'Jobs to be lost' under new plans for union recognition

Count Dooku

'Jobs to be lost' under new plans for union recognition

MULTINATIONAL companies and some of the country's largest indigenous employers will be forced to recognise unions under planned legislation.

But employers' group IBEC claimed last night that thousands of jobs would be lost if the Government pushed through with the laws to make engaging with unions compulsory.

Major multinational employers, such as Intel, prefer to deal directly with employees on staffing issues through employee representative associations, made up of employees rather than union officials.

gateaux, coca cola, who next?

BTW
ICTU nominated FF John Hanafin as part of the Labour Panel.
https://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/a-letter-from-john-hanafin-ff-a-letter-to-david-begg/

Inverse to the power of one!

Old crony-ism under a new coalition, what's changed?

deise blue

I talked to a number of FG candidates pre election on this matter , they said that they felt that they had little option but to play nice with the Unions in respect of agreeing to introduce such legislation as they felt that any opposition to such legislation would not withstand a court challenge by the Unions.

danbohan

Count Dooku wrote: »

'Jobs to be lost' under new plans for union recognition


gateaux, coca cola, who next?

BTW
ICTU nominated FF John Hanafin as part of the Labour Panel.
https://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/a-letter-from-john-hanafin-ff-a-letter-to-david-begg/

nuts , what this country needs at a time of national emergency is a ban on all trade unions not pandering to them .

RichardAnd

danbohan wrote: »

nuts , what this country needs at a time of national emergency is a ban on all trade unions not pandering to them .

Welcome back Dan and congragulations on yet another utterly asinine remark.

Unions can cause trouble, no doubt about it but anything can when taken to extremes. Without them, however, we would not have two day weekends, paid holidays, sick leave, fair employment laws and all the other benifits that we enjoy as part of a fair working system.

Many unions have lost their way, public sector unions being a prime example of this, but at the heart, they are organisations that exist on the principal of giving the working man a fair chance at life. If there were no unions at all, it would mean a considerably worse life for many, many people under the sun.

Nody

RichardAnd wrote: »

Welcome back Dan and congragulations on yet another utterly asinine remark.

Unions can cause trouble, no doubt about it but anything can when taken to extremes. Without them, however, we would not have two day weekends, paid holidays, sick leave, fair employment laws and all the other benifits that we enjoy as part of a fair working system.

Many unions have lost their way, public sector unions being a prime example of this, but at the heart, they are organisations that exist on the principal of giving the working man a fair chance at life. If there were no unions at all, it would mean a considerably worse life for many, many people under the sun.

Is that not the point though? The unions of today are not working for the best of the workers but rather for the best of themselves including fat salaries at the top. Unions did serve a purpose which I believe no one disagrees with; the question is if unions serve a purpose TODAY with the current legislation...

Having been on both sides of unions I can tell you in general I'd lean towards no. Unions are very rarely add value in the relationship of either party and tend to slow things down in terms of changes to work practice, getting out people who pull down the team due to poor performance etc. This adds a big negative when doing things, esp. if you deal with American companies (I've had some impressive cursing over German unions for example because of this).

Count Dooku

RichardAnd wrote: »

Without them, however, we would not have two day weekends, paid holidays, sick leave, fair employment laws and all the other benifits that we enjoy as part of a fair working system.

Public services is perfect example where unions want to bring country - 42 days paid holidays, 11 days sick leave, fair employment for union members on expense of everybody else
It was two reasons why MNC's were investing into Ireland - low CT and protection from unions racket. It looks like that it doesn't make any sense to preserve CT anymore, unions will ruin FDI as they did it with Irish industry

gonedrinking

Having the whole country receive privilege days and "bank time" will be absolutely disastrous for this country, the last thing we need right now. But thats what we get for voting labour/unions into government.

deise blue

Nody wrote: »

Is that not the point though? The unions of today are not working for the best of the workers but rather for the best of themselves including fat salaries at the top. Unions did serve a purpose which I believe no one disagrees with; the question is if unions serve a purpose TODAY with the current legislation...

