of its members accepted the offer it also says that many of them felt they had no option but to sign

Siptu does not accept that anywhere near that number of its members accepted the offer and this would appear to be borne out by their vote for industrial action

Both unions say that many accepted the offer but have since changed their minds

gjim wrote:

.
So are we at least agreed that it doesn't represent the first step "in a race to the bottom"?

Where did I say that

I actually think it is a huge leap in a race to the bottom

gjim

Gjim, I thought I told you to retire from the arguement until you were better informed.

And I would take seriously pompously self-important orders from some anonymous messageboard contributer why exactly? Are you used to bossing people around in your real life or is this just part of your online persona?

My "morals" may be suspect to you but the purpose of a redundency payment has nothing to do with ideology or anything else. It's there to provide workers with a financial cushion while they look for alternative work and to compensate them for the distruption to their lives.

As to your belief that Irish workers don't have enough statutary protection, that's not a universally held opinion. We have a reasonably flexible labour market by EU standards and along countries with similar approaches like Holland, Denmark and the UK have some of the lowest unemployment figures in the EU. Making it impossible to let workers go means that companies will do anything they can to avoid hiring people as the Germans and French with their circa 12% unemployment have recognised. The former are moving to liberalise their labour markets which is a recogonition of the failure of their approach.

Ok try to open your mind to this fact the only people who know exactly how many people accepted the offer is Irish Ferries

I am very well able to treat the claims from both sides of this argument with scepticism. In this case, there is no other credible figure out there. All we have is 86% figure from the management at Irish Ferries, a figure of 90% from one of the unions and the claim from SIPTU that, of their members, a smaller number accepted the redundency. The latter claim may well be consistent with the overall 86% figure because SIPTU might only be representing a small minority of the staff involved. You have provided no evidence that the 86% figure is not correct.

Victor

gjim wrote:

And I would take seriously pompously self-important orders from some anonymous messageboard contributer why exactly? Are you used to bossing people around in your real life or is this just part of your online persona?

I think it was a fair call on his behalf.

Hotblack Desiato

gjim wrote:

More hot air. Are you claiming that workers for Air Baltic, for example, are subject to Irish statutatory entitlements and labour regulations just because the airline lands in Dublin?

Not quite, they are subject to EU regulation as the Baltic states are EU members.

Non-EU carriers can fly routes in/out of the EU including stops, but cannot operate a route between two EU states without it being part of a route to a non-EU country.

There is NO flag of conveniece cop-out in the airline industry, and rightly so.

Compare two companies:

Ryanair, flying Dublin - Stansted, Irish owned company, based in Ireland. Air crew regarded as based in either Ireland or UK for employment law purposes, and are regulated by the labour legislation of that country.

Irish Ferries sailing between Ireland and the UK. Irish owned company, based in Ireland. Sea crews regarded as "based on the ship" and subject to practically no labour law.

How is this situation fair? It has only come about because of intense lobbying from the shipping industry who use this cop-out to line their pockets.

This is a frequent claim but one I don't accept. We have the legislation and mechanisms which guarantee all Irish employees certain rights and the fact that one shipping company serving Dublin port pays less than Irish minimum wage doesn't change this.

Why shouldn't the crews of an Irish owned vessel serving Irish ports be regarded as Irish workers? Rather than be subject to a regime which gives them none of the protections of the law of either country they're serving.

The only thing which stopped Irish Ferries exploiting its workers by paying them 1 euro per hour was public outcry, not employment legislation. Do you think they should not be subject to the laws every other Irish employer is subject to?

I'd imagine that many of the foreign ships going in and out of the port are manned by workers earning far less than Irish minimum wage and with far less statutory protection. How come there's no screaming about this?

I'm pretty sure that industrial action in those circumstances i.e. 'blacking' ships would actually be illegal - those taking action would not be employees of the company causing the dispute.

Duiske

Treacy Transport in Carlow had the right idea through this dispute. They leased a ferry last weekend to get freight from Cork to Cherbourg. All the freight companys should pull together and continue this, or maybe Stena could introduce a couple of ships for "freight only" trips. This would stick it to Irish Ferries. Regular car and foot passengers should avoid Irish Ferries like the plague. We should be ashamed that this company, with its morally challenged management, has the word "Irish" in its name.

parsi

Whatever else please don't think that Treacys did this to "stick it" to Irish Ferries - they did it to make bobs.

Thankfully they used a Brittany Ferries vessel which is (like all their vessels) French-flagged and French staffed.

secret_squirrel

parsi wrote:

they did it to make bobs.

Do you know this for sure or are you speculating? Isnt it possible they just had a big enough consignment to justify the hire?

parsi

secret_squirrel wrote:

Do you know this for sure or are you speculating? Isnt it possible they just had a big enough consignment to justify the hire?

Unless they let the large number of artics that were down in Ringaskiddy on Saturday night board for free they were making money. Maybe not a whole lot but at the end of the day it was a business driven solution (and a good one) and not a moral (if not mortal) blow against Irish Ferries.

Mailman

to Gjim,

Having had personal experience of the mis-application of the Redundancy Payments Act in a constructive dismissal and used the avenues available to seek redress I'm quite knowledgeable in the area and can see from your posts that you are not.