9,400 Jobs to go and no Dail Discussion or campaign to save them.

CDfm

Here is something that is not being discussed in the Dail or made public at all.

Leading Economist predicts Agency Worker Directive will lead to Job losses and reduction in Competitiveness.
In a study of the impending E.U. Agency Worker Directive, Economist Jim Power has concluded that if the directive is transposed in its current form the flexibility of Irelands workforce will be damaged and the country’s competitiveness will be affected and up to 9400 jobs could be lost. In compiling the report Mr Power interviewed employers from the multinational and state sectors to assess the likely impact of the directive on employers and the economy as a whole. Identifying benefits of the agency worker model for both employers and agency workers Power commented “There are many reasons why certain employers engage staff through agencies but the overriding reason is the flexibility that it permits, the reality is that the jobs created offer convenient high quality employment for many workers in Ireland.
Ireland recently has seen increased competition from the U.K. for Foreign Direct Investment with lower corporate tax rates to compete with Ireland; our flexible educated workforce is our final trump card. The U.K. however have stolen a march on Ireland by introducing a 12 week qualifying period but the social partners have the opportunity to create a competitive advantage for Ireland by agreeing a longer qualifying period. It is difficult to see how the legislation has drafted in its pure form could possibly benefit employers, the agency workers themselves and the economy in general. The government needs to listen to the views expressed by employers on agency workers and apply the legislation in a more flexible manner with a derogation of up to 12 months and greater clarification of the issues involved” Power said.
Commenting on the report NRF president Colin Donnery said “ with the directive due to be introduced on December 5th, this report is further evidence that the government and social partners need to act quickly to agree a derogation and also ensure that the directive is not gold plated. This will ensure that existing jobs are protected and future job numbers enhanced.

http://www.nrf.ie/news.asp?p=press-release-awd-

What it is saying is that these jobs will go and it implies that the Social Partners are not agreeing with each other and making the decision.

When Talk Talk went in Waterford Enda got on the case , where is he now when he can make a difference ?

liammur

CDfm wrote: »

Here is something that is not being discussed in the Dail or made public at all.



What it is saying is that these jobs will go and it implies that the Social Partners are not agreeing with each other and making the decision.

When Talk Talk went in Waterford Enda got on the case , where is he now when he can make a difference ?

IDA seem untouchable and incredibly nobody appears to be questionning their strategy. What happens if MBNA can't find a buyer for their business in Leitrim? You'll have complete devastation. An intelligent 7 year old in primary school would see the madness behind it.

CDfm

liammur wrote: »

IDA seem untouchable and incredibly nobody appears to be questionning their strategy. What happens if MBNA can't find a buyer for their business in Leitrim? You'll have complete devastation. An intelligent 7 year old in primary school would see the madness behind it.

This is legislation affecting temps and seasonal workers and the idea that every job is sacred at the moment should be on everyones minds.

Yet almost 10,000 jobs going is not met with a wimper from a politician.

Reading between the lines

this report is further evidence that the government and social partners need to act quickly to agree a derogation and also ensure that the directive is not gold plated.

for social partners read trade unions

liammur

CDfm wrote: »

This is legislation affecting temps and seasonal workers and the idea that every job is sacred at the moment should be on everyones minds.

Yet almost 10,000 jobs going is not met with a wimper from a politician.

Reading between the lines


for social partners read trade unions

Dead right. Every job is important. Why no fuss over this ?

CDfm

liammur wrote: »

Dead right. Every job is important. Why no fuss over this ?

I do not know.

A guy I know was to price a job and would not touch it because the labour cost is potentially 30 to 50 % higher and more than the client will pay. For him the potential for loss is huge.

He believes that trade associations have lobbied David Begg & Richard Bruton on the issue.

Politicians are afraid of unions.

Its an EU directive that other countries get around in whole or in part.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

I do not know.

A guy I know was to price a job and would not touch it because the labour cost is potentially 30 to 50 % higher and more than the client will pay. For him the potential for loss is huge.

He believes that trade associations have lobbied David Begg & Richard Bruton on the issue.