Having been on both sides of unions I can tell you in general I'd lean towards no. Unions are very rarely add value in the relationship of either party and tend to slow things down in terms of changes to work practice, getting out people who pull down the team due to poor performance etc. This adds a big negative when doing things, esp. if you deal with American companies (I've had some impressive cursing over German unions for example because of this).

I must disagree.

I worked for an large autonomous heavily Unionised department within a large Financial Services company.

This department was then merged with a non unionised larger entity within the same company , both we & our new colleagues were staggered to discover how much better our union negotiated terms & conditions were.

I enjoyed 5 more annual leave days , a shorter working day and all overtime was recorded & paid for unlike our non unionised colleagues.

It was also quite obvious that prior to the amalgamation the Company was breaching employment legislation in several areas as individuals felt they would be unfairly treated if they raised such issues but subsequently as the Union became involved adherence to employment legislation was nearly total.

sollar

Count Dooku wrote: »

Public services is perfect example where unions want to bring country - 42 days paid holidays,

Probably only 1% or 2% of PS staff get these holidays, but don't let that get in the way of your mud slinging.

SupaNova

Major multinational employers, such as Intel, prefer to deal directly with employees on staffing issues through employee representative associations, made up of employees rather than union officials.

Whats wrong with this way of doing things?

Bucklesman

SupaNova wrote: »

Whats wrong with this way of doing things?

It give the employer all the power and the abilty to exploit it should they so desire.

SupaNova

I worked for an large autonomous heavily Unionised department within a large Financial Services company.

This department was then merged with a non unionised larger entity within the same company , both we & our new colleagues were staggered to discover how much better our union negotiated terms & conditions were.

I enjoyed 5 more annual leave days , a shorter working day and all overtime was recorded & paid for unlike our non unionised colleagues.

It was also quite obvious that prior to the amalgamation the Company was breaching employment legislation in several areas as individuals felt they would be unfairly treated if they raised such issues but subsequently as the Union became involved adherence to employment legislation was nearly total.

Anytime a union gets extra paid holidays or increased wages the cost is simply passed onto the customer. So the people who benefit from unions are the ones who are in the most successful and most organized.

If you feel you are underpaid or getting unfair holidays, you should negotiate with your employer and get increased holidays and pay based on merit not through unions.

SupaNova

It give the employer all the power and the abilty to exploit it should they so desire.

If you are working with a company at X wage. And you feel your productivity is above everyone else on X wage with the same job title you have power to negotiate. Unions give you power to negotiate without increasing your productivity.

You really think people don't get better contracts and salaries without unions?

RichardAnd

Nody wrote: »

Is that not the point though? The unions of today are not working for the best of the workers but rather for the best of themselves including fat salaries at the top. Unions did serve a purpose which I believe no one disagrees with; the question is if unions serve a purpose TODAY with the current legislation...

Having been on both sides of unions I can tell you in general I'd lean towards no. Unions are very rarely add value in the relationship of either party and tend to slow things down in terms of changes to work practice, getting out people who pull down the team due to poor performance etc. This adds a big negative when doing things, esp. if you deal with American companies (I've had some impressive cursing over German unions for example because of this).

I believe they do have a pourpose. We no longer have sweat-shop like cotton mills or dawn to dusk field labourers but the reason they are no more is because workers formed unions and fought tooth and nail for a decent standard of work and a fair wage. If unions were to disappear, it's possible all the good work done over the centuries could be unmade.

You see, whilst I am not a socialist, I do recognise that capitolism has dangerous qualities to is. One of these is the persuit of profit before the welfare of human beings. This can already be seen today in employers abusing the WPP or cutting wages when they don't have to. With no unity, there would be no way to stand up against such avarice.

So yes, unions today might be bloated with greed and corruption but many are not and at their core, they exist to create a fairer world for us all.

SupaNova

Yes unions may have done good work in the past. Is their any evidence today the big MNC's and biggest Irish companies here are exploiting their employees. Are the employees of these companies calling for unions, or is it a move for unions to expand for their own interest?

