Unions v real world

jahalpin

I think it's about time that the unions in this country started living in the real world and realised that concessions must be made or jobs will go

For example, the latest Dublin Bus strike, workers are on strike because they don't want to change buses in the centre of town but instead want to drive a bus out of revenue earning service to the depot so they can use the facilities there. Dublin Bus has always has a large canteen behind Clearys where the drivers that change in town go to get their subsidised meals etc.. I don't see why the drivers in Harristown think that they should be able to decide where they go to get their subsidised food and would rather inconvenience paying customers and waste fuel driving to a depot on the outskirts of the city.

I have recently been in the position of having to move my place of work from the centre of town to the outskirts and as I work for a private (non-state) company I saw no problem in moving as it is in the benefit of the company and they after all pay my salary. The workers in Dublin Bus have only been asked to change buses in town and if necessary get a revenue service bus back to the depot on company time!!

The unions were originally setup to prevent people from being exploited by their employers, by exploited it means things like being locked out of work and not getting paid for work done, these days the unions think that exploitation means things like workers having to clean up after themselves in canteens ,having management staff help out on tills etc. when a shop gets busy and workers not having free use of company equipment when it suits them.

The union’s excessive demands are leading to a reduction in Irelands competitiveness in a global marketplace and actually lead to higher redundancies etc

While the unions expect fair treatment for their members they do not extend the same fair treatment to their own employees

mikemac

jahalpin wrote: »

While the unions expect fair treatment for their members they do not extend the same fair treatment to their own employees

Are union officals badly treated?

Crash

Interestingly enough, I had decided to come onto politics today to start a topic fairly similiar to this point.

So taking the most recent strike action which involved SIPTU, the drivers stated that having to travel from city centre to home added travel time to their working day. I would enquire as to just how many of us have had to factor travel time into our working day. secondly, how many of us have had to factor travel time via dublin bus into our working day.

within the private sector, you have certain things you accept. 1) is that you may have to work in a place far away. 2) that place may change, and you have options there upon.

I have serious issues with the idea that you are inherently entitled to a job - granted you are entitled to fair treatment once within such a position, but to be honest the travel time that would have been incurred by most of these drivers was not out of the ordinary for the average person.

On top of that, I always find it highly entertaining how SIPTU (I am using SIPTU as an example because they tend to be the ones behind the most ridiculuous strike actions) has a habit of taking action which effects a ridiculuously large majority of its members.

To be honest, having been involved with certain unions and dealt with representative members of various unions, unions as a whole seem to take the idea of the fact that they are there to protect members rights above and beyond their remit, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. take for instance the rail strike on the dublin to cork line, or the bus strike. These are despicable actions.

sovtek

jahalpin wrote: »

The union’s excessive demands are leading to a reduction in Irelands competitiveness in a global marketplace and actually lead to higher redundancies etc

Ireland is a country not a company. The main problem with Ireland's "competitiveness" is it's low living standards, run amok inflation and it's serious lack of proper city planning and infrastructure.
If you think unions are a thing of the past just try and recall the myriad examples of exploitation by non union private endeavors...Irish Ferries etc etc

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote: »

Ireland is a country not a company. The main problem with Ireland's "competitiveness" is it's low living standards, run amok inflation and it's serious lack of proper city planning and infrastructure.
If you think unions are a thing of the past just try and recall the myriad examples of exploitation by non union private endeavors...Irish Ferries etc etc

IT's a case of two wrongs not making a right though.

Unions and their respective management both have responsibility to maintain the countries competitiveness, the most fundemental measure of which is productivity.

Several actions by Unions lately appear to be more about protecting an employees cushy lifestyle than about preventing them beng exploited by ruthless management.

brianthebard

I was under the impression that the issue was that the drivers began and ended their shifts in the middle of the town, and never went to the main depot at the start or end of the day. Can someone please clarify once and for all what exactly the strike is about, because I've heard a lot of different things over the last few days and this thread is no different.

sovtek

sovtek wrote: »

try and recall the myriad examples of exploitation by non union private endeavors...Irish Ferries etc etc

I'd be interested in the etc bit.

I'll bet this isn't one of them.

Fratton Fred

Tristrame wrote: »

I'd be interested in the etc bit.

