Unions the cause of high unemployment in waterford?

Master and commander

i Have been talking to a few business people i know lately about Waterford being a high unemployment blackspot and that industries looking for an irish base seem to be avoiding waterford and heading to the other cities instead. Some of them told me (in not so polite language) that the waterford population want to have their cake and eat it, saying that they want the jobs to come but also their unions are so demanding and trigger happy at striking that it just puts potential employers off the idea of waterford.
The same sort of thing was said to me by another businessman who said that waterford folk are always striking and stuff and he would never set up there as the unions are a nightmare. He gave examples that Waterford Crystal would still be there if it wasn't from the striking workers and their demands.

I know it perhaps a little exagerated but TBH i think there is a grain of thuth here, i mean unions and Left Wing parties have traditionally been strong in the waterford area - SWP and Workers party, and its a big Union base. so thats a big turn off to any potential employer looking to set up in waterford. It seems we have the roads, industrial sites but our labour force is too fickle. Is it too much to say that waterford's people are their own worst enemy? They are so militant and left wing that employers just say, "meh, why bother" and move on to somewhere else?

EDIT: I'm just saying is all, if you really want to know what the first man (in road haulage industry) said, it is this: "oh, the people down in waterford are pure cnuts, always fcuking striking" I was surprised at this at first, but after thinking about it, i thought there may be a grain of truth. BTW, i live in waterford.

Yes Boss

They have certainly contributed to that "militant attitude" but it is not the only reason...:rolleyes:

Psychedelic

I dunno, there haven't been many (any?) major strikes here in the last 10 years. Surely we would've lost any bad reputation we had by now. And how would potential employers (FDI companies) know if we have a reputation for striking, when they are considering setting up here? I assume they do their own research on locations but they woulnd't have anecdotal "evidence" from the likes of your haulage industry buddy that we're a bunch of striking cnuts. Another thing is, if it were true that were are seen as strikers, then why did companies like Genzyme set up here?

ziedth

I can't think think of a single strike that has happened in recent years outside of school/nurses which would be a nationwide thing.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of unions. The "us&them" mentality is poison to a business and is in my experience caused by union types.

Master and commander

Genzyme, i don't know. Perhaps they just took the gamble. What i'm sayin is that its not a hard and fast rule, just a sort of reputaion that waterford has.
I would agree, if i was a businessman looking to set up, the last place i would want to do it is in a place run by unions and brainwashed by left wing nutcases like Davy Walsh and Joe Tobin and RBB.

On a wider scale, its a wonder any FDI was made at all in ireland given that unions are so strong.

As far as waterford goes, we can expect noting to change anytime soon since FG an Labour simply don't have the spine to take on the unions. What would really help bring jobs is to make business in waterford more competitive by taking some of the unions down a peg or 2, but no-one has the guts to do it.

another thing thats going agaist waterford, is the fact that many people are still locked into a 1970's midset and think that some "big factory" or call centre will decent on them and save the day. We must realise that maunacturing and general low/semi skilled jobs are a thing of the past and manufacturing is a dying breed in ireland. The only sustainable solution is to either upskill or encourage more entrepreurs. And by upskill i mean proper, useful courses, not wishy washy FAS stuff.
It may even be that waterford can no longer sustain jobs for its population and the only solution is to depopulate, with the unemployed emigrating or otherwise moving on.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

dayshah

ziedth wrote: »

Having said that, I'm not a fan of unions. The "us&them" mentality is poison to a business and is in my experience caused by union types.

There should be cooperation to make the pie bigger, but it will always be us & them when it comes to dividing the pie. Its the way it is, and the way it always will be.

Anyway, God gave us the Sabbath, but unions gave us the weekend.

Go syndicalism!!!

dayshah

Master and commander wrote: »

On a wider scale, its a wonder any FDI was made at all in ireland given that unions are so strong.

MNEs have a higher rate of union density than domestic firms.

