Which PS unions have voted against the strike on 30th?

Palimpsest

Hi, are all ps unions out on the 30th or are there some who have voted against strike action?

rhonin

Impact members have voted against strike action.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0323/partnership.html

ixoy

rhonin wrote: »

Impact members have voted against strike action.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0323/partnership.html

.. And I see the executive are looking for ways to ignore the voice of their members and try and take (a pointless and pretty unjustifiable) strike action anyway.

nesf

ixoy wrote: »

.. And I see the executive are looking for ways to ignore the voice of their members and try and take (a pointless and pretty unjustifiable) strike action anyway.

Indeed. Pretty sickening to be honest. Militant to the point of ignoring the spirit of the union's rules.

jhegarty

ixoy wrote: »

.. And I see the executive are looking for ways to ignore the voice of their members and try and take (a pointless and pretty unjustifiable) strike action anyway.

It will be very hard to stop people (including union member who voted no) passing the picket in this situation.

Well done to everyone who did vote no. It has restored some of my faith in union members.

Gumbo

we voted no in here!

its still not going to sort out the unfairness of the pension levy though.

brettmirl

kceire wrote: »

we voted no in here!

its still not going to sort out the unfairness of the pension levy though.

I thought this strike was about the national pay agreement, and not the pension levy?

Gumbo

mick_irl wrote: »

I thought this strike was about the national pay agreement, and not the pension levy?

thats why the people in my dept voted no!
we are annoyed at the pension levy as in im earning 39k and i lose 77 euro out of my take home pay, where the guy beside me earning 47k loses 52 euro from his take home pay. thats what we are annoyed at!

but then we started hearing stories of this strike is for pay rises, and bench marking and the 2016 pay agreement as you said, but imo we have no problem with a pay freeze tbh its the unfair treatment and lay out of the pension levy that has me and the others in my dept angry.

Fratton Fred

They should sack everyone who strikes next week and give their jobs to people on the dole.

stupid, narrow minded people trying to hold the country to ransom. who the **** do they think they are.:mad:

Gumbo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They should sack everyone who strikes next week and give their jobs to people on the dole.

stupid, narrow minded people trying to hold the country to ransom. who the **** do they think they are.:mad:

Considering they voted no to strike imploys that they are not narrow minded, would you not think so????

Fratton Fred

kceire wrote: »

Considering they voted no to strike imploys that they are not narrow minded, would you not think so????

the ones that go onstrike because they are after more money are narrow minded. This country has been ridden ridgid by these people for years.

There are obviously a lot that have voted against it and will not strike, those that see this for what it is, the unions trying to exploit the situation and reassert their influence in this country. Fair play to them.

brettmirl

Ok, so Impact have voted not to strike, but the reality is, they will not pass pickets at places like Dublin Airport where Siptu will be on strike...

So it's not going to make much of a difference is it?

Gumbo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the ones that go onstrike because they are after more money are narrow minded. This country has been ridden ridgid by these people for years.

There are obviously a lot that have voted against it and will not strike, those that see this for what it is, the unions trying to exploit the situation and reassert their influence in this country. Fair play to them.

nobody is looking for more money, it wasnt explained to us what the strike is for until we got the ballot papers, and people were furious to see that is was over the pay agreement and not the pension levy.

nesf

kceire wrote: »

nobody is looking for more money

Some are. The GRA spring to mind as a group demanding it recently.

ixoy

nesf wrote: »

Some are. The GRA spring to mind as a group demanding it recently.

Indeed they even had a poster campaign (including one at Connolly) asking was it fair they got a cut and showing an emotive picture of a bruised Garda. Pretty low tactics to be honest (and as usual - why can't someone else pay mentality).

Fratton Fred

kceire wrote: »

nobody is looking for more money, it wasnt explained to us what the strike is for until we got the ballot papers, and people were furious to see that is was over the pay agreement and not the pension levy.

And you looked at the ballot paper and took what is, in my opinion, a reasonable decision becuase your gripe is not with the pay deal but with the pension levy.

unfortunately, the majority of members of the other unions appear to believe money grows on trees and are happy to disrupt the lives of those who are still trying to work in order to get their hands on some more.

