Workers Unions

wobbles-grogan

Is it just me or are they causing alot of trouble around the country?

Dont get me wrong, i completely agree with the principle of a union, a lot of voices together will make a bigger voice, and its great they stand up for workers rights and minimum wage, working conditions etc..

But in this day and age, where almost every company is struggling with profit margins and the like, is the behaviour at the coca cola plant in tuam really needed?
Heres the article -> http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0827/cocacola.html

Do people not realise that if a company doesnt want to spend its money it doesn't have to, if they want to let off employees they have that right, the thomas cook saga springs to mind here also. They were getting offered i think 3 times the minumum redundency package and still complained. I believe they got what they wanted and got a larger redundancy.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0814/1224252551059.html

I dunno if its just me, but it seems like these unions are the cause of a lot of trouble through these unsettling times.

I also realise that im setting myself up for alot of abuse here but said i should get it out there.

Just my question, is it the general consensus that unions are good for the economy, or bad?

Also, mods, if this is in the wrong forum feel free to move etc etc...

Blazer

hmm.it's tricky one....unions are good in good times and bad in bad times.

From a personal point of view...If I had to close my business and offered my staff 3-4 times the statutory and they refused, went on strike etc I'd tell them all to fcuk off and just give them the statutory. That'll teach them.

They should look at the De Beers crowd who only got statutory and be grateful for what they got.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mankind's nature to be greedy.

We live in a right-wing world, not a left-wing one. Which means money is more important than people. Which was fine when we were all getting money and **** off everyone else, but now that we're not, we're the "everyone else" who is being ****ed off so someone else can get some extra money, wo don't like it.

Live by the sword...

Stark

Unions=Labour price fixing cartels. Essentially any increases in union workers wages come at the expense of non union workers, whether it be through lower wages for non unionized workers or higher prices for goods and services.

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

We live in a right-wing world, not a left-wing one. Which means money is more important than people. Which was fine when we were all getting money and **** off everyone else, but now that we're not, we're the "everyone else" who is being ****ed off so someone else can get some extra money, wo don't like it.

Live by the sword...

You're taking the piss if you think Ireland is a right-wing country in the economic sense. If we were right-wing, we would already have slashed the social welfare and public sector wage bill and wouldn't be currently borrowing obscene amounts of money to fund current expenditure.

Long Onion

wobbles-grogan wrote: »

Is it just me or are they causing alot of trouble around the country?

Dont get me wrong, i completely agree with the principle of a bunion...

I dunno if its just me, but it seems like these bunions are the cause of a lot of trouble through these unsettling times.

I also realise that im setting myself up for alot of abuse here but said i should get it out there.

Just my question, is it the general consensus that bunions are good for the economy, or bad?

Also, mods, if this is in the wrong forum feel free to move etc etc...

They are, b their very nature, self defeeting

Big_G

Long Onion wrote: »

They are, b their very nature, self defeeting

Step into my office. Coz you're fuckin fired.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Stark wrote: »

Unions=Labour price fixing cartels. Essentially any increases in union workers wages come at the expense of non union workers, whether it be through lower wages for non unionized workers or higher prices for goods and services.



You're taking the piss if you think Ireland is a right-wing country in the economic sense. If we were right-wing, we would already have slashed the social welfare and public sector wage bill and wouldn't be currently borrowing obscene amounts of money to fund current expenditure.

Talking more in terms of society and attitudes rather than politics. Most of the ideas you mention would be well supported (especially amongst the well-off) and have already happened if it wasn't for the unions (not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing).

irish_bob

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Mankind's nature to be greedy.

We live in a right-wing world, not a left-wing one. Which means money is more important than people. Which was fine when we were all getting money and **** off everyone else, but now that we're not, we're the "everyone else" who is being ****ed off so someone else can get some extra money, wo don't like it.

