Unions

Hootanany

We have to break them before they break this country

techdiver

Hootanany wrote: »

We have to break them before they break this country

I know. Listening to that commie fool Jack O'Connor harping on about massive action on the news yesterday turned my stomach. The unions are great at saying no at every turn, but very thin on any real suggestions on where we are going to bridge the gap between or national income and expenditure!:mad:

In some way I hope they get their way, so that the country will be forced to call on the IMF and then they will reap the benefit of their national sabotage and their economic ineptitude will be clear for all to see.

Wishbone Ash

So organisations who represent the interests of ordinary workers and who's legitimacy is enshrined in our constitution, should be broken while we bail out the banks, developers and politicians? :rolleyes:

Hootanany

i believe there is a porter at the Mater that is on strike

optocynic

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

So organisations who represent the interests of ordinary workers and who's legitimacy is enshrined in our constitution, should be broken while we bail out the banks, developers and politicians? :rolleyes:

If that was what they were doing, we would support them (to a degree).. but how can they support teachers... 50k a year... short work week.. 9 months uncertified sick leave.... and we ALL know that the number of GOOD teachers you had can be counted on one hand!!..

How can O'Connor claim these guys are 'ordinary workers'???

National average wage = 32k
Public sector average wage = 50k(ish)

How can a self proclaimed socialist call these guys 'ordinary workers'???

optocynic

Hootanany wrote: »

i believe there is a porter at the Mater that is on strike

Will he be missed?

techdiver

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

So organisations who represent the interests of ordinary workers and who's legitimacy is enshrined in our constitution, should be broken while we bail out the banks, developers and politicians? :rolleyes:

This same old tune is getting old. Regardless of the means of how it is achieved, every political party will bail out the banks in some way. It is the nature of the world we live in that we need the banks to function or things will become decidedly worse. Ordinary workers in the private sector are loosing jobs daily due to the fact that the banking system in this country has ground to a halt and is not lending money to viable businesses. This in turn results in these businesses closing and jobs being lost.

You can't look at this situation through such a narrow lens, in the same way the unions do. You can't have it both ways.

Hootanany

what will they do mass strikes more stick will be given to the public sector that we cannot afford

techdiver

Hootanany wrote: »

what will they do mass strikes more stick will be given to the public sector that we cannot afford

Not to mention the view that potential outside investors will get of the Irish workforce. Look at the level of outside investment in France due to their overly powerful unions. The difference for them is that they have quite a large indigenous industry whereas we don't.

teddy_303

optocynic wrote: »

If that was what they were doing, we would support them (to a degree).. but how can they support teachers... 50k a year... short work week.. 9 months uncertified sick leave.... and we ALL know that the number of GOOD teachers you had can be counted on one hand!!..

How can O'Connor claim these guys are 'ordinary workers'???

National average wage = 32k
Public sector average wage = 50k(ish)

How can a self proclaimed socialist call these guys 'ordinary workers'???

I agree with what you are saying in regard to the teachers, but I have to add to this comment, that they are a special case, due to how long it takes to qualify, against the wages earned by someone who spends the same amount of time in college who goes out to work in the private sector?

It was getting to the point where no one was training to teach kids. Which is a very important job, i'm sure anyone would agree. You couldn't have the college drop outs teaching these kids, who all our futures depend on massively.

In regard to the unions themselves, just be grateful you have a job where you are treated well, and do not require their assistance. Lucky old you. :mad:

optocynic

teddy_303 wrote: »

In regard to the unions themselves, just be grateful you have a job where you are treated well, and do not require their assistance. Lucky old you. :mad:

Everyone in a job today is treated well... European law protects the worker more than ever in the history of man.
The myth that employers don't take care of their good workers is total crap, spread by the "unemployable f*cking headbangers" in the unions.
Malcontents in the modern workforce.. tend to be bad workers...
Today... all the unions do, is hold up progress and success, by protecting the deadwood in their sectors!!!

More harm than good!

teddy_303

techdiver wrote: »

Not to mention the view that potential outside investors will get of the Irish workforce. Look at the level of outside investment in France due to their overly powerful unions. The difference for them is that they have quite a large indigenous industry whereas we don't.

Well which do you think is more important, having cheap labour crap jobs, whose benefactors are foreign, living off the cheap exploitable down trodden Irish people like we had back in the 80's - Vs - worth while jobs with an eye on sustainability, longevity in mind,.

