Are SIPTU doing more damage than good to the Irish economy?

10000maniacs

In view of the situation that DHL workers find themselves in currently and the volitile relationship that SIPTU members on the DHL workforce have had with management over the years, can it be argued that SIPTU are doing more damage than good in representing the DHL workforce and Irish workers in general for that matter in the current economic climate?

grahamo

No. DHL like most employers are exploiting the present financial situation to their advantage.

jimmmy

If the unions were strong in DHL, its no surprise they are closing depots so. If as grahamo maintains these employers are exploitative, they would keep the depots open, in order to keep making money out of them : closing depots costs money, and these "greedy exploitative employers" do not make money out of closed depots.

ongarite

They are closing the regional depots because of the collapse of B2B deliveries in this country and worldwide & they are also pulling out of the personal, home deliveries from what I've heard.

jimmmy

ongarite wrote: »

They are closing the regional depots because of the collapse of B2B deliveries in this country and worldwide & they are also pulling out of the personal, home deliveries from what I've heard.

Exactly : as grahamo claims they are "exploiting the present financial situation to their advantage":rolleyes:. The greedy capitalists, it is all their fault.

Joey the lips

Is the question related to SIPTU or the unions in general? I have always had my doubts about management of unions but I dont think unions are something we can do without. In massivly huge companys like DHL the unions only have so much power without unions in these companies the business would be free to do what it wants.

If we have a problem with our unions why dont we lay down these problems and list them to them

Or are we hopeing someone else will?????

jimmmy

Joey the lips wrote: »

Is the question related to SIPTU or the unions in general? I have always had my doubts about management of unions but I dont think unions are something we can do without. In massivly huge companys like DHL the unions only have so much power without unions in these companies the business would be free to do what it wants.

" to do what it wants."?

Like close up ? Many heavily unionised businesses have left Ireland over the years.

10000maniacs

Joey the lips wrote: »

Is the question related to SIPTU or the unions in general?

I genuinely think those 320 jobs would have survived if SIPTU were not representing the DHL workers. Unions are too much hastle for companies under severe financial strain. Lufthansa probably took one look at the situation and reckoned talking to SIPTU....just couldn't be arsed.:)
If I ran a company, I'd be exactly the same.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... Many heavily unionised businesses have left Ireland over the years.

Like Dell?

The simple fact is that may businesses, some unionised and some not unionised, have quit operating here.

jimmmy

10000maniacs wrote: »

I genuinely think those 320 jobs would have survived if SIPTU were not representing the DHL workers. Unions are too much hastle for companies under severe financial strain. Lufthansa probably took one look at the situation and reckoned talking to SIPTU....just couldn't be arsed.:)
If I ran a company, I'd be exactly the same.

Too true

ScouseMouse

With all the extra costs and problems associated with operating in ROI, the unions are just one more problem. Not to mention they are on a different planet most of the time. As a Srtechnics engineer said to me, "the unions did f*ck all for us"

Sometimes its easier to just close up than try to negotiate with them about downsizing or redundancies.

Joey the lips

jimmmy wrote: »

" to do what it wants."?

Like close up ? Many heavily unionised businesses have left Ireland over the years.

What are you saying????? I am going to guess seen as you have not bothered. This is politics not afterhours if you want discussion make an arguement!

I gather what your saying is that unions have forced businesses to close up?

Is there a chance the company demands have caused the business to close up? Knowing they have the power to doing this. These company attidudes are if you dont like it we will move elsewhere.?

Bear this in mind why do you think multinationals are here. Cause trading in america proved to difficult and they are taking advantage of out tax. We done what the chinese are doing now!

But more importantly What do you propose we do without unions? Beear in mind there is now min wage in the US or germany. You can be working for 1 euro in germany!

We have no plan B. Propose an alternative and I am all ears!

P. Breathnach

Joey the lips wrote: »

... But more importantly What do you propose we do without unions? Beear in mind there is now min wage in the US or germany. You can be working for 1 euro in germany!

We have no plan B. Propose an alternative and I am all ears!

Don't be too hard on jimmmy. He hasn't time for such things, as he is preoccupied with sorting out the public service. Things like union-bashing are a minor distraction.

is_that_so

I think the triumvirate of Social Partnership are to blame, along with our own greed. While the cash was rolling in companies were happy to reward, excessively IMO ,even in non-union companies, the Govt wanted industrial peace and unions got kudos with their members. It really was like shooting fish in a barrel.