Live by the sword...

i love it the way left wingers believe one you identify yourself as being left wing , you are then absolved of any form of greed , the unions intranagence is entirely based on greed , that and obtuse , blind stuborn impracticality

irish_bob

Stark wrote: »

Unions=Labour price fixing cartels. Essentially any increases in union workers wages come at the expense of non union workers, whether it be through lower wages for non unionized workers or higher prices for goods and services.



You're taking the piss if you think Ireland is a right-wing country in the economic sense. If we were right-wing, we would already have slashed the social welfare and public sector wage bill and wouldn't be currently borrowing obscene amounts of money to fund current expenditure.

the reason most irish people think we have a right wing goverment is due to the fact they have been conditioned into thinking so by our overwhelmingly left wing media , every loon from the left has access to our airwaves at all times , richard boyd barrett has been on the tv and radio for years despite only having been elected to office at council level in the past three months , joe higgins lost his dail seat in 2007 yet it made no difference whatsoever to his ability to be seen or heard in the media

wobbles-grogan

Berkut wrote: »

From a personal point of view...If I had to close my business and offered my staff 3-4 times the statutory and they refused, went on strike etc I'd tell them all to fcuk off and just give them the statutory. That'll teach them.

Exactly my toughts on the subject. Its ridiculous that companies are giving more than they need and still be put in front of the gun.

Another example of unions at work, The electricians union get a pay rise! ****ing ridiculous if you ask me. The whole place is getting job cuts and what not and they get a pay rise.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0713/1224250545334.html

Im searching for a positive news article relating to unions in recent times so i can help the counter argument, not having the best of luck...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

irish_bob wrote: »

i love it the way left wingers believe one you identify yourself as being left wing , you are then absolved of any form of greed , the unions intranagence is entirely based on greed , that and obtuse , blind stuborn impracticality

I think you replied to the wrong post...?

connundrum

I personally have no time for unions, having dealt with them as an employee and an employer.

As an employer, I half feel sorry for guys we've working for us, as they put so much trust into their local union rep only for him/her to let them down by never getting back to them, or by putting half arsed effort into meeting employers etc.

The idea of a union is good i.e. we'll all stick together for the greater good, but unions as they are now - with well paid, self interested representatives are not the way to go*

*Note that this is from my own experience.

Stark

Sounds fairly true from what I've heard from people working in unionised companies. Unions are great when it comes to everyone "grouping together" for a salary increase or whatever that will benefit the union reps. When it comes to an employee having a genuine grievance though, they're generally on their own.

If anything, it probably makes life harder for an employee to resolve issues as they need to go through their union, who if they do try to help, just end up pissing off the employer with strong arm tactics rather than constructive dialog. In my personal experience of working in unionised/non-unionsed companies, walking into your manager's office and saying "I'm having a problem, was wondering if you could help me out" gets far better results and leads to a healthier work environment than trying to get things sorted through a union.

Neamhshuntasach

The thing is that Unions are shíte in Ireland. They rarely do anything for the workers. They are needed in my opinion because if not a company will walk all over you. Some of the conditions people put up with on a daily basis are a joke.

The employees of Coca Cola who are striking should be careful. They don't wanna end up dead like the union leaders in Colombia.

bobgob

Stark wrote: »

Sounds fairly true from what I've heard from people working in unionised companies. Unions are great when it comes to everyone "grouping together" for a salary increase or whatever that will benefit the union reps. When it comes to an employee having a genuine grievance though, they're generally on their own.

If anything, it probably makes life harder for an employee to resolve issues as they need to go through their union, who if they do try to help, just end up pissing off the employer with strong arm tactics rather than constructive dialog. In my personal experience of working in unionised/non-unionsed companies, walking into your manager's office and saying "I'm having a problem, was wondering if you could help me out" gets far better results and leads to a healthier work environment than trying to get things sorted through a union.

