ESB Dispute

Jackie laughlin

It be very significant if the unions win this. They are involved in a direct assault on sub-contracting, trying to make the core "employer" responsible.

sovtek

You have any links to any articles relating to it. I am very much in the dark about the whole situation.

Jackie laughlin

Sovtec,
It's current. All Irish media are covering it.

Voipjunkie

sovtek wrote: »

You have any links to any articles relating to it. I am very much in the dark about the whole situation.

Group of Polish workers working for a sub contractor of a sub contractor at the ESB has folded leaving the Polish workers unpaid for about 2 months work I believe.

leninbenjamin

it's a ridiculous display of how unions have too much power in this country. fair enough to feel solidarity with the workers, but to threaten to strike when your employer has technically done nothing wrong? just daft...

sovtek

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's a ridiculous display of how unions have too much power in this country. fair enough to feel solidarity with the workers, but to threaten to strike when your employer has technically done nothing wrong? just daft...

The fact that a sub contractor twice removed is allowed is testimony to how little power unions have in general I think. That's after confessing I'm not that clued up on the situation. Checking it out on the interweb as I write this.

Voipjunkie

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's a ridiculous display of how unions have too much power in this country. fair enough to feel solidarity with the workers, but to threaten to strike when your employer has technically done nothing wrong? just daft...

So should employers be allowed to wash their hands of all responsiblity at the end of the day these people were doing work for the ESB and the ESB has an obligation when it contracts out work to ensure that people are not being exploited.

The use of sub contractors in the building industry to avoid obligations to Tax pensions and health and safety is widespread and the unions have allowed it to happen.

gandalf

In this case the unions are right. The work is being done on their premises and they have an obligation in my opinion to ensure the people carrying out this work whether directly or indirectly employed by them get their wages and entitlements.

zexstream

Isnt this what people have been saying is wrong with cheap foreign Labour?

Wouldnt it had been better if the ESB were forced to employ workers Direct.

Thus it would end the problem of sub contractors and chances are they would more than likely employ the Irish worker than a Polish worker if we all have the same level playing field?

When employers can go through loop holes and employ sub contractors these sort of issues crop up.

Gandalf Said - In this case the unions are right. The work is being done on their premises and they have an obligation in my opinion to ensure the people carrying out this work whether directly or indirectly employed by them get their wages and entitlements.

But there is provision in Law that says the ESB are liable. So the Unions are wrong.

It maybe unfair but thats life. If employers had to guarentee things like this you would see all types of sub contractors folding doing a runner and leaving the origional company to clear up the mess.

You can have it both ways, if the ESB were forced to pay for this, then what was the benefit of employing sub contractors? They may as well employ direct, which will most likely mean no more cheap labour.

oscarBravo

gandalf wrote: »

In this case the unions are right. The work is being done on their premises and they have an obligation in my opinion to ensure the people carrying out this work whether directly or indirectly employed by them get their wages and entitlements.

As an employer, I have a serious problem with that. I recently contracted an electrician to do some vital work on my main equipment site. His employees did the work - fair enough - but let's imagine for the sake of argument that he subcontracted it. The work was done, and I paid (quite a lot) for it.

Suppose the subcontractor didn't pay his employees. You're saying that I have an obligation to make sure they get paid - how, exactly? I've already paid for the work. Should I pay the unpaid wages also? Will I get stuck for PRSI etc. also? How do I get my money back? It's a terrifying prospect.

It has been argued that this means the ESB shouldn't subcontract work. But the work in question is (AFAIK) a power station overhaul. It doesn't make economic sense for an employer to be forced to hire specialist workers for a one-off project.

Don't get me wrong: I deplore the action of the subcontractor in this case, and I believe the workers should receive their entitlements promptly, but to threaten strike action on a company that's twice removed from the issue is a truly scary prospect.

Hotblack Desiato

zexstream wrote: »

Wouldnt it had been better if the ESB were forced to employ workers Direct.

