A Vote For Labour Is A Vote For Trade Unions

th3 s1aught3r

Is a vote for Labour a vote for trade unions and vested interests in the public sector ? Becasue if it is I will not vote for Labour, no way
The country has enough problems with the cost of the public sector and the old systems that need to be dismantled imo

liveline

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Is a vote for Labour a vote for trade unions and vested interests in the public sector ? Becasue if it is I will not vote for Labour, no way
The country has enough problems with the cost of the public sector and the old systems that need to be dismantled imo

Yes it is. Its a pity as I'd agree with Labour on a number of issues but unfortunately they're friends with fat cat trade unionists and put public sector workers above all else.

gcgirl

i think there is already a topic on this lads

telekon

Can someone start a thread entitled "A vote for FF is a vote for paedohilia"...you know because of their sheltering of the catholic church...

Seriously though, I would have thought these "A vote for bla bla is a vote for stag hunting, abortion, trade unions" threads would be considered trolling, no?

De Dannan

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Is a vote for Labour a vote for trade unions and vested interests in the public sector ? Becasue if it is I will not vote for Labour, no way
The country has enough problems with the cost of the public sector and the old systems that need to be dismantled imo

I think that Labours ties with the trade unions could be their downfall in this election. The majority of people worl in the private sector and dont want to continue to be second class citizens

WhiteRussian

Gilmore has the unions to thank for a hefty chunk of his campaign funding so he obviously needs to look after his trough-comrades

orpheus

Labour are far more interested in representing the workers than the unions.

WhiteRussian

orpheus wrote: »

Labour are far more interested in representing the workers than the unions.

If that's the BS you are buying then you are poor with your money

orpheus

WhiteRussian wrote: »

If that's the BS you are buying then you are poor with your money

That's a great point you made there. Tell me more about this "BS".

th3 s1aught3r

I am sure that the electorate can see through the Labour/Trade Union agenda.
Actually they can, they are slumping in the polls

De Dannan

liveline wrote: »

Yes it is. Its a pity as I'd agree with Labour on a number of issues but unfortunately they're friends with fat cat trade unionists and put public sector workers above all else.

And this system has to end. The PS is too big and costly to the state
I assume Labour would want to put their union friends in important positions of power and they are too close to them in general

Lockstep

WhiteRussian wrote: »

Gilmore has the unions to thank for a hefty chunk of his campaign funding so he obviously needs to look after his trough-comrades

Union contributions compose 4% of Labour's revenue.

Labour's strong links are mostly with private sector unions, during the boom public sector unions mainly backed FF.

ftnbase

De Dannan wrote: »

I assume Labour would want to put their union friends in important positions of power and they are too close to them in general

Surely not - hasn't Labour, and Eamon Gilmore in particular, been complaining that FF have been doing this for years so it would be hypocritical if they were to do the same.

Killer Pigeon

A vote for FG is a vote for IBEC and Thatcherite policies.

... see OP I can do it too.

Killer Pigeon

Lockstep wrote: »

Union contributions compose 4% of Labour's revenue.

Labour's strong links are mostly with private sector unions, during the boom public sector unions mainly backed FF.

That's like the 6th time in a week you wrote that.

Lockstep

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

That's like the 6th time in a week you wrote that.

Less than 6 but always equal to the number of times someone has claimed Labour get heavy union funding.

WhiteRussian

Lockstep wrote: »

Union contributions compose 4% of Labour's revenue.

Labour's strong links are mostly with private sector unions, during the boom public sector unions mainly backed FF.

But I was talking specifically about the leader of Labour. The same leader who has his own agenda to abolish Bunreacht na hEireann and make a fresh Constitution

Lockstep

Any sources showing how heavy this funding is?

Tim Robbins

LUCINDA CREIGHTON whoops it up in today's Irish Times. Gotta say - fair play. Some well made arguments.

Madam, – Séamus Dooley (February 18th) suggests trade unions cannot be “lumped in with those responsible for wrecking the Irish economy”. While neither Fine Gael nor I have declared war on trade unions, as he claims, we have consistently pointed to the role of senior trade union officials in the sort of cosy deals which characterised social partnership over the past 14 years. Decisions to increase pay and conditions for workers (particularly higher paid employees) in public sector positions, while failing to deliver the efficiencies and value for money which they committed to, has undoubtedly contributed in a major way to the massive deficit which now faces our country. We could not afford the deals that were struck between Jack O’Connor, David Begg and others with former taoiseach Bertie Ahern. That is not an attack on trade unions; it is simply fact.