It takes two to tango. You don't hear anything about unions where they have a good relationship, it doesn't make the news. You only hear about it when there is a bad relationship, and at least part of that is due to management skill (which unfortunately, is below our peers).

cococoady

Wasn't the most recent strike the corporation striking outside the new Waterford crystal. Made big news

Master and commander

Could there be some instrument where a company will set up here on the condition that unions are not allowed into the place or to canvas the workers for say, 10 years or whatever. Like some kinda contract. Then there'd be some hope. Think is though, even with that the unions still have a huge influence on the city and control many areas such as CIE and the corpo so the leftie mentality is still there.

The us and them attitude is bonkers, just cos your busines's owner made more money doen't mean you are entitled to more. You get your wages that you signed up for.
It smacks of good ol fashiond begrudgery - "you made more money, i want some of it, and if i cant get it i'll just do all i can to try and fcuk you up by striking"

ziedth

cococoady wrote: »

Wasn't the most recent strike the corporation striking outside the new Waterford crystal. Made big news

Good point, public service though. They don't count

dayshah

cococoady wrote: »

Wasn't the most recent strike the corporation striking outside the new Waterford crystal. Made big news

It was a wildcat strike. It did NOT get union approval, so if anything evidence of the responsibility of unions in Waterford.

dayshah

Master and commander wrote: »

Could there be some instrument where a company will set up here on the condition that unions are not allowed into the place or to canvas the workers for say, 10 years or whatever. Like some kinda contract. Then there'd be some hope. Think is though, even with that the unions still have a huge influence on the city and control many areas such as CIE and the corpo so the leftie mentality is still there.

It would violate fundamental constitutional rights (freedom of assembly) so is a non-runner.

Master and commander wrote: »

The us and them attitude is bonkers, just cos your busines's owner made more money doen't mean you are entitled to more. You get your wages that you signed up for.
It smacks of good ol fashiond begrudgery - "you made more money, i want some of it, and if i cant get it i'll just do all i can to try and fcuk you up by striking"

I was going to go into how the owner would make no money without workers, wages are bargained, fundamental right of association, bla, bla, bla; but your use of the word begrudgery has automatically invalidated all your arguments.

Partizan

Master and commander wrote: »

i Have been talking to a few business people i know lately about Waterford being a high unemployment blackspot and that industries looking for an irish base seem to be avoiding waterford and heading to the other cities instead. Some of them told me (in not so polite language) that the waterford population want to have their cake and eat it, saying that they want the jobs to come but also their unions are so demanding and trigger happy at striking that it just puts potential employers off the idea of waterford.
The same sort of thing was said to me by another businessman who said that waterford folk are always striking and stuff and he would never set up there as the unions are a nightmare. He gave examples that Waterford Crystal would still be there if it wasn't from the striking workers and their demands.

I know it perhaps a little exagerated but TBH i think there is a grain of thuth here, i mean unions and Left Wing parties have traditionally been strong in the waterford area - SWP and Workers party, and its a big Union base. so thats a big turn off to any potential employer looking to set up in waterford. It seems we have the roads, industrial sites but our labour force is too fickle. Is it too much to say that waterford's people are their own worst enemy? They are so militant and left wing that employers just say, "meh, why bother" and move on to somewhere else?

EDIT: I'm just saying is all, if you really want to know what the first man (in road haulage industry) said, it is this: "oh, the people down in waterford are pure cnuts, always fcuking striking" I was surprised at this at first, but after thinking about it, i thought there may be a grain of truth. BTW, i live in waterford.

So it's the SWP, WP, trade unions fault for the high unemployment in Waterford City? Nothing to do with the distrastrous neo-liberal economic policy of FF/PD which irresponsibly fuelled a massive property bubble off the back of a huge credit splurge which resulted in vital billions being directed away from real economic wealth into a credit bubble.

It was the unions which gave you a 5 day week, the right to work in a healthy environment, 40 hour week, guaranteed compulsory paid holidays, maternity leave, statury redundancy in event of unemployment, the right not to be exploited. Besides in some of the multinationals that have recently left Waterford, like Talk Talk, unions were not permitted to represent workers there. Now are you going to blame Joe Tobin and RBB in the WP for those job losses.

