JLC Pay rates ruled unconstitutional

Cookie_Monster

For the fast food sector anyway, but presumably this will apply across all sectors if tested in the courts also.

May lead to some interesting (unfortunate) times as businesses use it as an excuse to cut wages back down...

The High Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for joint labour committees to set pay rates for the fast food sector.

JLCs allow for wages to be set above the legal minimums and the case against them was taken by case was taken by fast food operators, including John Grace Fried Chicken.

The case will be welcomed by many businesses but also has implications for workers whose minimum pay and conditions are set under employment regulation orders.

It was argued the JLC system is Edwardian and unconstitutional as it allows committees rather than the Oireachtas to set rates in certain industries.

The system has also caused controversy between the coalition partners as Labour TDs rebelled against plans by Fine Gael’s enterprise ministers Richard Bruton to reform the way the committees set premium payments

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/high-court-rules-in-favour-of-businesses-setting-own-pay-rates-2815564.html

Godge

Will be interested to read the full decision as the headlines don't always tell the full story.

Was the decision based on the unrepresentative nature of the employer group? Was it because of the differences between Dublin and the rest of the country? Or was it much broader relating to the rights of individual property owners or the right to disassociate rather than the right to associate? The detailed grounds on which the decision was made will determine its general applicability.

And of course, there is every likelihood of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Shelflife

While the theory behind the jlcs were good , in practise they made little sense, the idea behind a sunday premium in this day and age is crazy, esp when the business cant increase their prices to offset this.

you also have the blatantly unfair senario whereby a grocery shop with an off licence would HAVE to pay an employee over €12 per hr and a stand alone off licence could pay their employee €8.65 that a difference of 42%, how are they expected to compete if they are forced to pay 42% more.

the jlc also forced an increase on the retail sector when many were closing and simply couldnt afford it , some companies were forced into redundancy situations where staff voted to take a pay cut and no redundancies , the jlc rates were forced on them and staff had to be laid off.

Personally, i think there should be a min wage and then let the market decide the rest.

sollar

Watch the social welfare bill of 21 billion rise even further now as people think why bother working.

Godge

sollar wrote: »

Watch the social welfare bill of 21 billion rise even further now as people think why bother working.

Yes, you have identified a significant flaw in the government's position. Our unsustainably high (by all international standards) social welfare rates have created a floor for wages that means the economy is stuck in a rut.

The need to cut social welfare rates is greater than ever if this country is ever to recover.

HellFireClub

It's hard to see why an employer who doesn't recognise unions or welcome unions into their workplace, should have to be bound by a JLA. If you wish to consult your employees directly on a 1:1 basis in relation to pay, terms and conditions, why should some committee of locally appointed union officials and other such loo-laa's instruct you otherwise???

You offer a fair rate of pay for the job that is at or above the minimum wage, surely it is between you and the potential employee, as to what happens thereafter, without interference in your business by committee's, talking shops and the rest of it???

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

It's hard to see why an employer who doesn't recognise unions or welcome unions into their workplace, should have to be bound by a JLA. If you wish to consult your employees directly on a 1:1 basis in relation to pay, terms and conditions, why should some committee of locally appointed union officials and other such loo-laa's instruct you otherwise???

You offer a fair rate of pay for the job that is at or above the minimum wage, surely it is between you and the potential employee, as to what happens thereafter, without interference in your business by committee's, talking shops and the rest of it???

Eh, freedom of association, guaranteed under the Constitution, means your employees can join a union if they wish. Of course, you don't have to recognise it or negotiate with it but you may find yourself with a strike on your hands. If you have the resources of Ryanair, you might fight and win a case at the Supreme Court, otherwise you may have to live with unions.

HellFireClub

Godge wrote: »

Eh, freedom of association, guaranteed under the Constitution, means your employees can join a union if they wish. Of course, you don't have to recognise it or negotiate with it but you may find yourself with a strike on your hands. If you have the resources of Ryanair, you might fight and win a case at the Supreme Court, otherwise you may have to live with unions.

Yeah I'm all for freedom of association, and I'm also all for consultation and negotiation. But having started up a business of my own, I would NEVER allow myself to be dictated to in terms of who is running the show and that extends to who gets paid what, etc.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I'm all for consultation and fair play and negotiation, but at the end of the day, it's management that makes decisions, not staff, or external committes or union led talking shops, and management are accountable for those decisions.

