How much more nonsense do we have to take from the Unions?

Tim Robbins

Please plase please check out Jack O'Connor's letter int he times today.

Jack wrote:

Madam, – You published a number of letters implicating the trade union movement in the cause of the economic collapse (November 30th).
Objective scrutiny of history demonstrates otherwise. We launched a social partnership initiative which was key to economic recovery in the 1980s. The economy grew sustainably when Labour was in government between 1992 and 1997. Two social partnership agreements were concluded during that period.
In 1997 some of us worked very hard to keep the Labour Party in office but the electorate decided otherwise.
The PD-Fianna Fáil government embarked on a different policy, privatising State assets, dismantling the tax base and incentivising speculation in property. As a result of their pro-cyclical approach the economy was already overheating by 2000 and the rate of inflation had increased five-fold.
We do not have the luxury of ignoring the democratic wish of the electorate. We must deal with each government as best we can to represent our members.
We continued to participate in the social partnership, to try to secure improved living standards and to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation. Agreements were negotiated in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2008. The proposals were set out clearly in publicly available documents and ratified following secret ballots of trade union members.
Yes, there was cause and effect between inflation and pay, but pay was not the driver. The net foreign debt accumulated by the banks here increased from 10 per cent of GDP in 2003 to an unsustainable 60 per cent in 2008. A sizeable proportion of this represented short- term borrowing for long-term investment in property speculation. It was this that produced the bubble and the collapse, not the trade union movement, nor social partnership for that matter.
Some of us worked very hard to bring about a change of government in 2002 and again 2007. Regrettably we did not succeed. Most of us, including myself, never served on State boards.
On the matter of salaries, members of the first officer board on which I served were paid 18.6 per cent less than our predecessors. Last year I and my fellow officers took a 10 per cent pay cut and a more than 20 per cent reduction in pension entitlements. I accept we are still well paid.
The rules of our union prohibit all employees from benefiting personally through serving on any body to which they are appointed.
We are in the throes of the greatest economic crisis in our history. There are two routes open to us. One is the social solidarity route advocated by the trade union movement. The other is social cannibalism. People should not be dissuaded from considering the potential of the former due to attempts to discredit those promoting it. – Yours, etc,
JACK O’CONNOR,
General President,
SIPTU,
Liberty Hall, Dublin 1.

Now have a look at this line:

One is the social solidarity route advocated by the trade union movement. The other is social cannibalism.

This has got to be the biggest false dichotomy in the history of sophistry. We have to let the trade union movement decide how we get out of the mess (the people who think everyone else should reform except them) or we start eating each other???

I consider the banking crisis easily the biggest mess in this country. But the aggresive trade union movement are number 2.

They deserverd to be challenged and treated as a self serving vested interest - not this social cohesion cr*p them come out with.

I have no problem with unions representing workers in things like bullying cases at work, defending them against employers who break labour law - however, when they think they have a divine right to be running our country and determining our fiscal policy, I despair.

discuss...

Tim Robbins

Or this line:

JACK wrote:

We do not have the luxury of ignoring the democratic wish of the electorate

They don't even stand before the electorate! They have managed to engineer a situation whereby they bypass that inconvenience and still have an influence of fiscal policy.

At least we can vote out FF - we don't have that luxury to get rid of these people who can make your life hell if you just want a passport.

ei.sdraob

Jack with his 6 figure salary talking about "lack of luxury" :rolleyes: I suppose Gillette thingies are expensive

freyners

i always thought unions were a great thing learning history in secondary school. oh how wrong i was

About two years ago i was working in a local garden centre on summer/weekend work, loved the job and got paid well too. On occasions, sometimes without even the boss asking, i would work an extra half hour/hour in the morning if there was going to be a busy day ahead. (you know, high amount of deliverys due, big order need filling etc etc.). I did this so i could get the work done, never minded working that extra hour or two unpaid each week as i new i was gettin a good deal overall. There was also a time were i had my pay cut because business was going slow and i never once complained becaus ei knew it was for the greater good

Recently i got into a conversation with someone high up in Siptu about my previous employment (was hoping he could help me find part-time work) when i told him this story..... next thing i knew he started preachin about 'never giving your employer an inch and how i was a fool for not charging everything i could out of it and that i was letting down workers everywhere '.

Basically this kind of attitude is turning me off unions and anything to associate with them, they dont understand the idea of flexibility, or that compromises have to come from both sides. Just look at the subject of bank-time, the immigration finger-print scanners, even the croke park agreement. Seriously, when there isnt enough money to pay for the work, you can do either two things, accept a pay cut and hope that in the future, things will turn around and you might make it back, or f**k off and try and find a better deal.

With the incompetents that we have in government we could be waiting a long time for things to turn round, especially with the this iimf/eu bailout conditions, but for the unions to be blocking every single thing trying to be done is just criminal.

Btw OP i would have some input from the trade union movement if they went into it accepting they had to compromise, however looking at their track record over the last 18 months i very much doubt we will see a time when that will happen

Tim Robbins

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Jack with his 6 figure salary talking about "lack of luxury" :rolleyes:

Apparently he and Begg were both boo'd at the march on Saturday. But RTE never mentioned it.

johnnyskeleton

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have no problem with unions representing workers in things like bullying cases at work, defending them against employers who break labour law - however, when they think they have a divine right to be running our country and determining our fiscal policy, I despair.

