Unions - are they needed these days?

Kinetic^

With all the employment and health & safety laws in place that protects both employer and employee, surely there's no need for unions?

Nody

Kenny 5 wrote:

With all the employment and health & safety laws in place that protects both employer and employee, surely there's no need for unions?

Theoretically yes, but in my experience all unions work to get more power to their leaders and don't work for the people at the floor (inc. making utterly stupid demands and then crying foul when people get made redundant five years later due to cost structure).

There are still areas where I could see them being useful for a brief time but power currupts and all that.

nesf

Kenny 5 wrote:

With all the employment and health & safety laws in place that protects both employer and employee, surely there's no need for unions?

Do we need them in their present 'national scale' form? No, that is not a good thing for workers imho. In theory workers need their protection, in reality unions tend to grow beyond this and assume roles that really should not be a matter of 'collective bargaining'.

seamus

No, they're essentially defunct in this country. There's no such thing anymore as a job for life, and the law provides sufficient protection for a worker who knows what they want and are willing to stand up for themselves.

Essentially unions primary purpose has always been to force a change in the work practices of an employer, to improve the situation for employees. In modern Ireland, this is a job that employees should never have to do. The employer should be driven themselves to change their employment practice in order to maintain the happiness and stability of their workforce. An employer with a workforce who threaten to go on strike is an employer who knows that his employees don't want to leave, and that actually gives him more power.

Unions nowadays have a tendency to go off the wall over things, and strike because people are no longer getting overtime, or because their Christmas bonus has been reduced by 10% - striking over things which are perks of the job, not entitlements. Hence why many people now view unions with much suspicion and comtempt.

There was a company yesterday (forget the name) who had a factory of 1500 employees that threatened to go on strike. So the company threatened to close the factory, and the union rolled over. Great move by the company IMO.

Kinetic^

Some good responses so far.

The reason I'm asking is that I was working in a company recently and it was year end so the stocktake needed to be done. In the company there's rows of the same product and instead of using 1 coloured pen, they were going to have different colours for different aisles. The management were genuinely worried that they were going to receive a letter from the union looking for more money for the employees as there would've been a change in procedures if they used a different colour pen. I've since left the company so I'm not sure if they received anything but it was so damn petty and they've obviously had some stuff like this before. Like how inconvenient is it to use a different colour pen?

Also, the same company has decided to move production up North as it'll be more cost effective.....so in fact the union has lost all it's members their jobs by driving up labour costs............:rolleyes:

Tom Dunne

seamus wrote:

No, they're essentially defunct in this country. There's no such thing anymore as a job for life, and the law provides sufficient protection for a worker who knows what they want and are willing to stand up for themselves.

They are defunct, but there is still a core body of workers who need them, or at least feel they need them.

I work in the public sector and it really has opened my eyes to the dark ages of industrial relations. In the small IT dept, anything that might mean extra work is fought tooth and nail. Change is challenged at every opportunity.

In other depts, the union is called in for matters as trivial as new uniforms for the porters.

Until workers get out of this mentality of what's in it for me, unions will have a long and prosperous life.

seamus wrote:

There was a company yesterday (forget the name) who had a factory of 1500 employees that threatened to go on strike. So the company threatened to close the factory, and the union rolled over. Great move by the company IMO.

'Twas Bousch and Lomb in Waterford. Fair play to them, it's a pity the likes of Iaranrod Eireann and Aer Lingus wouldn't give that a go.

tHE vAGGABOND

Also, the same company has decided to move production up North as it'll be more cost effective.....so in fact the union has lost all it's members their jobs by driving up labour costs.

Its the type of story you hear a lot of these days tbh. Unions going on strike on a matter of principal, and never bending and costing the people their jobs in the first place...

My favourite 'mad union' story is the London Tube Drivers. They have a very strong union, and as a result they are very well paid and have great conditions etc..

Last summer they had a series of one day strikes, as transport for London [ie: the bosses] had introduced some computerised technology, which was going to automate a bunch of manual tasks and improve the signiling and threfore make the drives lives easier..

..As a result the drivers and their union, wanted a 20% pay rise and a reduction in their working hours [from standard 39 down to 34 or something along those lines]!