Gumbo

nesf wrote: »

Some are. The GRA spring to mind as a group demanding it recently.

ixoy wrote: »

Indeed they even had a poster campaign (including one at Connolly) asking was it fair they got a cut and showing an emotive picture of a bruised Garda. Pretty low tactics to be honest (and as usual - why can't someone else pay mentality).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And you looked at the ballot paper and took what is, in my opinion, a reasonable decision becuase your gripe is not with the pay deal but with the pension levy.

unfortunately, the majority of members of the other unions appear to believe money grows on trees and are happy to disrupt the lives of those who are still trying to work in order to get their hands on some more.

yeah, sorry guys, should of stated that nobody in my dept is looking for more. i cant comment for the others, ie siptu GRA etc etc

in the current climate i think anybody looking for more money is mad, i am happy, actually more than happy to continue at what im doing for my current salary, all beit at less than i was on 2 years ago, but im happy to be employed.

i think we all need to batten down the hatches for this mini budget storm on the way.

thebman

I can understand striking over the pension levy TBH as the lowest paid are being affected a lot considering how little they earn.

However, you have to look at what the government is trying to achieve which is an equal decline in wages across all sectors of the economy to improve competitivity.

This has to happen in the private sector too and expect wage cuts there in the coming months where they have not occurred already.

Some businesses will not need to cut wages, they will see it as declining productivity as they can afford to pay their workers this wage so it would be inappropriate to cut it. However as these employers employ new workers in the furture, they will start at the lower average income rather than at the current employees level and wages will most likely decline in these companies over time.

So it is incorrect IMO to say some aren't getting reductions, they will come as they have to come. It is only a matter of time. Things like IT programming might stay high on wages because there is a shortage in this area of people with many years experience so it is only natural wages stay high in this area.

nesf

kceire wrote: »

yeah, sorry guys, should of stated that nobody in my dept is looking for more. i cant comment for the others, ie siptu GRA etc etc

in the current climate i think anybody looking for more money is mad, i am happy, actually more than happy to continue at what im doing for my current salary, all beit at less than i was on 2 years ago, but im happy to be employed.

i think we all need to batten down the hatches for this mini budget storm on the way.

See the biggest problem for mass protests like this is that the numbers will be co-opted by some groups with minority opinions in an effort to make it seem like there is mass support for their position.

There are private sector wings of the unions involved striking because their members aren't getting the pay increase they negotiated a few years back for instance. Will these groups try and pass off the entire protest as supporting their grievances?

Altreab

What will be interesting is that if the Public service goes on strike will the goverment dock a days pay for the strikers? I hope so since thats what happens in the private sector. If the union leaders want to push strikes then let them pay their members strike pay from union funds.

maggy_thatcher

mick_irl wrote: »

Ok, so Impact have voted not to strike, but the reality is, they will not pass pickets at places like Dublin Airport where Siptu will be on strike...

So it's not going to make much of a difference is it?

And if they don't cross the pickets -- they are effectively conducting unofficial strike action (they didn't give their employer notice of intent to strike), and therefore should be sacked. If they aren't willing to work, there are plenty of people at the moment ready willing and able to do so.

maggy_thatcher

Altreab wrote: »

What will be interesting is that if the Public service goes on strike will the goverment dock a days pay for the strikers? I hope so since thats what happens in the private sector. If the union leaders want to push strikes then let them pay their members strike pay from union funds.

Also - In the event that IMPACT do push their strike through, against the union rules, can the (sensible) IMPACT workers who wanted no part in the strike still go to work and earn an honest days pay, or will they get into trouble with the union for doing that?

whiterob81

Altreab wrote: »

What will be interesting is that if the Public service goes on strike will the goverment dock a days pay for the strikers? .

They will.

I'm going to cross the picket. Why the hell should I lose a day's pay over a strike I think is farcical

oscarBravo

It's not so much a question of getting into trouble with the union; it's the rather scary backlash from your colleagues if you pass a picket. I've had some unpleasant experiences in the past.

whiterob81

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Also - In the event that IMPACT do push their strike through, against the union rules, can the (sensible) IMPACT workers who wanted no part in the strike still go to work and earn an honest days pay, or will they get into trouble with the union for doing that?

I can see some of the more staunch union supporters making their working life a bit of a misery. My brother works in HR in one of the councils and deals with a lot of the union reps. a lot of them are just the most beligerent scumbags you could ever come across

ixoy

whiterob81 wrote: »

I can see some of the more staunch union supporters making their working life a bit of a misery.

I'd quite believe that - I'd had the (mis)fortune to listen to them and they can seem incredibly antagonistic and utterly intractable. They are right, always right and that sort of mindset could mean it's difficult for those "scabs" (who want to work and resent the strike's purpose) to cross a picket line (something I may, incidentally, get to do myself!).

maggy_thatcher

ixoy wrote: »

I'd quite believe that - I'd had the (mis)fortune to listen to them and they can seem incredibly antagonistic and utterly intractable. They are right, always right and that sort of mindset could mean it's difficult for those "scabs" (who want to work and resent the strike's purpose) to cross a picket line (something I may, incidentally, get to do myself!).