Politicians are afraid of unions.

Its an EU directive that other countries get around in whole or in part.

There's certainly a lot of room for manoeuvre in the Directive, in the definition of "pay" and in the definition of "temporary", as well as in the amount of red tape involved in proving compliance on the part of the employers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jaysoose

Well we are relying on the biggest collection of spoofers and self interested politicians in the history of the state to actually come up with an effective jobs strategy.

The current goverment is easily the most inneffective bunch of nomarks we have ever had the mispleasure of running the show. Enda Kenny the career benchwarmer has got his 'Turn' at the top job through no skill of his own and was fortunate enough that cowen was before him. We also expect Eamon "trade unionist" gilmore to have the cahones to stand up to the 'social partners' when he himself is clearly biased towards them?

The croke park agreement is still in place protecting the public/civil service pay when we are gearing up to the mother of all budgets which will punish the very people expected to pull this country out of the black hole we have been steered into.

These jobs will be let go with the usual half assed attempt to look like they care and the IDA lads will put out a report saying this or that to look like they are actually working..pretty much like every quango in this sorry cluster**** of a goverment.

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's certainly a lot of room for manoeuvre in the Directive, in the definition of "pay" and in the definition of "temporary", as well as in the amount of red tape involved in proving compliance on the part of the employers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Maybe, but the reference to social partners in the press release means that no negotiation is taking place and it is being rushed thru the Dail without debate.

The NRF are implying that the worst elements are being implimented and that there is no such discussion.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe, but the reference to social partners in the press release means that no negotiation is taking place and it is being rushed thru the Dail without debate.

The NRF are implying that the worst elements are being implimented and that there is no such discussion.

After which, the EU will be blamed...

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

After which, the EU will be blamed...

cordially,
Scofflaw

LOL ...bang on.

Its weird this one has not been picked up by the media.

opinion guy

Wait a minute what this this directive actually say ?
How will it lead to job losses ???
Croke Park agreement has no relevance to agency workers.

This thread needs some kind of context.

Dr Galen

Jaysoose wrote: »

Well we are relying on the biggest collection of spoofers and self interested politicians in the history of the state to actually come up with an effective jobs strategy.

The current goverment is easily the most inneffective bunch of nomarks we have ever had the mispleasure of running the show. Enda Kenny the career benchwarmer has got his 'Turn' at the top job through no skill of his own and was fortunate enough that cowen was before him. We also expect Eamon "trade unionist" gilmore to have the cahones to stand up to the 'social partners' when he himself is clearly biased towards them?

The croke park agreement is still in place protecting the public/civil service pay when we are gearing up to the mother of all budgets which will punish the very people expected to pull this country out of the black hole we have been steered into.

These jobs will be let go with the usual half assed attempt to look like they care and the IDA lads will put out a report saying this or that to look like they are actually working..pretty much like every quango in this sorry cluster**** of a goverment.

With all due respect, I'd suggest that you aren't too familiar with the Agency Workers Directive and the impact that it will have. Pretty much none of your post addresses anything to do with it.

it's going to be very very interesting to see how this is implemented, specifically with regards to the Health sector. Currently the Health Service is being propped up all across the board by the use of agency staff. The HSE recently implemented an across the board agreement for the supply of agency staff, which changed the terms that a lot of these guys were working under in a pretty big way. There was quite a bit of fanfare about this at the time, even though it was a pretty flawed process that in the long run will end up costing more, but either way, the AWD could throw that into disarray.

Scofflaw

opinion guy wrote: »

Wait a minute what this this directive actually say ?
How will it lead to job losses ???
Croke Park agreement has no relevance to agency workers.

This thread needs some kind of context.

The Directive will say that agency workers (temp workers hired from an agency) should be treated in principle on similar terms to permanent workers, in terms of pay and conditions, and after a suitable qualifying period.

Where the job losses come from is if you take the least flexible possible attitude to this, interpreting 'pay and conditions' in the broadest sense possible and 'suitable qualifying period' in the narrowest sense possible, then you can wind up in a situation where hiring temporary workers becomes as burdensome (from a business perspective) as hiring permanent workers.