So yes, unions today might be bloated with greed and corruption but many are not and at their core, they exist to create a fairer world for us all.

Smacks more of how you describe unions today. Again are people working with the companies this will affect being treated unfairly?

Welease

RichardAnd wrote: »

I believe they do have a pourpose. We no longer have sweat-shop like cotton mills or dawn to dusk field labourers but the reason they are no more is because workers formed unions and fought tooth and nail for a decent standard of work and a fair wage. If unions were to disappear, it's possible all the good work done over the centuries could be unmade.

You see, whilst I am not a socialist, I do recognise that capitolism has dangerous qualities to is. One of these is the persuit of profit before the welfare of human beings. This can already be seen today in employers abusing the WPP or cutting wages when they don't have to. With no unity, there would be no way to stand up against such avarice.

So yes, unions today might be bloated with greed and corruption but many are not and at their core, they exist to create a fairer world for us all.

Employment Legislation doesn't cease to exist just because unions are not engaged..

20Cent

Welease wrote: »

Employment Legislation doesn't cease to exist just because unions are not engaged..

Taking an employer to court can be expensive and difficult to do. Many employers will take the risk of messing with someones contract knowing that fighting it will be time consuming and expensive so the employee just lets it go in the end or can't afford to pursue it.

SupaNova

Taking an employer to court can be expensive and difficult to do. Many employers will take the risk of messing with someones contract knowing that fighting it will be time consuming and expensive so the employee just lets it go in the end or can't afford to pursue it.

Are the companies affected known for messing with their employees contracts?

The standard line of unions today is to tell people they are already being exploited or will be exploited with no real evidence to back up these claims.

RichardAnd

Welease wrote: »

Employment Legislation doesn't cease to exist just because unions are not engaged..

Not immediatly no. But as the above poster pointed out, just because there is legislation doesn't mean it will be enforced.

Look, I'm not making the argument that public service style super unions should be everywhere, I'm simply making a point that people should be very wary of dismissing all unions as being corrupt.

It's very easy for someone to come onto these boards and say all unions are antiquated organisatiosn that only hinder work but many people who say that have never been in the position of needing a union's help. When I was in the civil service, I knew a girl who was being bullied by her co-workers and her manager wouldn't do anythign for her. On my encouragement, she contacted the union and the whole issue was sorted in a matter of days.

Just because it's the 21st century doesn't mean ideals from centuries ago no longer hold truth. Workers need to stand up for themselves when they're unfairly treated and whilst they are anything but perfect, sometimes unions allow them to do just that.

Laminations

Is IBEC (the people who warn that 'jobs will be lost') not a union-esque representative group that enagage in collective bargaining and lobbying also? So a union to represent business interests is fine, but workers interests is bad?

K-9

Laminations wrote: »

Is IBEC (the people who warn that 'jobs will be lost') not a union-esque representative group that enagage in collective bargaining and lobbying also? So a union to represent business interests is fine, but workers interests is bad?

Indeed and banks and big multi nationals tend to be where it gets its main funding.

gurramok

SupaNova wrote: »

Yes unions may have done good work in the past. Is their any evidence today the big MNC's and biggest Irish companies here are exploiting their employees. Are the employees of these companies calling for unions, or is it a move for unions to expand for their own interest?

Smacks more of how you describe unions today. Again are people working with the companies this will affect being treated unfairly?

Take the rose tinted glasses off. Some MNC's that are household names are ruthless towards their employees hence the need for a union. The open door policy does not work in some companies, its exploited by the employer. Such legislation is welcomed in my eyes.

Some MNC's treat their employees fairly well, these have nothing to fear from such legislation. The scaremongering of job losses in the article is hilarious as some unions already operate in some MNC's and all is fine with job creation and retention, in other words no affect on their operations..

SupaNova

Take the rose tinted glasses off. Some MNC's that are household names are ruthless towards their employees hence the need for a union. The open door policy does not work in some companies, its exploited by the employer. Such legislation is welcomed in my eyes.