Seriously, somebody had to highlight your fascist filled hate rant.

Master and commander

dayshah wrote: »

It would violate fundamental constitutional rights (freedom of assembly) so is a non-runner.




I was going to go into how the owner would make no money without workers, wages are bargained, fundamental right of association, bla, bla, bla; but your use of the word begrudgery has automatically invalidated all your arguments.

But it would have ot be consented to by the relevant parties so then it would not violate it.

ha? I'm just pointing out that often when unions start kicking up it's when they hear that the relevant company has made good profits. Then they get the hump because they see the shareholders making money and think they are "owed" a piece of the pie.

It was the unions which gave you a 5 day week................

i don't intend to be a wage labourer.

guaranteed compulsory paid holidays, maternity leave,

incidentally, i do not and never have approved of these two things. If i was an employer i would be raging mad at the thought having to pay someone for work they are not doing. In my business activities that i have been involved with up to the present i have operated on the priciples of 1)a fair days pay for a fair days work and 2) you get what you pay for and you earn what you're worth - no wishy washy stuff.
On the above, i once heard a guy who used to let go his workers every year just before they would have become entitled to statutory entitlements. How can anyone expect business to prosper under a totalitarian trade union state like this.

dayshah

Master and commander wrote: »

But it would have ot be consented to by the relevant parties so then it would not violate it.

That would still violate freedom of association. No-one has the right to sell their rights.

Master and commander wrote: »

ha? I'm just pointing out that often when unions start kicking up it's when they hear that the relevant company has made good profits. Then they get the hump because they see the shareholders making money and think they are "owed" a piece of the pie.

:rolleyes: Christ, you never worked in the real world have you? Employment contracts are regularly altered. Suppose a firm made an employment contract. Every now and then it is in the firms interest to change the contract. That's what makes a work to rule so effective.

If contracts were to have the rigidity you suggest the whole economy would grind to a halt. Also, the employer is free not to agree to the union demands, shut up shop, and stop making profits.

Its called bargaining.

The rest of you post is pure trolling.

Yes Boss

The vast majority of workers rights/conditions are in place because of European Law and not Unions....:o

dayshah

Yes Boss wrote: »

The vast majority of workers rights/conditions are in place because of European Law and not Unions....:o

Is Ireland the only country with unions?

I think they might have them over in France and Germany too.

Anyway, not a lot of employment law is from the EU. There are some directives, but they are as a result of union lobbying at the EU level.

ex_infantry man

actually the op has a point!! it was in fact striking dock workers that brought this fine city to its knee,s, waterford was ya could say "D" main port in the country well ahead of dublin,cork,and limerick , until the gangs that unloaded the ships that came in decided to strike over pay!!!! this damaged waterford port and yes it made companies think differently about setting up here, oooh and the strike never ended it still is running to this day

sunnysoutheast

dayshah wrote: »

That would still violate freedom of association. No-one has the right to sell their rights.



:rolleyes: Christ, you never worked in the real world have you? Employment contracts are regularly altered. Suppose a firm made an employment contract. Every now and then it is in the firms interest to change the contract. That's what makes a work to rule so effective.

If contracts were to have the rigidity you suggest the whole economy would grind to a halt. Also, the employer is free not to agree to the union demands, shut up shop, and stop making profits.

Its called bargaining.

The rest of you post is pure trolling.

You still think the good old days will return then, clearly. They won't.

The days of the militant unionized workforce are over. You know it. I know it. The union leaders know it. The politicians know it.

As a thought experiment what would people's views be if a company wanted to set up a major operation here, but were adamant that it would be non-unionized? I'd say reality would dawn quickly and they would be deluged with applications. One thing I don't know though - is IDA assistance dependent on union representation - I assume not due to AOL BB/Talk Talk - but does anyone know for certain?

SSE

dayshah

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

The days of the militant unionized workforce are over. You know it. I know it. The union leaders know it. The politicians know it.