Since there are many business opportunities which wouldn't be opportunities if it weren't possible to hire temporary workers, the more similar you make hiring agency workers to hiring permanent workers, the more of these business opportunities will simply not be taken up, because they're no longer opportunities to do anything except lose money. Those temporary jobs, then, simply don't happen - they're not replaced by permanent jobs.

From the perspective of a union, however, the use of temporary agency workers can be seen primarily as a threat to permanent and unionised workers, because there are some business situations where the two are interchangeable.

Tip the balance one way, and you have a situation in which employment of temporary workers is as flexible as possible to allow businesses to exploit short-term opportunities, and thereby create short-term employment - but also to use short-term agency workers to substitute in some circumstances for permanent workers. Tip the balance the other way, and it's no longer possible to exploit some of the short term opportunities and create short-term employment, but it's also not possible to use short-term agency workers to substitute in some circumstances for permanent workers.

The claim being made here is that the unions have weighed in heavily in favour of the latter approach, and that therefore the transposed Directive here will tend heavily in favour of inflexibility, and thereby, overall, cause a loss of employment opportunities. The Directive itself doesn't mandate the balance - it's up to the Member State transposing it to decide what's included in pay and conditions, to decide on how long the qualifying period is, and decide on how much red tape is involved in showing compliance for a business employing temporary workers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Dr Galen wrote: »

With all due respect, I'd suggest that you aren't too familiar with the Agency Workers Directive and the impact that it will have. Pretty much none of your post addresses anything to do with it.

it's going to be very very interesting to see how this is implemented, specifically with regards to the Health sector. Currently the Health Service is being propped up all across the board by the use of agency staff.

So the cost to the HSE will go up by gazzilions ,that goes up and other cuts are made elsewhere.


Why the secrecy , its like there is a news blackout, why can't you find it in newspapers or why hasn't George Hook covered it ?

Jaysoose

Dr Galen wrote: »

With all due respect, I'd suggest that you aren't too familiar with the Agency Workers Directive and the impact that it will have. Pretty much none of your post addresses anything to do with it.

Fair point i was just ranting as i still hadnt had my coffee...

BeeDI

CDfm wrote: »

Here is something that is not being discussed in the Dail or made public at all.



What it is saying is that these jobs will go and it implies that the Social Partners are not agreeing with each other and making the decision.

When Talk Talk went in Waterford Enda got on the case , where is he now when he can make a difference ?

So Jim Power says 9,400 job will go. That's it then. You can take it as read.
Jim Power of Friends First eh!!!
Jim Power that said all along that Ireland would have a soft landing at worst.
Jim Power of Friends First ........... remember their Superquinn property deal. The Corinthian Fund!!! Down nearly 70%.

Ah, but that was Ireland......... where the arse fell out of the bag.

The bright Jim, and his bright mates in FF, had another property fund, in a safer market, where they dont do collapse.
That was in Germany. The FF Oyster Fund. That's down a mere 64%!!!

Jim Power, who cannot get his mug off of the RTE screens, telling the nation how it should run its affairs.

Good man Jim.

Dr Galen

Jaysoose wrote: »

Fair point i was just ranting as i still hadnt had my coffee...

Ah no bother, without coffee I can be much the same.

Scofflaw pretty much nails it as an explanation though. We have to find the sweet spot with this, otherwise we'll have issues. There really isn't a black and white with this. While we need to protect the rights or agency and temp workers, we also need to allow for the flexibility that these types of workers give.

swordofislam

Jaysoose wrote: »

Well we are relying on the biggest collection of spoofers and self interested politicians in the history of the state to actually come up with an effective jobs strategy.

70 years of Fianna Failure and 6 months of Fine Gael but the traitor class affects surprise that the problems that its treason created are not solved.