I'll bet this isn't one of them.

or this http://www.limerickblogger.org/blog/?p=3830

jmayo

sovtek wrote: »

Ireland is a country not a company. The main problem with Ireland's "competitiveness" is it's low living standards, run amok inflation and it's serious lack of proper city planning and infrastructure.
If you think unions are a thing of the past just try and recall the myriad examples of exploitation by non union private endeavors...Irish Ferries etc etc

Low living standards, run amok inflation ?? You are having me on :rolleyes:
What about the myriad of cases where unions drove businesses under or out of this country because of their intransigence ?
The last great stronghold of unions is the public sector where they have affectively strangled efficiency, productivity and help drive operating costs higher.
An ESB station been manned even though not generating electricity was a prime example of this scenario. Jobs for the boys and screw everyone else :rolleyes:

Ah the poor train drivers and bus drivers are being exploited, but not as shamelessly as their customers who are screwed in some cases based on the most flippant and spurious of reasons.

Zombrex

jahalpin wrote: »

For example, the latest Dublin Bus strike, workers are on strike because they don't want to change buses in the centre of town but instead want to drive a bus out of revenue earning service to the depot so they can use the facilities there.

That isn't the main reason they were striking.

They were striking because Dublin Bus wanted to change routes so that some of the routes that started and ending in Harristown were changes to start or end in the city center.

The complaint from the staff was that many had already organized their lives around starting and ending in Harristown.

This change would increase time to get to and from the start and end of their routes, increasing working hours and travel time.

DadaKopf

crash_000 wrote:

within the private sector, you have certain things you accept. 1) is that you may have to work in a place far away. 2) that place may change, and you have options there upon.

It's amazing what people will lie down and accept.

You think it's OK that so many Irish people have to travel hours on congested roads and inadequate, overcrowded public transport to earn a living? Spending so long commuting and working late that you never see your children?

Just think about it for a second. Is the NBRU really crazy to demand what they did?

Stop blaming the unions. Start blaming the government. It's the government that's responsible for the mess this country is in. And it's the people - all workers - who should demand better.

So, you have a choice. Reject the unions and embrace a life of diminished rights, lower income, insecurity, poor health and lower quality of life. Or support what they stand for, and take action yourself to demand more rights, more income, better security, better health and a higher quality of life.

invincibleirish

Tristrame wrote: »

I'd be interested in the etc bit.

I'll bet this isn't one of them.

no disrespect but a narky councillor upset that he didnt get a labour nomination to run for the dail(which is mentioned in the article) giving out about pat rabbitte when he worked as a union negotiator 22 years ago is hardly a basis on which to complain about unions?

invincibleirish

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or this http://www.limerickblogger.org/blog/?p=3830

as for this,the workers
rejected the plan, i dont know the full story behind the article but posting the link doesnt add anything to the debate about unions v real world,there is no mention of unions in the article

wotisthere

Firstly , all you non union members out there , stop moaning .As an ex dublin bus driver with 20 years service behind me it is understanable why those drivers went out on strike. Harristown was built , 1. to be a central depot for the north/east/west services . 2.As parking is a premium in the city alll of the routes of the above garage started , breaked and finished in the depot . This was a company decision not the unions .The reason they want to change it is because the running time a bus is given to get from the depot to the terminus was not enough due to TRAFFIC PROBLEMS! So they have decided to change the whole concept of the garage .

Raskolnikov

Am I the only one who thinks that Dublin Bus should just no longer recognise the unions and simply fire workers who refuse to go back to work?

If I don't like the working practices of my private-sector, non-unionized employer, I can go do one; just like the Dublin Bus drivers should.

juuge

What is really ironic about the unions is that by their reckless strike action they affect and disrupt their own kind. Do you think middle class professionals give a toss about whether busses are running or not?

jahalpin

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't the main reason they were striking.

They were striking because Dublin Bus wanted to change routes so that some of the routes that started and ending in Harristown were changes to start or end in the city center.

The complaint from the staff was that many had already organized their lives around starting and ending in Harristown.

This change would increase time to get to and from the start and end of their routes, increasing working hours and travel time.

I organised my life around working in the City Centre but was prepared to move as it was in the best interests of the company.

The drivers are getting 45 minutes paid travel time to get between town and the depot at the start and end of their shifts, which should be more than enough time.

What the unions seem to want is the country to go back into the deep despression of the 80's with high unemployment etc..