That is not to say the unions are not important but they really haven't behaved well of late. I do find it rich that ICTU are all of a sudden looking for answers to our problems when they have been part of it and only when their overarching influence on power has gone for now. To the rest of us non-members that makes them self-serving and just another vested interest.

jimmmy

is_that_so wrote: »

To the rest of us non-members that makes them self-serving and just another vested interest.

When the unions get too strong the companies close down or re-locate abroad. Thats why most union members now are in semi-states and public service etc. They have the country destroyed.

oscarBravo

jimmmy wrote: »

When the unions get too strong the companies close down or re-locate abroad. Thats why most union members now are in semi-states and public service etc. They have the country destroyed.

OK, I'm going to lay down a marker here. All I ever seem to see from you are baseless sweeping generalisations like this; and you rarely if ever seem to post anything that isn't an attack on the public service. It's tedious and disruptive, and drifting close to falling afoul of the forum's rules on soapboxing.

Before you post again I suggest you think about your motivation for posting here. Are you simply trying to stir up anti-PS sentiment? If so, get a blog; this isn't a soapbox. If, on the other hand, you're genuinely interested in arguing a case that you believe in, you're going to have to (a) engage more seriously in debates, including not posting anything unless you have facts and figures to back it up, and (b) stop hijacking threads to turn them into anti-PS rants.

Don't reply to this post. If you have a problem with it, PM me.

Joey the lips

jimmmy wrote: »

When the unions get too strong the companies close down or re-locate abroad. Thats why most union members now are in semi-states and public service etc. They have the country destroyed.

I will say it again jimmy propose a system without unions where employee rights are protected from the uncareing employer and I will listen to your daft rantings

An employer moves cause it does not suits or there getting better perks. There is a saying in business. If its cheaper to make it, then make it. if its cheaper to buy it then buy it! If you honestly think an employer moves cause the union made it unadvantagous your in cloud cookoo land. There is management problems in siptu if your so cleaver list them and write to them

All else is speculation


Get real I said this was the politics forum your notions only have there place in after hours

^^^ Sorry oscar we must have been typing at the same time and clearly yours is faster and more logical ;-) ^^

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

When the unions get too strong the companies close down or re-locate abroad. Thats why most union members now are in semi-states and public service etc. They have the country destroyed.

Companies do not close down or relocate because Unions "get too strong", they do so because of money!!

one of the main factors in the big decline in Unions in the private sector is the amount of US companies that came here as they usually have a non-union attitude along with a similar general view in the Celtic Tiger Years (who needs a Union at the height of the boom?)

Many of those companies left their US people without jobs and now they are doing it here. Companies like those who bought Team Aer Lingus did so as they made a lot of money...as soon as there is a problem with that, its off to some other cheaper economy...whether the company has unions or not (see Dell and others)

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

Companies do not close down or relocate because Unions "get too strong", they do so because of money!!

Of course companies do not close down or relocate DIRECTLY because Unions "get too strong", they do so because of money....look at what used to be Team Aer Lingus ...as someone else said Lufthansa probably took one look at the situation and reckoned talking to SIPTU....our labour rates were substantially higher than even in the USA, a first world country which many would agree is at the cutting edge of aircraft design, maintenance procedures and production etc. Our labour costs for aircraft maintenance were something like 15 or 20 dollars an hour higher than America.

Riskymove

well there you go,

They closed down because costs were too high and they went somewhere cheaper

whats that got to do with the strength or otherwise of the SIPTU representation in SK Technics

Fergus08

Provide a link jimmmy to your claim that labour costs for aircraft maintanence are higher than here. If you state a fact, provide some evidence to back it up.

If you can't do so, then drop the subject....

Unions here have had 'sweetheart' deals with many of the US multinationals. The unions were allowed organise on site and represent the workers in exchange for industrial peace. Worked, for a while. Now that things are going south - unions are the only institutions capable of getting, for instance, decent redundancy payments for workers. The workers in SR Technics, Lufthansa and DHL might be unhappy with the efforts of the union. But it's a racing certainty that they'd get a far worse deal if there was no union.