What is the point in JLC's imposing costs on businesses that might force a business to be unprofitable, because of some large multinational competitor in town who has used fancy job descriptions and legal advice to get around the JLC process and lower wages, while you as a small business could be unable to compete with your competitor???

Will the JLC's take responsibility for your business then, when it has effectively set you up for failure?!?

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yeah I'm all for freedom of association, and I'm also all for consultation and negotiation. But having started up a business of my own, I would NEVER allow myself to be dictated to in terms of who is running the show and that extends to who gets paid what, etc.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I'm all for consultation and fair play and negotiation, but at the end of the day, it's management that makes decisions, not staff, or external committes or union led talking shops, and management are accountable for those decisions.

What is the point in JLC's imposing costs on businesses that might force a business to be unprofitable, because of some large multinational competitor in town who has used fancy job descriptions and legal advice to get around the JLC process and lower wages, while you as a small business could be unable to compete with your competitor???

Will the JLC's take responsibility for your business then, when it has effectively set you up for failure?!?

You misunderstood me, I was not defending JLCs, I was just defending employees' rights to join a union and have that union negotiate with an employer and ultimately, the right to withdraw labour and strike (in accordance with the law) if the employees deem that necessary and appropriate.

HellFireClub

Godge wrote: »

You misunderstood me, I was not defending JLCs, I was just defending employees' rights to join a union

Your right to this is enshrined in the constitution... ^^^

Godge wrote: »

and have that union negotiate with an employer and ultimately, the right to withdraw labour and strike (in accordance with the law) if the employees deem that necessary and appropriate.

There is no right in the constitution, or on the statute books, or indeed anywhere, for this...^^^

People are entitled to join a trade union but employers are equally entitled to insist on dealing with employees on a 1:1 basis if they see fit. At the end of the day, a company is someone's property, (a shareholder or shareholder(s) own a company), and they are entitled to run it (by appointing a board of directors), and operate it as they see fit, save in accordance with the law, pursuant to the property rights of the person, which are enshrined in article 40 of the constitution. The law in this current case has been held to be a law passed by the oireachtas, which is ultimately accountable to the people of Ireland, and not the law as it defined by some quazi judicial/makey uppy entity such as a JLC with fat cats and union officials sitting on it, and rightly so in my opinion.

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

Your right to this is enshrined in the constitution... ^^^



There is no right in the constitution, or on the statute books, or indeed anywhere, for this...^^^

People are entitled to join a trade union but employers are equally entitled to insist on dealing with employees on a 1:1 basis if they see fit. At the end of the day, a company is someone's property, (a shareholder or shareholder(s) own a company), and they are entitled to run it (by appointing a board of directors), and operate it as they see fit, save in accordance with the law, pursuant to the property rights of the person, which are enshrined in article 40 of the constitution. The law in this current case has been held to be a law passed by the oireachtas, which is ultimately accountable to the people of Ireland, and not the law as it defined by some quazi judicial/makey uppy entity such as a JLC with fat cats and union officials sitting on it, and rightly so in my opinion.

Of course employers are free to put their head in the sand when confronted with a union and they will get away with it if they are Ryanair and willing to go to the Supreme Court on a technicality or if they are decent employers as their employees will back down. However, you are wrong about the unfettered rights of employers. There is such a thing called the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 which governs trade disputes between employers and employees and enshrines within it the right to strike.

HellFireClub

Godge wrote: »

Of course employers are free to put their head in the sand when confronted with a union and they will get away with it if they are Ryanair and willing to go to the Supreme Court on a technicality or if they are decent employers as their employees will back down. However, you are wrong about the unfettered rights of employers. There is such a thing called the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 which governs trade disputes between employers and employees and enshrines within it the right to strike.

If you want to run a business, then start up one of your own and see how you get on, and in paarticular, see how hard it is to turn a profit when you have a committee full of gobshítes forcing you to pay stupid rates of pay that make you uncompetitive.

Some company owners do not want to be told how to run their businesses and that is their right. There is no law compelling employers to recognise a union and this is the legal situation for the smallest company or the largest multinational.

This legal ruling demonstrates that.

Godge

HellFireClub wrote: »

If you want to run a business, then start up one of your own and see how you get on, and in paarticular, see how hard it is to turn a profit when you have a committee full of gobshítes forcing you to pay stupid rates of pay that make you uncompetitive.