It is time that the unions were put in their place, they are not the employers and they should therefore not be in a position to dictate terms to the people that pay their members wages, pensions etc.. Unions should only become involved when workers rights are being truely breached ie if employers refuse to pay their staff etc.

Jackie laughlin

Union members are the same as anyone else. To characterise them as lunatics who want a recession shows a fundamental inability to understand the real world of work.

Moreover, unions do not order members; it is the other way round.

The current silliness is workers falling for the contrived controversy over "featherbedded" state employees versus hard workers in private companies. The current relaunch of this argument coincides with the increases for senior civil servants. The whole thing masks the essential injustice of pay differentials between mad salaries and low salaries.

Incidentally, I've worked in both public and private companies and - if there is any difference - it is that pay, hours and conditions are worse in public employment.

Another incidentally, I don't know how bus workers endure splits of a couple of hours in their shifts, whether they have to while the time away in town or in county Dublin.

Fratton Fred

wotisthere wrote: »

Firstly , all you non union members out there , stop moaning .As an ex dublin bus driver with 20 years service behind me it is understanable why those drivers went out on strike. Harristown was built , 1. to be a central depot for the north/east/west services . 2.As parking is a premium in the city alll of the routes of the above garage started , breaked and finished in the depot . This was a company decision not the unions .The reason they want to change it is because the running time a bus is given to get from the depot to the terminus was not enough due to TRAFFIC PROBLEMS! So they have decided to change the whole concept of the garage .

So if they take on new drivers who are willing to work these routes and hours it is acceptable then?

sovtek

juuge wrote: »

What is really ironic about the unions is that by their reckless strike action they affect and disrupt their own kind. Do you think middle class professionals give a toss about whether busses are running or not?

Being that it is a complete waste of money to own a car in Dublin...this one does.

DadaKopf

I organised my life around working in the City Centre but was prepared to move as it was in the best interests of the company.

The drivers are getting 45 minutes paid travel time to get between town and the depot at the start and end of their shifts, which should be more than enough time.

I'm sorry you had to disrupt your life by moving, though, as you say, it was your 'choice'. Or maybe it was your employer's choice. An alternative way of looking at things is this: if you and other employees had a stronger voice, you could have demanded paid travel time, too. What's so crazy about expecting companies to stop trating people like machines and start treating people with dignity?

jmayo

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Union members are the same as anyone else. To characterise them as lunatics who want a recession shows a fundamental inability to understand the real world of work.

Incidentally, I've worked in both public and private companies and - if there is any difference - it is that pay, hours and conditions are worse in public employment.

Another incidentally, I don't know how bus workers endure splits of a couple of hours in their shifts, whether they have to while the time away in town or in county Dublin.

I will give you a split in shift of 3/4 hours is a bit of a nonsense but public sector workers having worse conditions, pay and hours than private sector
workers :rolleyes: Give us a break.
What are your pensions like in the public sector may I ask ?
How secure are your jobs compared to people working in private company that doesn't have luxury of government giving them handouts becuase they are not making enough money to break even never mnd make a profit.
I am talking about public sector where the companies could break even and not civil service government department etc which is not really money making entity.

Does recession hit people in public sector in the same way as people employed in private sector?
No it doesn't because your employer does not shut down or make you redundant and leave you looking for a new job.

Was it not the train drivers or dart drivers that demanded more money just to be retrained to drive new engine ? Try that in IT or technology company and you will be on your ar** out the door :rolleyes:
The CIE (or whatever the companies are rebadged these days) have some of the most militant unions.
I have had the pleasure of sitting in a bus in Eyre Square, Galway and having to listen to the drivers debate whether they would have a strike over tea breaks. BTW the bus was running 20 minutes late already.

DadaKopf wrote: »

I'm sorry you had to disrupt your life by moving, though, as you say, it was your 'choice'. Or maybe it was your employer's choice. An alternative way of looking at things is this: if you and other employees had a stronger voice, you could have demanded paid travel time, too. What's so crazy about expecting companies to stop trating people like machines and start treating people with dignity?

