Anybody else sick of the trade unions?

Sizzler

Personally I am sick of listening to the likes of David Begg and Jack O'Connor on Newstalk and Today FM day in day out banging the drum about impending public sector pay cuts. These guys are obviously living in a different Ireland to everybody else as they think their members are impervious to any cost cutting measures whilst everybody else in the private sector is taking a beating in terms of wage reductions, reduced hours etc.

It was with much glee this morning that I heard Jack O'Connor challenged on Newstalk about his own nice little earner and his unwillingness to take any drop in salary. He spluttered and stuttered his way through explaining it Bertie Ahern style.He also came out with this pearler...

wrote:

Mr O'Connor said his wages were similar to those of middle rather than top management in the private sector.

.

Is he for real?Middle managers earning €125K ? WTF?

In summary -

O'Connor reels in just shy of - €125K (I presume theres expenses on top of that!)

Begg gets €136K

Peter McLoone is taking home a paltry €155K a year.

Discuss please. Kettle and pot spring to mind. I also would love to hear from union members to see what the feeling is on these sort of salaries being handed out with your subscriptions!

Full article -

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siptu-boss-refuses-cut-to-8364124000-pay-1915673.html

wrote:

THE leader of the country's biggest union is not considering a cut in his €124,000 pay while his members are facing wage reductions and job losses.

Jack O'Connor, whose annual salary is €124,895, said a drop in wages would be used as "an excuse to drive pay cuts across the economy".

Mr O'Connor said he would only consider a reduction if an examination of the union's finances showed a pay cut was necessary to avoid job losses.

However, he said high earners should be more heavily taxed, and called for a 10pc income levy for workers earning over €100,000, including himself.

SIPTU is currently battling employers, including Mr Binman and Coca Cola, over wage reductions of up to 60pc for staff.

But Mr O'Connor said wage cuts are not yet widespread across the economy, as shown in recent IBEC and Mercer surveys, and his union would not encourage this. He clarified the situation where a pay cut at SIPTU might be considered after indicating that his pay might be reviewed in certain circumstances on the Vincent Browne television show.

Mr O'Connor said his wages were similar to those of middle rather than top management in the private sector.

Earning

The main union leaders are on salaries comparable to the SIPTU chief, with Irish Congress of Trade Unions general secretary David Begg earning over €136,000 and IMPACT general secretary Peter McLoone on an annual salary of €155,300.

"A pay cut is not being considered but the question might arise if the union were to find itself in any kind of difficulty," said Mr O'Connor.

"Otherwise, it will be used as an excuse to drive pay cuts across the economy.

"I'm opposed to pay cuts and the union is opposed to pay cuts because of the unfairness of them and the fact they will undermine domestic demand."

The union leader's comments came as almost three-quarters of employers said they had changed or planned to alter their staff's pay and conditions due to the recession.

A survey by recruitment firm Hays also revealed that two-thirds of workers wanted to keep their jobs and would not accept voluntary redundancy.

A total of 39pc of companies said they had changed pay and conditions to cut costs and a further 31pc planned to do so.

Euro_Kraut

Don't not confuse pre-negotiation posturing with their actual analysis of the situation.

aoboa

"Jack O'Connor, whose annual salary is €124,895, said a drop in wages would be used as "an excuse to drive pay cuts across the economy".

Mr O'Connor said he would only consider a reduction if an examination of the union's finances showed a pay cut was necessary to avoid job losses.

However, he said high earners should be more heavily taxed, and called for a 10pc income levy for workers earning over €100,000, including himself."

His point is fair and his solution is good. What's the problem.

techdiver

aoboa wrote: »

His point is fair and his solution is good. What's the problem.

Yes, lets try to tax our way out of a recession. That worked well for us before..... oh wait.......:rolleyes:

gdael

Except that high earners are already taxed more.

How much tax does someone earning €30k pay?

How much tax does someone earning €100 pay?

Having said that, Unions are needed for groups of worker who are easily bullied. If someone can hit them with a 7.5% levy with the stroke of a pen, these are just the type of people who need a union.