Which MNC's here are ruthless, and can you give me an example of their ruthlessness?

Some MNC's treat their employees fairly well, these have nothing to fear from such legislation. The scaremongering of job losses in the article is hilarious as some unions already operate in some MNC's and all is fine with job creation and retention, in other words no affect on their operations..

I agree with you on the scaremongering. The scaremongering on the other side i find equally hilarious. The cries of exploitation and ruthless MNC's with no evidence that it is a problem.

sollar

An american company set up in donegal about 15 years ago. When they arrived the jobs were relatively well paid and they had a few perks like free coffee, subsidised canteen etc. They would not recognise unions at all though.

Slowly over the years they withdrew the perks, no pay increases at all for 7 years during the boom despite raving about how proud the parent company was of the irish operation.

There was a complete farce of a situation where they employed an assistant manager and within a few weeks told the staff that they had to withdraw the free coffee as it was costing too much. But shortly after the new assistant manager arrives in with a brand new company BMW.

A union would not have tolerated this nonsense.

gurramok

SupaNova wrote: »

Which MNC's here are ruthless, and can you give me an example of their ruthlessness?

Expecting employees to work overtime on a reduced rate or no pay at all unless the job is done on time, this is set to unrealistic goals. Denying employees any pay rises/bonuses pre-recession while the company and its management enjoyed these perks in boom time. Denying employees the prospect of promotion despite the employee going beyond the call of duty, no reward or thanks for the hard work involved.
Outsourcing the employees to a 'sister' company in order to avoid the prospect of paying ex gratia redundancy(not covered under TUPE) despite the work still existing and also hiring contractors to do the same work while management get ex gratia redundancy themselves. That's only some of the issues involved.

SupaNova

Expecting employees to work overtime on a reduced rate or no pay at all unless the job is done on time, this is set to unrealistic goals. Denying employees any pay rises/bonuses pre-recession while the company and its management enjoyed these perks in boom time. Denying employees the prospect of promotion despite the employee going beyond the call of duty, no reward or thanks for the hard work involved.
Outsourcing the employees to a 'sister' company in order to avoid the prospect of paying ex gratia redundancy(not covered under TUPE) despite the work still existing and also hiring contractors to do the same work while management get ex gratia redundancy themselves. That's only some of the issues involved.

Still no names. I don't know about every MNC but I know people working in 3 different Software Companies and they like working there and have never mentioned things like you mention happening.

Have only been in contact with one of them recently, but he worked his way up to a management position.

danbohan

RichardAnd wrote: »

Welcome back Dan and congragulations on yet another utterly asinine remark.

Unions can cause trouble, no doubt about it but anything can when taken to extremes. Without them, however, we would not have two day weekends, paid holidays, sick leave, fair employment laws and all the other benifits that we enjoy as part of a fair working system.

Many unions have lost their way, public sector unions being a prime example of this, but at the heart, they are organisations that exist on the principal of giving the working man a fair chance at life. If there were no unions at all, it would mean a considerably worse life for many, many people under the sun.

unions have their place in the past of that their can be no doubt , but Ireland is a sinking ship and needs salvaging now , its not good time to be discussing padding on the lifeboat seats ,when this country is on an even keel again whenever that may be then you can look at those things but for now it should be all hands on deck and anybody that trys to stop that salvage ie unions should be dealt with as enemies of the country

deise blue

Laminations wrote: »

Is IBEC (the people who warn that 'jobs will be lost') not a union-esque representative group that enagage in collective bargaining and lobbying also? So a union to represent business interests is fine, but workers interests is bad?

Couldn't agree more.

IBEC are a registered Trade Union , the hypocrisy of attempting to deny collective bargaining rights to employees is breath taking !

After all what they are indulging in is collectively representing their members with their recent media comments.

SupaNova

Slowly over the years they withdrew the perks, no pay increases at all for 7 years during the boom despite raving about how proud the parent company was of the irish operation.

If perks are not part of the contract, they haven't done anything wrong. Likewise with pay rises. If you feel you are entitled to a pay rise through increased productivity you can negotiate.