I agree with most of what you say, the only problem with some companys is the level of compitance of some managers.
I am currently on strike with coca cola because they want rid of us and give our jobs to 3rd parties who will pay 10euro an hour, we did not need the union to tell us this is wrong and unfair the union is a tool and a very important one when you have companys profiteering off ordinary workers backs. A lot of profitable companys (as coke is) are looking at this issue and if Coke get away with this where does it stop.

You will have me for example claiming state benifits for my wife and 3 young children and the worker who gets my job will still have to be supported by the state because he or she will not earn enough to pay tax and if they have a family will also claim some benifits.

Is this right is it fair no its not its a disgrace.

The MD has said we are paid 3 times more than the company benchmark for distribution, what he doesnt say is that most of this companys buisness is in eastren europe where the price of the product is sometimes 4 times less than what the custumer pays for it here.

rs

bobgob wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say, the only problem with some companys is the level of compitance of some managers.
I am currently on strike with coca cola because they want rid of us and give our jobs to 3rd parties who will pay 10euro an hour, we did not need the union to tell us this is wrong and unfair the union is a tool and a very important one when you have companys profiteering off ordinary workers backs. A lot of profitable companys (as coke is) are looking at this issue and if Coke get away with this where does it stop.

So here's how I see it.

1. If I was the company, I'd be thinking so these Irish workers are both expensive and troublesome. Why on earth would I want to keep them? You are pushing the company into a situation where they are even more likely to make you unemployed. If Coke are pushed, they'll move the entire operation out of the country.

Also, you CV will show you worked there, making other potential employers think twice about hiring you. I know plenty of companies who have unwritten rules about hiring people from heavily unionized companies.

2. Why is it that it's so easy to replace you with someone who will work for 10 euro an hour? Why have you not, at this point in your life developed a set of skills that mean it's impossible to replace you with someone who is essentially unskilled.

This is how capitalism works I'm afraid. It's not fair, but nothing is.

Ask yourself this simple question. How long would it take to train someone else to do my job? If the answer is only a couple of weeks, then things are not looking good.

994

Stark wrote: »

Unions=Labour price fixing cartels.

IBEC = their equal and opposite.

bobgob

rs wrote: »

So here's how I see it.

1. If I was the company, I'd be thinking so these Irish workers are both expensive and troublesome. Why on earth would I want to keep them? You are pushing the company into a situation where they are even more likely to make you unemployed. If Coke are pushed, they'll move the entire operation out of the country.

Also, you CV will show you worked there, making other potential employers think twice about hiring you. I know plenty of companies who have unwritten rules about hiring people from heavily unionized companies.

2. Why is it that it's so easy to replace you with someone who will work for 10 euro an hour? Why have you not, at this point in your life developed a set of skills that mean it's impossible to replace you with someone who is essentially unskilled.

This is how capitalism works I'm afraid. It's not fair, but nothing is.

Ask yourself this simple question. How long would it take to train someone else to do my job? If the answer is only a couple of weeks, then things are not looking good.

1. Troublesome and expensive, this is the first strike the company has had in 40 years thats hardly troublesome and I dont think the average industrial wage is expensive.
Pushing the company is obviously not something we want to do at all but to bury your head in the sand and hope everything will be alright is worse.

So you think I should vet every job I apply for on the basis of unionisation and if its a union job I should avoid it because somewhere down the line an employer may or may not pull my name from a black list, this is 2009 not 1913 and 1 strike in 40 years is hardly militant.

2. I took this job on for security and a steady wage I am a tradesman and so are a lot of the lads who work with me, when we were taken on we were told how good the jobs where and how secure they where all proved to be lies. I wont just walk away and give my job to someone else.
If the company were in debt and had to get rid of us fair enough but thats not the case and I hope if you ever happen to be in the same situation you get the same support we have. I am not looking for anything for nothing I have worked since I was 15, some 30 years, I have never claimed a penny from this state and between myself and my wife have paid every tax, levy and charges the goverment have imposed on us, if we were to lie down and take this I could not sleep at night.