Yes demand paid travel time, extra holidays, a gym etc and watch your employer close it's Irish operation and move to Poland or China.
Treating people with dignity ?
They are not whipping you, tying you to the workbench or making you work 16 hours in the dark these days you know.
And yes we do owe unions for a lot of those advances but unions need to remember who does pay the wages and if the company is not making money everyone suffers.

leninbenjamin

jmayo wrote: »

I will give you a split in shift of 3/4 hours is a bit of a nonsense

it's not like it's confined to the public sector though. plenty of private employees agree to work to the same conditions...

you could always just quit the job and let someone who would be willing to work under those conditions do so... no one's forcing you to do that job.

DadaKopf

How secure are your jobs compared to people working in private company that doesn't have luxury of government giving them handouts becuase they are not making enough money to break even never mnd make a profit.

Job insecurity is a huge problem. And increasingly so in the public sector, too. If only people would get together and do something about it...

Did you know: two-thirds of union members are from the private sector?

jmayo

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's not like it's confined to the public sector though. plenty of private employees agree to work to the same conditions...

you could always just quit the job and let someone who would be willing to work under those conditions do so... no one's forcing you to do that job.

I don't work in public sector but have had the dubious pleasure of being contracted into major City Council HQ for a wee while. It was the most depressing place I have ever worked. There was an apathy and people just seemed to be shuffling about, clock watching and apparently waiting for either breaktime, home time or their retirement. It seemed to be a culture of waiting for something or other, a bit like the service they offered the customers :rolleyes:

DadaKopf wrote: »

Job insecurity is a huge problem. And increasingly so in the public sector, too. If only people would get together and do something about it...

Did you know: two-thirds of union members are from the private sector?

So is it now easier to fire a teacher for being totally inept?
Is it easier to fire a public servant for wasting millions of taxpayers money ?
I think not ;-)
Job security and pensions in public sector are still way ahead of anything in private sector and now their pay is on a par if not ahead of the private sector workers.

No didn't know 2/3 of union member in private sector, but maybe the private sector employees have more cop on and realise that the employer is not there to just give them employment but actaully to deliver to the customers and make money.

DadaKopf

You sound jealous.

jmayo

DadaKopf wrote: »

You sound jealous.

No not jealous of just sitting about and waiting.
BTW do you work in public sector ?
Actually some large private organisations can tend to be similar to an extent.
It is the bureaucracy I guess that can do it.

But I do firmly believe that public sector workers are cushioned from outside downturns and fiscal pressures way more so than their private counterparts.
Aer Lingus employees have had a rude awakening to this over the last few years and it is hurting them. Welcome to the real world I say.

DadaKopf

Are you an employer?

jmayo

DadaKopf wrote: »

Are you an employer?

According to play ground rules I asked you first

DadaKopf

Well, whatever. The answer's no.

Your turn.

jmayo

DadaKopf wrote: »

Well, whatever. The answer's no.

Your turn.

The answer's no so now that we have that out of the way can we move on to thrashing the unionsists

Fratton Fred

DadaKopf wrote: »

Did you know: two-thirds of union members are from the private sector?

I would hazard a guess and say a big chunk of those work for Aer Lingus, Eircom, ESb or Bord Gais.

All fine examples of Management and unions working in harmony:rolleyes:

Colonel Sanders

looking at private sector union demands, one I find startling is the demand to maintain DB pensions for new employees. This is none of a union's business IMO. What it boils down to is that Private sector employers want to change terms of conditions in contracts that they will offer prospective employees in the future. Any applicant is then free to either accept or reject these revised terms and conditions. How the unions feel it is up to them to protest and even strike over this is a mystery to me.

I moved jobs last February. i was offered a contarct of employment by my new employer (which didn't include a DB pension, it changed on the 31st of December). If I wasn't happy with this part of my contract nobody held a gun to my head to take the job, I was free to say thanks but no thanks. What I, or nobody else had the right to do was ask a union to cause disruption over it.

Carawaystick

jahalpin wrote: »

The drivers are getting 45 minutes paid travel time to get between town and the depot at the start and end of their shifts, which should be more than enough time.

Do you know where Harristown depot is? It is close to the runway10/28 in Dublin Airport.
Have you been in Dublin lately? do you know how long it might take to travel from the city centre to Harristown?
including waiting for a bus to arrive that's serving the depot.