The unions will do what is best for their members, and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is with the government and management of the public sector. It is impossible to agree with unions when the management are also members of the same or similar unions. It is even harder to do when politician's pay and pensions are also linked to the public sector pay grades.

So perhaps the solution is to have politicians who will (I know it is said a lot but need repeating) lead by example and dramatically reduce their wages. Then appoint managers to public sector departments who agree not to be part of a union and set them targets to be constantly reducing costs, including staff costs.

While that will not reduce the public sector pay overnight, it will at least put a lid on the rampant pay increases of the last few years and it will also ensure that reductions in staff are a bit more sensible.

20Cent

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Apparently he and Begg were both boo'd at the march on Saturday. But RTE never mentioned it.

They didn't mention a lot of things including that the crowd was closer to 100,000 than 50,000.

Even the IMF memo identifies the banks as the root of the problem.

ei.sdraob

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The unions will do what is best for their members, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is
if a group of private people and/or companies formed a "union" which exerted so much power on the country
the would be called a "racket" or "mafia" or "organised criminals"

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Apparently he and Begg were both boo'd at the march on Saturday. But RTE never mentioned it.

I would be pissed of too If i attended a protest and it was hijacked by these hypocrates, they sat on the central bank/regulator board and other key positions,
they also carved themselves a nice chunk of a then growing economic pie, only to throw a tantrum when the pie started to shrink in turn shafting everyone else in the economy outside the union

20Cent

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes there is
if a group of private people and/or companies formed a "union" which exerted so much power on the country
the would be called a "racket" or "mafia" or "organised criminals"




I would be pissed of too If i attended a protest and it was hijacked by these hypocrates, they sat on the central bank/regulator board and other key positions,
they also carved themselves a nice chunk of a then growing economic pie, only to throw a tantrum when the pie started to shrink in turn shafting everyone else in the economy outside the union

There is one called IBEC.
Then you have the Multinationals calling for changes in education, threatening to leave if corp tax is increased etc.
I bet Tony O'Reilly et al can pick up the phone and get access to Gov. Yet when an ordinary worker does it its so bad!!

They were soundly booed and rightly imho.

ei.sdraob

20Cent wrote: »

There is one called IBEC.
Then you have the Multinationals calling for changes in education, threatening to leave if corp tax is increased etc.
I bet Tony O'Reilly et al can pick up the phone and get access to Gov. Yet when an ordinary worker does it its so bad!!

They were soundly booed and rightly imho.

i see what you are trying to do start a public/private brawl :rolleyes: get back to union bashing please


Those private companies actually make stuff that is exported and earns real wealth into the economy (they grow the pie), the public sector on the other hand siphons of a large portion of existing wealth in order to run, wealth that is shrinking as per my post yet they refuse to shrink with the deflation in processes ensuring they get a larger share of the pie.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes there is
if a group of private people and/or companies formed a "union" which exerted so much power on the country
the would be called a "racket" or "mafia" or "organised criminals"

No they wouldn't, unless you can point to any specific criminal activity on the part of the unions, they are nothing like a racket or the mafia or organised criminals.

They act perfectly legally, and if they do exercise a large amount of power, it is not through illegal force, but through the lax attitudes of the government. It is the employer's duty to keep the union demands in check, otherwise he goes out of business. That the FF led governments failed to keep them in check has led to this sorry mess, not the unions seeking the best deal for their members.

Tim Robbins

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I would be pissed of too If i attended a protest and it was hijacked by these hypocrates, they sat on the central bank/regulator board and other key positions,
they also carved themselves a nice chunk of a then growing economic pie, only to throw a tantrum when the pie started to shrink in turn shafting everyone else in the economy outside the union

They organised the march - didn't they?

dan_d

So we'll all be flooding the Times with letters in response to that, right???:p

I've said it before - they WAY overstepped the line the last 10 years.

Hopefully they will now be put back in their place (IMF). It's unfortunate that this is how it had to happen though.

Atilathehun

dan_d wrote: »

So we'll all be flooding the Times with letters in response to that, right???:p

I've said it before - they WAY overstepped the line the last 10 years.

Hopefully they will now be put back in their place (IMF). It's unfortunate that this is how it had to happen though.

To be fair, they didn't have to overstep the line in the past 10 years. 10 years of Bertie, pushing the line under their feet, and helped them lift their legs, to they wouldn't trip over anything in the process.

We shouldn't forget the role of "collaborator" played by the captains of industry under the IBEC umbrella. It has been totally under reported how these guys participated in 10 years of economic sabotage. Never once did they shout stop! But hey, once again Bertie, bought their silence by putting rafts of them on boards aof quangos etc.
Didn't Bertie put the doyen of all IBEC chiefs on the board of the IDA.

westtip

Atilathehun wrote: »

To be fair, they didn't have to overstep the line in the past 10 years. 10 years of Bertie, pushing the line under their feet, and helped them lift their legs, to they wouldn't trip over anything in the process.

We shouldn't forget the role of "collaborator" played by the captains of industry under the IBEC umbrella. It has been totally under reported how these guys participated in 10 years of economic sabotage. Never once did they shout stop! But hey, once again Bertie, bought their silence by putting rafts of them on boards aof quangos etc.
Didn't Bertie put the doyen of all IBEC chiefs on the board of the IDA.

Yep and until this gravy train is stopped and immorality of our governance is gone we won't get anywhere.

Emme

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The unions will do what is best for their members, and there is nothing wrong with that.