There was a complete farce of a situation where they employed an assistant manager and within a few weeks told the staff that they had to withdraw the free coffee as it was costing too much. But shortly after the new assistant manager arrives in with a brand new company BMW.

Did he buy a BMW on the back of cutting coffee from perks? or did he just own a BMW.

A union would not have tolerated this nonsense.

Business are looking to cut costs all the time. It's not nonsense. Cutting coffee is stingy all the same.

SupaNova

Couldn't agree more.

IBEC are a registered Trade Union , the hypocrisy of attempting to deny collective bargaining rights to employees is breath taking !

After all what they are indulging in is collectively representing their members with their recent media comments.

Major multinational employers, such as Intel, prefer to deal directly with employees on staffing issues through employee representative associations, made up of employees rather than union officials.

They are not being denied their bargaining rights. Again is this really a move being pushed by employees of these companies? Are they really suffering from exploitation?

sollar

SupaNova wrote: »

If perks are not part of the contract, they haven't done anything wrong.

Thats just the point, without unions if they can get away with screwing the worker then they will. Better to have a union in place to fight their corner.

SupaNova wrote: »

Did he buy a BMW on the back of cutting coffee from perks? or did he just own a BMW..

They claimed the coffee/machines/maintenence etc was costing them 10's of thousands per year. They bought the assistant manager a company car within weeks of withdrawing the coffee. BTW they started charging for the coffee then. I didn't work there but i heard enough about it at the time from 2 friends who were working there.

SupaNova

Thats just the point, without unions if they can get away with screwing the worker then they will. Better to have a union in place to fight their corner.

I wouldn't call cutting out free coffee screwing the worker.

They claimed the coffee/machines/maintenence etc was costing them 10's of thousands per year. They bought the assistant manager a company car within weeks of withdrawing the coffee. BTW they started charging for the coffee then. I didn't work there but i heard enough about it at the time from 2 friends who were working there.

If there was a direct correlation between the coffee and the BMW, buying a guy a BMW was cheaper than giving free coffee.

Is there really a need for a union because companies are making ruthless cuts such as no free coffee?

mikemac

Cosmetics company in Tipperary, there for decades.
Sure I may as well name it, Procter & Gamble, a well known corporation.

SIPTU are very strong in the factory, well over 90% membership, probably over 95%.
Permanent staff are treated very well and the company has a great reputation in the area.....if you are permanent.

For the last number of years, they hired staff, let them go after six months and then you are forced to reapply for your job.
I know someone who did this three times.

Yeah it keeps the workforce flexible I suppose but the thread wanted ruthless examples and I call that ruthless.
You can be better then the permanent employee working beside you but they don't face a few weeks of unemployment every six months

deise blue

SupaNova wrote: »

They are not being denied their bargaining rights. Again is this really a move being pushed by employees of these companies? Are they really suffering from exploitation?

As it currently stands , employers ( whether they are MNC's or small & medium enterprises etc. ) are obliged to recognise employees right to be a member of a Trade Union however such employers are not obliged to negotiate with that Trade Union - which is the crux of the matter - hence the denial of collective bargaining rights of Unions in such firms should the employees of that firm wish a Union to collectively bargain on their behalf and the firm refuses to negotiate with the Union.

It should be pointed out that a large number of employers do currently recognise the rights of Unions to represent and negotiate on behalf of members but many do not.








This is what the mooted legislation aims to change , Employers will have to negotiate with Unions if legislation is passed.

Count Dooku

deise blue wrote: »

As it currently stands , employers ( whether they are MNC's or small & medium enterprises etc. ) are obliged to recognise employees right to be a member of a Trade Union however such employers are not obliged to negotiate with that Trade Union - which is the crux of the matter - hence the denial of collective bargaining rights of Unions in such firms.

I would put it other way

Major multinational employers, such as Intel, prefer to deal directly with employees on staffing issues through employee representative associations, made up of employees rather than union officials.

union don't want to lose control over collective bargaining and as result massive pay to union leaders, if it can be done without them

sollar

SupaNova wrote: »

I wouldn't call cutting out free coffee screwing the worker.