I agree capitalism isnt fair, but things are only unfair if you let them be, we will stand up for ourselfs and hopefully some kind of settlement will come about sooner rather than later belive me none of us want to be outside.

nlgbbbblth

I have been a union rep in various locations for 14 years. I don't get paid anything extra for the privilege. Nor do my fellow branch representatives.

Everyone should join one when they start a job - irregardless of how employers feel about unions.

Otherwise you'll just get walked on.

To stereotype unions and / or their members themselves as "troublemakers" is bollocks.

rs

bobgob wrote: »

So you think I should vet every job I apply for on the basis of unionisation and if its a union job I should avoid it because somewhere down the line an employer may or may not pull my name from a black list, this is 2009 not 1913 and 1 strike in 40 years is hardly militant.

In general, companies with heavy unionization get crushed in an open market. Look what is happening to both Aer Lingus and Eircom at the moment. Look what happened to the British auto industry, and now the American auto industry. Heavily unionized, not focused on the customer, ultimately failure.

In general, I have to say I would personally avoid working for a heavily unionized company again because any places I've worked that had heavy unionization operated badly. And companies that operate badly go bust. (unless you are part of the civil service of course, where there is no competition)

bobgob wrote: »

2. I took this job on for security and a steady wage I am a tradesman and so are a lot of the lads who work with me, when we were taken on we were told how good the jobs where and how secure they where all proved to be lies.

You see, I don't believe in job security. I work for company because it's mutually beneficial. I need money to feed my family, and the company needs my services. If they could hire someone to do the same job as me for half the price tomorrow, they would. In the same way if another company were to offer me twice the money for the same job, I'd move. It's not "fair", but that's the way it is.

rs

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

Everyone should join one when they start a job - irregardless of how employers feel about unions.

Otherwise you'll just get walked on.

To stereotype unions and / or their members themselves as "troublemakers" is bollocks.

I don't think they are troublemakers, I just think that in the modern global economy, they are self-defeating. The auto industry is the perfect example. The airline industry is proving to be another.

Our friends in coke are being paid several times what their skills are really worth on the open market. They union pushing up their wages over the last several years had made them uncompetitive.

If you could buy the same groceries at two different shops but one charged twice what the other one did, which would you shop at? Coke is simply doing the same. Sad but true.

I'm not saying that companies should be able to shaft employees. I'm a big believer in labour laws at a government level to enforce minimum wages, working conditions, redundancy pay, etc.

I've simply found that Unions tend to shift the focus of a company more towards trying to appease the employees and not cater to the customers of that company. Good for the employees in the short term, but bad for the company in the long term.

wobbles-grogan

Bobgob, i know its terrible that you may loose your job after all these years of service, thats not fair at anyones table.

You say, however, that you've been there for 30 years and you took on that job because of job security, i dunno about anyone else but 30 years in a firm sounds pretty secure to me.

The tax issue you brought up, this is the whole trouble in this country, the very reason why the government is going bust. The government relied on people earning more than they should be earning in their jobs as these people payed more taxes than they should. Its a double edged sword though, ireland is very expensive to live in, so i guess people had to be pai more. But i've no doubt that the reason prices went so high is becuse people had enough disposable income to pay the higher prices. If they didnt, the government whould have had to make initiatives to drive pices down, maybe thats what needs to be done now.
Im no economist or anything, just the sort of spiral i envision.

I think rs has it down to a T there, just look at aer lingus and ryan air.
Air Lingus = Heavily Unioniised Company -> €73.9m H1 Loss!
Ryan Air = Un-unionised Company -> €136.5m Q1 Profit!

I know there are other factors involved, long haul flights becoming less popular etc, but still, the contrast is stark!

Unions have their place in this country, making sure working conditions are up to standard, minimum wages are adhered to, but this action at thomas cook, coca-cola, the electricians. I dont agree with.