If only they did, but Union top brass don't give two hoots about ordinary workers. All they want is publicity and the union is a means to an end (often a high paying government job) with them. With their 6 figure salaries, union bosses are as far removed from ordinary workers as government ministers and company directors. Look at how many former union bosses got jobs with the government?

Union bosses NEVER took a pay cut :mad: even though most union members in this country have had at least one significant pay cut. Their excuse - it was setting a bad example to accept a pay cut! :rolleyes:

I'm a member of a union, but I wish I wasn't, I begrudge every cent that goes out of my salary in union dues every month, but where I work once you're in a union it's very hard to leave.

CDfm

When we say unions , dont we really mean the Public Service Unions who have the largest membership and have unlimited access to the government.

See this link on public service union environment. Very cosy.

http://www.deegannon.com/portfolio/Civil%20service%20html/chapter8.html

According to the CSO the most unionised employment is the Public Service

In Q2 2009, 37% of full-time employees stated that they were members of a union,
compared with 20% of part-time employees. Among economic sectors the
highest membership rate was in Public administration and defence (81 %) and
the lowest rate was in Accommodation and food service activities (6 %). Among
occupations the highest rate was in Associate professional and technical (50 %)
and the lowest rate was in Sales (15%). Membership was highest in local units of
over 100 (50%). Almost half (48%) of all employees who worked between 30
and 34 hours per week, were union members compared with just 7% of employees

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2009/qnhsunionmembership_q22009.pdf

RobbieTheRobber

CDfm wrote: »

When we say unions , dont we really mean the Public Service Unions who have the largest membership and have unlimited access to the government.

See this link on public service union environment. Very cosy.

http://www.deegannon.com/portfolio/Civil%20service%20html/chapter8.html

According to the CSO the most unionised employment is the Public Service

Isnt siptu the largest union in the country dont they have over 200,000 members and only about 70k of those are public servants. That looks like the largest union in the country is not acctually driven by the public sector but by private sector workers. Well thats what it appears like to me.

There are around 800,000 union members in this country and how many public servants?

gollem_1975

20Cent wrote: »

They didn't mention a lot of things including that the crowd was closer to 100,000 than 50,000.

Even the IMF memo identifies the banks as the root of the problem.

wasn't there myself on saturday but the city centre tends to get a lot of people on o'connell street/henry street of a saturday...

gollem_1975

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Apparently he and Begg were both boo'd at the march on Saturday. But RTE never mentioned it.

afaik they were booed by people on the hard left who were accusing them of having "sold out"

katkin

Quoting OP: "I have no problem with unions representing workers in things like bullying cases at work, defending them against employers who break labour law - however, when they think they have a divine right to be running our country and determining our fiscal policy, I despair."


Do we actually need unions to represent workers on these and similar issues, we have pretty good labour laws in this country covering most workplace problems. Does any worker have the right to represent themselves and bring a case to the labour court without recourse to unions I wonder?

Tim Robbins

katkin wrote: »

Quoting OP: "I have no problem with unions representing workers in things like bullying cases at work, defending them against employers who break labour law - however, when they think they have a divine right to be running our country and determining our fiscal policy, I despair."


Do we actually need unions to represent workers on these and similar issues, we have pretty good labour laws in this country covering most workplace problems. Does any worker have the right to represent themselves and bring a case to the labour court without recourse to unions I wonder?

Yes we do. It is quite easy for an Employer to engage in all sorts of dodgy practises and get away with it. Employees need some sort of representation.

Labour law is complex and it is much more pratical that an employee can get simple and easy advice on it and that an employer knows it's not so easy to shaft an employee.

The problem is when the Union get so powerful they are actually deciding fiscal policy in a manner that suits them. This is a subversion of a democracy, a republic and a soverign nation.

thebullkf

sure lets bring back 6 day weeks,14 hour days and child labour while we're at it. :rolleyes:


does anyone who's posted here honestly believe we'd be better off thus far
without unions ??


a lot of the labour laws are as a direct result of union's.
people have short memory's., i fear we've gone too far in favour of unions,
just like in the past we went too far in favour of employers.
the days of permanent jobs are numbered,its all 12 month--->2 year contracts {depending on your industry}
Labour laws are being bypassed by employers eg p/t staff being given 4hrs a day..so's they're not entitled to a break. then told to come back in an hour for another 4 hours "overtime" thus completing 8 hour shifts with no breaks...
also Unions advise workers as to basic rights such as PPE,working in the rain, etc.
just becuase the majority of people wouldn't experience this ,doesn't mean it ain't happening-i've spent my entire working life working for contractors in one form or another,in a non-desk job (more or less)
the amount of worker abuse inflicted by employers is shocking.

its like everything else in this poxy island of ours-people only give a shyte when it affects them directly..typical irish attitude.
we're re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic folks,the time for marching wasn't last saturday,last month,or last year.. it was ten years ago,when every unskilled joe soap was earning one and a half times the current minimum wage for simple jobs such as making tea on sites,cleaning windows,labouring etc.
the unions didn't set those payrates,they foughtfor equality,and superior wages for qualified trained, professionals . ie TEEU,CWU,SIPTU etc


the other problem is nixers and people working cash in hand whilst on the dole...the dole used as buffer for the off the books rate.
another problem is the fukkers who where on the dole during the boom...
but thats a different arguement.

i'm not a major union fanboy,but by christ they were, and are needed.