Some company owners do not want to be told how to run their businesses and that is their right. There is no law compelling employers to recognise a union and this is the legal situation for the smallest company or the largest multinational.

This legal ruling demonstrates that.

You are still not reading my posts. I agree with the overturning of the JLCs but I defend the rights of trade unions and the right to strike.

As for the requirement to recognise a union, you are right but there is a case winding its way to Europe that may change all that. And as I pointed out, they can strike if you don't treat them well enough.

Sleepy

Curiosity: does it also enshrine the right to fire workers for striking?

RichardAnd

Sleepy wrote: »

Curiosity: does it also enshrine the right to fire workers for striking?

That would be un-fair dismissal which is illegal, thankfully so.

HivemindXX

HellFireClub wrote: »

If you want to run a business, then start up one of your own and see how you get on, and in paarticular, see how hard it is to turn a profit when you have a committee full of gobshítes forcing you to pay stupid rates of pay that make you uncompetitive.

Some company owners do not want to be told how to run their businesses and that is their right. There is no law compelling employers to recognise a union and this is the legal situation for the smallest company or the largest multinational.

This legal ruling demonstrates that.

You've ignored the previous post. If your employees are unionised you are perfectly entitled to stick your head in the sand and ignore them. Nothing except common sense and a desire to preserve your company can take that away from you.

Riskymove

Godge wrote: »

Will be interested to read the full decision as the headlines don't always tell the full story.

indeed, already it seems that rather than the concept of the pay rates being the issue, its that the power being given to a committee is the problem.

Mr Justice Kevin Feeney yesterday declared unconstitutional laws under which minimum pay and conditions are set under employment regulation orders proposed by joint labour committees for approval by the Labour Court.

He granted declarations that the relevant provisions of the 1946 and 1990 Industrial Relations Acts were unconstitutional after finding they delegated “excessive” law-making powers concerning pay and conditions to joint labour committees and the Labour Court without stating any policies or principles to guide those powers.

the_syco

Sleepy wrote: »

Curiosity: does it also enshrine the right to fire workers for striking?

If the person is there less than a year, they can find themselves without a job soon enough if their strike puts the business into any trouble.

sarumite

HivemindXX wrote: »

You've ignored the previous post. If your employees are unionised you are perfectly entitled to stick your head in the sand and ignore them. Nothing except common sense and a desire to preserve your company can take that away from you.

There are plenty of profitable business that do not recognise unions.

Sleepy

RichardAnd wrote: »

That would be un-fair dismissal which is illegal, thankfully so.

So if a union call a strike over unreasonable pay demands for example, how long is the employer legally expected to hold the union members jobs for them?

Seems like madness to me, surely a failure to turn up for work and a direct attempt to prevent the organisation from carrying out it's business via a picket line would be grounds for dismissal if the company doesn't recognize the union?

HellFireClub

Sleepy wrote: »

So if a union call a strike over unreasonable pay demands for example, how long is the employer legally expected to hold the union members jobs for them?

Seems like madness to me, surely a failure to turn up for work and a direct attempt to prevent the organisation from carrying out it's business via a picket line would be grounds for dismissal if the company doesn't recognize the union?

It's very unlikely to happen in a non-unionised workplace. It only happens where the employer doesn't consult at all with staff and there is a general lack of respect towards employees by the employer, that causes a siege mentality to set in and conflict to emerge, when employees start to process a perception on their part that their greivences whether real or implied, are not being listened to.

In workplaces where there is no union recognition, but at the same time, the employer deals fairly and respectfully with staff, (albeit on a 1:1 basis or often collectively in terms of communicating with staff), then you are highly unlikely to see industrial conflict emerging, no matter how hard times might get.

There is a whole field of industrial pyschology and management theory that deals with this topic, as in how humans behave in the workplace under different conditons, forms of treatment, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Godge

Sleepy wrote: »

So if a union call a strike over unreasonable pay demands for example, how long is the employer legally expected to hold the union members jobs for them? Until the dispute is resolved.