Just look at Dell: they had to fight and fight to get a half decent settlement http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0205/dell.html And Dell could still renege on this deal - it's more of a 'gentlemans agreement' than anything else.

jimmmy

Fergus08 wrote: »

Provide a link jimmmy to your claim that labour costs for aircraft maintanence are higher than here.

I did not say they were higher than here, I said they were lower than here ; this is what everyone knows as it was widely reported in the media at the time, even on RTE. Even Riskymove has acknowledged that. Anyway, a link for ye: http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015932.shtml

jimmmy

Fergus08 wrote: »

Dell: they had to fight and fight

Companies generally prefer to locate and grw and continue to do business in countries where they do not have to "fight and fight"....DO NOT WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT FIGHTING AND FIGHTING IN THE FUTURE, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM OUT GROWING UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES ( FORECAST TO HIT 500,000 ) WORD HAS GOT OUT.

djpbarry

Joey the lips wrote: »

Beear in mind there is now min wage in the US or germany.

Only 5 US states have no minimum wage law:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

Minimum wages do exist in Germany too. They just don't have a generally applicable, national minimum wage.

Riskymove wrote: »

one of the main factors in the big decline in Unions in the private sector is the amount of US companies that came here as they usually have a non-union attitude...

I would say it has more to do with employees being afforded more protection by national labour laws.

jimmmy

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say it has more to do with employees being afforded more protection by national labour laws.

Agreed, and I also would say its because many employees do not want anything to do with a union.

SkepticOne

I think I would prefer to be without union representation if I'm in the private sector in the current economic climate.

Although I'm sure unions don't set out to deliberately undermine individual workers interests, in a situation where a company is worried about costs and is looking at possible options to relocate or cut overtime etc, I'm not sure I'd be happy with a militant union threatening industrial action on my behalf.

Fergus08

Jimmmy, you have to be joking!! Fin-****ing-facts.ie is what you regard as credible link to support your argument that aircraft maintanence costs are higher here than in the states! Guff, bluster, PR spin from the MD of SR Technics and no attempt whatsoever to analyse or interrogate Kessler's words.

I don't wish to be disrespectful and, thus, incur the wrath of the moderators. But I was expecting you to supply links to academic journals, quality research institutions, think tanks etc who have done a comparison of the costs for this type business in a range of comparable states. Not finfacts.ie, for god's sake.

The challenge stands find a link by a credible institution that can be interpreted as support for your argument that aircraft maintenance costs are higher here than in the US.

Skeptic One: you obviously don't know much about unions if you think they're all militant! Nothing could be further from the truth.

And you might prefer not to be represented in the current climate. But I'm sure that if you, unfortunately, were to lose your job it would be nice to have someone on hand who could help you get a better redundancy or better exit conditions. Many companies would just love to dump their employees during difficult economic conditions and I'm sure said companies would equally love to have employees like yourself who want nothing to do with unions. Workers pissed off by the carry on of unions in difficult times would do well to ponder the alternatives. We don't live in a perfect world but if we didn't have unions we'd be unimaginably worse off than we are now.

djpbarry

Fergus08 wrote: »

And you might prefer not to be represented in the current climate. But I'm sure that if you, unfortunately, were to lose your job it would be nice to have someone on hand who could help you get a better redundancy or better exit conditions.

Better than what? The redundancy agreed in the contract of employment?

Fergus08 wrote: »

We don't live in a perfect world but if we didn't have unions we'd be unimaginably worse off than we are now.

Would we? Why? I'm not in a union - please explain how I'd be far better off if I was.

passive

djpbarry wrote: »

Would we? Why? I'm not in a union - please explain how I'd be far better off if I was.

I think he meant if there had never been unions to get us to this point...

But I generally do agree that the uncompromising, defensive nature of unions in Ireland at present goes far beyond the needs and into serious harm to productivity and, eventually, the employees...

SkepticOne

Fergus08 wrote: »

Skeptic One: you obviously don't know much about unions if you think they're all militant! Nothing could be further from the truth.

And you might prefer not to be represented in the current climate. But I'm sure that if you, unfortunately, were to lose your job it would be nice to have someone on hand who could help you get a better redundancy or better exit conditions. Many companies would just love to dump their employees during difficult economic conditions and I'm sure said companies would equally love to have employees like yourself who want nothing to do with unions. Workers pissed off by the carry on of unions in difficult times would do well to ponder the alternatives. We don't live in a perfect world but if we didn't have unions we'd be unimaginably worse off than we are now.