amacca

thebullkf wrote: »

just becuase the majority of people wouldn't experience this ,doesn't mean it ain't happening-i've spent my entire working life working for contractors in one form or another,in a non-desk job (more or less)
the amount of worker abuse inflicted by employers is shocking.

its like everything else in this poxy island of ours-people only give a shyte when it affects them directly..typical irish attitude.
we're re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic folks,the time for marching wasn't last saturday,last month,or last year.. it was ten years ago,when every unskilled joe soap was earning one and a half times the current minimum wage for simple jobs such as making tea on sites,cleaning windows,labouring etc.
the unions didn't set those payrates,they foughtfor equality,and superior wages for qualified trained, professionals . ie TEEU,CWU,SIPTU etc


the other problem is nixers and people working cash in hand whilst on the dole...the dole used as buffer for the off the books rate.
another problem is the fukkers who where on the dole during the boom...
but thats a different arguement.

i'm not a major union fanboy,but by christ they were, and are needed.

but the "destroy the unions" fanboys that aren't already well off will only realise this when their kids are slave driven to an early grave

There is an imbalance so reduce their power, put them in their rightful place yes......get rid of them altogether....well then prepare to bend over.

CDfm

I imagine that a lot of people do not want to acknowledge the limited power of the government, or indeed any sucessor government, to deal with the Corporate State.

In fact, the system and acknowledgement of it is in our constitution somewhat via the senate composition and at a wider level has been there since Lemass in the late 1950's .

As a decision maker the Corporate State is a decision maker.

Its not about terms and conditions of employment any more but , what can be done with the corporate state to curb its power , they benchmarked for the good times but wont yield in the bad. Very selfish.

RobbieTheRobber

CDfm wrote: »

I imagine that a lot of people do not want to acknowledge the limited power of the government, or indeed any sucessor government, to deal with the Corporate State.

In fact, the system and acknowledgement of it is in our constitution somewhat via the senate composition and at a wider level has been there since Lemass in the late 1950's .

As a decision maker the Corporate State is a decision maker.

Its not about terms and conditions of employment any more but , what can be done with the corporate state to curb its power , they benchmarked for the good times but wont yield in the bad. Very selfish.

So what is a 14% reversal in pay?
is that not yielding?

Tim Robbins

thebullkf wrote: »

sure lets bring back 6 day weeks,14 hour days and child labour while we're at it. :rolleyes:

does anyone who's posted here honestly believe we'd be better off thus far
without unions ??

That's like saying sure let's get rid of banks and shove the money under our matresses.

The Unions have played a good role but have gone way beyond their remit such that they are a destructive force and dangerous to the common good.
They have gone from a very good rights organisations to a blatant vested interest with their own agendas.

CDfm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So what is a 14% reversal in pay?
is that not yielding?

The public service were benchmarked against who ? The banks.

Anyway, that is not my poiint benchmarking should go down as well as up , lots of people operate on short term contracts.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's like saying sure let's get rid of banks and shove the money under our matresses.

I agree. We need a banking system to trade.

Its fine to say blame the banks and get into who was most culpable -the banks or Neary as regulator - the bottom line is that if spending does not decrease then you will have new taxes like property tax etc.

The Unions have played a good role but have gone way beyond their remit such that they are a destructive force and dangerous to the common good.
They have gone from a very good rights organisations to a blatant vested interest with their own agendas.

The Unions only represent unionised workers and the largest and most unionised is the public sector.

Tax revenues are massivelly down and as the public servants shared in the boom with benchmarking they should share in the pain.

If you have 68% of the population non unionised they are disadvantaged and we need to have a democratisation process to share the burden.

Ginger Nut

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Isnt siptu the largest union in the country dont they have over 200,000 members and only about 70k of those are public servants. That looks like the largest union in the country is not acctually driven by the public sector but by private sector workers. Well thats what it appears like to me.

There are around 800,000 union members in this country and how many public servants?

If there is 800,000 union members in the country and the majority of union members are PS employees that means there are in excess of 400,000 PS workers - dont think so - another PS bashing I fear!:mad:

RobbieTheRobber

Ginger Nut wrote: »

If there is 800,000 union members in the country and the majority of union members are PS employees that means there are in excess of 400,000 PS workers - dont think so - another PS bashing I fear!:mad:

Indeed that was my point, there are more private sector union memebr than ps ones, a point oft overlooked by those who wish to bash the public services by associating only us with the unions!

I also notice no anti PS person bothered to answer my question

thebullkf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's like saying sure let's get rid of banks and shove the money under our matresses.

The Unions have played a good role but have gone way beyond their remit such that they are a destructive force and dangerous to the common good.
They have gone from a very good rights organisations to a blatant vested interest with their own agendas.

eh...no its not.. how come you use that analogy

to say they're dangerous is to do them a disservice.

CDfm wrote: »

.
The Unions only represent unionised workers and the largest and most unionised is the public sector.

Tax revenues are massivelly down and as the public servants shared in the boom with benchmarking they should share in the pain.

If you have 68% of the population non unionised they are disadvantaged and we need to have a democratisation process to share the burden.

i don't think the largest unions are PS.
by you're reckoning 32% of the population should bail out the other 68%

Tim Robbins

thebullkf wrote: »

eh...no its not.. how come you use that analogy

to say they're dangerous is to do them a disservice.

Because it is possible for something to be very important but at the same time very dangrous.