Seems like madness to me, surely a failure to turn up for work and a direct attempt to prevent the organisation from carrying out it's business via a picket line would be grounds for dismissal if the company doesn't recognize the union? No, not madness, just part of regular trade dispute resolution mechanisms common to every society that tries to prevent the exploitation of employees by unscrupulous employers. In fact, there are strong arguments that Ireland's protections for strike action and union membership are not strong enough under European law

Believe it or not, we have one of the easiest systems in Europe for dismissal, try setting up a business somewhere like Germany.

The Volt

RichardAnd wrote: »

That would be un-fair dismissal which is illegal, thankfully so.

Let it not be forgotten that we have among the worst worker's rights legislation in the western world.

sarumite

Voltwad wrote: »

Let it not be forgotten that we have among the worst worker's rights legislation in the western world.

I think we need context though...in many places some of the workers rights are tax funded (maternity/paternity leave etc). We have a 'relatively' low tax economy, therefore we cannot fund those. On the upside we have a 'relatively' high minimum wage.

The Volt

sarumite wrote: »

I think we need context though...in many places some of the workers rights are tax funded (maternity/paternity leave etc). We have a 'relatively' low tax economy, therefore we cannot fund those. On the upside we have a 'relatively' high minimum wage.

There isn't any doubt that a number of employers will sack their workers in order to employ new people at the lower rate. This was proven by the number of workers who had their pay cut when the lower minimum wage was brought in by the last regime. O'Callaghan's hotels comes to mind. The manner in which many employers behave is the simple reason why over 600,000 people in this country have joined a trade union, in circumstances where there's no compunction on them to do so.

stevenmu

Sleepy wrote: »

So if a union call a strike over unreasonable pay demands for example, how long is the employer legally expected to hold the union members jobs for them?

Seems like madness to me, surely a failure to turn up for work and a direct attempt to prevent the organisation from carrying out it's business via a picket line would be grounds for dismissal if the company doesn't recognize the union?

I don't know the exact mechanisms or legislation, but I believe the labour court can review a strike action and determine if it is valid or not. If it is not valid employees who continue to strike can then be fired.

Sleepy

Voltwad wrote: »

Let it not be forgotten that we have among the worst worker's rights legislation in the western world.

Worse than America? Where on-the-spot dismissals aren't unusual, where no minimum annual leave exists (typical average of 10 days leave is half of our statutory requirement!) and minimum wage is just $7.25?

I think you're over-stating your case a little...

The Volt

Sleepy wrote: »

Worse than America? Where on-the-spot dismissals aren't unusual, where no minimum annual leave exists (typical average of 10 days leave is half of our statutory requirement!) and minimum wage is just $7.25?

I think you're over-stating your case a little...

At least in America, if over 50% of the workforce in any enterprise vote to join a union, they have a legal right to collective bargaining through their union. That's a human right that's workers in this country are denied. Ireland continues to be in breach of international labour law obligations.

sarumite

Voltwad wrote: »

There isn't any doubt that a number of employers will sack their workers in order to employ new people at the lower rate. This was proven by the number of workers who had their pay cut when the lower minimum wage was brought in by the last regime. O'Callaghan's hotels comes to mind. The manner in which many employers behave is the simple reason why over 600,000 people in this country have joined a trade union, in circumstances where there's no compunction on them to do so.

You mention sacking and then "prove" it by mentioning people who had their wages cut (not sacked) and then cite a single employer. Many of those in the TU work for the government which has some of the best T&C's of employment out there. Sometimes correlation is not always causation.

RichardAnd

Sleepy wrote: »

So if a union call a strike over unreasonable pay demands for example, how long is the employer legally expected to hold the union members jobs for them?

Seems like madness to me, surely a failure to turn up for work and a direct attempt to prevent the organisation from carrying out it's business via a picket line would be grounds for dismissal if the company doesn't recognize the union?

You're taking an extreme view on what I said. No, it's not right for unions to hold employers ransom with unreasonable demands but does that mean striking should be illegal or grant the employer the right to fire a worker for striking?

I'd liken it to the right to free speech. Sometimes people say things that are disagreeable or offensive but that they are allowed to say it is sacrosanct. Maybe you don't like the reason someone might strike but I would rather live in a world where they can do just that without harsh reprisal.

Sleepy

I suppose my opinion is coloured by the fact I don't believe that any two people are the same and that my productivity in a work environment should raise my salary rather than that of a lazier / less talented colleague (obviously that works both ways, I don't deserve any cut of a more productive colleagues' salary either).