If i was asked made to pay a 7.5% levy i know how i would react to my boss.

aoboa

techdiver wrote: »

Yes, lets try to tax our way out of a recession. That worked well for us before..... oh wait.......:rolleyes:

Arguably, low taxation and over reliance on less stable forms like stamp duty have put us where we are today.

MG

Yup sick to death of their spin and their loolah economics. They were very complicit in the (imaginary) boom. Jack O'Connor is the most dangerous man in Ireland right now.

techdiver

aoboa wrote: »

Arguably, low taxation and over reliance on less stable forms like stamp duty have put us where we are today.

The top marginal rate of tax now stands at 52%, and it is well recognised that increasing this further could turn business away from Ireland and further deepen the economic crisis as people will stop spending. Consumerism is necessary for an economy to function and removing more cash from the economy will stifle this.

We need to face facts that increasing taxes will not yield the money we need, neither should we increase tax to keep up the massive overspend in the economy.

gdael

MG wrote: »

Yup sick to death of their spin and their loolah economics. They were very complicit in the (imaginary) boom. Jack O'Connor is the most dangerous man in Ireland right now.

It it like the holocaust deniers now? People denying there was a boom.
It wasnt imaginary to anyone i know.
If you didnt hang on and do very well out of the boom and put enough away to make yourself comfortable during the recession, you have only one person to blame.

MaceFace

gdael wrote: »

It it like the holocaust deniers now? People denying there was a boom.
It wasnt imaginary to anyone i know.
If you didnt hang on and do very well out of the boom and put enough away to make yourself comfortable during the recession, you have only one person to blame.

This made me think of something that is very important to consider. According to todays papers the Irish are the fourth most indebted nation in the developed world.
What this basically means is that while we all had a lot of money over the last 10 years, we also paid huge amounts for our purchases. When you consider how much debt the 25-45 age group are in with their mortgages, maybe it was not really a boom time but more a bubble time.
A boom is only actually a boom when we all *come out* of the boom better than we went in.

Back to the Unions - Jack O Connor is a self confessed socialist. He believes in a high tax economy (much higher than we have now).
If we keep on increasing the taxes on the highest earners, many of them will simply up sticks and move abroad. When you consider the top 4% of tax payers in this country pay 48% of the tax, that will be a significant hole to plug, nevermind the jobs they create (as many of them own businesses rather than being *ahem* middle management).

Dangerous times indeed.......

squonk

gdael wrote: »

It it like the holocaust deniers now? People denying there was a boom.
It wasnt imaginary to anyone i know.
If you didnt hang on and do very well out of the boom and put enough away to make yourself comfortable during the recession, you have only one person to blame.

Good for you then! Can I have some of your large store of cash seeing as you did so well out of the boom. Get real for yourself. If you had a house to sell, then good, you did well. If you owned a business, then good, you did well. If you had significant shares in a company that did well, then good, you did well. If you were an employee in a company, then you did a bit better but you were hardly traipsing off on 4 holidays a year and buying homes in the sun... if you were being sensible that is!

I work in IT which experienced strong growth for a few years. I was on low wages starting out in the industry so by the time the dot com bubble hit, I had done reasonably well but then bought my own house. After that, thanks to the dot com bubble I was laid off and tooka while to find work. After that I was on reduced wages because of a correction in the IT sector. I, along with a lot of my friends, are now not sitting pretty on stacks of cash out of the boom. I think you'll find that's the case with a lot of people. yes, more money was earned but then everything costed more money too. That was the problem.

Taxipete29

gdael wrote: »

It it like the holocaust deniers now? People denying there was a boom.
It wasnt imaginary to anyone i know.
If you didnt hang on and do very well out of the boom and put enough away to make yourself comfortable during the recession, you have only one person to blame.

Nobody denies there was a boom, but not everyone benefitted to the same extent. People did get higher wages, but this only served to keep up with over inflated prices in almost every sector in the country. Most of the money spent during the tiger period was borrowed. I am talking now about normal people with families and mortgages, not about the small % of people who were well off to begin with and the boom only serves to further line their pockets. I dont begrudge these people, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that everyone of us was in a position to make ourselves comfortable for the leaner times which lay ahead. It simply wasnt the case.

