UNIONS..... YAY! OR NAY!

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.