I don't think they're always militant all the time, but I think where they come into their own is in the public sector or state protected monopolies. Here they can and do threaten action against the public if their demands are not met. The public in such instances have no choice but cave in or suffer lack of services.

However, in the competitive private sector, a very different approach is called for. Let's say a company needs to reduce wage costs significantly to stay in business in Ireland as opposed to moving to another country (e.g. Malta).

Now, in this instance, some workers may prefer to stay on at a reduced wage, whereas others may choose to leave. However the collectivist principles of the union work against this. The unions are not set up to negotiate on behalf of different groups of workers with different interests. They are set up to negotiate a one-size-fits-all solution and those who disagree are vilified and called scabs.

Also, if I were in, say, Lufthansa Technik, I would worry that the unions might be reluctant to compromise for fear that it would send the wrong (from their point of view) message to those involved in public sector disputes. They can't be seen to be giving in in one area while adopting a hard line in another.

As for redundancy payments, by the time these are being discussed, it is game over as far as I'm concerned. The unions and management have failed and the unions no longer have any leverage. They might sit in a meeting to discuss redundancies but I'm not sure they would get much above what might be achieved without them.

This is just a personal point of view. I don't claim to be an expert in union activity. My view is that sometimes collective action is in my interests and other times it is not.

Joey the lips

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think I would prefer to be without union representation if I'm in the private sector in the current economic climate.

I can understand that because you have no real barginnin power as a union as pay rises wount come. But Imagine this and its happening in the private sector at the moment " Your getting a 20% reduction its across the board in your dept if you dont like it you can feck off and I will pension you. and considering your only here 5 weeks I will only owe you 5 weeks money. Then i will take on one of the thousends out of work at the moment.

Although I'm sure unions don't set out to deliberately undermine individual workers interests, in a situation where a company is worried about costs and is looking at possible options to relocate or cut overtime etc, I'm not sure I'd be happy with a militant union threatening industrial action on my behalf.

Unions generally dont threaten action without a members ballot so I imagine you have never been in the position to realise this.

SkepticOne

Joey the lips wrote: »

Unions generally dont threaten action without a members ballot so I imagine you have never been in the position to realise this.

I think most people are aware of that. Nevertheless, the average worker has not been sitting at the negotiating table and is dependent on union officials to get an understanding of what is going on.

But my larger point was the one-size-fits-all problem. How are the interests of workers who might accept a significant pay cut to be reconciled with those who won't. The fairest would be to tailer a solution for each of the workers, but this is not always the way unions want it. Their strength is the ability to call for collective action but this means creating a culture of vilification of those to disagree, the 'scabs'.

But if a union is involved in public sector negotiations at the same time as discussions with a private company, will they even consider recommending a pay cut to their private sector workers? I would fear it would be easier for them to let the company go under or relocate rather than have their members 'exploited'. Yet this may not be in my interests as a worker.

Again these are only my personal feelings on the matter. I respect the right of others to organise in the workforce and collectively withdraw their labour if they feel their interests are best served in so doing.

Joey the lips

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think most people are aware of that. Nevertheless, the average worker has not been sitting at the negotiating table and is dependent on union officials to get an understanding of what is going on.

But my larger point was the one-size-fits-all problem. How are the interests of workers who might accept a significant pay cut to be reconciled with those who won't. The fairest would be to tailer a solution for each of the workers, but this is not always the way unions want it. Their strength is the ability to call for collective action but this means creating a culture of vilification of those to disagree, the 'scabs'.

But if a union is involved in public sector negotiations at the same time as discussions with a private company, will they even consider recommending a pay cut to their private sector workers? I would fear it would be easier for them to let the company go under or relocate rather than have their members 'exploited'. Yet this may not be in my interests as a worker.

Again these are only my personal feelings on the matter. I respect the right of others to organise in the workforce and collectively withdraw their labour if they feel their interests are best served in so doing.

Your being a bit daft dont you think. This is NEVER going to happen. Why would one worker accept a pay cut that another worker is not getting. One size has to fit all, its in the name union, meaning united not you have a fiver i will take 7. Tailor solution dont and wont work.