Bring a camera with you -- if they hassle you, you then have some evidence to bring to HR and/or the Labour Court and they can get what they deserve (a swift kick out the door and/or criminal charges).

Gumbo

Altreab wrote: »

What will be interesting is that if the Public service goes on strike will the goverment dock a days pay for the strikers? I hope so since thats what happens in the private sector. If the union leaders want to push strikes then let them pay their members strike pay from union funds.

no, you never get paid by the goverment when out on strike, only if it runs into 3 days or more, then the union pay you, but its no where near full pay. all employees on strike are docked one days pay, including the private sector which is also striking on the 30th so please dont turn it into another PS bashing thread.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

And if they don't cross the pickets -- they are effectively conducting unofficial strike action (they didn't give their employer notice of intent to strike), and therefore should be sacked. If they aren't willing to work, there are plenty of people at the moment ready willing and able to do so.

the unions did give notice of strike action, so if the union decides that they are on strike and the employee decides to strike, then the employee will not be sacked, and rightly so imo. its their choice to strike or not, they are not paid for that day, so its on their pocket if they do.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Also - In the event that IMPACT do push their strike through, against the union rules, can the (sensible) IMPACT workers who wanted no part in the strike still go to work and earn an honest days pay, or will they get into trouble with the union for doing that?

impact have stated since the start, that if you vote no, but the strike still goes ahead, then you can come into work as normal, therefore not being docked any pay.

nesf

kceire wrote: »

the unions did give notice of strike action, so if the union decides that they are on strike and the employee decides to strike, then the employee will not be sacked, and rightly so imo. its their choice to strike or not, they are not paid for that day, so its on their pocket if they do.

Yeah but you get groups like Impact saying that they're going to look at their rules to see if they can still go ahead with the strike despite not reaching the quorum necessary in the ballot to do so.

Seriously, this kind of behaviour should be viewed on with contempt. They had a ballot, their members voted No, it doesn't matter how small the margin was, the union officials should abide by their member's wishes.

maggy_thatcher

kceire wrote: »

the unions did give notice of strike action, so if the union decides that they are on strike and the employee decides to strike, then the employee will not be sacked, and rightly so imo. its their choice to strike or not, they are not paid for that day, so its on their pocket if they do.

My comment was in the circumstances that:

1. IMPACT don't go on strike &
2. An employee from IMPACT refuses to cross a SIPTU picket

In this case -- the IMPACT employee hasn't given strike notice, but still (effectively) strikes. In this case they should (imo) be fired for breach of contract.

Gumbo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

My comment was in the circumstances that:

1. IMPACT don't go on strike &
2. An employee from IMPACT refuses to cross a SIPTU picket

In this case -- the IMPACT employee hasn't given strike notice, but still (effectively) strikes. In this case they should (imo) be fired for breach of contract.

aghh right i see, but in my job, we only have impact as a union, so i dont know if that sceneario (sp) would happen.

is there places with 2 different unions on strike?

Gumbo

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but you get groups like Impact saying that they're going to look at their rules to see if they can still go ahead with the strike despite not reaching the quorum necessary in the ballot to do so.

Seriously, this kind of behaviour should be viewed on with contempt. They had a ballot, their members voted No, it doesn't matter how small the margin was, the union officials should abide by their member's wishes.

theres alot of people now trying to find out how to leave our union, so to say they/us are unhappy is an understatment

nesf

kceire wrote: »

aghh right i see, but in my job, we only have impact as a union, so i dont know if that sceneario (sp) would happen.

is there places with 2 different unions on strike?

It's regularly a problem in schools with the TUI and ASTI. One strikes and then the other votes not to strike but still refuse to cross the picket line.

Tis messy to say the least.

kceire wrote: »

theres alot of people now trying to find out how to leave our union, so to say they/us are unhappy is an understatment

Good for them.

gerry28

I work for the public service and i'm a member of impact. We were talking about the vote this evening and it appears that many of the higher grades voted no and most of the lower grades (lower paid) voted yes.

This could be a problem for impact. Maybe the lower grades should be in the CPSU rather than in impact along with the well paid higher grades.

nesf

gerry28 wrote: »

I work for the public service and i'm a member of impact. We were talking about the vote this evening and it appears that many of the higher grades voted no and most of the lower grades (lower paid) voted yes.