If there was a direct correlation between the coffee and the BMW, buying a guy a BMW was cheaper than giving free coffee.

Is there really a need for a union because companies are making ruthless cuts such as no free coffee?

Why are you singling out coffee as if that was the only issue. I mentioned in my post that they systematically cut perks and wouldn't give any payrises for 7 years despite the company doing well. Nobody got payrises.

If you think its OK to buy the new guy a BMW at the expense of workers coffee etc then we have completely differing views of whats fair in a workplace.

Making staff buy their own coffee after getting it free for years and spending the savings on a BMW for the new assistant manager would be truely inspiring and great for morale i'd say!!

Tipp Man

feelingstressed wrote: »

Cosmetics company in Tipperary, there for decades.
Sure I may as well name it, Procter & Gamble, a well known corporation.

SIPTU are very strong in the factory, well over 90% membership, probably over 95%.
Permanent staff are treated very well and the company has a great reputation in the area.....if you are permanent.

For the last number of years, they hired staff, let them go after six months and then you are forced to reapply for your job.
I know someone who did this three times.

Yeah it keeps the workforce flexible I suppose but the thread wanted ruthless examples and I call that ruthless.
You can be better then the permanent employee working beside you but they don't face a few weeks of unemployment every six months

I wonder is it better to s##t on a few employees to keep the factory open or go on militant action and get the whole factory closed down??

Personally i think unions cost employees as much jobs as they create and by creating such an inflexible workforce the unions are infact contributing to unemployment and stopping the "better" workers from progressing

Interesting that many people see a pay increase as a "right". My own thoughts, if you're not happy with your lot then get out of it

Count Dooku

sollar wrote: »

Why are you singling out coffee as if that was the only issue. I mentioned in my post that they systematically cut perks and wouldn't give any payrises for 7 years despite the company doing well.

Is company doing well from hard of Irish staff or company doing well from hard work of staff in other countries and ability to maximize profits by declaring incomes in country with low CT?

pocketvenus

sollar wrote: »

Why are you singling out coffee as if that was the only issue. I mentioned in my post that they systematically cut perks and wouldn't give any payrises for 7 years despite the company doing well. Nobody got payrises.

If you think its OK to buy the new guy a BMW at the expense of workers coffee etc then we have completely differing views of whats fair in a workplace.

Making staff buy their own coffee after getting it free for years and spending the savings on a BMW for the new assistant manager would be truely inspiring and great for morale i'd say!!

You mention nobody got payrises in the 7 years so what. The company may be doing well but that does not automatically entitle any employee to more pay. Maybe this is the reson the company is still open, I presume it still is. Aren't we told that we lost the run of ourselves with wages during boom where people expected huge wages just because we were in the Celtic Tiger.
If they got those pay rises and now the compnay needed to reduce them in order to survive and stay open the employee's would refuse and be giving out about it being a disgrace.
None of those employees starved and are probably in a job today because of it.

Crying over no more free coffee that is such a hardship. :rolleyes: Alot of companies do not offer free coffee. If that is all that is bothering them well I would hate to see them survive in some of the cost cutting measures companies today have to implement.

You have no proof re the BMW - just staff speculation and resentment as they lost a couple of free cups of coffee a day.

SupaNova

For the last number of years, they hired staff, let them go after six months and then you are forced to reapply for your job. I know someone who did this three times.

My sister was working for another pharmaceutical factory in Tipp, i must ask if they done similar. What is the exact reason for this?

SupaNova

Interesting that many people see a pay increase as a "right". My own thoughts, if you're not happy with your lot then get out of it

If someone else who is unemployed can do your job for your current wage why would should you get a wage increase?

for the person who knows someone in the Donegal company. Did anyone ask for a pay rise in 15 years? if they asked and didn't get one, was it because someone else would have been more than happy to work on the existing wage?

whiteonion

We should allow corporations to hire hitmen to assasinate union officials and allow child labour. This will make us very competitive like highly succesful countries such as Nigeria and Angola.

sollar

pocketvenus wrote: »

Crying over no more free coffee that is such a hardship. :rolleyes: Alot of companies do not offer free coffee. If that is all that is bothering them well I would hate to see them survive in some of the cost cutting measures companies today have to implement..