A pay rise and less working hours for automation making their lives easier

vandermeyde

you could probably argue that unions as a collective e.g. ICTU at national level, ETUC at European level have been such successful lobbyists that the improvements in basic statuatory entitlements for all workers have negated much of the need for unions at a company level!

they still have an important role to play as a check on the excesses of what company management (who's prime loyalty is to their shareholders) will attempt to get away with but like anyone I find the inherent pettiness in a lot of what goes on is a big turn-off...In my experience, at a local level, its always the office busy-bodies who are the union players and they are typically at odds with the more holistic approach of their unions at national level!

Kinetic^

tom dunne wrote:

They are defunct, but there is still a core body of workers who need them, or at least feel they need them.

I think this is a great point, they feel they need them. It gives people a sense of security to be in a union but I reckon that without a union if you were a good worker you'd be more secure.

Why would a uniform change warrant union interaction? Granted if you've to pay for it yourself then I can understand, but if this was not the case then surely a company can ask their employees what uniform to wear, within certain boundaries of course.

tHE vAGGABOND, that's classic........easier job and less hours = more pay!!!!! That is actually one of the funniest things I've ever heard of.

The thing is that with likes of Iarnrod Eireann, Gardai etc etc, they've got us by the balls if they go on strike as we do need their services on a daily basis.

Vandermeyde, I agree that they've been successful in the acquisition of good basic requirements but is there a need for them anymore?

Maybe there's another thread for this but here goes, in current employment law, is there anything that you feel needs to be added or changed or taken out even? (health & safety law is to be included if you feel nessecary)

mikemac

I’ve seen both sides of the argument

After my Leaving Cert, I worked in the local pharmaceutical company. This is a major corporation, 17th largest business in the world the last time I checked.
The union ran the place and all new hires joined.
One person had some disagreement with a shop steward, I don’t know what it was over.
He left the union and then all his teammates refused to work with him as they didn’t want to work with non-union members.
The theory being that if staff worked with non-union people, eventually the company could bring loads of new staff that didn’t want to join the union.
This got worse and worse and he would be left sitting on his own in canteen. I suppose it’s a form of boycotting.
Management let him go as it was disrupting the team and he’d be happier somewhere else.

When I was college though as a hotel barman, I wish we had a union.
There was serious bullying going on by management. For example you might finish at 4:30am and as you were leaving to be told to be in work by 9:30am the next morning or never show up again. That roster was changed on a daily basis so you never plan ahead.
Other main issue was working 10-12hours straight and ordered back to work if you took a break.
We tried to organize a union but most staff were part-time casual and lots of staff were from Eastern Europe and had no interest in joining a union so it never happened.

This post brings back bad memories.

Kinetic^

Micmclo, seems to a breach of employment law in your job in the pub. When I was younger similar stuff happened in any pub/club I worked. The managers never cared as there was always someone looking for a job as a lounge boy/barman.

Tom Dunne

Kenny 5 wrote:

Why would a uniform change warrant union interaction? Granted if you've to pay for it yourself then I can understand, but if this was not the case then surely a company can ask their employees what uniform to wear, within certain boundaries of course.

This is my point. The uniforms, were in fact suits for days when there were visitors, purely an image thing (and Louis Copeland suits, I might add, don't get me started!). The organisation was paying for the suits, ties and shirts. The porters were moaning because they would now have to go out and buy new shoes, cositng them money. Eventually, the organisation head agreed to pay for shoes, but if the organisation offered to buy me a suit, the last thing I would do is complain!

It's this mentality that appears to be prevalent in the public/civil service. Until this mentality is weeded out, then unions will, and do, thrive.

stepbar

tom dunne wrote:

They are defunct, but there is still a core body of workers who need them, or at least feel they need them.

Tell that to the boys in BOI.... who are trying to do me out of a proper pension....

nesf

seamus wrote:

There's no such thing anymore as a job for life, and the law provides sufficient protection for a worker who knows what they want and are willing to stand up for themselves.

People still do believe that they are not merely entitled to a job but their job. Look at the Bupa case recently when staff there that would be faced with losing their jobs said that it wasn't good enough that they would aided in finding new jobs, they demanded that the Minister ensure that they kept their job in Bupa since they didn't want to work anywhere else.