Secondly, more importantly. Do you think a driver will always be able to get from Harristown to the city centre in less than 45 minutes, under all reasonable conditions? If this is not possible, should the passengers on the bus suffer DB's poor planning?

how many people who start and finish their working day in the same place would gladly allow their employer to change their working conditions to make them start or finish on foot several km from their normal place of work (one of these places in the country with no footpath or streetlights to get there and one in the centre of a large urban area) bearing in mind you will be starting or finishing work outside the normal public transport hours in this country.

Harristown IS different precisely cos it is in the sticks.

Do people think there would be no strikes if there were private companies running swathes of Dublin's bus services?
If the bus market was broken up into say 6 private operators, an industrial dispute in one of them would result in all the routes from that operator not running, but the other operators would probably still run....
just like last week.



Look at New York - private sector unions striking over broadway conditions. I doubt the theatres there are state or city owned.
Look in California - guilds there striking, again not a public sector issue.


Fred, ESB and Bord Gais are semi-state's.

Jackie laughlin

Carawaystick,
Well said. A dose of common sense.

Unions at a basic level are about individuals coming together to maintain or increase the cost of their labour. In a market that's what everyone does. If there is competition in an industry, the hand of the union in an individual company can be strengthened as the company fears losing out to a competitor. If the competition is bogus, the workers will obviously talk to each other and act right across the industry.

It saddens me when I hear people rejoice at the imposition of poorer working conditions on workers who have known better days.

It is fairly easy to sack an incompetent, lazy or bizarrely behaved worker but it does require that managers do some work so that a tribunal will find in favour. Yes, it is right that these things be adjudicated upon as it is an employee's defence against being treated unjustly but it will not give shelter to documented wrongdoing where a manager can show that effort went into making corrections. This applies in both private and public sectors.

Personal experience means little in this argument as working at different levels offers quite different experiences. One would have to compare, say, engineers with engineers or labourers with labourers in public and private employment. For what it's worth I found the private sector better in very many respects. Pay is better. The entire pension contribution rather than a part is paid. A car is provided though it is not needed for the job. There are bonusses. VHI is paid by the company. The occasional day off doesn't come out of holidays. There is less close supervision/management. The office conditions are better. Having said all this, general workers are treated like **** and live in fear of outsourcing, while vey senior managers are paid dizzying salaries.

sovtek

Carawaystick wrote: »

Do you know where Harristown depot is? It is close to the runway10/28 in Dublin Airport.
Have you been in Dublin lately? do you know how long it might take to travel from the city centre to Harristown?
including waiting for a bus to arrive that's serving the depot.

I think the estimated time on the bus schedule is 70 minutes.

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It is fairly easy to sack an incompetent, lazy or bizarrely behaved worker but it does require that managers do some work so that a tribunal will find in favour. Yes, it is right that these things be adjudicated upon as it is an employee's defence against being treated unjustly but it will not give shelter to documented wrongdoing where a manager can show that effort went into making corrections. This applies in both private and public sectors.

I know of at least 3 people that have been fired without giving proper warnings ..following heirarchy and the reasons were a bit dodgy. Had they been people that were likely to make a case out of it I know that my company would lose.
Two people have been on minimum wage for the past 5 years. They also happen to be Romanian.
We have no union.

Jackie laughlin

Sovtec,
I hope you don't think that I was making a case for unfair dismissals, exploitation or racism. I was responding to the common myth, that no one can be sacked from state employment. My point was that true idlers and spacers can be sacked with the support of fellow workers, unions and the IR apparatuses of the state, provided that a manager does his or her job properly.

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Sovtec,
I hope you don't think that I was making a case for unfair dismissals, exploitation or racism. I was responding to the common myth, that no one can be sacked from state employment. My point was that true idlers and spacers can be sacked with the support of fellow workers, unions and the IR apparatuses of the state, provided that a manager does his or her job properly.

I was just furthering your point for the private sector.

Sleepy

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Pay is better. The entire pension contribution rather than a part is paid. A car is provided though it is not needed for the job. There are bonusses. VHI is paid by the company. The occasional day off doesn't come out of holidays. There is less close supervision/management. The office conditions are better.

You're living in a fantasy land if you think that's true. Most recent studies I've seen reported indicate that the public sector has actually bypassed the private in terms of basic pay (nevermind factoring in the guilt edged pensions), holday entitlements are generally far superior to the private sector where 20 days is not only the legal minimum, it's the norm, company cars will cost you money if they're not needed for the job (that's why you notice so few people with them nowadays).