Well thats obviously not all that was bothering them as you would know if you retained any info as you read through these threads. Its just an example of what companies do to their staff when there are no unions.

pocketvenus wrote: »

You have no proof re the BMW - just staff speculation and resentment as they lost a couple of free cups of coffee a day.

We dont need hard proof for everything in this life. I'm more that happy that my friends were correct. They were not that far removed from management themselves.

deise blue

Count Dooku wrote: »

I would put it other way

union don't want to lose control over collective bargaining and as result massive pay to union leaders, if it can be done without them

Let's not be naive , Intel would of course prefer to deal with an employee representative group who are by their nature going to be hugely compliant by comparison with seasoned Union negotiators.

At last , however , when this promised legislation is introduced employees nationwide will be able to opt for an employee representative group or a Union to negotiate on their behalf - I know who I'd pick !

20Cent

Tipp Man wrote: »

I wonder is it better to s##t on a few employees to keep the factory open or go on militant action and get the whole factory closed down??

Personally i think unions cost employees as much jobs as they create and by creating such an inflexible workforce the unions are infact contributing to unemployment and stopping the "better" workers from progressing

Interesting that many people see a pay increase as a "right". My own thoughts, if you're not happy with your lot then get out of it

Have there been any businesses shut down recently due to "militant union action"? Can't recall any myself.
Only one day of strike as well, considering the massive changes and cuts brought in the unions have been pussycats.

sarumite

Laminations wrote: »

Is IBEC (the people who warn that 'jobs will be lost') not a union-esque representative group that enagage in collective bargaining and lobbying also? So a union to represent business interests is fine, but workers interests is bad?

Not really. IBEC is more akin to ICTU. The former is an organisation that represents business at a national level, whereas the latter is an organistion that represent unions at a national level.

Count Dooku

20Cent wrote: »

Have there been any businesses shut down recently due to "militant union action"? Can't recall any myself.

Mohawk Europa in 2007 and Gateaux in 1990

Laminations

sarumite wrote: »

Not really. IBEC is more akin to ICTU. The former is an organisation that represents business at a national level, whereas the latter is an organistion that represent unions at a national level.

The point is though, it is an association of members and it represents those members interests, it lobbys and engages in collective bargaining. This legislation isn't dictating to a company that they have to go through a union, it is telling them that if their employees wish to be represented by union then the company needs to recognise the union and negotiate at that level. The employees still need to sign up to be represented by a union. I worked in a retailer that didn't allow union representation, employees were not treated well.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

Not really. IBEC is more akin to ICTU. The former is an organisation that represents business at a national level, whereas the latter is an organistion that represent unions at a national level.

IBEC is a registered Trade Union that collectively represents it's members ( including MNC's , Banks & the larger Irish Companies ) in areas of mutual concern to such members

sarumite

Laminations wrote: »

The point is though, it is an association of members and it represents those members interests, it lobbys and engages in collective bargaining. This legislation isn't dictating to a company that they have to go through a union, it is telling them that if their employees wish to be represented by union then the company needs to recognise the union and negotiate at that level. The employees still need to sign up to be represented by a union. I worked in a retailer that didn't allow union representation, employees were not treated well.

I have worked in both unionised and non-unionised. I would agree the non-unionised place does not have the same bargaining rights (the Staff-employer consultation group that was used was a joke). That said a militant union (and unfortunately I was a member of one) is more damaging than no union at all. A good union (and luckily I was a member of one) is worth its weight in gold.

IF you are going to force an employer to recognise a union, then there needs to be rules that stop a union from becoming a destructive force. I don't know if such rules could be flexible enough to be workable.

All of this is irrelevant to the point I was making which is that IBEC is similar to ICTU (both collective bargain etc at a national level) and not actually a union.