It is hard to fix an economy that was looted for decades by the Fianna Fail traitor kleptocrats.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since there are many business opportunities which wouldn't be opportunities if it weren't possible to hire temporary workers, the more similar you make hiring agency workers to hiring permanent workers, the more of these business opportunities will simply not be taken up, because they're no longer opportunities to do anything except lose money. Those temporary jobs, then, simply don't happen - they're not replaced by permanent jobs.

The claim is illogical and there is no evidence for it other than assertion from sources that are not merely not credible but dishonest:


Agencies can hire workers as permanent workers and provide their services to clients.
Some of the jobs for which agencies would be used will be created as permanent jobs.
Some of the jobs for which agencies would be used will be created as fixed term contract jobs.

In all cases above the jobs created will be more stable and the relevant workers will have more rights and be better paid. Of course there will be less room for the likes of Manpower, Grafton etc. other labour providing businesses might come along but not with the old 'slimy recruiter' model.

The reason that the argument put forward by the NRF is not being discussed in the Dail is simple.

Recruitment consultants have no credibilty because they are dishonest as a class and the business model is parasitic.
There lobbying organisation has no credibilty because recruitment consultants are dishonest as a class and the business model is parasitic.
Jim Power is a disgraced figure who will say anything for anyone even people like recruiters who are dishonest as a class.

Jim Power is simply saying what he is paid to say by the lobbying body for recruitment agents.

Dr Galen

So I take it you don't like recruitment companies then?

BeeDI

swordofislam wrote: »

70 years of Fianna Failure and 6 months of Fine Gael but the traitor class affects surprise that the problems that its treason created are not solved.

It is hard to fix an economy that was looted for decades by the Fianna Fail traitor kleptocrats.






The claim is illogical and there is no evidence for it other than assertion from sources that are not merely not credible but dishonest:


Agencies can hire workers as permanent workers and provide their services to clients.
Some of the jobs for which agencies would be used will be created as permanent jobs.
Some of the jobs for which agencies would be used will be created as fixed term contract jobs.

In all cases above the jobs created will be more stable and the relevant workers will have more rights and be better paid. Of course there will be less room for the likes of Manpower, Grafton etc. other labour providing businesses might come along but not with the old 'slimy recruiter' model.

The reason that the argument put forward by the NRF is not being discussed in the Dail is simple.

Recruitment consultants have no credibilty because they are dishonest as a class and the business model is parasitic.
There lobbying organisation has no credibilty because recruitment consultants are dishonest as a class and the business model is parasitic.
Jim Power is a disgraced figure who will say anything for anyone even people like recruiters who are dishonest as a class.

Jim Power is simply saying what he is paid to say by the lobbying body for recruitment agents.

Just proves the point .......... he has nothing of any substance or credibility to say for himself, so bleating some other go****es message, is teh only game in town for him.

Dob74

CDfm wrote: »

Here is something that is not being discussed in the Dail or made public at all.



What it is saying is that these jobs will go and it implies that the Social Partners are not agreeing with each other and making the decision.

When Talk Talk went in Waterford Enda got on the case , where is he now when he can make a difference ?

Some right wing economist think's this, it must be true.

CDfm

Dob74 wrote: »

Some right wing economist think's this, it must be true.

There must be a good reason not to release the info until Dec 5th - to be obscured by the budget on Dec 6th perhaps ?

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

There must be a good reason not to release the info until Dec 5th - to be obscured by the budget on Dec 6th perhaps ?

This has been in the news a fair bit if it's a subject you are interested in, back in September, Richard Bruton was calling for a six month derogation period.

If you do a quick google on it, it's been in the news for over a year, and even on Citizens Information since February

opinion guy

CDfm wrote: »

So the cost to the HSE will go up by gazzilions ,that goes up and other cuts are made elsewhere.


Why the secrecy , its like there is a news blackout, why can't you find it in newspapers or why hasn't George Hook covered it ?

The HSE could cut their costs overnight if they hired sufficient full time staff to do the work, cover leave etc and then treated their staff like human beings instead of battery hens. They hire agency workers at a heavy premium purely for the reason that they can get rid of them at the drop of a hat. If they managed things right they would not need agency staff and would pay less over all.