For a temporary major project they should have to hire hundreds of permanent employees? Crazy. That's like you want to get a wall built and you end up having to keep paying the builder until he's 65 (and then he gets the nice pension you were forced to pay for too) :rolleyes:

leninbenjamin

what's wrong with subcontracting in general? it would often make as much economic sense for a general contractor to employ workers to to a task directly as it would for the ESB, i.e. none.

secondly, fair enough the ESB should have some obligation to act on this, but having a strike over an act ESB didn't commit themselves directly and have no real control over afaik is just overdoing it and completely unnecessary. and as Oscar says the fact that some people think they should be held liable for it? utterly nonsensical...

although in reality the union here is not acting because it feels concerned for the plight of the workers of FSE?, it's just trying to make it difficult for the ESB to contract out work again and in general just stifle any attempt to make the ESB a productive company.

Jackie laughlin

I think the dispute needs to be put in context. As OscarB says, there is a place for sub-contracting but in recent years management style has been for "downsizing": making workers "redundant" and getting their work done by a subcontractor who employs people on worse wages and conditions. I think it probable that the unions acted impulsively on this out of outrage and solidarity. However, it is becoming apparent that the ESB could become the first dispute in a long overdue reaction to the excesses of sub-contracting.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

As an employer, I have a serious problem with that. I recently contracted an electrician to do some vital work on my main equipment site. His employees did the work - fair enough - but let's imagine for the sake of argument that he subcontracted it. The work was done, and I paid (quite a lot) for it.

Suppose the subcontractor didn't pay his employees. You're saying that I have an obligation to make sure they get paid - how, exactly? I've already paid for the work. Should I pay the unpaid wages also? Will I get stuck for PRSI etc. also? How do I get my money back? It's a terrifying prospect.

It has been argued that this means the ESB shouldn't subcontract work. But the work in question is (AFAIK) a power station overhaul. It doesn't make economic sense for an employer to be forced to hire specialist workers for a one-off project.

Don't get me wrong: I deplore the action of the subcontractor in this case, and I believe the workers should receive their entitlements promptly, but to threaten strike action on a company that's twice removed from the issue is a truly scary prospect.

That's comparing two completely different scenarios. In this case ESB chose to go outside for the work to be done and not the workers. They are ultimately responsible for any actions on the part of the subcontractor. It's also reasonable that the union would want to prevent more subcontracting as this is the result. It's not a isolated incident in the nature of subcontracting labor.

sovtek

leninbenjamin wrote: »

although in reality the union here is not acting because it feels concerned for the plight of the workers of FSE?, it's just trying to make it difficult for the ESB to contract out work again and in general just stifle any attempt to make the ESB a productive company.

It would seem the subcontractor is the one getting in the way of productivity here...not the union.

leninbenjamin

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

making workers "redundant" and getting their work done by a subcontractor who employs people on worse wages and conditions.

the fact the management would be willing to overlook their own workers wouldn't have anything to do with the excessive pensions and benefits or complete lack of productivity arising from the complete resistance of the unions to any changes that would actually make them do some work would it?

lostexpectation

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's a ridiculous display of how unions have too much power in this country. fair enough to feel solidarity with the workers, but to threaten to strike when your employer has technically done nothing wrong? just daft...

wow did you borrow that opinion from Indo cos you obviously don't have clue what your taking about?

lostexpectation

I don't think the ESB should pay all the money but a percentage, are they not going tot try and get some money back from from the receivership of the dodgey company

leninbenjamin

lostexpectation wrote: »

wow did you borrow that opinion from Indo cos you obviously don't have clue what your taking about?

hurr...hurr...hurr....

explain to me so why the ESB should be responsible for the actions of another company instead of making cheap attempts at humour?

Jackie laughlin

Lenin,
Are you really in favour of lowering wages and conditions? The ambition must be that ALL workers enjoy a good income, a sufficient pension etc. - not a levelling down!