This kind of attitude needs, imho, to be stamped out as both unreasonable and unrealistic. The idea of a private company owing you a job in perpituity is silly, you are entitled to a reasonable level of protection (notice periods, redundancy etc) but the company is, and should, in no way be beholden to you for more than that.

lostexpectation

tom dunne wrote:

This is my point. The uniforms, were in fact suits for days when there were visitors, purely an image thing (and Louis Copeland suits, I might add, don't get me started!). The organisation was paying for the suits, ties and shirts. The porters were moaning because they would now have to go out and buy new shoes, cositng them money. Eventually, the organisation head agreed to pay for shoes, but if the organisation offered to buy me a suit, the last thing I would do is complain!

It's this mentality that appears to be prevalent in the public/civil service. Until this mentality is weeded out, then unions will, and do, thrive.

if they going to expense of buying new expensive uniforms why aren't shoes included, sounds perfectly reasonable to me, earlier you used used it as example of how bad unions were. they you explain the situation and it makes sense, thisi s how unions are always protrayed in the news, as luddites, then you read up the details and they are making reasonable demands.

the answer is. unfortunately yes.

both companies and unions can act dispicably hopefully they balance each other out.

you say we have sufficient laws , but those laws aren't enforced and hefty fines not imposed, that why we need more labour inspectors etc.

there is need for a new type of union that covers temporary workers across jobs and continents

gerrycollins

seamus wrote:

There was a company yesterday (forget the name) who had a factory of 1500 employees that threatened to go on strike. So the company threatened to close the factory, and the union rolled over. Great move by the company IMO.

Bauche and Laumbe in Waterford and I'd do the same if my staff did it to me.

I think unions are bullies, a slight form of comunissium(?) which I think to be dead and buired as a social/economical programme. The old guard if you will.

I think companies are also getting wiser when inacting new policies or rules so they dont breach the law of the land or what would be reasonably accecptable to the labour court.

Wishbone Ash

micmclo wrote:

He left the union and then all his teammates refused to work with him as they didn’t want to work with non-union members

That has been illegal since the enactment of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act.

micmclo wrote:

We tried to organize a union but most staff were part-time casual and lots of staff were from Eastern Europe and had no interest in joining a union so it never happened.

Unfortunately the people who are in jobs which could do with trade union support, are least likely to join as most are there for a short time only.


I think that some anti-union posters here, especially in this climate of economic boom, have a very dismissive attitude towards trade unions. They may not seem to be as necessary now but in the bleak past they were essential for our protection. They also instigated and supported many of the employment rules and regulations that are enjoyed by all employees. In my experience, it is very difficult to get members to support a strike and it is only done as a last resort. Non-union members seem to forget that there is no pay while on strike and one also breaks one's contract and service. We are balloting at the moment for strike action following 26 years of negotiating on a matter which was recomended by the Labour Court in 1981.

The right of everyone to join a trade union is enshrined in our Constitution.

Kinetic^

stepbar wrote:

Tell that to the boys in BOI.... who are trying to do me out of a proper pension....

They're not obliged to give you a pension, it's a perk.

seamus

Wishbone Ash wrote:

They may not seem to be as necessary now but in the bleak past they were essential for our protection. They also instigated and supported many of the employment rules and regulations that are enjoyed by all employees.

I fully agree. Unions were a product (and a catalyst) of the industrial revoolution, and their contribution has directly and indirectly caused many of the freedoms we take for granted today which weren't available 100 years and even 50 years ago.

It seems to me though that the modern union is attempting to find and enforce "rights" where they're not required. Unions are still largely based on their structure from years past, where the strength was in numbers and by wagon circling around aggrieved parties, that party could be protected and helped.

In modern terms the law provides this protection, and unions have just moved onto maintaining themselves and their perks without considering what's best for the company.
Plenty of people still do get taken advantage of by ruthless employers, but ignorance is no excuse. If you allow your employer to take advantage of you by breaking labour laws, then you're the bigger fool. There's plenty of employment out there, so it's not a case of put up or shut up.
That said, unions would fare much better in public and commercial opinion if they restructered themselves as employee support & advice teams as opposed to mafia-style gangs.
An independent body within a company that could supply advice to employees in terms of their rights would be far more useful. They could also mediate/witness in employee-employee and employee-employer disputes, instead of getting the entire union involved over small matters.