Less close supervision/management? Think about that one for a second: you're essentially saying either one of two things:

a) that public sector management is terrible

or

b) that private sector employees need less close supervision/magangement than their public sector counterparts.

I'd opt for secret answer number three myself - that both are true.

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy,
I've already said that it is impossible to make generalisations from personal experiences and anecdotes. I was merely giving you my experience. I assure you it is not a fantasy.

The car benefits, it is true, are to a large extent clawed back these days but certainly not gone. The rest is as I stated.

Comparing average earnings, as has been pointed out by several people on Boards, makes no sense. The average earnings in a company or sector where there are large numbers of highly educated or highly skilled workers will or course be higher than the national average and higher than a sector or company with a large number of general or lower skilled workers.

I cannot think of a professional or a technician who would not improve his or her position by leaving the public service. I frequently advise them to do so unless they are committed to public service.

I assure you that I thought about what I wrote before I wrote it and neither of your cynical interpretations is necessary. My point about "close" management was simply this. In the public service there is a tradition of having to account for everything. The consequence is tight monitoring of leave, excessive emphasis on attendance, lousy furniture etc. etc. In a profitable private company the culture is altogether different: there is flexibility which makes life more pleasant (I work hard and I can have a day off, say, for a wedding with no questions asked.) managers have the discretion to stump up for all sorts of "little" extras like travel, conferences, meals, Christmas etc. OK, it's great but I'm not arguing that p.s. managers be free to do that with taxpayers money. Indeed I'd want them fired or charged with theft if they did!

The whole public versus private employment "debate" is a disgusting diversion. I'm doing very nicely, thank you. However, there are many who are not and they are in both the private and the public sectors. Meanwhile - and again in both sectors - there is an entire class of parasites on salaries and allowances which are by any standard obscene. This should be the focus of moral outrage and not on, say, some unfortunate van driver in the Board of Works or somewhere who has very little going for him but has a pension scheme which will give him 50% of a meagre salary.

John R

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

The whole public versus private employment "debate" is a disgusting diversion. I'm doing very nicely, thank you. However, there are many who are not and they are in both the private and the public sectors. Meanwhile - and again in both sectors - there is an entire class of parasites on salaries and allowances which are by any standard obscene. This should be the focus of moral outrage and not on, say, some unfortunate van driver in the Board of Works or somewhere who has very little going for him but has a pension scheme which will give him 50% of a meagre salary.

+1.

This whole anti-union stuff that a particular section of Irish society drags up to blame all the ills of modern life on is complete hypocricy.

Companies fire thousands of people to outsource jobs in developing nations where they can pay slave-labour wages but that's absolutely fine because they are only looking after their own interests.

The country's richest businessmen pretend to live in tax havens while pay teams of accountants and lawyers to squirrel away their huge earnings so they pay less tax than the economic refugees that they have cleaning their offices but that's fine because they are just looking after their own interests.

The elected leaders of the country spend their time lining their own pockets by exploiting their position when they should be representing the people who elected them but that's apparently fine too, afterall they keep being re-elected.

It's a completely different story where ordinary workers are concerned though. They join a union to make sure they get the best pay and conditions they can and they are selfish greedy scum that are ruining the economy.

Exactly why should this single sector of society put everyone else's needs in front of their own? Nobody else does.

And that includes all of the poor private sector people crying foul in this thread. Can any of you truthfully say that you accept the down side of non-unionised private sector employment because of altruistic motives? Are you really taking one for Team Ireland or is it that you are gambling that by accepting certain poor terms now you can suck up to your bosses and climb your way up the greasy pole so that you can have the big office, leather chair, company Lexus and fat salary in a few years.

The fact is that for most PAYE workers, private or public that is not a realistic proposition and the most prudent action is to organise themselves with their colleagues to get the best deals they can from their employers.


While we're at it let's be honest and call a spade a spade. Stop hiding your elitist snobbery behind union bashing. This has now become the acceptable code for attacking the working class. Unions are merely paid representatives for groups of employees.

The unions are simply representing their clients who pay them to do so because of their expertise in labour relations. It is the same way that lawyers represent their clients in legal matters but I suppose all you rabid anti-union folk would not think of hiring a solicitor or barrister were you taken to court either.

oscarBravo

John R wrote: »

It's a completely different story where ordinary workers are concerned though. They join a union to make sure they get the best pay and conditions they can and they are selfish greedy scum that are ruining the economy.