I know you don't have to accept these working conditions, you can tell by how your perspective comes across, but unless you are prepared to do these crappy jibs, I don't think you are in a position to be crying out for them.

I can remember them the first time around tech driver, they were not worth it, absolutely soul destroying..

techdiver

teddy_303 wrote: »

Well which do you think is more important, having cheap labour crap jobs, whose benefactors are foreign, living off the cheap exploitable down trodden Irish people like we had back in the 80's - Vs - worth while jobs with an eye on sustainability, longevity in mind,.

I know you don't have to accept these working conditions, you can tell by how your perspective comes across, but unless you are prepared to do these crappy jibs, I don't think you are in a position to be crying out for them.

I can remember them the first time around tech driver, they were not worth it, absolutely soul destroying..

The inward investment I talk of is for jobs in all facets of life. My job for instance is with a US multinational and we don't have union representation and believe it or not we are not working in the gutter and being mistreated. We are being paid to do a job. Conditions and pay are worked out individually between each member of staff and the employer and if we don't like it we know where the door is.

The current model supported by unions is a socialist view of equal pay regardless of how useless you are. This does not encourage people to better themselves because pay is in no way based on merit. My mother is a civil servant and she agrees with this. She sees many useless gets who would be shown the door in the private sector, but because they are protected by bullsh**t agreements they draw down the same salary as good workers do.

Tell me, is that the way things should work??

teddy_303

optocynic wrote: »

Everyone in a job today is treated well... European law protects the worker more than ever in the history of man.
The myth that employers don't take care of their good workers is total crap, spread by the "unemployable f*cking headbangers" in the unions.
Malcontents in the modern workforce.. tend to be bad workers...
Today... all the unions do, is hold up progress and success, by protecting the deadwood in their sectors!!!

More harm than good!

I couldn't disagree with you more. Some people just want to go to work, but some political bull sh1t can throw some people off. There is a thing called
"Lick Flexibility" , which is nothing more than the gentiles way of saying exploit, exploit, exploit. Count yourself lucky you haven't felt your self being squeezed YET! It could happen to you yet. Who are you going to turn to then, when your colleagues turn their backs on you, and are just glad it wasn't them who spoke up for your employment rights..:o

optocynic

teddy_303 wrote: »

Well which do you think is more important, having cheap labour crap jobs, whose benefactors are foreign, living off the cheap exploitable down trodden Irish people like we had back in the 80's - Vs - worth while jobs with an eye on sustainability, longevity in mind,.

I know you don't have to accept these working conditions, you can tell by how your perspective comes across, but unless you are prepared to do these crappy jibs, I don't think you are in a position to be crying out for them.

I can remember them the first time around tech driver, they were not worth it, absolutely soul destroying..

What's your point?
Or more importantly.. what is your solution?

optocynic

teddy_303 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with you more. Some people just want to go to work, but some political bull sh1t can throw some people off. There is a thing called
"Lick Flexibility" , which is nothing more than the gentiles way of saying exploit, exploit, exploit. Count yourself lucky you haven't felt your self being squeezed YET! It could happen to you yet. Who are you going to turn to then, when your colleagues turn their backs on you, and are just glad it wasn't them who spoke up for your employment rights..:o

I am making myself indispensable to my company... I am of benefit to them.. I bring in business/success... hence, I EARN my job and salary!

If I was not performing... I would not deserve any assistance from my collegues/team... because I would be letting them down!

P. Breathnach

optocynic wrote: »

Everyone in a job today is treated well...

That is a preposterous claim.

optocynic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is a preposterous claim.

Explain please.
Examples would be nice too.

Riskymove

optocynic wrote: »

Explain please.
Examples would be nice too.

are you saying you have never heard of anyone being found guilty of, let's say unfair dismissal? constructive dismissal? bullying or sexual harrasment? breach of contract? and so on

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

are you saying you have never heard of anyone being found guilty of, let's say unfair dismissal? constructive dismissal? bullying or sexual harrasment? breach of contract? and so on

WOW... you just proved my point!
If unfairly dismissed... you get a nice reward!
Same for everything else you said.

That is why labour laws are there... to protect the honest worker from dishonest employers.

Riskymove

optocynic wrote: »

That is why labour laws are there... to protect the honest worker from dishonest employers.

in fairness, thats not the same as....