But I will make it simpler if your working you go in tomorrow and pay the workers levy beside you cause I bet he does not want to and if your on the dole you pay your neighbours loss in december

With the greatest respect towards you dont be daft in this. One condom fits all [EMAIL="d@#ks"]d@#ks[/EMAIL] One union fit all workers. Think of it that way! its in the name!

SkepticOne

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your being a bit daft dont you think. This is NEVER going to happen. Why would one worker accept a pay cut that another worker is not getting. One size has to fit all, its in the name union, meaning united not you have a fiver i will take 7. Tailor solution dont and wont work.

But I will make it simpler if your working you go in tomorrow and pay the workers levy beside you cause I bet he does not want to and if your on the dole you pay your neighbours loss in december

With the greatest respect towards you dont be daft in this. One condom fits all d@#ks One union fit all workers. Think of it that way! its in the name!

I think, with respect, you are stuck in a certain mindset and can't see the point I'm making. We both agree that unions always go for a one size fits all solution. What I am saying is that this is not always the best solution. Sometimes individuals are better able to look after their interests when they are free to act indivually.

I am fully aware that this undermines what unions stand for in their current form but that does not mean they and their philosophy should not be questioned.

Joey the lips

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think, with respect, you are stuck in a certain mindset and can't see the point I'm making. We both agree that unions always go for a one size fits all solution. What I am saying is that this is not always the best solution. Sometimes individuals are better able to look after their interests when they are free to act indivually.

I am fully aware that this undermines what unions stand for in their current form but that does not mean they and their philosophy should not be questioned.

My apologies I think I get you what your saying is really we should all be free to negiotiate freely but to know we have the power of the unions behind us to back us up.... Yes!

nesf

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your being a bit daft dont you think. This is NEVER going to happen. Why would one worker accept a pay cut that another worker is not getting. One size has to fit all, its in the name union, meaning united not you have a fiver i will take 7. Tailor solution dont and wont work.

The point is really why would someone who is very good at their job be happy to work for the same money as the guy who isn't? Why would someone who has gone to the trouble of getting a PhD be happy starting off on the same salary as graduates with just an undergrad when their qualification is relevant to their job?

Workers aren't homogeneously talented, skilled and able, which is the problem with one-size-fits-all wage deals. The people who benefit most from them are the laziest and least talented workers who are carried by the other people who actually put in a hard day's work.

jimmycrackcorm

Given that the Labour court seems to do more to protect workers rights than the unions, I cannot see the point of having them these days. Unions are also responsible for how we cannot get rid of crap teachers for example.

Joey the lips

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Given that the Labour court seems to do more to protect workers rights than the unions, I cannot see the point of having them these days. Unions are also responsible for how we cannot get rid of crap teachers for example.

With the greatest respect Jimmy the teacher situation is different, see the problem with teachers it goes back to supply and demand - bear with me

If you reduce supply (in the teachers case there is only one supply ie the goverment is the supplier of teacher labour) you increase demand ( You end up with too many teachers competing.) So what the teachers have done is have only one supply - the goverment and one demand - the unions there for canceling out the possibility of teachers being exploited. Think about it! Nobody would spend years in college for an adverage industrial wage - Sorry thats the facts

But the problem then lies in this cause with only one supply and one demand if one refuses to co operate there is no alternative but to strike.

Does this make sense. - Its rational behaviour for teachers and its a case where unions work very well, This problem would also occur in the Guarda only state security prevents the gards going on strike

Joey the lips

nesf wrote: »

The point is really why would someone who is very good at their job be happy to work for the same money as the guy who isn't? Why would someone who has gone to the trouble of getting a PhD be happy starting off on the same salary as graduates with just an undergrad when their qualification is relevant to their job?

Workers aren't homogeneously talented, skilled and able, which is the problem with one-size-fits-all wage deals. The people who benefit most from them are the laziest and least talented workers who are carried by the other people who actually put in a hard day's work.

You have taken my comments out of context sorry... I am refering to people in simular positions and jobs and in your comments what usually happens is if workers get professionally trained in college they are generally moved up to management which is a different wage structure

I have never seen a shelf stacker in tesco been asked by management to do a degree in business management and been left stacking shelves. But I have seen people with degrees in business management accepting to be employed as shelf stackers. Its a difference in what your offered and what you accept.

