UNIONS..... YAY! OR NAY!

Paddy Samurai

I notice from other posts that people seem to have quite strong views on unions. Some people consider them to be outdated troublemakers stifling progress. Others consider them as protectors of the downtrodden workers. Now I would consider myself to be a non-practising union member. I pay my dues (just in case, they did save my bacon once ,when I was a wee bit inebriated) but don’t get involved in joining committees etc.
Some of my friends and work colleagues have stronger union views. Also they consider that a lot of employed people that give out about unions do so with the luxury of legal protections in place (employment /labour laws). That they are protected by legislation that is there as a result of past union struggles involving previous generations.
So are they considered a necessary evil?, a waste of space? or protectors of the weak?.
What do you think?.Has a union ever done anything for you?.

hobochris

the need for them has become deprieciated IMO.

DrumSteve

this needs a poll.

javaboy

Only if they're finely chopped up and well cooked.

Xavi6

javaboy wrote: »

Only if they're finely chopped up and well cooked.

Red or white?

javaboy

Xavi6 wrote: »

Red or white?

Unions are intrinsically red are they not?

it's "yea or nay " ffs

and they can do good sometimes and be idiots other times judging by the union at our co

TheInquisitor

NAY TO UNIONS. I wonder how many firms wouldn't have failed except for unions and their ridiculous demands.

xOxSinéadxOx

NAY

SEPT 23 1989

NAY to dinosaurs from the 70's

Fizman

GHEY

Lockstep

My own union did well with Joanna Delaney;

On February 27th Joanne Delaney returned to work in the Ashleaf Dunnes Stores proudly wearing her union badge. Joanne's reinstatement was a huge victory following a very public campaign that was waged over the last month. More than just a personal victory for Joanne this campaign has made it clear that Dunnes managment and other companies cannot suceed in their attempts to single out and victimise individual trade union activists.

Over the last month members of Labour Youth supported by Labour councillors, T.D.s and members of the party, trade unionists and the wider Labour movement held protests outside Dunnes in Georges Street, North Earl Street, Grafton Street, the Ashleaf in Crumlin, Maynooth and Cork. Several other protests were been planned. Labour Youth members also supported the protests outside the Ashleaf in Crumlin called by the Joanne Delaney support group. Several motions were tabled on the issue in the House of Commons, Scottish parliament and in councils around Ireland.

Joanne has expressed her sincere thanks to all those who have supported the campaign.



The Mayor of Kildare Cllr. John McGinley joined a protest in support of Joanne Delaney on Wednesday evening February 27th which took place outside Dunnes Stores in the Manor Mills Shopping Centre. There was an excellent response from members of the public to the protest which was the latest in a number of protests around the country in support of Joanne who was sacked for wearing a union badge.


On February 16th a protest took place outside Dunnes stores in Patrick's street in Cork. There was a good turnout from Labour Youth members and local activists. The picket was also attended by Kathleen Lynch TD, Cllr. Ciaran Lynch, Cllr John Kelleher and Cllr. Cathrine Clancy. The media were down in force.


The night before on Wednesday February 15th about 30 people joined the Labour Youth protest outside Dunnes Stores in North Earl Street.


Joanne Delaney is a 22-year-old shop steward, a member of the Mandate trade union, and two months ago Dunnes fired her for wearing her union pin on her uniform. She is pictured above with Pat Rabbitte T.D., local councillor Cllr. Eric Byrne and Mary Upton T.D. outside the Ahsleaf Dunnes where she was sacked. On Monday February 27th following a very successful campaign with protests around the country Joanne returned to work wearing her union badge.

xOxSinéadxOx

gtfo

joseph brand

I work for a US corp. There is no Union, just HR???

Probably equally as useless IMHO, as friends have talked of switching from Union A to B, . . . then back to A. No difference, both useless.

brianthebard

Unions have done an awful lot for workers, so much that people turn their backs on them without realising the benefits they have now were won by unions.

Many of the railway lines we now travel on each day were put down in the ages of steam.

That mena we should stay on steam engines?

UNions provide a useful counterbalance, but we need to proote cooperation. WHere is the union support for enterprise? Why do unions provide no help to entrepreneurs who want to start things off on a good footing re: work practices?

Dyr

joseph brand wrote: »

I work for a US corp. There is no Union, just HR???

You think HR are equivalent to a union? HR depts are the complete opposite of a union, they are there to protect the companies interests when dealing with staff. I'm always amazed that people think a HR dept is neutral or are there to ensure fair treatment to their staff.

