Unions in a Recession?

Villain

Looking at the construction federation's announcment to not pay the increase as agreed by the national pay deal and the Union's reaction, it got me thinking what impact the Union's can have on a recession.

If you take the construction industry first, the counter argument of most Union's is that the Developers and directors made millions upon millions during the boom and those at the bottom of the industry shouldn’t be made to take cuts now.

However the reality of the situation is that construction firms of all sizes are under pressure, they have huge debts on development lands that have collapsed in value so they need to address the cash flow situation and obviously payroll is a huge part of that so if they can’t adjust wage’s they will need to adjust employee numbers.

The Union’s imo have a mentality of all hang together and have become used to getting their way, I think some people including myself believe Bertie and the Government of the past 10 years have been soft on Unions and now we have arrived at a point of re-adjustment, wages need to be cut in many sectors and employee numbers need to be cut in other areas most notably the Public sector but how are the Union’s go to handle this?

Are the Union’s going to see the bigger picture and look at the long term i.e. take wages cuts now allow a certain number of job redundancies and allow the economy to adjust or they going to stand firm and try and maintain current wages and employee numbers and force the Government into huge borrowing’s?

kmick

The unions are irrelevant. Contrary to popular belief private industry ignores them and they really only represent those in the public service or semi-private industries like aer lingus. Their power which is strike action is now rarely used as for example a major strike in aer lingus would probably close the company and so would be self defeating.

Villain

Well I agree most of the Private sector is not affected, but the public sector is very much so affected and if they try maintain salaries and employee numbers I think we could be set for a issues and the Government while it may have got us into this mess also has to get us out of it and without the union's onside that could get very messy?

kevmy

TBH I think unions are fairly much useless these days.

If you think about what they were there for, essentially protecting workers rights and getting the best deal for them, they are really only doing one of those things now ie. getting the best deal.

Legislation has pre-empted a lot workers rights with fairly strong protection in Irish law.

As for getting the best deal I don't think big unions like SIPTU or IMPACT are really the best way to go about it. Individual unions in each factory/workplace which better understand the wants and needs of their members as well as understand the pressure that the employer faces would probably be a better idea.

These big unions also mean more inefficient ways of doing things but are now inbuilt in our society a left over from 100 years ago.

An overhaul of the system with a strong, independent Office of Workers Rights would be better. This would give more wiggle room in Social Partnership which would just be guidelines or recommendations rather than the rather binding situation it is now

jmayo

Villain wrote: »

Well I agree most of the Private sector is not affected, but the public sector is very much so affected and if they try maintain salaries and employee numbers I think we could be set for a issues and the Government while it may have got us into this mess also has to get us out of it and without the union's onside that could get very messy?

I think in the private sector a company's owners/directors can go to the unions, if they exist within the company and give them the bottom line.
"We will shut and move operations elsewhere.
Either take a cut or no jobs. Your choice"

The problem with public sector workers and their unions, is they know they will not lose their jobs.
Also they know they can ultimately get the backing of other workers belonging to same or related unions in other areas of the public sector.

Some of them are already trotting out going why touch the public sector, it is not our fault that the economy is going down the tubes. The private sector made all the money according to them.

Who then do they expect to pay for them, the dwindling private sector workforce who have ever deminishing pensions awaiting them at retirement ?

sovtek

kevmy wrote: »

Legislation has pre-empted a lot workers rights with fairly strong protection in Irish law.

Those laws are there because of unions.
After coming through a year dealing with a proceeding against my former employer I can tell you that they aren't that strong and when the company elects to abuse your rights or ignore them there aint much gonna happen to them.
I would agree that they need to reform but to better protect workers and lobby for better legislation.
Also whenever a company wants to cut costs, as a union I would ask that the CEO start with his salary first.

sovtek

jmayo wrote: »

Who then do they expect to pay for them, the dwindling private sector workforce who have ever deminishing pensions awaiting them at retirement ?

Well if the government can bail out banks and guarantee their CEO's plush salaries and benefits why can't the government bail out the average worker as well. Actually that would do more for the economy than this top down bull**** bail out.

Darragh29

kevmy wrote: »

Legislation has pre-empted a lot workers rights with fairly strong protection in Irish law.

What are you talking about, some of Ireland's biggest employers will show you the door if you mention you are in a union!!!

jmayo

Darragh29 wrote: »

What are you talking about, some of Ireland's biggest employers will show you the door if you mention you are in a union!!!

Maybe that has something to do with fact that they are many foreign multinationals who have a corporate ethos that does not allow unions in.
They work on the basis that if they offer fair employment conditions then there is no need for a unionised workforce where union officials and more militant workers can start deciding how the plants can and cannot be run ?

If you look at heavily unionised establishments (former public sector bodies such as Aer Lingus, Eircom and current public sector ESB, CIE woudl be good examples) you have huge inflexibility.

Unions did a lot for workers but we were talking about different times where they was shag all unfair dismissal laws or equality laws.

jmayo

sovtek wrote: »

Well if the government can bail out banks and guarantee their CEO's plush salaries and benefits why can't the government bail out the average worker as well. Actually that would do more for the economy than this top down bull**** bail out.

Ehh it is not the government, it is US the taxpayers that are eventually coughing up the money to bail out the banks :rolleyes:
When the government spend money it is not somehow conjured out of thin air or taken from some government piggybank.
It is actually money belonging to us, the nation's people and raised primarily from taxpayers.

Should we now possibly pay even more tax to firstly guarantee state jobs, pensions and salaries, and then an extra tax to bail ourselves out :rolleyes:

Villain

sovtek wrote: »

Well if the government can bail out banks and guarantee their CEO's plush salaries and benefits why can't the government bail out the average worker as well. Actually that would do more for the economy than this top down bull**** bail out.

The problem is the country needs the banks for the economy to function, I agree that those who have been managing the banks should be punished and dismissed or see reductions in salaries and I agree in any pay reform leadership has to show the way with cut in salaries at the top.

But do you think that the Union's digging in and refusing to take pay pauses and pay cuts or allow redundancies is going to help the economy.

The government can't help every average worker by bailing them out on an individual basis but they can make the tough decisions now to ensure the healthy future of the economy in the long term, it just seems the Union's only want to look at the past and present and not the future.

kevmy

sovtek wrote: »

Those laws are there because of unions.

Never said they weren't but they are there now

sovtek wrote: »

After coming through a year dealing with a proceeding against my former employer I can tell you that they aren't that strong and when the company elects to abuse your rights or ignore them there aint much gonna happen to them.

Again I didn't say this wouldn't happen but would it really be less likely to happen without unions?

sovtek wrote: »

I would agree that they need to reform but to better protect workers and lobby for better legislation.
Also whenever a company wants to cut costs, as a union I would ask that the CEO start with his salary first.

I didn't say no unions I said smaller scale unions. A guy from say SIPTU (not picking on SIPTU merely because they are the biggest) comes in to help with your negotiations. Now try as he may he will never know exactly what is happening in a case were he doesn't have to deal with it day-to-day.

I think people from that particular workforce are better able to understand what is going on in the dispute and also have more flexibility (they have to work with management after and management have to work with them). IMO bringing guys from union HQ to do negotiations or resolve disputes can lead to a greater disconnect between workforce and management - create and us versus them mentality.