Redundancy + Sub-contracting is usually no more than a crude way of increasing profits. It also makes life easier for the managers remaining in the stripped down, "lean, mean core enterprise". (Pardon the ****e but I love management speak.)

Where on earth do you get the impression that ESB workers are idle?

This dispute hasn't worked out at all well for Irish society. Resolution involves a 600K ex gratia subscription towards the missing wages from the ESB's primary contractor with the state paying the rest. It is unacceptable that the state bail out a rogue employer in this way.

The sub-contractor whose Irish operation has disappeared is being investigated by An Garda as wage deductions for pension contributions and for union dues have not been paid over.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

That's comparing two completely different scenarios. In this case ESB chose to go outside for the work to be done and not the workers.

How is that different from my scenario? In my case, I chose to go outside for the work to be done, not my employees.

sovtek wrote:

They are ultimately responsible for any actions on the part of the subcontractor.

If the sub-subcontracting firm paid another company to provide lunches, and that company paid another company for bread for those lunches, and that company didn't pay its employees - should ESB pay those wages too?

sovtek wrote:

It's also reasonable that the union would want to prevent more subcontracting as this is the result. It's not a isolated incident in the nature of subcontracting labor.

It's understandable, sure - but I'm not convinced it's reasonable. Subcontracting is a business decision that makes sense in many cases. If you make a company responsible for wrongdoing on the part of its subcontractors, why not make it responsible for the failings of all of its suppliers? Does anyone think that's a good idea?

Hagar

Was the subcontractor paid all monies due to them before they disappeared? I think they were, so effectively the ESB has already paid these men's wages but it was later mis-appropriated by the sub-contractor. And now now they are supposed to pay them again?

I suspect the real reason the Unions want to force the ESB to pay the foreign workers a second time is to scare them off using foreign labour in case this situation arises again. I don't think there is any altruism involved at all. Just some clever positioning against future use of sub-contracted labour.

My 2 zlotys.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote: »

How is that different from my scenario? In my case, I chose to go outside for the work to be done, not my employees. If the sub-subcontracting firm paid another company to provide lunches, and that company paid another company for bread for those lunches, and that company didn't pay its employees - should ESB pay those wages too?

if it was done on their premises maybe yes


sure look at gap now blaming subcontractors for child labour relevations saying the factory subcontracted and didn't hold up their standards but its the gap logo on the clothes those kids were making...

lostexpectation

leninbenjamin wrote: »

hurr...hurr...hurr....

explain to me so why the ESB should be responsible for the actions of another company instead of making cheap attempts at humour?

you said unions have too much power, this was the made up part I questioned

Jackie laughlin

The ESB is a dreadful and ruthless employer; ask anyone persecuted into "accepting redundancy" there. However, they were unfortunate to be at the centre of a dispute over sub-contracting. Almost all companies have to employ contractors from time to time. Therefore, the unions need a better field than this one on which to fight. Inevitably a more appropriate dispute will emerge, one in which a company has all of its continuing work done by contractors - preferably one which made its own workers "redundant" before placing the work with contractors.

Unlike companies who bring in a contractor to handle a definite project, the new slimmed down company should be made responsible for any exploitation of what are in effect its employees.

Boggle

lostexpectation wrote:

if it was done on their premises maybe yes

What if it was an offsite activity? Do you discriminate between the guy who works for weeks on end on a project off-site - either at the design or manufacture stage- and the guy who installs it?? Why is the installer more important and protected that the rest of the people involved? What about the individual suppliers involved? If they purchased material for the project but failed to pay the bill - does this make me liable for those costs? What if someone was injured while assembling it - am I now supposed to carry insurance for all the subcontractors employees also?

Hagar wrote:

I suspect the real reason the Unions want to force the ESB to pay the foreign workers a second time is to scare them off using foreign labour in case this situation arises again.