Originally Posted by optocynic
Everyone in a job today is treated well...

its like saying "everyone today is safe from being killed" is the same as "we have murder laws"

P. Breathnach

optocynic wrote: »

Explain please.
Examples would be nice too.

To me, it is such a self-evident truth that it should need no explanation. Were the Gama workers well-treated? What about the mushroom producer (I forget the name) that paid workers piece-rates so low that it was impossible for them to reach even the minimum wage? Do you know the working conditions of the crews on Irish Ferries? I know of one employer in Dublin that paid workers €50 for 12-hour shifts with no breaks, lunch taken at the desk (a case I reported to the labour inspectorate myself -- I don't know if it ever entered the public domain). You can regularly read reports of wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal cases being brought to the Labour Court. We frequently hear of bullying in the workplace.

There are lots of bad employers.

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness, thats not the same as....



its like saying "everyone today is safe from being killed" is the same as "we have murder laws"

When you get killed... you can't sue your killer..

Silly simile!

My point is... Unions are simply protecting the status quo.
And right now... in ALL sectors.. we need drastic change!

If that means reducing public sector deadwood.. the unions should help, not hinder!

optocynic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To me, it is such a self-evident truth that it should need no explanation. Were the Gama workers well-treated? What about the mushroom producer (I forget the name) that paid workers piece-rates so low that it was impossible for them to reach even the minimum wage? Do you know the working conditions of the crews on Irish Ferries? I know of one employer in Dublin that paid workers €50 for 12-hour shifts with no breaks, lunch taken at the desk (a case I reported to the labour inspectorate myself -- I don't know if it ever entered the public domain). You can regularly read reports of wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal cases being brought to the Labour Court. We frequently hear of bullying in the workplace.

There are lots of bad employers.

The bad employers are far outweighed by the good.

And the ability to take issues to the labour court is what I was refering to. It maked employers honest...

Every employer I have had, has treated me very well... I don't fear or hate the boss man..
I respect him.. and one day.. want to be him..

P. Breathnach

optocynic wrote: »

The bad employers are far outweighed by the good.

That is not the same as what you previously said: "Everyone in a job today is treated well."

And the ability to take issues to the labour court is what I was refering to. It maked employers honest...

I mentioned the case I referred to the labour inspectorate. I did so because the employee I encountered was afraid to do anything about her position -- a young woman in a strange land.

Every employer I have had, has treated me very well... I don't fear or hate the boss man..
I respect him.. and one day.. want to be him..

I do not deny that there are good employers.

Hootanany

teddy_303 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with you more. Some people just want to go to work, but some political bull sh1t can throw some people off. There is a thing called
"Lick Flexibility" , which is nothing more than the gentiles way of saying exploit, exploit, exploit. Count yourself lucky you haven't felt your self being squeezed YET! It could happen to you yet. Who are you going to turn to then, when your colleagues turn their backs on you, and are just glad it wasn't them who spoke up for your employment rights..:o

My God are you Jack O'Connor

erictheviking

Hootanany wrote: »

We have to break them before they break this country

Let me guess!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
A large property owning, HAS to be self employed, BMW driver who thinks the working class are peasants :mad:!

Some posters can be read like a book!:)

techdiver

erictheviking wrote: »

Let me guess!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
A large property owning, HAS to be self employed, BMW driver who thinks the working class are peasants :mad:!

Some posters can be read like a book!:)

Or...

He could be a private sector worker who has been put on a 3 day week or even worse lost his job and is sick of the moaning of unions who represent a minority of workers and yield a vastly disproportionate amount of power and influence!

Perhaps the book you are reading is different to the one I read??

erictheviking

techdiver wrote: »

Or...

He could be a private sector worker who has been put on a 3 day week or even worse lost his job and is sick of the moaning of unions who represent a minority of workers and yield a vastly disproportionate amount of power and influence!

Perhaps the book you are reading is different to the one I read??

I doubt very much if thats the OP's case.

How are union members at fault for people losing their jobs and people being put on 3 day weeks??

techdiver

erictheviking wrote: »

I doubt very much if thats the OP's case.

How are union members at fault for people losing their jobs and people being put on 3 day weeks??

You're missing the point. People in that position see the public sector unions moaning about pay cuts and other measures that are a reality of every day life for most of the workers in the country. They are not in touch with reality and their unwillingness to be in any way flexible is costing the tax payer billions as we don't have the money to pay for the current public service that we have.