Wishbone Ash

seamus wrote:

unions have just moved onto maintaining themselves and their perks without considering what's best for the company

In my experience, many of our trade union issues arise because of a failure of management to manage properly or to abide by their own policies and procedures.

Recent example from my employment:

Staff were arriving for work as normal. Upon arrival they were instructed by the manager on duty that they were being transferred for the day to another premises as there was a shortage there. They were then forced to make their own way to another place of work at their own expense and sometimes back-tracking on their initial journey.

We informed management that we felt that they were not doing their job properly as many of these shortages could be predicted a week in advance. The staff being transferred had no objection to going elsewhere once they had been informed the day/night before. Management didn't really listen to us.

We then instructed members, when requested to move, that they were to inform the employer that they came in by public transport and had no objection to transferring once transport was provided. After a few days, management sought another meeting. We reached an agreement. Staff were to be informed the day before if at all possible. If this was not an option, taxis were to be provided at the employer's expense, to transfer staff to another place of work. The outcome was better management instead of the usual sticky plaster solution.

seamus wrote:

If you allow your employer to take advantage of you by breaking labour laws, then you're the bigger fool.

In fairness seamus, many exploited employees are poorly educated, foreign nationals etc. and don't have the where with all to make a stand. On the other hand, there are many normal employees out there who don't know the basics. e.g. that an employer cannot legally change their method of payment without consent.

seamus wrote:

They could also mediate/witness in employee-employee and employee-employer disputes, instead of getting the entire union involved over small matters.

In my experience, the whole union only gets involved when all avenues of resolution have been explored without success.

Kinetic^

Wishbone Ash wrote:

In fairness seamus, many exploited employees are poorly educated, foreign nationals etc. and don't have the where with all to make a stand. On the other hand, there are many normal employees out there who don't know the basics. e.g. that an employer cannot legally change their method of payment without consent.

I agree but there is a vast amount of people out there that don't like disagreeing with their employer, so they'd rather be exploited then stir things up.

hmmm

I've twice worked in companies with unions and both times it was those employees who manufactured petty grievances or really couldn't be bothered working who benefited. Both times I've felt it was an "us" (employees) versus "them" (company) environment - I'm not surprised when I read about companies who have shut down due to union action and the unions almost act as if they are proud of the fact (read about Ferenka in Limerick back at a time when we desperately needed jobs).

BostonB

I have mixed opinions. A lot of what the unions do is very petty, and they are often are too involved at the smallest details in an organization. Which really isn't required and is self defeating. But at the same time theres a lot of bad companies who treat their staff unfairly if not illegally. When that happens the unions often can help you. Mind sometimes they are turn out to be powerless as well. Even saying all that, you do see better conditions generally where there is a union. Since I've worked in many places where things were "unfair" and wished there was a union.

Kinetic^

Working conditions has been mentioned alot in this thread and I'm sure we all have different ideas of what's good and what's not so I'm wondering what you consider to be a good working environment?

I work in an office so the following would be necessities: Nice office chair that doesn't hurt my back, decent sized desk to hold files/laptop on, storage space, ie. drawers, drinkable water, air con/heating, good lighting, clean toilets. Probably left a few.

lostexpectation

gerrycollins wrote:

Bauche and Laumbe in Waterford and I'd do the same if my staff did it to me.

I think unions are bullies, a slight form of comunissium(?) which I think to be dead and buired as a social/economical programme. The old guard if you will.

I think companies are also getting wiser when inacting new policies or rules so they dont breach the law of the land or what would be reasonably accecptable to the labour court.

i meet your communism and mafia style gangs with robber barons and slave drivers, fill the rest in for yourself

BostonB

Kenny 5 wrote:

Working conditions has been mentioned alot in this thread and I'm sure we all have different ideas of what's good and what's not so I'm wondering what you consider to be a good working environment?