FlutterinBantam

And where did all that money that rolled in during the boom you ask??

Where indeed.... apart from some infrastructure capital investment it went to boom boom

pay and conditions for the public service .

That's where it went.... kinda hard to get the toothpaste back into the tube now innit;)

MG

gdael wrote: »

It it like the holocaust deniers now? People denying there was a boom.
It wasnt imaginary to anyone i know.
If you didnt hang on and do very well out of the boom and put enough away to make yourself comfortable during the recession, you have only one person to blame.

I mean that it wasn't a real boom, it was fuelled with other people's money. Absolutely agree that it was up to individuals to recognise the shaky foundations and make whatever provision where they could.

thebman

squonk wrote: »

Good for you then! Can I have some of your large store of cash seeing as you did so well out of the boom. Get real for yourself. If you had a house to sell, then good, you did well. If you owned a business, then good, you did well. If you had significant shares in a company that did well, then good, you did well. If you were an employee in a company, then you did a bit better but you were hardly traipsing off on 4 holidays a year and buying homes in the sun... if you were being sensible that is!

I work in IT which experienced strong growth for a few years. I was on low wages starting out in the industry so by the time the dot com bubble hit, I had done reasonably well but then bought my own house. After that, thanks to the dot com bubble I was laid off and tooka while to find work. After that I was on reduced wages because of a correction in the IT sector. I, along with a lot of my friends, are now not sitting pretty on stacks of cash out of the boom. I think you'll find that's the case with a lot of people. yes, more money was earned but then everything costed more money too. That was the problem.

That is the problem with increasing wages across an economy, price of everything goes up.

It is just a con job to have high wages in an economy. Especially an export led economy like ours.

Long Onion

Ah bless, Jack is proposing to give up €2,400 of his €124,000 salary - thanks bud, that'll help.

Prick.

Euro_Kraut

Long Onion wrote: »

Ah bless, Jack is proposing to give up €2,400 of his €124,000 salary - thanks bud, that'll help.

SIPTU are a private company. They are not state funded. Reductions in his wages have nothing to do with improving the exchequer situation. In fact how that he is getting less we will take in a little less tax for him.

AARRRGH

MG wrote: »

They were very complicit in the (imaginary) boom.

Part of the problem is the unions don't realise the boom was imaginary. They think we actually created wealth when in fact we just borrowed loads of money.

Long Onion

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

SIPTU are a private company. They are not state funded. Reductions in his wages have nothing to do with improving the exchequer situation. In fact how that he is getting less we will take in a little less tax for him.

Nope - you are right there - HE IS FUNDED BY MY SUBSCRIPTION FEES - IF HE PRACTICED WHAT HE PREACHES HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TAKE A CUT AND DROP THE FEES HIS POOR BELOVED WURKERS ARE LINING HIS POCKETS WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

P.S. the caps are not directed at anyone - the Union Heads just make my blood boil. Why haven't they the balls to ballot us on this issue?

thebman

Unions are obsolete, we have good labor laws.

I can see the case for limited unions but as they stand negotiating talks with the government about workers pay they do not represent all the people they claim they as many have turned their back on unions because of their illogical attitudes in time of crisis.

Sizzler

Long Onion wrote: »

Nope - you are right there - HE IS FUNDED BY MY SUBSCRIPTION FEES - IF HE PRACTICED WHAT HE PREACHES HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TAKE A CUT AND DROP THE FEES HIS POOR BELOVED WURKERS ARE LINING HIS POCKETS WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

P.S. the caps are not directed at anyone - the Union Heads just make my blood boil. Why haven't they the balls to ballot us on this issue?

Excellent post.

I wonder if they put it to the ballot and asked of their members should the leadership of the unions take a paycut which would result in a pro-rata cut in fees, what would the result be

Can't see the average joe sympathizing with Begg & O'Connor with their mulitple of 3 and 4 times the average industrial wage :eek:

juuge

Curious to know what qualifications Jack O'Connor has!
If one of the qualities/skills of a trade union leader is communication, he falls flat on his face. He can hardly put a sentence together without stuttering and stammering and he has one of the most unconvincing stares I've come accross. Maybe he believes the beard makes him look 'trade-union' like.
Probably worth about half of what he's paid.

jmayo

gdael wrote: »

...
Having said that, Unions are needed for groups of worker who are easily bullied. If someone can hit them with a 7.5% levy with the stroke of a pen, these are just the type of people who need a union.