Jack O'Connor et al, don't speak for me, but every decision they make effect the entire country. These guys were the chief architects of causing the public sector to become bloated and for introducing the worst economic pay agreement ever to be written. Benchmarking caused wages to spiral out of control and did nothing to encourage any kind of ingenuity in the public sector. I should know, I was there, briefly. In all the jobs I have worked the civil service is by far the least efficient and has the least motivated staff! Can you blame them? Person A can work their ass off to achieve better results and person B can sit on their ass and do nothing and guess what, their increments for the same position are the same regardless of their contrasting value to the position!

I also find it funny that benchmarking only works in one direction......

Fat_Fingers

I think there is no problem with having unions , actually they are needed as balance. The problem is who represents unions. I'm talking about Jack O'Connor and David Beggs.
Jack O'Connor is bad publicity for unions , he represents old Marxism and has no intelligent knowledge of modern economy. For this man everyone is enemy unless they are under his glorious leadership. A bit like Stalin. Jack O'Connor said he thinks the union officials on the board of FAS should explain the benefit to workers of them remaining in their position. So he thinks it ok to be corrupt and incompetent as long as you are union member.
David Beggs is much smarter and not naive at all like Jack O'Connor. I think David Beggs is to unions what Bertie Ahern was to FF. Very smart but on the end we will find all the skeletons under the bed. We know David Beggs was on board of central bank and had access to all confidential data yet he did nothing to alert public about incompetence of financial regulator or mickey mouse work practices that Anglo, AIB and BoI were engaged in for long time.

I think we need unions more then ever but they are not well served or represented by Jack O'Connor and David Beggs.

erictheviking

techdiver wrote: »

You're missing the point. People in that position see the public sector unions moaning about pay cuts and other measures that are a reality of every day life for most of the workers in the country. They are not in touch with reality and their unwillingness to be in any way flexible is costing the tax payer billions as we don't have the money to pay for the current public service that we have.

Jack O'Connor et al, don't speak for me, but every decision they make effect the entire country. These guys were the chief architects of causing the public sector to become bloated and for introducing the worst economic pay agreement ever to be written. Benchmarking caused wages to spiral out of control and did nothing to encourage any kind of ingenuity in the public sector. I should know, I was there, briefly. In all the jobs I have worked the civil service is by far the least efficient and has the least motivated staff! Can you blame them? Person A can work their ass off to achieve better results and person B can sit on their ass and do nothing and guess what, their increments for the same position are the same regardless of their contrasting value to the position!

I also find it funny that benchmarking only works in one direction......

I'm not missing the point! The OP reckons we need to break the unions. I'm a union member which is my constitutional right. Obviously it doesn't
suit the self employed etc. to be union members as they can look after their own working conditions and with unions in the way employers can't exploit workers. I'm a tradesman (Not public service, as the poster above seems to think only public sector workers are union members.) and I can tell you during the 80's unions were needed as employers with a "Never let a good recession go to waste" attitude treated me and many other workers, in my opinion, like crap. Things improved obviously in the last 15 years or so thanks to mine and many other workers hard work which got this country back on its feet again. I've never received more than the going rate for my work so got no thanks from the bosses I've worked for all my efforts.
I don't own property (except my house which I'm still paying for) I don't have shares etc. I don't have savings or a well off Mammy & Daddy to back me up financially.
the only source of income I have is my job and I want my rights protected by a Union.
Now another recession comes around and the bosses, self employed and upper middle class students brainwashed by Rich Daddy are at it all over again with their "Make the PAYE worker pay" attitude.
You better believe unions are needed.
The majority of employers are fine but there are still some self serving gits out there.
One thing I've learned over the years is if you give an employer an inch he will take a yard.
I don't have much time for the union leadership but why should ordinary working people have employers attempting to strip them of rights or representation.

techdiver

erictheviking wrote: »

I'm not missing the point! The OP reckons we need to break the unions. I'm a union member which is my constitutional right. Obviously it doesn't
suit the self employed etc. to be union members as they can look after their own working conditions and with unions in the way employers can't exploit workers. I'm a tradesman (Not public service, as the poster above seems to think only public sector workers are union members.) and I can tell you during the 80's unions were needed as employers with a "Never let a good recession go to waste" attitude treated me and many other workers, in my opinion, like crap. Things improved obviously in the last 15 years or so thanks to mine and many other workers hard work which got this country back on its feet again. I've never received more than the going rate for my work so got no thanks from the bosses I've worked for all my efforts.
I don't own property (except my house which I'm still paying for) I don't have shares etc. I don't have savings or a well off Mammy & Daddy to back me up financially.
the only source of income I have is my job and I want my rights protected by a Union.
Now another recession comes around and the bosses, self employed and upper middle class students brainwashed by Rich Daddy are at it all over again with their "Make the PAYE worker pay" attitude.
You better believe unions are needed.
I don't have much time for the union leadership but why should ordinary working people haveemployers attempting to strip them of rights or representation.