This could be a problem for impact. Maybe the lower grades should be in the CPSU rather than in impact along with the well paid higher grades.

It was a secret ballot no?

gerry28

Plenty were willing to say how they voted

ParkRunner

When the CPSU had their strike a few weeks ago we, in a different union, were forced to walk past the picket. We were all refused annual leave too for the day. It wasn't a nice experience but we were left with no choice and the CPSU knew it so it wasn't any hassle. I wouldn't say IMPACT members will have any trouble if they cross the picket line.

nesf

gerry28 wrote: »

Plenty were willing to say how they voted

Eh, generally? Impact has a lot of members for you to draw conclusions like "low paid: Yes, high paid: No" generally based on what your co-workers said.

John_C

nesf wrote: »

Eh, generally? Impact has a lot of members for you to draw conclusions like "low paid: Yes, high paid: No" generally based on what your co-workers said.

He introduced his story saying:

I work for the public service and i'm a member of impact. We were talking about the vote this evening

It was perfectly clear that he was giving his own experience.

nesf

John_C wrote: »

He introduced his story saying:



It was perfectly clear that he was giving his own experience.

Sure, I'm questioning his second post drawing general conclusions of problems within Impact based on such a small sample.

gerry28

Sure, I'm questioning his second post drawing general conclusions of problems within Impact based on such a small sample.

Admittedly a small sample and in no way scientific. But the strong impression I got today from my fellow workmates was that we as low paid public servants may be more suited to the CPSU.

*Honey*

The IMPACT vote lost because of the numbers of people who never exercised their vote. Rule 25 states that either 2/3 of those who did vote, voted yes, then it's a fair and true vote - the reality, based on the figures is that 64.7% of people who voted voted yes, the 2/3's rule required a Yes rate of 66%. The other part of Rule 25 states that at least half of those who can vote at all, voted yes - this means that some 28,000 (or so) people needed to vote yes but only 21,000 (or so) people did. Therefore, the yes vote was not passed.

However, some 57,000 (or so) people could vote and out of that over 24,000 people didn't. I don't know why, I was rather shocked at it myself. I'm wondering if this is a vote of no confidance in the Union itself or if people are just so bloody apathetic about it all (as I would imagine, if you were avidly against taking any industrial action of any kind, you would have voted No in the first place).

As to passing other pickets, it happens in my place - we have some 5 unions invovled and we have passed pickets in the past but only when all Unions were informed that our own Union wasn't invovled. It was all fine and those not on strike brought out coffee/tea etc to those who were (not that I can even remember what it was about now).

I find it rather shocking that so many people didn't vote at all - whether it be yes or no, but not to exercise your vote on one of the most important issues before the Union surprises me greatly.

As to what happens now? I don't know, I'm very interested myself. I do not subscribe to the view that the figures be ignored and they just go ahead and strike anyway... what is the point in having a vote in the first place if you're not going to listen to your own members... and I wonder if those not voting have actually stated their own opinions of the Union and it's issue by doing just that? In all my years of being involved in the Union, this action has surprised me the most.

is_that_so

*Honey* wrote: »

The IMPACT vote lost because of the numbers of people who never exercised their vote. Rule 25 states that either 2/3 of those who did vote, voted yes, then it's a fair and true vote - the reality, based on the figures is that 64.7% of people who voted voted yes, the 2/3's rule required a Yes rate of 66%. The other part of Rule 25 states that at least half of those who can vote at all, voted yes - this means that some 28,000 (or so) people needed to vote yes but only 21,000 (or so) people did. Therefore, the yes vote was not passed.

However, some 57,000 (or so) people could vote and out of that over 24,000 people didn't. I don't know why, I was rather shocked at it myself. I'm wondering if this is a vote of no confidance in the Union itself or if people are just so bloody apathetic about it all (as I would imagine, if you were avidly against taking any industrial action of any kind, you would have voted No in the first place).

As to passing other pickets, it happens in my place - we have some 5 unions invovled and we have passed pickets in the past but only when all Unions were informed that our own Union wasn't invovled. It was all fine and those not on strike brought out coffee/tea etc to those who were (not that I can even remember what it was about now).

I find it rather shocking that so many people didn't vote at all - whether it be yes or no, but not to exercise your vote on one of the most important issues before the Union surprises me greatly.