CDfm

Stheno wrote: »

This has been in the news a fair bit if it's a subject you are interested in, back in September, Richard Bruton was calling for a six month derogation period.

If you do a quick google on it, it's been in the news for over a year, and even on Citizens Information since February

Richard Bruton is the Minister and its a bit odd that he is calling for a derogation when it is his decision.

It has been in the news because the legislation is pending and it has been legislated for in the UK.

The NRF imply that the derogation is being blocked by the unions.

CDfm

opinion guy wrote: »

The HSE could cut their costs overnight if they hired sufficient full time staff to do the work, cover leave etc and then treated their staff like human beings instead of battery hens. They hire agency workers at a heavy premium purely for the reason that they can get rid of them at the drop of a hat. If they managed things right they would not need agency staff and would pay less over all.

The health service is an area where some pundits claim we are not getting value for money and is hopelessly inefficient .

Do you have any figures to back up your statement.

EDIT -The thread is about jobs that will go as a result of this change and it will hit situations where a worker is hired and otherwise could not be afforded .

Despite it being commented on the decision is not being made by the Dail and I thought this was a feature of FF we were to see the back off.

Oh,deary me.

opinion guy

CDfm wrote: »

The health service is an area where some pundits claim we are not getting value for money and is hopelessly inefficient .

Do you have any figures to back up your statement.

Nope. But the well publicised sick leave of hse staff etc and the also well publicised Flight of the Doctors would not be occurring if the HSE were treating their staff right.

EDIT -The thread is about jobs that will go as a result of this change and it will hit situations where a worker is hired and otherwise could not be afforded .

Despite it being commented on the decision is not being made by the Dail and I thought this was a feature of FF we were to see the back off.

Oh,deary me.

Huh ? Not following this.

swordofislam

CDfm wrote: »

The health service is an area where some pundits claim we are not getting value for money and is hopelessly inefficient .

Do you have any figures to back up your statement.

EDIT -The thread is about jobs that will go as a result of this change and it will hit situations where a worker is hired and otherwise could not be afforded .

Despite it being commented on the decision is not being made by the Dail and I thought this was a feature of FF we were to see the back off.

Oh,deary me.

There is no evidence that any jobs will go.
The assertion is made by the representative body for organisations that make their money by providing 'agency staff'.
These organisations have a generally poor reputation for honesty.
The people who work in and own these organisations have a generally poor reputation for honesty.
The assertion is made by an economist who has a track record of being wrong in a way that benefits his paymasters.

The directive will improve the pay and conditions of all workers not just agency staff.

opinion guy wrote: »

Huh ? Not following this.

Not much to follow tbh. The initial post is based on a faulty premise

CDfm

I was with a guy the day I posted who normally took on circa 40 plus people this time of year.

This year he is not doing that and its down to the AWD.

I went to see him about a job for someone I know and needs one.

Thats 40 ,only 9360 to go .

swordofislam

CDfm wrote: »

I was with a guy the day I posted who normally took on circa 40 plus people this time of year.

This year he is not doing that and its down to the AWD.

I went to see him about a job for someone I know and needs one.

Thats 40 ,only 9360 to go .

The only difference between this year and every other year is the AWD. What is this guys line of work?

CDfm

swordofislam wrote: »

The only difference between this year and every other year is the AWD. What is this guys line of work?

I would rather not say the line of work only that it is seasonal.

Price wise he can't recover the cost of the proposals from his customers and that being the case he wont be doing it and there also is the risk to him if he takes the work on.

Its fairly simple really, a lot of the jobs that this will affect are not essential jobs either.

swordofislam

CDfm wrote: »

I would rather not say the line of work only that it is seasonal.

Price wise he can't recover the cost of the proposals from his customers and that being the case he wont be doing it and there also is the risk to him if he takes the work on.

Its fairly simple really, a lot of the jobs that this will affect are not essential jobs either.

I understand this is a 'My Mate told me thread'.

CDfm

swordofislam wrote: »

I understand this is a 'My Mate told me thread'.