I am not represented by a union, I work for a multinational. I negotiate my pay and conditions with the company. If I don't like it I know where the door is. The difference is pay in my area is based on performance and not on union agreement. If you make yourself valuable to your employer, you should have no issues. Savings are made by releasing dead wood. The problem is that unions don't allow dead wood to be removed. In fact due to unions stance some jobs have been lost because they have forced stressed businesses to go to the wall because of wage agreements that they cannot be negotiated on.

kippy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To me, it is such a self-evident truth that it should need no explanation. Were the Gama workers well-treated? What about the mushroom producer (I forget the name) that paid workers piece-rates so low that it was impossible for them to reach even the minimum wage? Do you know the working conditions of the crews on Irish Ferries? I know of one employer in Dublin that paid workers €50 for 12-hour shifts with no breaks, lunch taken at the desk (a case I reported to the labour inspectorate myself -- I don't know if it ever entered the public domain). You can regularly read reports of wrongful dismissal or constructive dismissal cases being brought to the Labour Court. We frequently hear of bullying in the workplace.

There are lots of bad employers.

Indeed,
However I think the point being made is that Unions aren't needed as the labour laws are so good/strict since our joining of the EU. The Employee has so many laws looking after their interests that one would wonder why the Union is needed at all.

From my point of view, all I have see are Unions stopping progress in the workplace, making it very difficult to introduce new technology and practices, introducing a "Them Versus Us" attitude and a complete disregard (in the long term) for their members.
The collective bargaining (which I believe FG want to enshrine more in law) used by the Unions, does nothing to improve the services that there members give.
There is also a very very big effort withing Unions to STOP any form of performance monitoring or appraisal.
What I generally see Unions do, is help out the most useless of people/complainers/moaners and layabouts keep in a job, which is totally ridiculous in my opinion.
Unions are big business however and you'll not find their leaders or the members most protected by them budging easily.

Unions generally work in the public sector SOLELY because the employer is not a standard employer.
In general, if an employer cannot afford to pay staff and has to let them go, no amount of striking will make them change their mind or back down..

Sorry, I have generalised Unions, it's purely my experience and I am sure there are some good ones out there.

Just remember before you speak in their defence, that almost every board of every public sector organisation (and indeed some private) usually has a Union member sitting on it, to watch out for workers rights. Me Bollix.

ixoy

Excellent summation there kippy about the flaws in many of the current unions, which is different to what unions could be. It's not the principle of them that annoys - it's the implementation. The staunchest union supporters I know happen also to be the least productive.

Without union interference, I'm sure we could have had some good PS/CS reform and rightly rewarded effeciency and good work rather than a "one size fits all" mentality that currently exists.

Hootanany

erictheviking wrote: »

Let me guess!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
A large property owning, HAS to be self employed, BMW driver who thinks the working class are peasants :mad:!

Some posters can be read like a book!:)

It's actually a Porsche
My Own Company
& Lots of property
Some of my best friends are Peasants

amacca

optocynic wrote: »

If that was what they were doing, we would support them (to a degree).. but how can they support teachers... 50k a year... short work week.. 9 months uncertified sick leave.... and we ALL know that the number of GOOD teachers you had can be counted on one hand!!..

How can O'Connor claim these guys are 'ordinary workers'???

National average wage = 32k
Public sector average wage = 50k(ish)

How can a self proclaimed socialist call these guys 'ordinary workers'???

And what job do you do? I wish to make some sweeping generalizations about it and cast it and thus you in an exceedingly bad light.

I wish to employ "average" figures (but the average of what I hear you ask) to denigrate your occupation.

You have a good point (to a degree) but the way you make it needs attention.

But we all know that.

optocynic

amacca wrote: »

And what job do you do? I wish to make some sweeping generalizations about it and cast it and thus you in an exceedingly bad light.