No relievence when it comes to unions IMO

djpbarry

passive wrote: »

I think he meant if there had never been unions to get us to this point...

D'oh.

ixoy

Think about it! Nobody would spend years in college for an adverage industrial wage - Sorry thats the facts

But they might stick around for the chance of getting twice that, which is what the average teacher's wage is closer to. And the perks that have been mentioned in other threads.

But the problem then lies in this cause with only one supply and one demand if one refuses to co operate there is no alternative but to strike.

There's a number of demands - pay, jobs, conditions in classrooms, etc.

You're also missing the point here - the unions are protecting teachers who are, in a word, crap. They're not being exploited - if anyone is being exploited it's the poor kids who have to suffer under their so-called tutelage. There's plenty of teachers on contract who could be excellent and great replacements for these guys but the unions have arranged things in such a manner that it's not possible. The supply is there (contracting teacher), the demand is there (the pupils) but the mechanisms enforced by unions is stopping it.
I think it's a good example of how unions can inhibit better work practices and environments for all.

Joey the lips

ixoy wrote: »

But they might stick around for the chance of getting twice that, which is what the average teacher's wage is closer to. And the perks that have been mentioned in other threads.


There's a number of demands - pay, jobs, conditions in classrooms, etc.

You're also missing the point here - the unions are protecting teachers who are, in a word, crap. They're not being exploited - if anyone is being exploited it's the poor kids who have to suffer under their so-called tutelage. There's plenty of teachers on contract who could be excellent and great replacements for these guys but the unions have arranged things in such a manner that it's not possible. The supply is there (contracting teacher), the demand is there (the pupils) but the mechanisms enforced by unions is stopping it.

I think it's a good example of how unions can inhibit better work practices and environments for all.

Your just being daft and I am not getting into a boyish rant! Your attitude stinks. If you were an employer you would be boycotted by the unions for unfair treatment! When I talk supply and demand I refer to worker and employer you bring in emotions to an arguement

The way I see it is if the goverment did what they said the teachers would not be argueing. Its amazing how we can look at the nurses and agree this point. Why!

Cause we perceve the teachers to have a cushy job and that is not fair debate. I am not taking part in a foolish debate have your final say and bring it back to siptu!

grahamo

nesf wrote: »

The point is really why would someone who is very good at their job be happy to work for the same money as the guy who isn't? Why would someone who has gone to the trouble of getting a PhD be happy starting off on the same salary as graduates with just an undergrad when their qualification is relevant to their job?

Workers aren't homogeneously talented, skilled and able, which is the problem with one-size-fits-all wage deals. The people who benefit most from them are the laziest and least talented workers who are carried by the other people who actually put in a hard day's work.

You don't see too many people with PhD's in the general workforce. (Where I come from you don't see many with a degree:) )
These people would rarely need union representation as they would be management and I would imagine the pay structure is completely different.
However, I think it is very important that the working man is represented by unions.
Please don't try and tell me employers aren't exploiting the current situation.
Let me give an example,As far as I can see internet shopping is booming in Ireland at the moment due to less VAT overseas, favourable exchange rate with sterling etc.
Result is the likes of DHL get loads of business (even in a recession)
DHL bosses look around and see other companies struggling and workers willing to take pay cuts etc. Of course they are going to jump on the bandwagon and say
'Take all these cost cutting measures and like it or you are losing your job!
Employers will exploit workers any chance they get!

ixoy

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your just being daft and I am not getting into a boyish rant! Your attitude stinks. If you were an employer you would be boycotted by the unions for unfair treatment! When I talk supply and demand I refer to worker and employer you bring in emotions to an arguement

Daft? Not at all - I'm looking for a response on a particular issue - why should teachers who are performing poorly (and we've all met them) be insulated from any measures designed to reform them? Why is this reform not possible? If you're bad at your job, you should be subject to some form of reform demanded of you - there should be merit-based activity.

I'm not saying everything the teacher's union stands for is bad - I'm saying that some of the stuff they do isn't conducive to good work practice. Or do you honestly believe everything unions do is for the good of all (even in the likes of Lufthansa) fighting the evil employer?