Unions are unwieldy beasts but are necessary now more than ever. Most of the basic protections that irish employees take for granted nowadays were won by unions and/or the EU, they were not handed over by employers willingly.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Many of the railway lines we now travel on each day were put down in the ages of steam.

That mena we should stay on steam engines?

It means that if you want to be treated the way railway workers were back then then you don't need unions

biko

I agree with Billy:

The Union forever,defending our rights
Down with the blackleg,all workers unite
With our brothers and our sisters from many far-off lands
There is power in a Union

Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws cannot defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackeys out to cheat us?

TheInquisitor

Facts:
32% of Employed Irish are in a union
1.4 million employed people not in a union. Has been falling consistently over past 20 years.
60% of unionised people in Ireland are in the public service.


Unions are mostly there protecting people who have pretty much guaranteed jobs
Unions will be decimated within 20 years

deadhead13

Nay to IBEC.

Mr Benevolent

Some of the (classified) stories about Aer Lingus and the unions would make your eyeballs sweat...

TITAN #1

Unions are mostly there protecting people who have pretty much guaranteed jobs
Unions will be decimated within 20 years

Maybe their jobs are guaranteed because the unions stood up for them?

I heard that quote about unions 20 years ago.

Dyr

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Facts:
32% of Employed Irish are in a union
1.4 million employed people not in a union. Has been falling consistently over past 20 years.
60% of unionised people in Ireland are in the public service.


Unions are mostly there protecting people who have pretty much guaranteed jobs

True to a degree, IMO the govt got the unions on side by offering em a sweet share of the exchequer pie, the public sector unions get to ride the gravy train and fcek the rest of the country

Senna

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

(just in case, they did save my bacon once ,when I was a wee bit inebriated)

So you were drunk in work, which is Gross Misconduct and warrants instant dismissal, but seen you were in a union (they got involved) your employer couldn't do anything. Hardly a good refection on unions.

mikemac

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Facts:
32% of Employed Irish are in a union
1.4 million employed people not in a union. Has been falling consistently over past 20 years.
60% of unionised people in Ireland are in the public service.


Unions are mostly there protecting people who have pretty much guaranteed jobs
Unions will be decimated within 20 years

60% of their members in the public sector?
So most of their members are on somewhat decent money and most likely are good jobs across a wide spectrum. Some brilliant, some ok but most decent money.

So where are the unions for the workers that need them the most?
The low waged staff working illegally long hours in hotels, restaurants, cleaning and other hard jobs.
Sure a lot of posters here are/were students, most have done these ****ty jobs, I have anyway

Do unions activly recruit people from these sectors who are minimum wage at most? Doubt it

I would hope they are not sitting back lapping up fees from people in secure(ish) jobs but ignoring the people who do need union representation.
Taking the easy option so to speak

Paddy Samurai

Senna wrote: »

So you were drunk in work, which is Gross Misconduct and warrants instant dismissal, but seen you were in a union (they got involved) your employer couldn't do anything. Hardly a good refection on unions.

There was a bit more to it than that, but Yep!,I think you hit the nail on the head there!.I like the cut of your jib straight to the point!.Good man yourself!.

anonymous_joe

I'd actually probably vote Labour, but I'm also a business student.

Not a fan of Unions, and for one main reason - Unions in theory exist to protect their workers. That's a very good thing in principle.

Obvious downside, a lot of unions are out to get their members a better deal, irrespective of fairness. Hence inefficiency comes in.

Unions were born in an era when we expected employers to brutalise and exploit their workers, such behaviour is just not going to happen in this modern day and age. As such, many of the unions have moved beyond their purpose, and right now, while doing their utmost to defend their members, which is laudable, their intransigence is potentially quite dangerous for the economy raise wages artificially and reduce efficiency.

Lockstep

mikemac wrote: »

Do unions activly recruit people from these sectors who are minimum wage at most? Doubt it

From the info I gathered while looking into unions, Mandate do.

brianthebard

mikemac wrote: »

60% of their members in the public sector?
So most of their members are on somewhat decent money and most likely are good jobs across a wide spectrum. Some brilliant, some ok but most decent money.

So where are the unions for the workers that need them the most?
The low waged staff working illegally long hours in hotels, restaurants, cleaning and other hard jobs.
Sure a lot of posters here are/were students, most have done these ****ty jobs, I have anyway

Do unions activly recruit people from these sectors who are minimum wage at most? Doubt it

I would hope they are not sitting back lapping up fees from people in secure(ish) jobs but ignoring the people who do need union representation.
Taking the easy option so to speak

Many businesses won't let unions into their companies. People on minimum wage are easily displaced, if a hotel's staff decided to unionise they would be fired straight away.