I work in an office so the following would be necessities: Nice office chair that doesn't hurt my back, decent sized desk to hold files/laptop on, storage space, ie. drawers, drinkable water, air con/heating, good lighting, clean toilets. Probably left a few.

Not working beyond your contracted hours for free.

Kinetic^

BostonB wrote:

Not working beyond your contracted hours for free.

Can't believe I forgot this one, had a big issue with it in my job before last.

parsi

When you're young, vociferous and unfettered by family and mortgage you don't need a union.

When you're older , unsure of your rights or open to exploitation you need a union.

Look at this forum and you se eplenty of people posting about how they have been fecked around on their basic rights - leave, rest, pay etc.

Like tom dunne above I work in the public sector and having been on the branch committee of my staff association I can say that the comments are unfounded (in terms of my workplace). Where I work dragging the Union in is a waste of time to be honest...

BostonB

Sometimes through no fault of your own you can get hassle at work, and sometimes a union is handy for that. Sometimes though a union has a different goals than you in which case they won't help you.

gerrycollins

lostexpectation wrote:

i meet your communism and mafia style gangs with robber barons and slave drivers, fill the rest in for yourself

touche

but better edcuated or imformed employees, in this information age where they can get the laws of the land onto their screens by way of google, have made imo unions redundant,

however i agree with some of the posters that sometime somewhere there is a need for them but not to the extent of the bully boys taticts that they used to use

BostonB

gerrycollins wrote:

touche

but better edcuated or imformed employees, in this information age where they can get the laws of the land onto their screens by way of google, have made imo unions redundant,

however i agree with some of the posters that sometime somewhere there is a need for them but not to the extent of the bully boys taticts that they used to use

Only a couple of yrs ago I was in Barcelona one day there was a general strike, and they (union mob) forcibly closed every shop that was open.

Sam Vimes

i worked in a shop that had a manager that could only be described as insane. he made everyone's life a misery who worked there and no one works there for more than a few months.

anyway, he needed to get rid of some staff because the shop wasn't doing as well. there were only about 12 staff

one of the girls came to him at the beginning april and told him that she'd booked a holiday for august and she'd need 2 saturdays and sundays off (she was part-time and only worked the weekend). he outright refused to give her the time off and said that if she wanted to go on her holiday she'd have to quit. one down

then i came in one sunday after having been drinking the night before. i was a bit hung over but perfectly capable of doing my job and almost all the staff came in in far worse states every week. some of them had been sent home from work for being drunk a few times with no repercussions. this day i wasn't sent home because i could still do my job.

so he arranged a meeting with the area manager just to do everything by the book and sacked me for being drunk. the union got me a good reference from the place without which i couldn't have got my next job. the guy from the union was so sick of the manager that when my mate who worked there phoned up about him mucking about again a few months later the guy said "not that prick again"

so i approve of unions

edit:something i forgot to mention. no one else had asked for the time off that the girl had so it wasn't like he'd be short staffed and after she was gone someone else was given the same time off with no hassle

nesf

parsi wrote:

When you're young, vociferous and unfettered by family and mortgage you don't need a union.

When you're older , unsure of your rights or open to exploitation you need a union.

Look at this forum and you se eplenty of people posting about how they have been fecked around on their basic rights - leave, rest, pay etc.

Like tom dunne above I work in the public sector and having been on the branch committee of my staff association I can say that the comments are unfounded (in terms of my workplace). Where I work dragging the Union in is a waste of time to be honest...

Oh please, you can be young, relatively sure of your rights and be fettered by a mortgage and family. It doesn't mean that you need a union though, your job is already protected to a fair degree by law.

People do have a duty to educate themselves on their rights to be perfectly honest. I've little sympathy for people who don't make at least some effort to.

parsi

nesf wrote:

Oh please, you can be young, relatively sure of your rights and be fettered by a mortgage and family. It doesn't mean that you need a union though, your job is already protected to a fair degree by law.

Yes you can be old and unfettered by a mortgage as well. However the point is about "lifestages" - isn't it easier to say "feck this, I'm moving job" when you've no commitments than it is when you've family and a house to service ?

People do have a duty to educate themselves on their rights to be perfectly honest. I've little sympathy for people who don't make at least some effort to.