I just don't see any positives to a union in any country that has established employee protection legislation, they're a mechanism to protect the lazy at the expense of the productive imho.

deise blue

Voltwad wrote: »

Let it not be forgotten that we have among the worst worker's rights legislation in the western world.

You are of course correct but hopefully all that should change shortly.

Mandatory Trade Union recognition is surely now only a matter of time given the Governments pre election pledge to enshrine collective bargaining rights in law in line with the EU charter & recent European Court judgements.

Further pressure to ensure this happens has been put on by ICTU who have raised a complaint with the International Labour Organisation on the lines that the state are in breach of ILO conventions on collective bargaining ( such conventions are international treaties & binding on the state ) - ICTU are hopeful that the complaint will be heard later this year.

sarumite

Sleepy wrote: »

I suppose my opinion is coloured by the fact I don't believe that any two people are the same and that my productivity in a work environment should raise my salary rather than that of a lazier / less talented colleague (obviously that works both ways, I don't deserve any cut of a more productive colleagues' salary either).

I just don't see any positives to a union in any country that has established employee protection legislation, they're a mechanism to protect the lazy at the expense of the productive imho.

Unfortuantely I can only thank this message once. It pretty much sums up my opinion.

Head The Wall

deise blue wrote: »

You are of course correct but hopefully all that should change shortly.

Mandatory Trade Union recognition is surely now only a matter of time given the Governments pre election pledge to enshrine collective bargaining rights in law in line with the EU charter & recent European Court judgements.

Further pressure to ensure this happens has been put on by ICTU who have raised a complaint with the International Labour Organisation on the lines that the state are in breach of ILO conventions on collective bargaining ( such conventions are international treaties & binding on the state ) - ICTU are hopeful that the complaint will be heard later this year.

That doesn't mean people will have to join unions though, a lot of people recognise unions and their members for what they are.

When the PS starts getting cut again the publics feeling towards unions will only be going one way and that's down

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

That doesn't mean people will have to join unions though, a lot of people recognise unions and their members for what they are.

When the PS starts getting cut again the publics feeling towards unions will only be going one way and that's down

Of course it doesn't mean people will have to join Unions but what it does mean that it will make it far easier for Unions to recruit on the basis that shortly employers will have to recognise such Unions & their right to collectively negotiate on behalf of their members - a huge breakthrough for Unions.

Let's not be naive either , one of the reasons a large number of people dislike Unions is that they feel excluded from the protections offered by membership of such Unions as their employers currently refuse to recognise Unions & in reality currently there is little point in joining a Union - such perceived exclusion from Trade Union membership will end with the forthcoming legislation.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Let's not be naive either , one of the reasons a large number of people dislike Unions is that they feel excluded from the protections offered by membership of such Unions as their employers currently refuse to recognise Unions & in reality currently there is little point in joining a Union - such perceived exclusion from Trade Union membership will end with the forthcoming legislation.

While we are on the subject of not being naive, lets at least acknowlegde that some people don't like union because they protect the worst performing employees, even when they are determinental to the other employees. Collective bargaining by unions usually ends up with everyone being rewarded equally even if everyone hasn't contributed equally. Having had the unfortunate experience of working in a highly unionised company where the particular union was, to put it mildly, militant; I find the new laws very worrying for many workplaces.

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

While we are on the subject of not being naive, lets at least acknowlegde that some people don't like union because they protect the worst performing employees, even when they are determinental to the other employees. Collective bargaining by unions usually ends up with everyone being rewarded equally even if everyone hasn't contributed equally. Having had the unfortunate experience of working in a highly unionised company where the particular union was, to put it mildly, militant; I find the new laws very worrying for many workplaces.

Coincidentally I also worked in a largely unionised private sector company & some years ago our Department was amalgamated with a non unionised subsidiary company.

Both we & our new colleagues were equally shocked at the discrepancy in terms & conditions between unionised & non unionised staff.

Across all grades we enjoyed an average of 5 days more annual leave , a shorter working day & all our overtime was recorded & paid for whereas our new colleagues were not paid overtime .

The Volt

The alternative to collective bargaining is a scenario that places worker v worker with employers setting individual wage rates etc. No thanks.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Coincidentally I also worked in a largely unionised private sector company & some years ago our Department was amalgamated with a non unionised subsidiary company.