Kinetic^

Employment law in this country is extremely good in protecting both employer and employee. There is no need for unions to have a foothold on our economy any more.

mikemac

brianthebard wrote: »

Many businesses won't let unions into their companies. People on minimum wage are easily displaced, if a hotel's staff decided to unionise they would be fired straight away.

I fully realize that it's the workers getting threatened with immediate dismissal and on low wages who need the most protection. Will unions even try if the workers organize themselves?

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Employment law in this country is extremely good in protecting both employer and employee. There is no need for unions to have a foothold on our economy any more.

Fair point but it's at odds with the post above.
I think you're both right but there are always exceptions

Queen-Mise

nay to unions.

They are completely self interested dinosaurs with no thought to anything beyond themselves.

brianthebard

mikemac wrote: »

I fully realize that it's the workers getting threatened with immediate dismissal and on low wages who need the most protection. Will unions even try if the workers organize themselves?

Yes of course the unions try, but if it gets people fired its not very useful is it? I worked in a factory where some workers tried to get siptu approved as their union, the company told the workers they would go back to germany if they unionised. How does a union organise in this case? That's why a lot of unions work is not in the work place, but trying to push for better legislation, and that's why there are traditionally such strong ties to Labour.

jimmycrackcorm

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes of course the unions try, but if it gets people fired its not very useful is it? I worked in a factory where some workers tried to get siptu approved as their union, the company told the workers they would go back to germany if they unionised. How does a union organise in this case? That's why a lot of unions work is not in the work place, but trying to push for better legislation, and that's why there are traditionally such strong ties to Labour.

No company will simply up and leave because the workers organize a union. It's an idle threat because as long as they are making money then they will keep going. The problem only arises when the union tries to make it too cushy for the workers or protect useless practices.

I remember being at a trade show in the states where we were putting together our stand. A union guy came along and told us we were not allowed to put up own own signs etc as it had to be done by a union member and paid for. So we agreed with him and as soon as he walked away we put up our own stuff.

brianthebard

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

No company will simply up and leave because the workers organize a union. It's an idle threat because as long as they are making money then they will keep going. The problem only arises when the union tries to make it too cushy for the workers or protect useless practices.

Prove it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

brianthebard wrote: »

Prove it.

It's your legal right to be a member of a union and not be discriminated against because of it.

Unions are needed in some cases, and in others they make things difficult.

Now that things are bad they should be fighting for basic rights, not extra rights. I don't see why they are doing this. Companies simply cannot afford it. Circumstances have changed but it seems that the unions are oblivious to this.

Vandie

yes of course, but only to a certain extent. yes they should be there to protect workers rights, conditions but the past couple of years its been all about money and the wages have gone up too much and some (not all) union workers are well overpaid. they also seem to make a lot out of really trivial matters, such as some union members giving out stink in one dept. store because the radios were removed from the the stock rooms and canteen. claiming it was against their rights. no it wasnt, the shop didnt have the license from IRMA so thats that, plus 80% of the staff never got use of them anyway.

zootroid

Nay.

Employment law in this country is (or at least should be) sufficient enough to protect the rights of workers.

Unions simply look after their own interests with little regard for anyone else. Time and again the loser is the customer.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

zootroid wrote: »

Nay.

Employment law in this country is (or at least should be) sufficient enough to protect the rights of workers.

Unions simply look after their own interests with little regard for anyone else. Time and again the loser is the customer.

You know what the point of a union is???

anonymous_joe

Samantha Beautiful Vigilance wrote: »

You know what the point of a union is???

Doesn't mean they know the point?

A mate of mine was officially disciplined at work for taking a clock off a wall and replacing a battery. That was a job that could only be done by a trained union-affiliated worker.

Unions are needed to protect workers only when no-one else will. Employment law in this country does offer a lot of protection.

deadhead13

zootroid wrote: »

Nay.

Employment law in this country is (or at least should be) sufficient enough to protect the rights of workers.

Unions simply look after their own interests with little regard for anyone else. Time and again the loser is the customer.

Whose interest does IBEC look after ..... the customer?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Doesn't mean they know the point?

A mate of mine was officially disciplined at work for taking a clock off a wall and replacing a battery. That was a job that could only be done by a trained union-affiliated worker.