Over a third of workers are union members, and many more are covered by union agreements. There is no point in starting arguments just for the sake of it, but that applies to both sides. There are plenty of crap managers working in supermarkets and factories. Their incompetence can lead to them putting pressure on their workers, and if the place is not unionised they can get away from it. Of course most places are reasonably well run, and there are good employer/worker relations, so they don't make the news. Things only make the news when they take a bad turn.

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

As a thought experiment what would people's views be if a company wanted to set up a major operation here, but were adamant that it would be non-unionized? I'd say reality would dawn quickly and they would be deluged with applications. One thing I don't know though - is IDA assistance dependent on union representation - I assume not due to AOL BB/Talk Talk - but does anyone know for certain?

IDA assistance is not dependent on union recognition, it used to be, but that ended years ago. I really don't see what your point is. If a major operation opened in Waterford I'm sure there would be thousands of applications, whether it was unionised or not.

Tesco and Super Quinn are unionised, Lidl isn't. In general people would rather work for Tesco or Super Quinn, but Lidl still gets applications.


I don't see why its ok for shareholders to come together and incorporate themselves, and try to make a profit; but its such a major sin for workers to form themselves into a union and try get decent wages and conditions.


Often people form unions just to have their basic rights enforced.

Deise_Davy

ex_infantry man wrote: »

actually the op has a point!! it was in fact striking dock workers that brought this fine city to its knee,s, waterford was ya could say "D" main port in the country well ahead of dublin,cork,and limerick , until the gangs that unloaded the ships that came in decided to strike over pay!!!! this damaged waterford port and yes it made companies think differently about setting up here, oooh and the strike never ended it still is running to this day

That's right. They were claiming the pay of worker's who had died and when the owners copped on, the boys went on strike claiming it was a work practice.

sunnysoutheast

dayshah wrote: »

Over a third of workers are union members, and many more are covered by union agreements. There is no point in starting arguments just for the sake of it, but that applies to both sides. There are plenty of crap managers working in supermarkets and factories. Their incompetence can lead to them putting pressure on their workers, and if the place is not unionised they can get away from it. Of course most places are reasonably well run, and there are good employer/worker relations, so they don't make the news. Things only make the news when they take a bad turn.



IDA assistance is not dependent on union recognition, it used to be, but that ended years ago. I really don't see what your point is. If a major operation opened in Waterford I'm sure there would be thousands of applications, whether it was unionised or not.

Tesco and Super Quinn are unionised, Lidl isn't. In general people would rather work for Tesco or Super Quinn, but Lidl still gets applications.


I don't see why its ok for shareholders to come together and incorporate themselves, and try to make a profit; but its such a major sin for workers to form themselves into a union and try get decent wages and conditions.


Often people form unions just to have their basic rights enforced.

My point is quite straightforward. Capital is fungible worldwide. Companies making investment decisions have a multitude of places to choose from. They are unlikely to select a location with a history, however undeserved, of militant unionism. Perhaps if our local union representatives, TDs and City Council were to start putting out joint messages that our city is open and welcoming for businesses that would help. We cannot keep relying on the IDA or anyone else to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

SSE

jad2007

Personally I dont think the level of union activity in Waterford would be rate highly in the decision making matrix of any company looking to invest in the area ( sadly we have much bigger problems)

In relation to the dockers strike I spoke at lenght about this topic to a gentleman from the SWP recently who was active at this time and the majority of what is thrown about in the public domain about this event is incorrect.

The dockers strike was more about a dispute between two competing unions than between labour and management. Now thats not to say that the workers raised issues but the duration of the dispute was due soley to inter- union rivalry.

When any body whether its unions or management have to much power its a bad thing. Rather than looking for scapecoats we need to focus on what we can do to improve our situation.

Marchandire

This thread is bizarre. At a time when the economies of our City and Country have been all but destroyed by the business class, we have a thread bemoaning Union membership and blaming unions for continued unemployment in Waterford.