Both we & our new colleagues were equally shocked at the discrepancy in terms & conditions between unionised & non unionised staff.

Across all grades we enjoyed an average of 5 days more annual leave , a shorter working day & all our overtime was recorded & paid for whereas our new colleagues were not paid overtime .

I have been in both unionised and non-unionised, personally I found the company with a good union was better than the company without a union. However by far and away the most unpleasant experience was working with the militant union. I can honestly say it was the most soul destroying experience of my working life. I have concern that forcing all companies to recognise unions may cause as many problems as it solves. I would rather a government work towards implementing effective employment legisaltion.

sarumite

Voltwad wrote: »

The alternative to collective bargaining is a scenario that places worker v worker with employers setting individual wage rates etc. No thanks.

Yes please. I refuse to work to the same level as the laziest person and I don't think it would be fair if I only got paid the same as them also.

Head The Wall

Voltwad wrote: »

The alternative to collective bargaining is a scenario that places worker v worker with employers setting individual wage rates etc. No thanks.

This scenario means that I am in charge of my own career, I fail to see the benefit of other peoples output having a direct affect on what "I" get paid for "My" job.

I'm not a lazy useless b*stard so it works for me. Do you honestly think that most people are in unions for the benefit of all other staff or are they just thinking about themselves.

As has been said before there is good employment legislation in this country, to me someone that wants to join a union has something to hide.

deise blue

Head The Wall wrote: »

This scenario means that I am in charge of my own career, I fail to see the benefit of other peoples output having a direct affect on what "I" get paid for "My" job.

I'm not a lazy useless b*stard so it works for me. Do you honestly think that most people are in unions for the benefit of all other staff or are they just thinking about themselves.

As has been said before there is good employment legislation in this country, to me someone that wants to join a union has something to hide.

Saying we have good employment legislation doesn't make it correct - our employment legislation lags behind most other western world countries.

The promised legislation on collective bargaining & mandatory trade union recognition will simply bring us to standardised EU norms.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Saying we have good employment legislation doesn't make it correct - our employment legislation lags behind most other western world countries.

The promised legislation on collective bargaining & mandatory trade union recognition will simply bring us to standardised EU norms.

I wasn't aware that the EU had standardised specific employment legislation?

deise blue

sarumite wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the EU had standardised specific employment legislation?

Yes - the EC adopts legislation defining minimum requirements at EU level in the fields of working & employment conditions & the the information & consultation of workers.

Member states then transpose the community law into their national law & implement it guaranteeing a similar level of protection throughout the EU.

Ireland has lagged behind in terms of collective bargaing rights/trade union recognition - hence the eagerly awaited promised legislation by the current Government.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

Yes - the EC adopts legislation defining minimum requirements at EU level in the fields of working & employment conditions & the the information & consultation of workers.

Member states then transpose the community law into their national law & implement it guaranteeing a similar level of protection throughout the EU.

Ireland has lagged behind in terms of collective bargaing rights/trade union recognition - hence the eagerly awaited promised legislation by the current Government.

I am aware of general legislation, although that is not he same as standardised. For example the EU may have general legisalation on a minimum wage, though there is not "standardised EU norm" as to what it is. The same goes for maternity leave, pensions rights etc.

I was not aware that the government was being forced to bring in the legislation by the EU?

Sleepy

deise blue wrote: »

Saying we have good employment legislation doesn't make it correct - our employment legislation lags behind most other western world countries.

The promised legislation on collective bargaining & mandatory trade union recognition will simply bring us to standardised EU norms.

Are there other areas where we "lag behind"? Because rights to collective bargaining or mandatory trade union recognition don't really factor into the argument imho.

In Ireland we have legislation which provides: relatively generous minimum paid annual leave entitlements, a high minimum wage, unfair dismissal protection, Health & Safety laws, redundancy legislation which includes the state picking up the tab for companies that can't pay it themselves, rules against employees working excessive hours etc.

Am I missing something? Because as far as I can see, the original role of the unions was to ensure safe working conditions where people weren't being taken advantage of by their employers. The state has now enshrined these things in our laws and the unions have, as a result, become redundant.

deise blue

The current legislation to which you refer was of course introduced at the behest of & in collaboration with both the Irish Trade Union movement & the larger European wide Trade Union movement .