Its the companys money, they can do what they please.
Just the same as its your money when you consume anything else, you buy the most competitive product.
Companies wish to do the same.

Maybe you should tell your union to make their workers more competetitve? Or would the rest of your union look down upon that?

Long Onion

wobbles-grogan wrote: »

I think rs has it down to a T there, just look at aer lingus and ryan air.
Air Lingus = Heavily Unioniised Company -> €73.9m H1 Loss!
Ryan Air = Un-unionised Company -> €136.5m Q1 Profit!

IN fairness, the Ryanair profit was due to a massive fall in fuel charges, outside this, there was little profit, perhaps even a loss if I recall correctly. This is down to managment decisions re; fuel hedging, union activity has little to do with it.

That said, in general terms, union involvement in Aer Lingus has pushed up the staff cost per seat to a level substantially higher than many other carriers, this appears to be a legacy issue arising from state ownership (look at the continuing inefficiencies in the public sector as evidence of this). Work practices in Aer Lingus are by all accounts bordering on the ridiculous and it shows the detrimental effect of unions at their worst.

I believe that unions can and do have a place in Irish employment but just like the IRA supporters and radical feminists, they need to realise that the old war is over, the landscape has changed and that their valuable victories through the years have rendered much of the more militant view defunct. They need to re-assess their role given the raft of employment law changes introduced post Europe.

As a consultative/support body, they can be invaluable, as a legacy "down with the evils of capitalism"/One man one job body, they are eating themselves. They need to consult their members about ways to bring themselves into the future, all members need to engage in meaningful discourse with their unions to ensure that they retain something which can be very valuable indeed - even if not so in current guise.

ShooterSF

The only "union" I have ever been part of was one set up among workers in a hotel to protect each other from horrible management who ignored most workers rights. We simply checked up on laws for each other and supported one another when they tried to avoid their legal obligations. The was no "Union fee" etc. and we never demanded anything we weren't legally entitled to. Those are the kind of Unions I'd support.

rs

ShooterSF wrote: »

The only "union" I have ever been part of was one set up among workers in a hotel to protect each other from horrible management who ignored most workers rights. We simply checked up on laws for each other and supported one another when they tried to avoid their legal obligations. The was no "Union fee" etc. and we never demanded anything we weren't legally entitled to. Those are the kind of Unions I'd support.

You see, I'd prefer if there was no need for unions for things like this. If a company is blatantly breaking labour laws, then it should be hauled to court and fined extremely heavily. A simple tip-off to a government agency should be enough to get the ball rolling on this.

Hitting a company squarely in the pocket for breaking the law will get them to cop on pretty quickly.

But as was pointed out, work practices at Aer Lingus are killing the company, and a lot of this can be attributed to heavy unionization. When the inevitable take over of Aer Lingus takes place, how secure with their jobs be?

Sadly, as I mentioned before, I know several MDs of large companies that have an unwritten rule that they don't hire ex long term Aer Lingus staff because any that they have hired in the past have been so stuck in their inefficient union work practices and mentality that they have had to get rid of them.

ShooterSF

rs wrote: »

You see, I'd prefer if there was no need for unions for things like this. If a company is blatantly breaking labour laws, then it should be hauled to court and fined extremely heavily. A simple tip-off to a government agency should be enough to get the ball rolling on this.

Hitting a company squarely in the pocket for breaking the law will get them to cop on pretty quickly.

I completely agree. Unfortunately from experience that just doesn't happen. A government agency can't watch a company carefully enough to make sure they are applying laws all the time, staff can.
I agree with your concerns with "overly unionised" workplaces. It's one thing protecting your legal rights which to be fair to employees there are no shortage of today and holding an employer to ransom.
Unions could work for the benefit of everyone if they brought concerns to employers and tried to find a happy medium. Happy workers are better workers and all that. But too often they get too heavy handed too fast and are often suffering the mentality of it's us against them - a huge problem with Unions.