I wish to employ "average" figures (but the average of what I hear you ask) to denigrate your occupation.

You have a good point (to a degree) but the way you make it needs attention.

But we all know that.

I'm an engineer (Telecoms).

Do your worst!

amacca

optocynic wrote: »

I'm an engineer (Telecoms).

Do your worst!

I didn't actually expect you to furnish me with a truthful answer (at least it seems to be). Very decent of you.

O.K. if I'm going to discredit your occupation by using half truths, massaging statistics and extending possible bad experiences I have had with a minority of telecoms engineers to include all telecoms engineers then you have to give me some time to do it properly.

Diarmuid

Anyone hear the union rep on Matt Cooper today trying to discredit the ESRI (a public sector body) report finding that the equivalent jobs in the public sector were paid 25% more than the private sector jobs? It was embarrassing. He wasn't though. Neck like a jockey's b****x

Hootanany

There digging there own graves

optocynic

amacca wrote: »

I didn't actually expect you to furnish me with a truthful answer (at least it seems to be). Very decent of you.

O.K. if I'm going to discredit your occupation by using half truths, massaging statistics and extending possible bad experiences I have had with a minority of telecoms engineers to include all telecoms engineers then you have to give me some time to do it properly.

Jack O'Connor is not a minority of u nion workers... he is their loud, petulant and obtuse mouth!
As for bad experience with network planners/engineers like me... keep digging.. all of the bad ones I have known are either gone, or moved to useless, menial, low paying jobs.. the way the Public Sector should work.

Do you deny that the unions protect the lazy, useless 'minority' in the Public Sector?.. Or even in the 'Private' sector they represent.. like tradesmen?

Had to laugh at the 'Rich Daddy' crap spouted earlier by another 'poster' here. Like if I don't use power tools, I'm a capitalist pig... My Daddy wasn't rich at all...

If the unions weren't so childish about the successful, people may take them seriously... but jealousy does not help their cause.

bonkey

crap spouted earlier by another half-wit here

Please limit the attacks to the post, not the poster.

optocynic

bonkey wrote: »

Please limit the attacks to the post, not the poster.

Apologies... I will amend the post to smell of roses!

Hootanany

Ok so how much are the top dogs in the Unions on they are only in it for the money , Make no mistake the more people join there Union the longer they have a job [self preservation society]

amacca

optocynic wrote: »

Jack O'Connor is not a minority of union workers... he is their loud, petulant and obtuse mouth!

Relax opto! I didnt attempt to defend Jack O'Connor at all so no need to drag me into an aspect of the discussion/debate I didn't engage with.

optocynic wrote: »

As for bad experience with network planners/engineers like me... keep digging.. all of the bad ones I have known are either gone, or moved to useless, menial, low paying jobs.. the way the Public Sector should work.

I'm too busy to be digging up dirt on telecoms engineers, that wasnt the thrust of my argument at all. my point was that you made an all encompassing statement about a occupation that you couldn't possibly prove or back up and I believe it was unfair having worked as one. My point was that making such statements was easy as anyone can denigrate an occupation because they have a chip on their shoulder.

eg: Telecoms engineers, We all know they are just a bunch of useless layabouts that cant use unix properly and wouldnt know a fibre optic cable or how one works if it was crammed up their asshole, hardly fair or true but see below for a similar ridiculous statement you made

optocynic wrote: »

we ALL know that the number of GOOD teachers you had can be counted on one hand!!..

Really! we all know this do we? I actually had quite a number of very good teachers in primary and secondary school. (and it isnt that long since Ive left education) I also worked with many decent teachers in the past in three separate secondary schools. I also met a couple of complete tools (but I believe if you look really hard you will find some complete tools in your occupation in life also and youll also find some) I suspect you have a narrow view of education and if you had to teach in the context some teachers teach in you would have a different view.

optocynic wrote: »

Do you deny that the unions protect the lazy, useless 'minority' in the Public Sector?.. Or even in the 'Private' sector they represent.. like tradesmen?