Cause we perceve the teachers to have a cushy job and that is not fair debate. I am not taking part in a foolish debate have your final say and bring it back to siptu!

What are you on about? You brought the emotive aspect in when you claimed the poor teachers started out on an industrial wage. I responded to that.

SkepticOne

Joey the lips wrote: »

I have never seen a shelf stacker in tesco been asked by management to do a degree in business management and been left stacking shelves. But I have seen people with degrees in business management accepting to be employed as shelf stackers. Its a difference in what your offered and what you accept.

No relievence when it comes to unions IMO

I think the point that is being made here is that within a particular grade there may be differences in productivity that might not be reflected in differences in renumeration. A valid point, imo.

ixoy

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think the point that is being made here is that within a particular grade there may be differences in productivity that might not be reflected in differences in renumeration. A valid point, imo.

Exactly. I think IT skills in the CS falls under this one - someone with an IT degree would start out at the same EO level as someone without, even if the role itself is an IT one (I can think of specific instances for this, which is why I used it). Apparently, it's something the unions instituted because other members felt slighted when I think it would make sense to encourage more qualified talent to try for the roles and that can be done by making it seem that the company/service acknowledges their skills.

nesf

Joey the lips wrote: »

You have taken my comments out of context sorry... I am refering to people in simular positions and jobs and in your comments what usually happens is if workers get professionally trained in college they are generally moved up to management which is a different wage structure

I have never seen a shelf stacker in tesco been asked by management to do a degree in business management and been left stacking shelves. But I have seen people with degrees in business management accepting to be employed as shelf stackers. Its a difference in what your offered and what you accept.

No relievence when it comes to unions IMO

Actually if you look at the civil service it's a serious issue. There is a serious lack of PhD qualified Economists in the Department of Finance. Which is a bit of a problem given that economic forecasting is something they do quite often. The problem is that someone with a PhD will enter the civil service at the exact same spot as someone with a degree or (in times past, no degree).

SkepticOne

Joey the lips wrote: »

My apologies I think I get you what your saying is really we should all be free to negiotiate freely but to know we have the power of the unions behind us to back us up.... Yes!

Essentially my point (though perhaps not very well expressed) is that there are some situations where the culture of solidarity and collective action can sometimes work against the collective good for the workers concerned, not merely the individual good. Such a situation might arise when a company is genuinely against the wall or there are really are better options for the company in other countries.

mdebets

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think, with respect, you are stuck in a certain mindset and can't see the point I'm making. We both agree that unions always go for a one size fits all solution. What I am saying is that this is not always the best solution. Sometimes individuals are better able to look after their interests when they are free to act indivually.

That's only true if you have a unique skill that no one else has, especially in the current climate. Otherwise it's you alone against a corporation with weveral HR people and lawyers. It's just take it or leave it (within the law of course). If you don't like it, there a many people standing behind you who can perform your job as good, if not even better than you can and who cost less than you do.
The only way to counter act it a little bit is if you more people standing nehind you and supporting you. That's what a Union is for, to counter balance against the weight of the employer.

mdebets

jimmmy wrote: »

When the unions get too strong the companies close down or re-locate abroad. Thats why most union members now are in semi-states and public service etc. They have the country destroyed.

That's not true. Look at other countries, were the Union rights are even stronger.
In Germany for example you have to have a works council and the workers (mostly represented by Unions) have up to 50% of the seats on the boards of directors. Some decisisons by the company also need approval by the works council.
Yet the companies don't pull out of Germany in the same way they pull out of Ireland. Some due, but there are still large manufacturing companies who don't.

mdebets

SkepticOne wrote: »

Essentially my point (though perhaps not very well expressed) is that there are some situations where the culture of solidarity and collective action can sometimes work against the collective good for the workers concerned, not merely the individual good. Such a situation might arise when a company is genuinely against the wall or there are really are better options for the company in other countries.

But that's mostly because of the employers taking a 'take it or leave approach' and trying to cheat the workers out of money.
When the company takes an honest approach and tries to shoulder the burden equally on owners, company, management and employees, there is no reason, why unions wouldn't negotiate and come to an agreement. Most problems happen if you have a company demanding wage-cuts or redundancies from workers, while at the same time paying dividends to their owners or boni to their management. In these cases, I expect a Union to highlight this and fight against it.