Very important but also Very Dangerous: Banks. Unions

Just because something is essential doesn't mean you can critise how it operates: Banks, Unions

Tim Robbins

thebullkf wrote: »

i don't think the largest unions are PS.
by you're reckoning 32% of the population should bail out the other 68%

Oh no... I fear you are going to get a patronising real world lecture soon.

Here's mine. In the real world, your wages are determined by a market economy. The place you work pay as little as possible until people start to leave and work somewhere that will pay them and their skill sets more. Eventually an equilibrium is reached between pay and worth. The company have to pay a reasonable amount so that they don't loose more than 20% of their staff every year. Anymore is way too risky.

In the public sector, there is no market reality. You determine what you should get paid and if you don't get it you get angry until eventually you go on strike and hold everyone to ransom and eventually get what you want.

Now, whether you get away with this or is determined on how politically powerful you are. It is a simple case of might is right while the rest of us live in the market economy with no might whatsoever.

The thing is the power of the unions can't last. Everyone is sickened by them. They won't be as politically powerful as they once were. There is all these rhetoric such as "we didn't cause this recession". But how do you think the 450K unemployed people feel when they hear such nonsense? Do you think they sympathise with you because they think they did cause the recession?

CDfm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Indeed that was my point, there are more private sector union memebr than ps ones, a point oft overlooked by those who wish to bash the public services by associating only us with the unions!

I also notice no anti PS person bothered to answer my question

the state is the largest employer and the unions there fore have leverage with the largest employer.

so the largest employer has the largest percentage of union members

If there is less tax coming in something has to give

Count Dooku

Jack wrote: »

The rules of our union prohibit all employees from benefiting personally through serving on any body to which they are appointed.

It is true that union officials cannot receive money from quango, but instead their wages paid directly to union, ie government is indirectly subsidizing unions
And what about free trips abroad paid by taxpayers?

Deise_67

Wow didn't see that coming from them !
Is that there answer to everything ?
While I agreed about the lack of balance in the proposed cuts e.g Mr Ahern on €128 K pension. I feel the last thing we need is a strike ! particularly one lead my this lot ! Having been burned already by there polices and recommendations !
Most union leaders are as culpable as the banks in my view ! At best they are a necessary evil that lost the run of themselves !
Maybe that's why they have so many "former" members !

thebullkf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because it is possible for something to be very important but at the same time very dangrous.

Very important but also Very Dangerous: Banks. Unions

Just because something is essential doesn't mean you can critise how it operates: Banks, Unions

repetition mars your point.

Count Dooku

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There are around 800,000 union members in this country and how many public servants?

Typical PS spin
http://www.ictu.ie/about/affiliates.html

There are 55 unions affiliated to Congress in 2008 with a total membership of 833,486, of whom 602,035 are in the republic and 231,451 in Northern Ireland.

thebullkf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh no... I fear you are going to get a patronising real world lecture soon.

Here's mine. In the real world, your wages are determined by a market economy. The place you work pay as little as possible until people start to leave and work somewhere that will pay them and their skill sets more. Eventually an equilibrium is reached between pay and worth. The company have to pay a reasonable amount so that they don't loose more than 20% of their staff every year. Anymore is way too risky.

In the public sector, there is no market reality. You determine what you should get paid and if you don't get it you get angry until eventually you go on strike and hold everyone to ransom and eventually get what you want.

Now, whether you get away with this or is determined on how politically powerful you are. It is a simple case of might is right while the rest of us live in the market economy with no might whatsoever.

The thing is the power of the unions can't last. Everyone is sickened by them. They won't be as politically powerful as they once were. There is all these rhetoric such as "we didn't cause this recession". But how do you think the 450K unemployed people feel when they hear such nonsense? Do you think they sympathise with you because they think they did cause the recession?

i live in the real world.... "rhetoric"...?

i'm sure they feel the same as I do, cheated,Burgled.
to say its the union's fault is a fallacy.

i'm unemployed,never worked for the CS,PS et al.
i don't blame the unions...so not "eveyone" is sick of them.
Doesn't matter what government is in,in what country,corruption is everywhere,always has been,always will be,its a vicious circle.
The definition of a democratic state in my eyes is judged on how they treat their weakest... Ireland doesn't seem so democratic,hasn't for a long time...
hold a referendum , vote no?.....well we'll vote until we get a yes.

I don't blame the Unions to the same extent others here do,i can't understand the vitriol.

times were bad,everyone wanted a PS job..."safe" job...boom came,nobody wanted to work for such low wages (comparitively speaking)
bust again....everyone wants a PS job.... those who do't,can't/unable slate them...
the majority of people swooned during the boom.
a vicious circle.

katkin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes we do. It is quite easy for an Employer to engage in all sorts of dodgy practises and get away with it. Employees need some sort of representation.

Labour law is complex and it is much more pratical that an employee can get simple and easy advice on it and that an employer knows it's not so easy to shaft an employee.

The problem is when the Union get so powerful they are actually deciding fiscal policy in a manner that suits them. This is a subversion of a democracy, a republic and a soverign nation.

I don't know the history of labour law in Ireland but in the last ten or more years have our unions successfully lobbied govt to introduce anything other than pay hikes? I suspect that the influence of Europe has had more to do with improvements in our labour laws, all European Union member states courts have to acknowledge it.