I think this may be the real root of the problem. I received an email from a Polish company (owned by Irish people) offering staff for as little as E120 per week. They flout the minimum wage by having the staff effectively subcontracted. How is an Irish worker supposed to compete when, like it or not, they cannot work legally for less than the minimum wage??
As for people who claim that "the only reason hotels etc are full of foreign workers and not Irish is due to the Irish being unwilling to lower themselves" - you really need to wake up. How can a young Irish person get a part time job, when they can get foreigners for a fraction of the wage??

you said unions have too much power

The power to strike IS a weapon. Unfortunately our Unions abuse it. Reminds me of the Kents job (years and years ago) whereby the union threatened a strike for raingear (fair enough if you are working in the rain), and then had the cheek to threaten another strike unless they were paid more for wearing said raingear!!!

As an employer, the one thing I dread is the prospect of unions getting their teeth into my staff. Look at the most heavily unionized workforce in the country: the public sector. Its no coincidence that they have such contempt for their employers (the public) and are so inefficient, expensive and eventually incompetent!!

stovelid

I have to say I support union action in this case.

Nobody is saying contracting work out is bad per-se; however, nobody can deny that the practice is used by some employers to adopt a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil attitude to low wages and other exploitation.

Jackie laughlin

It is common practice in law to find out who really owns something. This is done to bring to book the chancers who get someone to pretend to own something for them. Similarly, if a company employs a sub-contractor to do continuous day to day work (No, not a project with a duration.) the workers are effectively the employees of the first company and we need to pin that responsibility down very tightly.

Boggle,
As an employer, you really should look again at unions. They are an effective management device - and I do not mean that pejoratively. Unions facilitate collective bargaining.

As for your views on strikes and public workers ...! There may be cases of crazy strikes but usually there is something behind the apparent craziness. Workers are not mad; they don't like strikes because they don't get paid. Public service workers are more or less the same as private sector workers.

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It is common practice in law to find out who really owns something. This is done to bring to book the chancers who get someone to pretend to own something for them. Similarly, if a company employs a sub-contractor to do continuous day to day work (No, not a project with a duration.) the workers are effectively the employees of the first company and we need to pin that responsibility down very tightly.

Fair enough, but the ESB situation involved a specific project.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

As an employer, you really should look again at unions. They are an effective management device - and I do not mean that pejoratively. Unions facilitate collective bargaining.

True, but they've shown over and over again their willingness to use the blunt instrument of strike action carelessly and indiscriminately.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

There may be cases of crazy strikes but usually there is something behind the apparent craziness. Workers are not mad; they don't like strikes because they don't get paid. Public service workers are more or less the same as private sector workers.

I worked in a factory years ago where a union member got pissed off about something, and told his shop steward he was walking out. The shop steward fell back on the "one out, all out" philosophy and informed all union workers that there was an unofficial dispute on. Everyone obediently downed tools and walked out. It took a couple of hours for a local union official to arrive on site, dress down the shop steward and tell everyone to get back to work. The loss of productivity for that half day was staggering.

The employee in question should have been summarily dismissed - he didn't even get a verbal warning. The shop steward continued in her role as before.

The other side effect that struck me was that I, as a non-union member, was pilloried for not walking out with everyone else. I was deemed to have effectively passed a picket, and several members of staff didn't speak to me for weeks.

I recognise the valid role that a union can play, but several experiences like the above have led me to vow never to join one, and now - as an employer - to do everything in my power to avoid ever having to deal with one.

gurramok

stovelid wrote: »

I have to say I support union action in this case.

Nobody is saying contracting work out is bad per-se; however, nobody can deny that the practice is used by some employers to adopt a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil attitude to low wages and other exploitation.