Tosh. Isn't joining a union and availing of their information services a way of educating yourself ? Step back from our world where the Internet pervades ever waking hour and realise that there are folk out there who find it difficult to educate themselves about their rights let alone exercise them. That's why we have unions, that's why we have Citizens Advice Bureaux, that's why we have MABS - people have rights but their rights are often so obscured that they need third parties to explain them.

Just look at this forum - visited by IT literate people in their prime and yet its full of queries about leave entitlements, pay entitlements, tax questions - information that is available on the relevant public websites but which people can't understand and need someone to digest it for them.

It should be borne in mind that it was only in the face of organised labour that our entitlements came to be granted. When it was only 1 fella saying that he wanted a day off a week he was easily ignored. When it was thousands they were harder to ignore.

nesf

parsi wrote:

Yes you can be old and unfettered by a mortgage as well. However the point is about "lifestages" - isn't it easier to say "feck this, I'm moving job" when you've no commitments than it is when you've family and a house to service ?

I agree, but my point was more that it is very easy to generalise too much when discussing this topic. I have issues with 'general' unions and some of the dodgier crap I've seen unions pull but I still think there are instances where unions are necessary and where they are worthwhile, I just don't think that they should be held up as a necessity like some seem to do.

parsi wrote:

Tosh. Isn't joining a union and availing of their information services a way of educating yourself ? Step back from our world where the Internet pervades ever waking hour and realise that there are folk out there who find it difficult to educate themselves about their rights let alone exercise them. That's why we have unions, that's why we have Citizens Advice Bureaux, that's why we have MABS - people have rights but their rights are often so obscured that they need third parties to explain them.

Just look at this forum - visited by IT literate people in their prime and yet its full of queries about leave entitlements, pay entitlements, tax questions - information that is available on the relevant public websites but which people can't understand and need someone to digest it for them.

It should be borne in mind that it was only in the face of organised labour that our entitlements came to be granted. When it was only 1 fella saying that he wanted a day off a week he was easily ignored. When it was thousands they were harder to ignore.

I agree with you to an extent but you don't need to be IT literate to find out information about your rights and trusting a union to do so is not necessarily a good idea. Unions, by default, are biased strongly towards their members, this can, and does in some instances that I've seen, distort the information that they are giving out. The same would happen if you depended on your employer to inform you of your rights (and some people do, which scares me a little.

Can you see where I'm coming from on this?


As for people coming to this forum and starting a thread on something google could find for them in under 2 minutes, personally I'm divided over whether it's them trying to help themselves in some way or them being lazy/expecting someone else to doing the searching for them.

I'm not arguing that unions should be illegal or anything but I have quite a few reservations over what they have evolved into and whether they are the 'best' means with which to protect workers' rights.

Wishbone Ash

In my experience at work and as a committee member, trade unions are not generally utilised to assist staff in exercising their legal rights. The employer is obliged to honour those rights anyway and my employer generally does.

90% of our work is dealing with the failure of the employer to abide by AGREED work practises, the failure to pay AGREED remuneration, the failure to implement Labour Court recommendations and the failure of the employer to prevent bullying of staff by management.

Representing staff with disciplinary matters would be another regular duty.

Kinetic^

Wishbone Ash wrote:

90% of our work is dealing with the failure of the employer to abide by AGREED work practises, the failure to pay AGREED remuneration, the failure to implement Labour Court recommendations and the failure of the employer to prevent bullying of staff by management.

Representing staff with disciplinary matters would be another regular duty.

More power to you and I feel that if you are doing what you say you are, then you are carrying on the way most unions should. Surely if someone gets compensation of 10k for a change in procedures, from manual to electronic, there should be someone to step in and say no that's extortionate?

BostonB

Kenny 5 wrote:

More power to you and I feel that if you are doing what you say you are, then you are carrying on the way most unions should. Surely if someone gets compensation of 10k for a change in procedures, from manual to electronic, there should be someone to step in and say no that's extortionate?

Any chance you can tell me which company this is. I'd like to send them a CV.

Kinetic^

BostonB wrote:

Any chance you can tell me which company this is. I'd like to send them a CV.

Can't give you a name but their distribution will be moving up North soon enough.