Obviously the Irish Trade Union movement see the introduction of mandatory recognition & the knock on effect on collective bargaining rights as vitally important & as a huge improvement to current legislation & at last with the Governments pledge & the involvement of the ILO it appears that the day is tantalisingly close.

It is then up to people to decide whether or not they wish to join a Trade Union , knowing that their employer will have to recognise a Union or rely on the current legislation for protection - at least hopefully shortly they will have a choice.

One wonders why if the new forthcoming legislation doesn't factor in terms of the areas covered by current legislation are the employers Trade Union IBEC going bat**** at the thought - simply because they realise that the new legislation is game changing !

The Volt

deise blue wrote: »

The current legislation to which you refer was of course introduced at the behest of & in collaboration with both the Irish Trade Union movement & the larger European wide Trade Union movement .

Obviously the Irish Trade Union movement see the introduction of mandatory recognition & the knock on effect on collective bargaining rights as vitally important & as a huge improvement to current legislation & at last with the Governments pledge & the involvement of the ILO it appears that the day is tantalisingly close.

It is then up to people to decide whether or not they wish to join a Trade Union , knowing that their employer will have to recognise a Union or rely on the current legislation for protection - at least hopefully shortly they will have a choice.

One wonders why if the new forthcoming legislation doesn't factor in terms of the areas covered by current legislation are the employers Trade Union IBEC going bat**** at the thought - simply because they realise that the new legislation is game changing !

The fact that IBEC themselves are a union makes them all bloody hypocrites IMO

Sleepy

deise_blue, I agree that most of the legislation I'm referring to was introduced as a result of trade unionism. That's why I qualify my argument about seeing no useful function for a trade union in a developed country. They certainly serve a purpose in the developing world until such a point as employee protection legislation exists. Once that legislation exists, however, they have served their purpose until such point that a stupidly right-wing government beings to repeal that protection.

Let me ask you some questions in relation to mandatory union recognition, however. As myself and others have pointed out collective bargaining only suits low performing workers (as high performing workers won't want their efforts to subsidise the salaries of their lower performing colleagues) so the unionised part of the workforce will be the less productive.

This will then lead to the position where laziest 50% of the company organise a union and start demanding the same salaries as their better performing, non-unionised colleagues. Any sane boss will tell them to get stuffed or he'll find himself in an upwards pay spiral where the better workers will negotiate better terms in confidential pay agreements which will almost certainly not remain confidential forever and the employer is then back to square one. This would inevitably result in industrial action / strikes.

Now, the non-unionised staff are unlikely to agree that their lazier colleagues deserve the same money as them and will want to cross the picket as they have a living to earn.

The traditional union answer to this problem is to have "closed shops". In any free and competitive market, however, those closed shops will end up going to the wall as the non-unionised competition kills them off (unless there's a stupidly left-wing government that agrees to subsidise their inefficiency).

The other argument, here of course, is that if any business has the right to be a "closed shop" that only employs members of a particular union, any other business should have the right to be a "closed shop" to non-union members (or perversely, a trade-union formed with the set purpose of non engagement in collective bargaining!).

Actually, that could be the perfect market-based solution to this: forced union recognition with those of us who have no interest in subsidising other's salaries joining a new "1-1 Salary Negotiation Union". I can't imagine this would appeal to existing unions however as membership of such a union would signal a more productive worker and give members a competitive advantage in interviews / promotion opportunities.

sarumite

deise blue wrote: »

- at least hopefully shortly they will have a choice.

So choice is a one way street?

Voltwad wrote: »

The fact that IBEC themselves are a union makes them all bloody hypocrites IMO

Why? are IBEC demanding that all unions recognise them?

deise blue

It's a question of hopefully shortly being in a position to join a Trade Union which must be recognised by an employer.

If people feel their needs are best met by joining a Union in order to protect their terms & conditions in these difficult times , if they feel that wages are best negotiated on a collective bargaining basis , if in the event that disciplinary matters arise they feel that they would be best represented by a Union rather than by themselves , if they feel that they would be better represented by a union in an unfortunate redundancy situation then the choice for such people is obvious - yes join a union !

For such people Union subs are a small price to pay for peace of mind.

If however people feel that they are better off representing themselves the don't bother joining a Union.

It will after all be a matter of choice facilitated by the forthcoming legislation