I'm usually a little bit on the pro-union side but a bit of sub-contracting is good for the ESB in particular
Reason i say this is that the average wage in the ESB is €92k according to a recent report(http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1002/esb.html)

Now, its us the public who has to fork out these overpriced wages in our huge bills and anything to bring down the bill per se is welcome to me

And the worst thing about it us that its the public who suffer in the end who these guys are not happy in their jobs through unjustified power cuts

Jackie laughlin

Oscar,
I've already said that the ESB in this instance is the wrong place to fight this issue.

I'm trying to make a parallell between beneficial ownership and effective employment, i.e. a situation where to all intents and puposes the "parent" company IS the employer. A project just doesn't fit the bill.

I find it strange that the example you give of crazy trade unionism involves a union official acting to stop the craziness. Surely you would make more sense if you joined a union in support of the official's action. I can dredge up better examples of bad union behaviour but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Every time someone drags out an example of excessive income I ask the same questions: "Are you opposed to disgracefully high salaries? If so, what should be a maximum salary?" 92K is a great deal less than the 450K+ paid to the Head of the HSE. Lunatic salaries are common in the private sector too.

gurramok

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Every time someone drags out an example of excessive income I ask the same questions: "Are you opposed to disgracefully high salaries? If so, what should be a maximum salary?" 92K is a great deal less than the 450K+ paid to the Head of the HSE. Lunatic salaries are common in the private sector too.

Yes i'm opposed to disgraceful high salaries especially when the consumer has to pay for a proportion of them and get screwed for it.

Head of the HSE is one person at the top, these guys in the ESB are numerous individuals under management, the few thousand of them are not at the top like the HSE bloke.

Try comparing salaries to that superpower called the US who operate nuclear power stations
http://www.worldsalaries.org/gaselectricitywater.shtml

Unless i'm mistaken, the average wage in the ESB is the highest in the world, just look at what other energy workers in other industrialised countries get!

Its bloody rotten i tell ya!

leninbenjamin

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I find it strange that the example you give of crazy trade unionism involves a union official acting to stop the craziness. Surely you would make more sense if you joined a union in support of the official's action. I can dredge up better examples of bad union behaviour but they are the exception rather than the rule.

but with the power that the unions have in that incident a sizeable amount of earnings would be lost, deadlines may be missed, future investment in the company may be affected. Even where the union officials disagree with it no one ever faced any sanctions or reprimands over it? why should nothing have happened when the dust settled? should measures not have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again? can you not see why that is also very wrong?

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I find it strange that the example you give of crazy trade unionism involves a union official acting to stop the craziness. Surely you would make more sense if you joined a union in support of the official's action.

If the official had stood aside and allowed the company to fire the original offender, and replaced the shop steward, I might have felt differently. As it was, the whole episode - and others - left a bad taste in my mouth. There was a permanent expectation that I, as a non-union member, would toe the union line. Anytime I followed my conscience and refused to co-operate with a lunatic action like the one I cited, I was treated as a lowlife and scab for weeks afterwards.

I also had issues with the "closed shop" philosophy. Unions fight hard for an employee's right to be represented by a union, but utterly reject the reciprocal right not to be represented. Don't get me wrong: I understand why closed shops exist. I just think they reek of hypocrisy, and are yet another symptom of all that is wrong with the overall attitude of trade unions in this country.

Jackie laughlin

Oscar,
Did the company want to fire the person involved and did the OFFICIAL prevent it? In most cases where a company wants to fire someone and cannot, it is because they have failed to keep any record of behaviour and warnings or because they have failed completely ever to confront the miscreant before the behaviour became a firing matter, and then find that - in the absence of a shred of evidence - no adjudicator would back them. In short, shoddy, lazy management! It is very easy and simple to fire someone who repeatedly behaves badly and, faced with evidence, the union and an adjudicator will see the sense and the justice.

You don't really expect a membership-based organisation to argue strongly for the right NOT to become a member. All unions recognise this right. Frequently a union - and the members who pay dues - put a great deal of work into a process which results in a pay increase for a group of workers. It is maddening when the non-members freeload and get the increase too.