For that matter, how does anyone conclude that a Dockers Strike twenty years ago is still influential, compared to the ten years of economic insanity that was the Celtic Tiger?

Sikie

jad2007 wrote: »

Personally I dont think the level of union activity in Waterford would be rate highly in the decision making matrix of any company looking to invest in the area ( sadly we have much bigger problems) .

Unfortunately I don't think this is the case if you are depending on inward investment through an IDA backed company. Part of the decision process will be comparing locations on a decision matrix. There will be a HR input into the decision on where to locate. If things were close it wouldn't help.

dayshah

Out of curiosity, has their ever been a strike in Hasbro or Bausch and Lomb?

These places have union representation, but seem to have a good relationship.

Lots of managers don't like unions, because its something to be managed. But unions raise HR issues early, whereas in other firms they end up having a huge problem with staff turnover. Good managers are happy enough to develop a good relationship, because they know problems will be aired earlier, and they can be nipped in the bud. In Dublin, the Luas actually agreed to a closed shop arrangement with SIPTU, because the management recognised there will always always be a disagreement over sharing the spoils, but they want a good relationship for the day to day stuff.

Unions don't just mushroom overnight in workplaces. Workers have to a have a reason to go to the effort of forming one.


Anyway, the richest small open economies in Europe (Denmark, Finland, Sweden), also have the highest level of trade union membership.

I strongly doubt companies look at events from 20 years ago to decide whether to set up here. They will look at places like Bausch and Lomb, and see that things go well here.

If Waterford is to develop, people have to stop looking for scapegoats, and stop looking to Dublin to help us. Gladly, I think the local city council recognise this, and they have done great work over the past few years, especially with things like the Tall Ships (which wasn't just the city council of course).

wellboytoo

Master and commander wrote: »

Could there be some instrument where a company will set up here on the condition that unions are not allowed into the place or to canvas the workers for say, 10 years or whatever. Like some kinda contract. Then there'd be some hope. Think is though, even with that the unions still have a huge influence on the city and control many areas such as CIE and the corpo so the leftie mentality is still there.

The us and them attitude is bonkers, just cos your busines's owner made more money doen't mean you are entitled to more. You get your wages that you signed up for.
It smacks of good ol fashiond begrudgery - "you made more money, i want some of it, and if i cant get it i'll just do all i can to try and fcuk you up by striking"

I guess your next thread will be about how knackers need to be culled for the sake of the country , followed by why we should never have given Women the vote, no a window in the kitchen.
Go away out of it Boi your only stirin the pot , and badly I might add.

mickmcl09

dayshah wrote: »

O


I strongly doubt companies look at events from 20 years ago to decide whether to set up here. They will look at places like Bausch and Lomb, and see that things go well here.

If Waterford is to develop, people have to stop looking for scapegoats, and stop looking to Dublin to help us. Gladly, I think the local city council recognise this, and they have done great work over the past few years, especially with things like the Tall Ships (which wasn't just the city council of course).

I would agree with your point regarding what companies look at and don't look at, in fact they'd have a fairly broad matrix of considerations.

On the other hand, one might perceive that the City Council are doing great work but IMO, they are not. Car parking most expensive outside Dublin - killing City centre business, look at Kilkenny and Clonmel. The tall ships to be fair was more of a food festival, where a few ships turned up. Waterford should have ships of that calibre visiting the quay year round. You'd see a more impressive array of ships in small town harbours on the mediterranean.

If the City Council could see beyond the price of parking, the influx of people into town would ensure that businesses could pay their rates. Everybody wins, the Council get their revenue by other means and the City centre holds onto and creates employment.