If i was asked made to pay a 7.5% levy i know how i would react to my boss.

Yeah but then again will you get a defined benefit pension plus unataxable lump sum when you retire ?
Maybe if I wasn't sitting on a decreasing pension fund, because the ar** fell out of the markets, and was going to get nice tax free lump sum on retirement then I mightn't feel bad taking a 7.5% levy.

Oh wait my wages haven't gone up in three years unlike the ones that were hit with the 7.5% levy.

aoboa wrote: »

Arguably, low taxation and over reliance on less stable forms like stamp duty have put us where we are today.

Yes we did base our revenues on stamp duty and vat majorily gathered from a non sustainable industry, but what did the government do with these huge temporary increased revenue streams.
They massively grew the public sector, increased numbers in health even though amalgamting health boards, created quangoes to offer jobs for the boys.
Then they offered benchmarking to keep the public sector dominated unions happy, because they saw private sector workers were earning more mostly thanks to fact they were working damm hard.

That doesn't even take into account the wastage on cocked up egotrip projects such as bertie's sh*tbowl, tom biffo parlon's decentralisation, cullen's Mugabe style e-voting, tunnels that leak, etc etc.

Speaking of unions I can't wait for McLoone on 150,000 odd grand a year to start spouting.
Perhaps he should be reminded that the reason public sector workers have to take a pay cut is because people like himself allowed millions to be blown in the likes of Fás. :rolleyes:

MG

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

SIPTU are a private company. They are not state funded. Reductions in his wages have nothing to do with improving the exchequer situation. In fact how that he is getting less we will take in a little less tax for him.

I agree giving him a pay rise would actually help the exchequer

(Except of course the Unions are subsidised by the tax relief on subscriptions - for the moment. This costs tens of millions a year. You don't hear them calling for them to abolish this to pay for the cervical cancer vax)

MG

juuge wrote: »

Curious to know what qualifications Jack O'Connor has!
If one of the qualities/skills of a trade union leader is communication, he falls flat on his face. He can hardly put a sentence together without stuttering and stammering and he has one of the most unconvincing stares I've come accross. Maybe he believes the beard makes him look 'trade-union' like.
Probably worth about half of what he's paid.

"Born in 1957, Jack O’Connor is a native of North County Dublin. Employed in the agriculture, construction and local authority sectors, he was a trade union activist before becoming a full-time Branch Secretary of the former Federated Workers’ Union of Ireland in 1980 - organising fire fighters, port workers and public sector and local authority employees"
http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JackOConnor/

Not exactly a stellar CV - he's done well for himself to be paid so much.

OldJay

Long Onion wrote: »

Ah bless, Jack is proposing to give up €2,400 of his €124,000 salary - thanks bud, that'll help.

Prick.

They're also putting plans through for a multi-million revamp of Liberty Hall. Perfect timing, eh?

Sizzler

MG wrote: »

"Born in 1957, Jack O’Connor is a native of North County Dublin. Employed in the agriculture, construction and local authority sectors, he was a trade union activist before becoming a full-time Branch Secretary of the former Federated Workers’ Union of Ireland in 1980 - organising fire fighters, port workers and public sector and local authority employees"
http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JackOConnor/

Not exactly a stellar CV - he's done well for himself to be paid so much.

+1

He probably cant believe his luck tbh. He seems to be taking the line of offence is the best form of defence! Better keeep the govt to the pin of the collar and make it look like we are protecting our members rights so as nobody realises I'm riding the same people to help fund my recession busting salary :rolleyes:

MG

MG wrote: »

(Except of course the Unions are subsidised by the tax relief on subscriptions - for the moment. This costs tens of millions a year. You don't hear them calling for them to abolish this to pay for the cervical cancer vax)

By the way the commission on taxation recommended abolishing this. It costs an unbelievable €19m a year to subsidise the unions (2006 figure)

http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%208.pdf

Pride Fighter

I am not sick of trade unions. A hundred of years of workers rights are down to the pressure they exerted on business owners down through the years. Without unions workers rights will be attacked and everything they did will be destroyed.