Not saying unions don't have a place, but from what I have experienced and seen in latter years they are more interested in keeping wages up rather than holding on to jobs and getting more employed. They went over to the dark side and need serious reform.

thebullkf

katkin wrote: »

I don't know the history of labour law in Ireland but in the last ten or more years have our unions successfully lobbied govt to introduce anything other than pay hikes? I suspect that the influence of Europe has had more to do with improvements in our labour laws, all European Union member states courts have to acknowledge it.

do some research,find out.

Not saying unions don't have a place, but from what I have experienced and seen in latter years they are more interested in keeping wages up rather than holding on to jobs and getting more employed. They went over to the dark side and need serious reform.

more interested in securing existing jobs you mean?

the ironic thing now is, workers have too many rights in some respects- companies go bang as opposed to paying redundancy becuase its cheaper,they can siphon away profits and feck the employees..so in that respect Unions are partly responsible.

i used to hire/fire in my last job.... the amount of people willing to work for 5e an hour..or two weeks for free..just to get a start was astounding...if minimum wage is scrapped..this country will not recover.

pissants

Ridiculous. The power inherent in transnational corporations demands, now more than ever, a counterbalance in the form of organised labour. Petty cronyism falls into irrelevance in comparison.

I'm utterly aghast at the glee with which people are discussing the entry of the IMF into this country, given its track record - statements of 'but they've turned over a new leaf!' notwithstanding. We'll pay in full - but under terms that take no heed to the standard of living and working conditions for Irish people.

Any joy over neutering the current government and seeing the public sector dismantled will be short lived.

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Isnt siptu the largest union in the country dont they have over 200,000 members and only about 70k of those are public servants. That looks like the largest union in the country is not acctually driven by the public sector but by private sector workers. Well thats what it appears like to me.

There are around 800,000 union members in this country and how many public servants?

There are not 800,000 union members in the Irish Republic (which I presume is what we are talking about). The figure is now less than 600,000 and over half of these are public sector workers. A significant amount of the rest are work in Semi State bodies.

tails_naf

Unions have their place, but they can and have gone too far.

A friend of mine in Italy told me how very strong unions there have ruined Italy for a whole generation to the point where virtually no one now is made a permanent employee, because once made permanent its impossible to let someone go.

For example - apparently layoffs are an all or nothing thing - the labour laws became so distorted that it was made almost impossible to do lay-offs in bad times, so companies ended up going bust with no alternatives, when money got short.

So to avoid this situation, all young people are now hired on temp contracts, and no one is permanent. The young hate the system, but the 'older' ones love it, as they are as secure as can be. Union votes keep the system in place, but I guess margins will dwindle over time as the young become more numerous.

So in Italy, the young people are waiting for the older ones to retire, so they can 'take their labour laws back'.

It's just a small example, but things can go to far. One poster here said he did not want to be in the union, but it's so powerful in his work-place hes pressured into staying a member. Talk about bully-boy tactics.

Unions here have talked themselves out of jobs, we've lost manufacturing as an industry, FDI into unionised sectors is hurt (remember Lufthansa a year or two ago).

Begg et all are definitely more part of the problem then part of the solution.

CDfm

thebullkf wrote: »

i live in the real world.... "rhetoric"...?

i'm sure they feel the same as I do, cheated,Burgled.
to say its the union's fault is a fallacy.

I am not saying it is solely the fault of the Unions but that in our system the Corporate State has power without responsibility and the Public Services Unions have the equivalent power to the other organs of government.

So with the legislative, executive and judiciary we have to add the Unions/Corporate State.

With power comes responsibility.

i'm unemployed,never worked for the CS,PS et al.
i don't blame the unions...so not "eveyone" is sick of them.
Doesn't matter what government is in,in what country,corruption is everywhere,always has been,always will be,its a vicious circle.
The definition of a democratic state in my eyes is judged on how they treat their weakest... Ireland doesn't seem so democratic,hasn't for a long time...
hold a referendum , vote no?.....well we'll vote until we get a yes.

The definition of a democratic state is power by the elected representatives of the citizens.

The Corporate State is not elected.

I don't blame the Unions to the same extent others here do,i can't understand the vitriol.

I think the reason people blame them is that there is a finite amount of resourses and a sector of society have gotten more than their fair share.

times were bad,everyone wanted a PS job..."safe" job...boom came,nobody wanted to work for such low wages (comparitively speaking)
bust again....everyone wants a PS job.... those who do't,can't/unable slate them...

Years back you needed Irish for a CS job irrespective of your ability and take CS exams.

Also, those working in country areas do/did not have that opportunity.

Decentralisation did not happen really.

So geographically and sectorally it is not geared towards the lowest sectors of society.

Fairly middle class IMHO.

the majority of people swooned during the boom.
a vicious circle.

It is a class war - but its the workers against the unionised middle class.

Hotblack Desiato

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying it is solely the fault of the Unions but that in our system the Corporate State has power without responsibility and the Public Services Unions have the equivalent power to the other organs of government.

So with the legislative, executive and judiciary we have to add the Unions/Corporate State.

With power comes responsibility.

It's successive FF governments who have been truly irresponsible by buying industrial peace at too high a price. Same as they bought OAP votes at a high price that's extremely difficult politically to reverse, bought off the bleeding hearts by whacking up welfare massively in real terms, etc. Basically if Bertie saw a problem he 'solved' it by throwing money at it - yours and mine - and with OAP and public sector pensions in particular, the real cost only becomes apparent years later.

The definition of a democratic state is power by the elected representatives of the citizens.