In addition, trade union leaders, who sit on a multitude of State boards must accept the burden of responsibility for reckless decisions taken while they sat on these very boards. Many of these Government appointments were extremely well paid. It is far too easy and convenient to claim that trade union representatives can sit on the boards of State entities such as Fás, the Central Bank and Aer Lingus, without shouldering some of the responsibility for the waste and profligacy that occurred within. Board members are not innocent bystanders, irrespective of whether they are appointed as union representatives or on some other basis. They are charged with the role of watchdog, with legal and fiduciary duties to ensure that matters are managed in the best interest of taxpayers and citizens. I don’t think anyone could argue that this was the case in Fás.

One of Fine Gael’s core values is that of social solidarity. I don’t think we should be lectured by Mr. Dooley, Jack O’Connor or any other senior protagonist in the trade union movement on the issue of workers or wages. Where were these people over the past three years when 300,000 people lost their jobs and were forced to sign on to the live register? Where were they when 60,000 of our talented young people were forced to emigrate? So much for workers’ rights. Where were they when Fás received a budget of €1 billion per annum to deal with training and up-skilling at a time when the Government was boasting of zero unemployment rates? Where are the answers to the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee questions arising from a €2.4 million slush fund which has yet to be accounted for by Siptu? Where were the union leaders when our lowest paid workers were savagely attacked by the universal social charge introduced in last December’s budget? These are serious questions to which I have not heard credible answers.

To blithely suggest that any politician who questions the credentials of trade union leaders – some of who are paid in excess of €130,000, having objectively failed in their task to protect workers’ rights – is simply pursuing a “PD vote” is arrogant, dismissive and displays a profound ignorance of the demographics in my particular constituency. Our area has seen an enormous rise in unemployment, and everyone here, from the wealthiest parts of Dublin South East to the most deprived parts of the Inner City, has suffered enormously at the hands of poor decision-makers.

Most of the people who visit my weekly clinics in the inner city are not interested in posturing by trade union leaders about pay deals, they are focused on trying to get off the dole and get back to work. If Jack O’Connor and other trade union leaders are willing to engage with Fine Gael on solving the unemployment crisis and giving people real hope for a future in the country, they can rest assured, there is nothing whatsoever to fear. – Yours etc,

LUCINDA CREIGHTON TD,

(Dublin South East),

Fine Gael,

Leinster House, Dublin 2.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224290510036

th3 s1aught3r

Tim Robbins wrote: »

LUCINDA CREIGHTON whoops it up in today's Irish Times. Gotta say - fair play. Some well made arguments.



http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224290510036

Yes read this its worth a look

Idbatterim

the funny thing is, that no one is more interested in maintaining the status quo and wealth gap more than the unions! they certainly are great at spending other peoples money. Id like to know what businesses have these gobs***es ever run? the private sector generates wealth, we are very uncompetitive, pretty much all down to the government...

De Dannan

Idbatterim wrote: »

the funny thing is, that no one is more interested in maintaining the status quo and wealth gap more than the unions! they certainly are great at spending other peoples money. Id like to know what businesses have these gobs***es ever run? the private sector generates wealth, we are very uncompetitive, pretty much all down to the government...

Thats correct. Its very easy for them to spend taxpayers money like water with no accountability whatsoever
Unions claiming poverty when their own bosses have been milking it for years :mad:

th3 s1aught3r

De Dannan wrote: »

Thats correct. Its very easy for them to spend taxpayers money like water with no accountability whatsoever
Unions claiming poverty when their own bosses have been milking it for years :mad:

Not to mention the amount of top civil service positions they were willing to take up when Bertie offered them

hoorsmelt

This is rubbish. There is no way Labour are a party of the unions or PS workers.

1. Labour did not support any of the public sector strikes including the General strike in November 2009 or the CPSU strike in Feb 2009. They condemned both of them as counterproductive.
2. They supported Lisbon which copperfastens anti-union rulings like Laval.
3. They have said they won't be reversing any of the cuts.
4. Gilmore was eager on the debate the other night to let FG know that he'd support their efforts to cut more jubs from the public service.
5. Rabitte said that they will support selective privatisation of state assets.
6. They support the IMF deal which calls for a further €6 billion to be cut from public service expenditure.

Labour are not a left wing party and are virtually indistinguishable from FG/FF. The fact they take some donations from the unions is meaningless, Nu Labour did so too and I don't think anyone could argue that they were beholden to the trade unions.

As for the union leaders like Begg having some sort of stranglehold over politics and politicians when it comes to the economy, that too is rubbish. They have caved in on everything. They called a number of demonstrations and one day strikes at different times, only to go back into partnership talks each time. They got none of the cuts reversed. Lenihan unilaterally cut PS pay and pensions without them doing anything. In the private sector battles, they abandoned striking workers in Laura Ashley, the sparks went on strike and won a pay rise only for the beards to go back into partnership talks and negotiate a pay cut for them. The unions have been castrated by partnership and need to be rebuilt with an activist base before they can be considered a serious force again.