I'd agree about the leadership of the trade unions. I am sick of the spoofers already mentioned.

Sizzler

MG wrote: »

By the way the commission on taxation recommended abolishing this. It costs an unbelievable €19m a year to subsidise the unions (2006 figure)

http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%208.pdf

Now that would be worth scrapping. What does it do for the non-union member taxpayer Fcuk all.

If people are for unions (as is there fundamental democratic right!) then let them pay for it, theres no need or justification for everyone else to underwrite this cost. I subscribe to the gym, I dont expect tax relief on my subs, same thing. Its a slight on the irish taxpayer for no tangible reason.

Does Lenihan have the balls for it? Eh, no.

SIPTU et al would sh1t themselves if the rug was pulled and I hope it is. Their membership will collapse.As a previous poster said already the law is failry robust in modern days to protect workers rights, most people would find it hard to work out exactly what Begg and co. bring to the party to justify that level of salary.

Viscosity

Jack O'Connor's main qualification appears to be his unparallelled ability to say worker with a stammer and a number of U's instead of an O.....w-w-w-w-w-wuuuuuurrrkers or w-w-w-w-uuuurkin people!

MG

Viscosity wrote: »

Jack's main qualification appears to be his unparallelled ability to say worker with a stammer and a number of U's instead of an O.....w-w-w-w-w-wuuuuuurrrkers!

Workers? Ah so that's the word he keeps saying:D

gdael

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah but then again will you get a defined benefit pension plus unataxable lump sum when you retire ?
Maybe if I wasn't sitting on a decreasing pension fund, because the ar** fell out of the markets, and was going to get nice tax free lump sum on retirement then I mightn't feel bad taking a 7.5% levy.

Oh wait my wages haven't gone up in three years unlike the ones that were hit with the 7.5% levy.

I took an active role in where my pension was invested. Because of this it is not down at all. And i am very happy with my pension as it is. I would prefer it to a public sector pension any day.

Anyway the public sector pension should be abolished altogether.
Allow them to opt out of the public pension and to get the state pension instead.
Let them look after their own pensions like everyone else. Give them back the 15% or whatever they pay for their pension every month and let them put it in a private pension scheme, or even keep it if they dont want a pension.

People cant pay enough attention to their pension schemes. Most of the money gone on your pension will be fees that the managers get whether they make or lose money on it.
You cant just give your pension to some idiot whose money it isnt and expect them to take care of it for you. People who dont keep an eye on their own pensions are headed for trouble. Watch your pensions in future people. Lesson learned.

When have you asked for a raise last? If you are worth the money and have put yourself in a position where you have options then you have no need to be on a wage freeze for 3 years.

Joey the lips

No i love trade unions personally. But i think it disgraceful that a portion of my trade union subs goes to the labour party.

Dotsie~tmp

Theyre almost a private sector workers worst enemy if represented by them. More likely to negotiate you onto the dole queue with some redundency money instead of keeping a man in a job and a business open.

Taxipete29

Joey the lips wrote: »

No i love trade unions personally. But i think it disgraceful that a portion of my trade union subs goes to the labour party.

Why?

Pride Fighter

Joey the lips wrote: »

No i love trade unions personally. But i think it disgraceful that a portion of my trade union subs goes to the labour party.

I believe the figure is 60k. I also heard that this year is the last year ever it will be paid, Labour dont really need it, they can represent the interests of all workers without it.

brianthebard

Justind wrote: »

They're also putting plans through for a multi-million revamp of Liberty Hall. Perfect timing, eh?

As I said in one of the other many Union bashing threads, this should be seen as vital economic stimulus, providing business for builders, industries involved in the trade and tourism possibilities. Instead cause its the Unions it gets crapped on.