Why do people feel the need to unrealistically polarise debates in order to score points?

There may be people who believe that all unions members are "selfish greedy scum", in the same way that there are people who believe that every business owner is a greedy fat cat capitalist pig who drives four Rolls Royces simultaneously around his personal Caribbean island. Both are delusional.

Equally, not every union grievance is a legitimate struggle against an evil capitalist overlord determined to grind working-class serfs under his jackbooted heel. Sometimes unions campaign to maintain the status quo, in the face of dramatically changed social conditions.

The ESB unions are threatening strike action to prevent a much-needed restructuring of the entire electricity industry in this country. What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

Colonel Sanders

oscarBravo wrote: »

What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

according to Deloitte's report none.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to unrealistically polarise debates in order to score points?

There may be people who believe that all unions members are "selfish greedy scum", in the same way that there are people who believe that every business owner is a greedy fat cat capitalist pig who drives four Rolls Royces simultaneously around his personal Caribbean island. Both are delusional.

Equally, not every union grievance is a legitimate struggle against an evil capitalist overlord determined to grind working-class serfs under his jackbooted heel. Sometimes unions campaign to maintain the status quo, in the face of dramatically changed social conditions.

The ESB unions are threatening strike action to prevent a much-needed restructuring of the entire electricity industry in this country. What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

Well said.

There is a place for unions i.e. cases like Irish Ferries and the Gama employees, but nobody can claim CIE (Bus Eireann, Irish Rail, Dublin Bus) or the ESB fall into these categories.

As pointed out by previous poster private sector employees can get days off in lieu, but they have usually worked longer hours to gain that privledge.
Certain industries, such as IT industry in my experience, can often involve working non paid overtime.
Then you can get more flexible breaks and time off.

Any chance someone in public sector, including semi states, will do non paid overtime. In my experience come 5 or 5.30pm the work places are empty.
Now saying that some private sector businesses such as finanical institutions work the very same way.

As an example of what harm unions can do, look at what happened to British vehicle manufacturing industry. One of the few companies to survive in the UK is JCB. The productivity of JCB employees during the seventies was 3/4 times that of the British Leyland workers and look where each company and it'sworkers are today.
The biggest reason for this was they have had no unions and they have had good management that believes in looking after it's workforce.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to unrealistically polarise debates in order to score points?

There may be people who believe that all unions members are "selfish greedy scum", in the same way that there are people who believe that every business owner is a greedy fat cat capitalist pig who drives four Rolls Royces simultaneously around his personal Caribbean island. Both are delusional.

Equally, not every union grievance is a legitimate struggle against an evil capitalist overlord determined to grind working-class serfs under his jackbooted heel. Sometimes unions campaign to maintain the status quo, in the face of dramatically changed social conditions.

The ESB unions are threatening strike action to prevent a much-needed restructuring of the entire electricity industry in this country. What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

I don't totally disagree with you. I used to be a Teamster. My rep reminds me of Tony Soprano when I think back on that time. However if it weren't for them UPS wouldn't have had one of the best health care plans in the private sector at the time. Since then it's been gutted and many other great benefits that physically debilitating repetitive job had going for it are gone. Mainly because the corrupt leaders of the union were in bed with the bastards that run UPS. I would hardly defend SIPTU at the drop of a hat (a Taxi "union" for a bunch of independent businessmen that make loads off a poor transport system is an oxymoron).
However in the media we all hear about the unions and their employees supposedly high salaries and their frivolous complaints (which usually don't turn out to be so frivolous when you examine more closely). I'm not saying that there aren't those but usually the exception and not the rule.
What we don't often hear about is the overpaid, overpriviledged and underworked heads of companies that make far more than they deserve and want to do so at the expense of the labourer. That's hardly delusional.

sovtek

jmayo wrote: »

The biggest reason for this was they have had no unions and they have had good management that believes in looking after it's workforce.

How would you then explain some of the best cars in the world coming from mostly unionised industries in Germany and France?
I would hazard a guess that the demise of the UK auto industry had less to do with unions and more to do with making crap cars. Oh and more than a few unionized German automakers bought those UK companies and made a go of it.

jmayo

sovtek wrote: »

How would you then explain some of the best cars in the world coming from mostly unionised industries in Germany and France?
I would hazard a guess that the demise of the UK auto industry had less to do with unions and more to do with making crap cars. Oh and more than a few unionized German automakers bought those UK companies and made a go of it.