What goes on in the workplace is not under the management of the union. The union functions in two ways within the business. Firstly, it acts in its members interests. That usually means in a market driven economy trying to find ways to increase the cost of labour. (Optimise members income.) Secondly, it organises the members so that management can operate collective bargaining.


The above is way off topic. The issue of trying to make an employer responsible for workers who are effectively in continuous employment is important as more and more businesses try to evade this responsibility by "out-sourcing".

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Lunatic salaries are common in the private sector too.

Particularly from the top down. Where unions are present the divide is usually not so drastic

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Now, its us the public who has to fork out these overpriced wages in our huge bills and anything to bring down the bill per se is welcome to me

And the worst thing about it us that its the public who suffer in the end who these guys are not happy in their jobs through unjustified power cuts

The public would not suffer if unions were more active in the private sector in general. That would probably mean "overpriced" wages for most and would raise everyone's boat. Then you have the resulting economic growth and consumer confidence.
It beats the race to the bottom that I never understand people arguing FOR!!!????!!!! (ie. "...that would never happen in the private sector..etc.etc)

leninbenjamin

sovtek wrote: »

Then you have the resulting economic growth and consumer confidence.

it could just as easily cause spiralling inflation and all the crap that comes with it. and the growth would be an illusion. nominally people would be better off, but in reality there would be no production increase or innovation, it'd hardly be economic growth especially when we price our own exported goods out of other foreign markets...

sovtek

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it could just as easily cause spiralling inflation and all the crap that comes with it. and the growth would be an illusion. nominally people would be better off, but in reality there would be no production increase or innovation, it'd hardly be economic growth especially when we price our own exported goods out of other foreign markets...

Where it's been tried before (namely France or Germany) that isn't the reality. As far as exports... the mentioned countries do quite well exporting besides having a strong union presence. They also have high production and innovation.
Inflation comes from business taking advantage of workers wages, not the other way around.

leninbenjamin

sovtek wrote: »

Where it's been tried before (namely France or Germany) that isn't the reality.

source? France and Germany haven't exactly the healthiest of economies now either...

Jackie laughlin

OK, I don't go to visit their slums but each time I go to either France or Germany I am struck by the quality of life enjoyed by the citizen; the level of public provision is remarkably greater than here or indeed Britain. Then I listen to the news reports telling me how France and Germany are in bad economic shape. They have lower growth rates than here, that's for sure but ...

If a society really, really wants an inflationary wages spiral, one good way to motivate it is to flaunt outrageous salaries in the faces of people who earn a fraction of that but who have been taught that individuals must fend for themselves and maximise their income.

To return to topic: I think that it is vital that out-sourcing companies be held responsible for the pay and conditions of the people whom they effectively employ.

leninbenjamin

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

If a society really, really wants an inflationary wages spiral, one good way to motivate it is to flaunt outrageous salaries in the faces of people who earn a fraction of that but who have been taught that individuals must fend for themselves and maximise their income.

inflation doesn't discriminate between who gets the wage rise.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

To return to topic: I think that is vital that out-sourcing companies be held responsible for the pay and conditions of the people whom they effectively employ.

if i'm reading what you're saying then correctly: then in this case the ESB shouldn't as they weren't the ones to have hired this company!? it should be Lentjes.

Jackie laughlin

leninB,
I realise fully that "inflation doesn't discriminate between who gets the wages" but I never said or implied that it did. I said that gross inequality and individualism MOTIVATES wage claims.

Earlier in the thread I said that the ESB was not an appropriate field for this battle but not for the reason you suggest. It is inappropriate because contracting for projects is a normal part of industry/business. What is unacceptable is a company evading its responsibilities to its employess by "outsourcing". If I were working week in, week out for years "making" something for the ESB or any other organisation, the ESB (or other) would be my effective employer, no matter how many intervening employers there were.