The Corporate State is not elected.

So only those elected can have any say? In other words the government should have absolute power for five years and no sector of society may object? I think not.

I think the reason people blame them is that there is a finite amount of resourses and a sector of society have gotten more than their fair share.

Primarily, middle class retireees with tax-relieved private pensions who then got big increases in the OAP on top. No previous generation of retirees ever had it so good, and no subsequent generation ever will either, but politically they are untouchable.

Years back you needed Irish for a CS job

Yes, years back, not any more thankfully, it's been optional for a long time. But what's the relevance of that to today?

irrespective of your ability and take CS exams.

You contradict yourself, if the point you are trying to make is that once you had Irish you could get in regardless of ability. Not true, and of course having to take exams in other subjects, not just Irish, proves it.

Also, those working in country areas do/did not have that opportunity.

Nonsense they have the same ability to compete fairly for public jobs on the same basis as anyone else. It's one of the few areas in Irish society where 'who you know' doesn't help you.

Decentralisation did not happen really.

Thankfully, although we still managed to waste a billion euro on it along the way. We are a small country with a small population with too many layers of government. Scattering our public administration in dribs and drabs all over the country (in an ill-conceived attempt to win votes for FF) is disastrous from the point of view of administration.

So geographically and sectorally it is not geared towards the lowest sectors of society.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean, is it that only people living outside of cities can be poor? Funny how our worst deprived areas are in cities.

Fairly middle class IMHO.

It is a class war - but its the workers against the unionised middle class.

I'm always very suspicious of the phrase 'class war' it too often is invariably used as a cheap appeal to emotion, rather than critical thinking. The Irish left should try to come up with some workable ideas rather than recycle 70s rhetoric. Not that I expect them to come up with any, but they could at least try.

CDfm

ninja900 wrote: »

It's successive FF governments who have been truly irresponsible by buying industrial peace at too high a price. Same as they bought OAP votes at a high price that's extremely difficult politically to reverse, bought off the bleeding hearts by whacking up welfare massively in real terms, etc. Basically if Bertie saw a problem he 'solved' it by throwing money at it - yours and mine - and with OAP and public sector pensions in particular, the real cost only becomes apparent years later.

That may be so but the Corporate State has real power.

So only those elected can have any say? In other words the government should have absolute power for five years and no sector of society may object? I think not.

That is why we have the franchise -the power of parliment is the will of the people - the sum of the people not some of the people.

Primarily, middle class retireees with tax-relieved private pensions who then got big increases in the OAP on top. No previous generation of retirees ever had it so good, and no subsequent generation ever will either, but politically they are untouchable.

Probably enjoying the benefits that Civil Servants take or have taken for granted.

Yes, years back, not any more thankfully, it's been optional for a long time. But what's the relevance of that to today?

The relevance is that low skilled and semi skilled workers effectively subsidise the college going middle class who disproportionately benefit.

The unions are not socialist and looking after the workers at all. The are looking after professional public servant middle classes.

It is class based.

You contradict yourself, if the point you are trying to make is that once you had Irish you could get in regardless of ability. Not true, and of course having to take exams in other subjects, not just Irish, proves it.

Irish was one of the subjects that entrants needed.

Nonsense they have the same ability to compete fairly for public jobs on the same basis as anyone else. It's one of the few areas in Irish society where 'who you know' doesn't help you.

Thankfully, although we still managed to waste a billion euro on it along the way. We are a small country with a small population with too many layers of government. Scattering our public administration in dribs and drabs all over the country (in an ill-conceived attempt to win votes for FF) is disastrous from the point of view of administration.

It still is Middle Class and dispersing a large employer accross the country was part of democratising it and spreading the spend.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean, is it that only people living outside of cities can be poor? Funny how our worst deprived areas are in cities.

The areas with the most social problems are in the cities - that does not mean they are more deprived.

But the public service is middle class and those from "deprived areas" or without education do not get access to those jobs.

I'm always very suspicious of the phrase 'class war' it too often is invariably used as a cheap appeal to emotion, rather than critical thinking. The Irish left should try to come up with some workable ideas rather than recycle 70s rhetoric. Not that I expect them to come up with any, but they could at least try.

I am not talking about a class war but about class mobility and saying that like it or not the public service is middle class as are the unions who represent them.

They are no more left than FF or FG are.

Hotblack Desiato

CDfm wrote: »

That is why we have the franchise -the power of parliment is the will of the people - the sum of the people not some of the people.

That does not give the government the right to unfairly target a particular section of society. (Note that I am not saying any cuts so far have been unfair - but more than a few posters on boards have an extreme hatred towards public sector workers.)

Probably enjoying the benefits that Civil Servants take or have taken for granted.

Actually no as public servants employed before 1995 are not entitled to the OAP, which Bertie doubled. Those who are entitled to it won't be retiring on full pension until 2035 and will have the OAP deducted from their public pension. Your anti-PS bias is showing.

The relevance is that low skilled and semi skilled workers effectively subsidise the college going middle class who disproportionately benefit.

From free fees, yes absolutely which is why I have always been opposed to free fees. Ideally a student loan scheme / graduate tax, where those who benefit from 3rd level pay (i.e. the higher pay that results from a 3rd level qualification) would be in place but I would imagine that a lot of graduates would emigrate for a few years specifically to dodge paying for their education.
Failing that we should reintroduce full fees but with a proper grant and exemption scheme for the less well off. As it stands, the poor who don't get to go to college are subsidising the children of professionals.
Let's not forget it was the Labour party who introduced this, and who still defend this, it was their big idea to win upper-middle class voters over in 1997.