Check my posts, can you see me denying this in any of them? Yes they can and do have this effect, does the way they operate need to be amended? do they have too much power in certain areas?....my answer is yes to both.....are they all bad? most certainly not. Any organisation will work to protect itself and its reason for existence. Do you have a telecoms engineers representative organisation? perhaps you should look into setting one up? what do you thinks such an organisation would do? recommend that telecoms engineers are overpaid...would you pay dues to such an organisation? are you going to tell me you wouldnt like an organisation working on your behalf to improve your working standards?

optocynic wrote: »

Had to laugh at the 'Rich Daddy' crap spouted earlier by another 'poster' here. Like if I don't use power tools, I'm a capitalist pig... My Daddy wasn't rich at all...

Incoming transmission.....I said nothing whatsoever about your daddy..... or yo mama for that matter. Direct this at the poster who did. Try not to lump everyone who disagrees with your point of view into one group and respond to them as one. I objected in the main to one single part of your post, this should have been abundantly clear from my posts...you are a telecoms engineer....communication should be part of your skillset, not just the theory but also the practice.

optocynic wrote: »

If the unions weren't so childish about the successful, people may take them seriously... but jealousy does not help their cause.

Im not sure what you mean here so Im not sure how to respond. Some of your posts and the way you make your points seem childish.

Are you saying that unions are jealous of wages of successful people in the private sector?

anonymous_joe

Unions are something I look at in two ways;

They protect people who need it.

They rape our economy.

Those two factors are always there with a union. It's about balance.

Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.

The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.

amacca

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Unions are something I look at in two ways;

They protect people who need it.

They rape our economy.

Those two factors are always there with a union. It's about balance.

Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.

The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.

Tks, its actually nice to see at least some balance. Theres not much point in having a debate/discussion with people whose views are so entrenched, one dimensional and confrontational that everything degenerates into a slagging match eventually.

BTW I do realise you could apply the terms entrenched, one dimensional and confrontational to many a trade union leader/member but its amazing how people complain about union leaders and then proceed to outdo the worst excesses of these union leaders in the belligerent, ignorant and just plain insulting stakes themselves. At least the union leaders are able to massage statistics to suit their own ends or be evasive etc...as slimy as it is, it takes more intelligence than spewing insults around the place and it can be debated against.

If I criticise a person for doing something distasteful and then turn around afterwards and proceed to do worse than that person...then I am nothing more than a hypocrite.

I also find it amazing that some of the very ones that are screaming blue murder about unions and the public service are completely unable to make even minor concessions to an opposing viewpoint but have no problems taking their personal experience/shoulder chips and using them tar entire professions/occupations with such unreasonable vitriolic hatred that they end up damaging even their own arguments in the end.

If their points are good surely they can back it up with evidence.

If they dont want to spend ages backing up their claims then perhaps they can be more reasonable in the way they make their claims and file away the more offensive ones in a folder marked bile somewhere in the lizard/reptilian part of their brains for their own private amusement when they are sitting at home with this months copy of guns n'ammo.

brianthebard

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Unions are something I look at in two ways;

They protect people who need it.

They rape our economy.

Those two factors are always there with a union. It's about balance.

Unions that protect their workers is one thing, it's when you see Unions suggesting they go on strike to protect overly generous positions that people's natural skepticism rises. I've voted Labour, I admire the likes of Larkin, but I also find the attitude of Unions appalling. The UK, our nearest neighbour, was once a leading industrial power. Its Unions destroyed its industry.

The trade unions of Ireland need to realise that everyone is suffering, and protecting their own at the expense of the rest is morally unacceptable, and will do more harm than good for all concerned.

Where's the evidence? British industry took a nosedive cause it had **** standards and couldn't keep up with Asian imports. Blaming the unions for this can't change history.

anonymous_joe

brianthebard wrote: »

Where's the evidence? British industry took a nosedive cause it had **** standards and couldn't keep up with Asian imports. Blaming the unions for this can't change history.

Ah I know, but it made them slow, bloated and unable to change rapidly. Would you deny that?

It's not a case of the Unions being the reason for the collapse (that was, as you pointed out, Asian imports) merely that they slowed down any attempted recovery/reaction.

brianthebard

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Ah I know, but it made them slow, bloated and unable to change rapidly. Would you deny that?

It's not a case of the Unions being the reason for the collapse (that was, as you pointed out, Asian imports) merely that they slowed down any attempted recovery/reaction.

Firstly yes I would disagree with your position and secondly that is completely different to the earlier statement that 'its unions destroyed its industry'. This sort of nonsense is being spouted over and over again on this forum without any evidence and in your case with the prior knowledge that you were wrong. There's a ranting and raving forum for a reason. Why not use that for this sort of 'debate'?