Not exactly, I was in about a job for my youngfella, and heard the tale of woe before I opened my mouth.

"Bejaysus" I exclaimed inwardly "this is something for Scofflaw and Dr G the guardians of truth and light for the Irish economy".

So this is a Dad thread.

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

I understand this is a 'My Mate told me thread'.

No - despite your vehement dismissal of the NRF's position, the AGW Directive is coming in December, politicians have suggested a derogation, an industry body has stated a position, and the discussion is therefore about something real, rather than "some bloke told me that a mate of his said that they were building an escape tunnel from Leinster House to the airport".

I'm not sure why you're so keen to tell everyone that there's nothing to see here and no discussion to be had, but I'll remind you that it's not your job to do so.

moderately,
Scofflaw

swordofislam

Scofflaw wrote: »

No - despite your vehement dismissal of the NRF's position, the AGW Directive is coming in December, politicians have suggested a derogation, an industry body has stated a position, and the discussion is therefore about something real, rather than "some bloke told me that a mate of his said that they were building an escape tunnel from Leinster House to the airport".

I'm not sure why you're so keen to tell everyone that there's nothing to see here and no discussion to be had, but I'll remind you that it's not your job to do so.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Because the claim that the EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work will 'destroy jobs' is specious.
Evidence presented for the claim by interested parties has been presented as though those parties were disinterested.
The evidence presented is dishonest on its face and tortuous in its reasoning. The evidence presented is innumerate.

Those making the claim (not the people on this board) fall into a category that has an especially low reputation among society at large.

The specific individual making the claim has a decades long tack record of intellectual inconsistency and just being plain wrong in a way that is consistently in the short term interests of the people who are paying him.

Further it is basic historiography to examine one's sources and critical thinking is a skill much lacking on the internet and in Ireland.

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

Because the claim that the EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work will 'destroy jobs' is specious.
Evidence presented for the claim by interested parties has been presented as though those parties were disinterested.
The evidence presented is dishonest on its face and tortuous in its reasoning. The evidence presented is innumerate.

Those making the claim (not the people on this board) fall into a category that has an especially low reputation among society at large.

The specific individual making the claim has a decades long tack record of intellectual inconsistency and just being plain wrong in a way that is consistently in the short term interests of the people who are paying him.

Further it is basic historiography to examine one's sources and critical thinking is a skill much lacking on the internet and in Ireland.

None of that means there's no discussion to be had, though. It means that your view is that one side of the discussion is lacking any basis, and that you believe anything said by the NRF (who have stated that they generally welcome the Directive) can simply be discounted because - again, in your opinion - they're part of an industry with "a reputation for dishonesty".

How do you account for the previous torpedoing of the AGW Directive by several Member States (even to the extent of the UK doing a deal with Germany to bring them on-side)? Were they persuaded by mendacious temp agencies?

cordially,
Scofflaw

swordofislam

Scofflaw wrote: »

How do you account for the previous torpedoing of the AGW Directive by several Member States (even to the extent of the UK doing a deal with Germany to bring them on-side)? Were they persuaded by mendacious temp agencies?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The English implemented the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 on the 1st of October of this year.
They opposed them previously on the grounds of Labour Market Flexibility and the Confederation of British Industry lobbied its government aggressively as did the owners of Temp agencies.
The ethical coherence of the party of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson is left as an exercise for the reader.
The cooperation of the German government (which already has vigorous domestic protection for agency workers under its Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz and its Civil Code) was secured by the UK agreeing to help Germany sink the Takeover Directive.

Scofflaw wrote: »

... you believe anything said by the NRF ... can simply be discounted because - again, in your opinion - they're part of an industry with "a reputation for dishonesty".

That reputation could be assessed easily by binging "recruitment agencies" site:boards.ie

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

They were persuaded by a complex of opinion that seeks to drive down wages for the poor and increase wages for the rich. It certainly includes mendacious temp agencies.

Your position appears to be a mixture of the doctrinal and the personal, with an over-simplistic dichotomy between the interests of the rich and the poor.