The unions are not socialist and looking after the workers at all. The are looking after professional public servant middle classes.

What would you actually want such a union to do?
Would it be like many of the more militant 70s union activists wanted, and in effect establish a communist society (hidden under weasel language such as 'a greater workers share in the fruits of production' etc.)

It is class based.

I don't really know what you are getting at here, apart from the fact that the public service demands a better than average level of education. Perhaps that in itself is discriminatory?

It's funny how those who claim to stick up for 'the workers' characterise 'the workers' as an amorphous uneducated group of manual labourers. How bloody patronising can one get.

But the public service is middle class and those from "deprived areas" or without education do not get access to those jobs.

Bzzt. Wrong. I grew up in a deprived area.
But I fully agree that educational disadvantage, especially early education should be our first priority.

I am not talking about a class war but about class mobility and saying that like it or not the public service is middle class as are the unions who represent them.

So one becomes 'middle class' (whatever that really means, in this day and age) by getting a half-decent job? Should a member of the 'working class' be ashamed of getting a 'middle class' job? I would think it is one's duty in society to make the most of one's abilities.

They are no more left than FF or FG are.

Well we agree that the 120k+ union bosses who sat on State boards are utter hypocrites.

CDfm

ninja900 wrote: »

That does not give the government the right to unfairly target a particular section of society. (Note that I am not saying any cuts so far have been unfair - but more than a few posters on boards have an extreme hatred towards public sector workers.)

I do think that a lot of public sector workers do take their priveleges for granted and that it is overdue massive reform and the provision of public services are in need of radical reform in lots of areas to satisfy a value for money tests.

The Health Service is obvious cos it is an area where every extra euro spent has not delivered.Increaed budgets of 250% should have bought a National Health service. There are others as well.

Why the Motor Tax Offices -you should be able to tax your car at a post office. RTE ?

Public services need to be their but the public service is not always the most economic way to provide them.

Some services can only be provided by the public service -the police, legal system.For me - some public services are luxury items and should not be public services at all.

An example would be the second terminal at Dublin Airport. So the definition on what should be a "public good" and a "private good" should have been tackled long ago.

Actually no as public servants employed before 1995 are not entitled to the OAP, which Bertie doubled. Those who are entitled to it won't be retiring on full pension until 2035 and will have the OAP deducted from their public pension. Your anti-PS bias is showing.

Public sector pensions are a fantastic perk and for most people their value would be the equivalent of winning the lotto.

From free fees, yes absolutely which is why I have always been opposed to free fees. Ideally a student loan scheme / graduate tax, where those who benefit from 3rd level pay (i.e. the higher pay that results from a 3rd level qualification) would be in place but I would imagine that a lot of graduates would emigrate for a few years specifically to dodge paying for their education.
Failing that we should reintroduce full fees but with a proper grant and exemption scheme for the less well off. As it stands, the poor who don't get to go to college are subsidising the children of professionals.
Let's not forget it was the Labour party who introduced this, and who still defend this, it was their big idea to win upper-middle class voters over in 1997.

It is a hopelessly emotive area that needs radical reform. I see nothing wrong with grant or loan systems and if some people specifically fee dodge -so what.

What would you actually want such a union to do?
Would it be like many of the more militant 70s union activists wanted, and in effect establish a communist society (hidden under weasel language such as 'a greater workers share in the fruits of production' etc.)

Aha, I would not want it but it is unrealistic to get rid of them and public sector unions are in need of radical reform themselves.

My gripe is that they use militant tactics as they are powerful in an area where they are representing very priveleged people.

The public services are very much like a military junta in a developing nation.

I don't really know what you are getting at here, apart from the fact that the public service demands a better than average level of education. Perhaps that in itself is discriminatory?

It's funny how those who claim to stick up for 'the workers' characterise 'the workers' as an amorphous uneducated group of manual labourers. How bloody patronising can one get.

I dont think the public service needs a better standard of education than a person in the private sector or that service delivery ismore difficult or complicated than a supermarket chain or an airline - I just dont. The public service should be as adaptable to change as Dunnes Stores or Lidl is.

Bzzt. Wrong. I grew up in a deprived area.
But I fully agree that educational disadvantage, especially early education should be our first priority.

What I mean is that the entry requirements are middle class.I think there is a huge lack of understanding about rural poverty and urban poverty. There is a huge need to get rid of the "welfare state" civil service from those areas and a bit of proper democratisation would not go amiss.

So one becomes 'middle class' (whatever that really means, in this day and age) by getting a half-decent job? Should a member of the 'working class' be ashamed of getting a 'middle class' job? I would think it is one's duty in society to make the most of one's abilities.



Well we agree that the 120k+ union bosses who sat on State boards are utter hypocrites.

The Labour Party and the Unions are no more working class or representative of the poor than the man in the moon is.

Class mobility for the win and we are too small a country to have defined classes. We have high notions about various rights like pregnant womens discrimination rights and single mothers welfare payments but cannot rethink it and childcare to get rid of that underclass. Shamefull.

Ireland has never been a wealthy country, but, we have a lot of idealistic notions that we are. I have never seen it to any extent, and, by wealth that is money to invest in trade and industry to return a profit and we have very little of that.