I am not going into how many man days were lost in British industry during the seventies. BL were on strike every other day.
Leyland were biggest manufacturer of trucks in world in 1950s but where are they now. The company almost sunk Daf.

How come JCB were so productive during that time. The big difference was the way the company was run and the fact workers werenot partof union as not allowed by company founder.
Yes the build quality was cr** and some of the designs were awful Austin Metro, Alegro etc.

Best cars form France?
Obviously you have never owned a Renault or Citreon
I will give you their build quality has improved a lot, but I spent fair few days/nights trying to figure out if wiring/electrics was done by 8 year old in Montpellier as his school project.
German cars are well built and designed but their workers are not on strike every other day. French, well enough said.

More than few German automakers bought them companies and made a go of them?
Let's see...
Well BMW bought Rover just to get hands on Landrover.
They got rid of it as too much trouble.
They hung onto Landrover long enough to improve quality before offloading to Ford who are trying to get rid of it.

VW Group bought Bentley who manufactured both Bently and Rolls Royce, hardly your normal car maker now, but they lost out on the Rolls Royce brand name to BMW who built brand new plant.

Now who else?
Well Jaguar/Daimler/Aston Martin were bought by Ford who have offloaded some of them.
TVR is now owned by some Russian dude who at least has tried to get them making cars that don't fall apart, again not your normal car manufacturer.

The only true British car is now, wait for it Morgan. A family owned and run company that builds cars based on wooden chassis/frame and builds to order.

Oh and there are now sweet FA tractor plants in the country either.
McCormick closed it's former Case/International plant recently.
Massey Ferguson are gone from Banner Lane plant in Coventry and they had strike just before closed just to reaffirm why company shouldn't bother staying.

You see you should not really have brought up cars/tractors/trucks

sovtek

jmayo wrote: »

You see you should not really have brought up cars/tractors/trucks

Why not? You haven't refuted my point.

jmayo

sovtek wrote: »

Why not? You haven't refuted my point.

I don't think you read anything bar the last line ?

Your point that some of the best cars come from France would raise a few eyebrows :rolleyes:
Fair enough Germany is unionised and German car compnaies have been very sucessful.
You alluded that some German car companies made a go of UK car manufacturers.
No they didn't apart from Bentley/Rolls Royce, where you are not talking about an ex British Leyland company which was heavily unionised.
The workers within these organisations were not as militant as BL workers.
Austin /Austin Rover/ Rover group was what materialised out of the disaster of British Leyland and where are they now?

You rightly pointed out that the demise of the British motor industry was down to bad design and bad build, but have you ever thought why the build was so bad?
Had it nothing got to do with the go-slows, stoppages, work to rules etc that the unions where forever creating?

Manic Moran

I have to say, I've avoided any unions so far, and I don't feel I'm any the worse off for it. If the company I work for changes for lousy conditions, I see no reason I shouldn't simply change companies. The joys of free markets.

We are particularly amused over on this side of the water by the Auto Worker's Union. Way back when, the union, seeing their power, set all sorts of demands on Detroit. As a result, the overhead today on an American car for union requirements such as the huge retirement packages is akin to $5K per car, vs some $800 for a Japanese car. With a price difference like that, it's little wonder the American auto industry is in trouble. About a month ago, the UAW set about each car company in sequence. First they went to GM, they didn't have an agreement on raises and job security on their imposed deadline, and staged a walkout. A few days later, it got sorted out, so they then set their sights on Ford. Same deal. Then, joy of joys, they set their sights on Chrysler.

Chrysler is doing horribly, Daimler just got rid of it, it is common knowledge that Chrysler will have to undergo some serious restructuring and closures, and the UAW are there demanding job security or they'll call a strike. Eh?!
"OK. We promise you job security. Until we file for bankruptcy, then you're on your own"

As one cynical chap I know put it, the union sets about achieving pay raises or whatnot for its members. If it's told "We can only afford pay raises if we cut out these jobs", they'll happily accept that deal. The people who are still in now have their big pay raises, and will vote the Union president into office again. Those who were laid off... well, they're not in the union any more, and can't vote against.

NTM