Back to the topic of unions. I've worked for Lidl, it has been infiltratrated by unions up at sales assistant and supervisor level, possibly a few Store Managers here and there as well, but that's about all. Lidl don't recognise them but have had a few run ins over the years. Unions are virtually of no use for representing a group in this environment because the staff are paid more than any other retailer out there. Yes, Lidl staff are worked hard, but laws aren't broken. The union might come in handy for an individual if they had an issue, but the member of staff would only be 'marking their card' in the long term. Besides it only takes a handful of staff to run one, so worst case scenario, all the staff walk out, Lidl still have the staff resources to keep it running.
Lidl is run extremely efficiently, unlike many of the heavily unionised outfits such as the ESB, didn't one of the top union leaders in the ESB say that the employees were 'spoiled brats'. I also worked for Aer Lingus back in the day, again highly unionised and nearly went to the wall.

Unions are outdated. They had their day. Statutory law now governs work conditions, hours, breaks etc. Which essentially is a fair days work for a fair days pay. Anybody who thinks unions are needed, come work in an environment with no unions, work hard but fair and the rewards are higher.

My experience of Unions is that they stifle productivity, this is not a sustainable model for modern day business.

Point to OP. I went to college down here in the mid ninties, I now live down here for the last 3 years. I never heard of the anti Waterford element in all my travels, because of a Unionised reputation. These business people you speak of were 'sturring'. If they were afraid of unions, there's a reason for it and I wouldn't want to work for them one way or the other. Unions will infiltrate any business, anywhere as they see fit, not as Waterford people see fit. Rubbish talk IMO from these people.

Waterford is the forgotten City, even during the boom. It was the last City on the list for the big land speculators and developers in Dublin.

Waterford also needs as much help as possible from Dublin. Locals TDs need to pull their fingers out and fast. My sisters brother-in-law is a TD and his whole day is about ensuring there's as much employment retained and obtained in his area, even if that means taking down the govt. He's not a FG 'yes Enda, how many bags full, Enda' man. FG TDs in Waterford should take note and have a pair of 'cahunas'.



If the Council was doing their job, the Quays would be used alot more, for festivals, sporting events, a Marina facility/ club house /visitor area in place as a tourist attraction and as a facility for various water orientated clubs.

Cabaal

Partizan wrote: »

like Talk Talk, unions were not permitted to represent workers there.

Factually incorrect,
No unions ever got a foothold in TalkTalk as the VAST majority of people working there had no interest in joining them. At no point were they stopped or banned.

I will say the SWP went on big time about workers rights and unions however their behaviour towards TalkTalk employee's was disgraceful specifically on their Facebook page which they later deleted in order to hide what they said.

deise blue

The question posed in the thread title is probably moot at the current time as employers whilst forced to recognise an employee's right to join a Union are not obliged to recognise Unions Right's to collectively bargain/negotiate on behalf of Union members - thankfully the current Government have undertaken in the current plan for Government to introduce legislation to ensure mandatory Trade Union recognition to comply with recent European Court Judgements ( all political parties in opposition are in agreement ), ICTU have also raised a complaint with the International Labour Organisation ( whose treaties are binding on both the Government & Judiciary ) to ensure that collective bargaining rights are legislated for - it is hoped that this complaint will be heard this year.

Hopefully the day is close at hand when employers are forced to collectively bargain with Unions & employees can be assured that they can join a Union , safe in the knowledge that employers can no longer refuse to collectively bargain/negotiate with such Unions.

dayshah

mickmcl09 wrote: »

Unions are outdated. They had their day. Statutory law now governs work conditions, hours, breaks etc. Which essentially is a fair days work for a fair days pay. Anybody who thinks unions are needed, come work in an environment with no unions, work hard but fair and the rewards are higher.

Apart from the obvious bargaining of wages, I view unions as sort of a small claims court.

It is possible to take an employer to court (because of the actions of 1 manager), but usually it can be solved quicker between the union and higher up manager. The bad manager gets found out (which benefits the company) and neither side have expensive legal costs. (I know the labour court tried to achieve this, but it hasn't really managed to.)

ToxicPaddy

As much as I am not a fan of unions they can't be totally blamed for everything thats happening in Waterford.

Yes they have played a huge part in the destruction of many companies over the years with their militant actions ruining many lives of workers who should have known better than to trust a word that came out of their union rep's mouth.