Unions are needed to protect workers only when no-one else will. Employment law in this country does offer a lot of protection.

The point of the unions is to represent the employees. The law is to complicated for the majority of employees to understand it. Unions are great for this type of thing. They should know when to STFU though, people will lose confidence in them...

anonymous_joe

Samantha Beautiful Vigilance wrote: »

The point of the unions is to represent the employees. The law is to complicated for the majority of employees to understand it. Unions are great for this type of thing. They should know when to STFU though, people will lose confidence in them...

If the law is too complicated get lawyers.

It seems to me the unions create an extra layer of complexity where it's not needed.

I know there are times when they are needed, but they seem rarer and rarer now.

jimmycrackcorm

brianthebard wrote: »

Prove it.

Prove otherwise!

Why would a company close shop simply because a union is formed? It's only when the union actually proposes something that makes the company cost in-effective that they will choose to pull out.

lmtduffy

TheInquisitor wrote: »

NAY TO UNIONS. I wonder how many firms wouldn't have failed except for unions and their ridiculous demands.

I wonder how many firms would have succeeded with out workers,

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

anonymous_joe wrote: »

If the law is too complicated get lawyers.

It seems to me the unions create an extra layer of complexity where it's not needed.

I know there are times when they are needed, but they seem rarer and rarer now.

The cost of a lawyer, as you may know, is pretty expensive, for a nominal fee you can be represented by a union. What's the big problem?

I am not too bothered with unions personaly unless they benifit me, like the IBOA, they benifited me quite a bit. Great discounts, etc etc.

Without unions you will see a completely differant work ethic. It wouldn't be a pretty site.

Unions, ideally, are there to improve or maintain the working conditions of it's members. In times like these, we cannot maintain some conditions, such as high levels of pay, we can maintain other conditions like working hours and health and safety.

Remove unions and you will see quite a lot of abuse. I will give you two examples..

Would love to name the hole of a company, but you may not eat there again. Anyway, a place I worked in last year had no area for staff for lunch brakes. This was discussed and they sorted it out. They put two chairs in a hallway which was right next to the toilets. Doesn't sound too bad, but you should have seen this "canteen".

Another one was when I broke my toe, due to hazordous conditions at work, PPE wasn't issued which could have prevented this. I wasn't offered any compensation, or any pay for the time I was out of work. Unlucky for the bastard that was my manager, I studied employment law in college which covered PPE and the likes

Have a union at either of them places and see the differance.

deise blue

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes of course the unions try, but if it gets people fired its not very useful is it? I worked in a factory where some workers tried to get siptu approved as their union, the company told the workers they would go back to germany if they unionised. How does a union organise in this case? That's why a lot of unions work is not in the work place, but trying to push for better legislation, and that's why there are traditionally such strong ties to Labour.

Eamon Gilmore has stated that the Labour Party in Government ( surely not too far off ) would introduce Legislation to provide collective bargaining for workers.
He said that Labour would commit to giving domestic effect to collective bargaining contained in the Charter of Fundamental rights which will become Euro law if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.
David Begg said that ICTU had been trying to get such legislation passed for decades and that Eamon Gilmore was the first major party leader to give such a commitment.
Hopefully if this happens it will make it a lot easier to join a union.

DaveSlats

Unions are like sex.

Only really noticed in their absence.

grundie

A conditional yay.

Unions are good when it come to protecting common interests of employees. The problem I have with a lot of unions is that they take an interest in things that shouldn't really concern them. I also think unions should be barred from taking a polical stance and supporting any particular political party or cause as I believe it gives certain politcal groups an unfair advantage against their rivals.

If an individual is having trouble with an employer they should get a solicitor to help them, not the union.

When I was a manager at Network Rail I had to deal with the bloody RMT on a few occasions. Their reps once threatened strike action because we sacked a signalman WHO WAS DRUNK ON THE JOB FFS!!! He'd even been arrested, charged and convicted, but according the the RMT he was suffering from family related stress and we should give him a break.

On another occasion a payroll glitch meant that 4 days of overtime payments (about £50 per person) would be delayed till the next months payday - payroll had offered to double the amount due as an apology. Again they threatened strike action unless it was paid ASAP. So it was paid the next day, but with no extra apology money.

Unions should exist only to protect common interests and not to use their power to blackamail employers over silly little things.

Lockstep

Unions get a Yay from me.


Although we need to differentiate between unions, my own union of Mandate represents mainly minimum wage employees (mostly bar and retail)., they'd be a far cry from say the Irish Pharmacists Union.