As to what happens now? I don't know, I'm very interested myself. I do not subscribe to the view that the figures be ignored and they just go ahead and strike anyway... what is the point in having a vote in the first place if you're not going to listen to your own members... and I wonder if those not voting have actually stated their own opinions of the Union and it's issue by doing just that? In all my years of being involved in the Union, this action has surprised me the most.

Hints of the Lisbon vote about this TBH. My own view and having listened to union leaders talking nonsense for some considerable time is that they are not a lot different from the government in being completely out of touch. I get the impression that some are acting like petulant children now that the excessive power leveraged through "partnership" has been taken from them.
The "strike" as it stands is against anything they want it to be and will in all likelihood achieve absolutely nothing. It panders to random, unfocussed anger and yet another round of finger pointing. The government won't be listening or watching as they busy themselves avoiding another bout of political suicide.

iseethelight

I'm a member of the CPSU. We had one vote for the 1 day strike now thats being used to enter into this on the 30th. Did I vote on that? I don't believe I did and whats more I and most of my colleagues would vote against another strike yet were not being given the opportunity.
I firmly believe if the CPSU balloted for this action it wouldn't pass because they have shown no direction or even an alternative suggestion.

Godge

Be clear about this. IMPACT members did not vote against a strike.

They voted in favour of a strike by a margin of 65% to 35%. This would be enough to pass any referendum.

However, the union rules require a two-thirds majority which they fell short. By finding a way around the rule, the executive may be accused of sharp practice but some on this thread have suggested they would be going against the majority of the vote. Not true.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but you get groups like Impact saying that they're going to look at their rules to see if they can still go ahead with the strike despite not reaching the quorum necessary in the ballot to do so.

Seriously, this kind of behaviour should be viewed on with contempt. They had a ballot, their members voted No, it doesn't matter how small the margin was, the union officials should abide by their member's wishes.

Insert Lisbon cliche. No, means No.

Anyway, if they can find away around the vote, they should vote again, ala Lisbon2.

Suddenly Lisbon is looking very democratic.

nesf

Godge wrote: »

Be clear about this. IMPACT members did not vote against a strike.

They voted in favour of a strike by a margin of 65% to 35%. This would be enough to pass any referendum.

However, the union rules require a two-thirds majority which they fell short. By finding a way around the rule, the executive may be accused of sharp practice but some on this thread have suggested they would be going against the majority of the vote. Not true.

The quorum was 66%, it was not reached, ergo no one is being at all disingenuous when they say they voted not to strike. It also failed the second requirement which was half of total members voting for strike action which they didn't.

Both requirements for strike action were failed. It's pretty clear cut what the union leaders should do.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

Insert Lisbon cliche. No, means No.

Anyway, if they can find away around the vote, they should vote again, ala Lisbon2.

Suddenly Lisbon is looking very democratic.

And if a second day of protest is called they'll be able to ballot them again. There is nothing in that Impact vote that says otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with them balloting them again. The problem is if they start imposing decision against the will of their members and rules of their union.

ixoy

nesf wrote: »

The problem is if they start imposing decision against the will of their members and rules of their union.

And yet they're still meeting today to discuss the result - what is there to discuss? They didn't get what they needed so there should be no strike. If they can change their own rules to suit the executive's needs then I think their own members should be worried about the precedence this would set.

Zzippy

This strike is a joke!
It will achieve nothing, except save the govt a few million in wages.
It will serve to further alienate other people.
It will be portrayed in the foreign media as Irish people striking for more pay - i.e. greedy.
A strike should be a last resort. Work to rule, no overtime, etc, should all be used before strike action.
Union leaders are forcing this through without consideration for their ordinary members on low pay who can't afford to lose a day's pay.

I'm in PS and a member of SIPTU. We didn't even receive a ballot. I'm now told that in spite of this, my union voted for strike action, and I have to strike. I'm expected to picket the office on Monday.
I'm now looking into leaving the union. I was lucky enough the boss let me take a day's leave on Monday. I've no intention of striking when I wasn't even consulted.

*Honey*

nesf wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with them balloting them again. The problem is if they start imposing decision against the will of their members and rules of their union.

I agree - I'm a member of IMPACT and I would be wholly against the management of the Union going against their own rules. In fact, they haven't. I feel that the apathetic attitude of the members says a lot about the feelings they have of those who manage the Union. Being a Union member for most of my working life, I have to say that I am very disappointed with this results and with the Union themselves - and here I mean the membership, those 24,000 who just didn't get up off their arses to vote one way or another. How can someone not have an opinion with the country the way it is? I don't mind if you vote Yes or No, but Goddamn, have an opinion about your own future!!!!