However they did and the result was major employers either shutting up shop and moving elsewhere or being destroyed by years and years of crippling strikes ending in the closing of the company, a huge amount of jobs lost, the unions blaming everyone from bad management or greedy investors to bad government decisions and then simply moving off to destroy another company all the while claiming to be acting in the members best interests.

Waterford has simply not been forward thinking enough in trying to stand out from the crowd, making itself more attractive to foreign investment and marketing itself as a top location for companies to base.

We also have very little established representation in the Dail and its always been about self preservation in there, so every TD is out to prove themselves to their constituents especially the ones appointed to departmental positions will be pushing any job opportunities that arise to their own areas to appease the voters there.

To attract employment to the area, the local county council and city corporation are going to have to do it themselves, go out there, market the location and look for local investment to help attract foreign investment.

Marchandire

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

However they did and the result was major employers either shutting up shop and moving elsewhere or being destroyed by years and years of crippling strikes ending in the closing of the company, a huge amount of jobs lost, the unions blaming everyone from bad management or greedy investors to bad government decisions and then simply moving off to destroy another company all the while claiming to be acting in the members best interests.

When has this happened in Waterford in recent memory? I can't think of a case where the union drove a company out of Waterford. Even in the case of the docks, the new terminal at Bellview and the accident with the cranes were just as influential as the strike.

Unions didn't close down the foundry, nor Waterford Crystal, nor Talk Talk. Not to mention the the dozens of small and medium businesses that have gone to the wall since 2008. Did Ken McGrath have to shut up shop because of unionised staff?

I agree with your points after the statement you made above, but where does this idea that unions have damaged the local economy come from? I can't think of any verifiable examples.

NWPat

Its no wonder the country is in such a state when there are people who believe that it is unions who close business's. This has never happened. Only business men and governments put people out of work! They may use unions an an excuse, but thats all it is, if there had never been unions your kids would still be down a mine or up a chimney.

Master and commander

if there had never been unions your kids would still be down a mine or up a chimney.

at least they'd have jobs and not be on the dole! only kidding BTW:D:D

Bards

Marchandire wrote: »

When has this happened in Waterford in recent memory? I can't think of a case where the union drove a company out of Waterford. Even in the case of the docks, the new terminal at Bellview and the accident with the cranes were just as influential as the strike.

Unions didn't close down the foundry, nor Waterford Crystal, nor Talk Talk. Not to mention the the dozens of small and medium businesses that have gone to the wall since 2008. Did Ken McGrath have to shut up shop because of unionised staff?

I agree with your points after the statement you made above, but where does this idea that unions have damaged the local economy come from? I can't think of any verifiable examples.

Clyde Shipping Company for starters - Dockers de facto shut down the Clyde Wharf on the North Quay, not to mention the pickets outside their premises in the 80's

Partizan

Cabaal wrote: »

Factually incorrect,
No unions ever got a foothold in TalkTalk as the VAST majority of people working there had no interest in joining them. At no point were they stopped or banned.

I will say the SWP went on big time about workers rights and unions however their behaviour towards TalkTalk employee's was disgraceful specifically on their Facebook page which they later deleted in order to hide what they said.

Talk Talk are non union which means that unions are not recognised there by Management as representatives of the workers or union officials are not permitted on the premises. The workers could join any union they liked but when it came to disputes or negotiations, the Management would not recognise a trade union's right to negotiate on behalf of the worker.

Partizan

Master and commander wrote: »

But it would have ot be consented to by the relevant parties so then it would not violate it.

ha? I'm just pointing out that often when unions start kicking up it's when they hear that the relevant company has made good profits. Then they get the hump because they see the shareholders making money and think they are "owed" a piece of the pie.



i don't intend to be a wage labourer.

incidentally, i do not and never have approved of these two things. If i was an employer i would be raging mad at the thought having to pay someone for work they are not doing. In my business activities that i have been involved with up to the present i have operated on the priciples of 1)a fair days pay for a fair days work and 2) you get what you pay for and you earn what you're worth - no wishy washy stuff.
On the above, i once heard a guy who used to let go his workers every year just before they would have become entitled to statutory entitlements. How can anyone expect business to prosper under a totalitarian trade union state like this.