Anybody else sick of the Union bashers?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

The historic centre of Irish Trade Unionism and home of the ITGWU, forerunner of SIPTU? What's ironic about that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

Nope still not seeing the irony. But thanks for the heads up about the italics, that totally slipped by me! Man are you subtle.

Pride Fighter

brianthebard wrote: »

The historic centre of Irish Trade Unionism and home of the ITGWU, forerunner of SIPTU? What's ironic about that?

Donegalfella is a far right winger. He thinks that a group that protects the lower paid workers and advocates capping of the pay of those who are paid too high is against liberty. I think the opposite. Donegalfella thinks there should be a 0% tax rate and that everything should be privatised. I'd disagree but respect his beliefs, and if I misrepresented Donegalfella in anyway I apologise.

Joey the lips

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Why?

you first

Taxipete. I take it your a taxi driver. I love unions for the reasons taxi driver unions have not managed to achieve yet.... Why? Becuase when taxi drvers go on strike it generally only makes people have to spend longer getting to work etc.

But if the ESB goes on strike, No power. The waste collectors, no bin collections.

aoboa

thebman wrote: »

Unions are obsolete, we have good labor laws.

I can see the case for limited unions but as they stand negotiating talks with the government about workers pay they do not represent all the people they claim they as many have turned their back on unions because of their illogical attitudes in time of crisis.

We have good labour laws because of unions.
Your working hours, health and safety, in fact any protection you have in the workplace was brought to you by union action here and all over Europe.

For an example of what happens when people have no representation just think of the amount of people you know who are contracted to work a 39 hour week who regularly and voluntarily do way more hours for no more money because 'it's expected' of them. The laws you talk about do nothing to protect this person because they chose to do it. It's a simple example but a powerful one. I know people working 50 hour weeks, getting paid for 39 and thinking it's a great idea. These days it might be a good idea but this was over the last 10 years. And the majority of these peope hate unions. How insane is that?

If unions were to dissappear tomorrow everyone here who hates them would be begging for them back because their rights would be eroded overnight. What they have won for their members eventually become the norm for most people.

People need to stop getting annoyed about the brinkmanship and headline grabbing quotes in the Indo. They know the reality and understand that there are gonna be cuts. They're just trying to minimise the pain for their members.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

meglome

aoboa wrote: »

We have good labour laws because of unions.
Your working hours, health and safety, in fact any protection you have in the workplace was brought to you by union action here and all over Europe.

Well I'm no expert in the area but my understanding of this was the EU gave us most of these laws. So why do we need the unions now?

aoboa

meglome wrote: »

Well I'm no expert in the area but my understanding of this was the EU gave us most of these laws. So why do we need the unions now?

The EU recommendations came from decades of union actions all over Europe to reduce the working week and keep the workplace safe and fair for workers.
Don't forget that the big EU countries which drove all the EU laws are still the most unionised and still the ones which have the most respect for unions.

33% God

meglome wrote: »

Well I'm no expert in the area but my understanding of this was the EU gave us most of these laws. So why do we need the unions now?

The EU simply moved the pen on paper, and only after it was made impossible for them to ignore by the trade union movement. The Trade union movement is also the main thing maintaining those laws.

aoboa

meglome wrote: »

Well I'm no expert in the area but my understanding of this was the EU gave us most of these laws. So why do we need the unions now?

Also the law isn't really a protection for a lone worker.
If you work for a multinational and get sacked for something that wasn't your fault it's David Vs Goliath. In these cases most people chose to go quietly.
Don't forget a company can manage you out 'legally' too and avoid the whole law thing

Taxipete29

Joey the lips wrote: »

you first

Taxipete. I take it your a taxi driver. I love unions for the reasons taxi driver unions have not managed to achieve yet.... Why? Becuase when taxi drvers go on strike it generally only makes people have to spend longer getting to work etc.

But if the ESB goes on strike, No power. The waste collectors, no bin collections.

Thats not what I asked.Why is it disgraceful that a portion of your subs are funded to Labour.

Just to clarify, I have been a member of several unions over the years but I have never been or never will be a member of a Taxi union. These guys give unions a bad name. Self-employed people cant be in a union