You are doing nothing here but trolling and **** stirring. I have reported you to the mods.

sunnysoutheast

Marchandire wrote: »

When has this happened in Waterford in recent memory? I can't think of a case where the union drove a company out of Waterford. Even in the case of the docks, the new terminal at Bellview and the accident with the cranes were just as influential as the strike.

Unions didn't close down the foundry, nor Waterford Crystal, nor Talk Talk. Not to mention the the dozens of small and medium businesses that have gone to the wall since 2008. Did Ken McGrath have to shut up shop because of unionised staff?

I agree with your points after the statement you made above, but where does this idea that unions have damaged the local economy come from? I can't think of any verifiable examples.

Didn't the WCTU object to the Newgate Centre? Admittedly it would have been appealed to ABP anyway thanks to the lone ranger et al but I always found it baffling that a union body would object, I would have thought they would be all for job creation.

SSE

Cabaal

Partizan wrote: »

Talk Talk are non union which means that unions are not recognised there by Management as representatives of the workers or union officials are not permitted on the premises. The workers could join any union they liked but when it came to disputes or negotiations, the Management would not recognise a trade union's right to negotiate on behalf of the worker.

Tell me exactly when did the company ever state that they would refuse a to deal with a union that even represented a majority of employee's?

Just for further clarity, are you basing your remarks on hearsay or your assumptions or have you actuall experience in TalkTalk?

dayshah

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Didn't the WCTU object to the Newgate Centre? Admittedly it would have been appealed to ABP anyway thanks to the lone ranger et al but I always found it baffling that a union body would object, I would have thought they would be all for job creation.

It was unusual for the WCTU to object (even though I'm pro-union, and anti-Newgate, it wasn't really a union issue). The construction unions were fairly annoyed at WCTU's objection.

Cabaal wrote: »

Tell me exactly when did the company ever state that they would refuse a to deal with a union that even represented a majority of employee's?

What is your source of information for TalkTalk?

Nolanger

NWPat wrote: »

Its no wonder the country is in such a state when there are people who believe that it is unions who close business's.

They did! There was a bakery factory down by the park in the 1980s and they hired some union head. Then they had a strike and the owner got so fed up he closed the whole factory down.

cbl593h

Nolanger wrote: »

They did! There was a bakery factory down by the park in the 1980s and they hired some union head. Then they had a strike and the owner got so fed up he closed the whole factory down.

It was that famous a strike you can't remember the name of the bakery.......

And where are all the rest of Waterford's bakeries nowadays??? Taghmon,Dublin,even the UK.......

wellboytoo

The bakery was in Canada street ,Fitzgeralds if memory serves me right

wellboytoo

People close down business's through bad management bad attitude bad manners whatever, you get the wrong shop steward with the wrong attitude,recipe for disaster.
people are the problem not unions per se, this thread is going nowhere , slowly.
Started by a Troll and hopefully stopped by a Mod sometime soon.

dayshah

wellboytoo wrote: »

The bakery was in Canada street ,Fitzgeralds if memory serves me right

Did they do blaas?

Mugser

Sure maybe IBEC closed down a few too :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

wellboytoo

dayshah wrote: »

Did they do blaas?

not that I remember, but rats as big as cats I do remember.

SillyMcCarthy

What is the cause of the current rate of unemployment in this country is CE schemes & others such that offer intern placements. Companies see an opportunity to avail of free labour & they are taking it under any guise they can & our government are handing it to them on a plate.

If internships & CE shemes were outlawed there would be an increase in employment. There are real jobs out there but we have talked ourselves in to believing that there is no future & we are prepred to accept it!

wellboytoo

dayshah wrote: »

Did they do blaas?

Thinking on it last night it was O Keefe's bakery not fitzgeralds