It's not necessary to take the NRF's views on board wholesale to conclude that it's possible for inflexible transposition of the Directive to reduce the opportunities for businesses to make use of agency workers, which is something that would reduce opportunities for agency workers. Nor is it opposed to the Directive to state that fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

The English implemented the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 on the 1st of October of this year.

Having successfully delayed its adoption until 2008 (from 2001/2).

swordofislam wrote: »

That reputation could be assessed easily by binging "recruitment agencies" site:boards.ie

That would only tell me what people on boards.ie thought about them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

swordofislam

Sir George Young wrote:

He said the alleged lobbying of Whitehall departments by former Cabinet ministers, including Stephen Byers, would appal [SIC] the public.

English Ministers were selling access to their former colleagues at the time that the temp agencies put the kibosh on the directive.

People on boards are surely a representative sample.

As for the delay in adoption surely that tells the OP that as we have waited even longer than the English in transposing the directive there is no chance of his friend getting it over turned.

Score this one for the good guys thank you Brussels! We finally won one!

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Directive will say that agency workers (temp workers hired from an agency) should be treated in principle on similar terms to permanent workers, in terms of pay and conditions, and after a suitable qualifying period.

Where the job losses come from is if you take the least flexible possible attitude to this, interpreting 'pay and conditions' in the broadest sense possible and 'suitable qualifying period' in the narrowest sense possible, then you can wind up in a situation where hiring temporary workers becomes as burdensome (from a business perspective) as hiring permanent workers.

Since there are many business opportunities which wouldn't be opportunities if it weren't possible to hire temporary workers, the more similar you make hiring agency workers to hiring permanent workers, the more of these business opportunities will simply not be taken up, because they're no longer opportunities to do anything except lose money. Those temporary jobs, then, simply don't happen - they're not replaced by permanent jobs.

From the perspective of a union, however, the use of temporary agency workers can be seen primarily as a threat to permanent and unionised workers, because there are some business situations where the two are interchangeable.

Tip the balance one way, and you have a situation in which employment of temporary workers is as flexible as possible to allow businesses to exploit short-term opportunities, and thereby create short-term employment - but also to use short-term agency workers to substitute in some circumstances for permanent workers. Tip the balance the other way, and it's no longer possible to exploit some of the short term opportunities and create short-term employment, but it's also not possible to use short-term agency workers to substitute in some circumstances for permanent workers.

The claim being made here is that the unions have weighed in heavily in favour of the latter approach, and that therefore the transposed Directive here will tend heavily in favour of inflexibility, and thereby, overall, cause a loss of employment opportunities. The Directive itself doesn't mandate the balance - it's up to the Member State transposing it to decide what's included in pay and conditions, to decide on how long the qualifying period is, and decide on how much red tape is involved in showing compliance for a business employing temporary workers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agree with all that you say. However, as with the part-time and fixed-term directives that preceded this one by a number of years (legislated in Ireland in 2001 and 2003) which have created huge problems in the health and education sectors, the problem doesn't lie wholly with the unions and/or the directive.

The biggest problem in relation to flexibility of the workforce in Ireland (and by that I mean hiring and firing) relate to the redundancy and unfair dismissal legal provisions which make getting rid of permanent workers in unionised situations extremely difficult, cumbersome and expensive(particularly in the public sector, which situation has now been worsened by the CPA).

If the redundancy and unfair dismissal laws were relaxed, the Agency workers directive would have less of an effect on jobs (though it would still serve to potentially increase pay and improve other terms and conditions).

CDfm

swordofislam wrote: »

Score this one for the good guys thank you Brussels! We finally won one!

You won what ? I haven't won anything . My youngfella didn't win anything either.

I grew up in a different Ireland where when we joined the EU the textile mills and factories closed and the men held up the post office walls or emigrated. The good guys did that and we opened our borders for grant aid.

That does not make me ancient and that was Ireland c 1990.

So my perception of the current crisis is based on first hand knowledge of how bad it can get.

I have heard all the explanations too before , so I am cynical and I have also seen the manipilation of live register figures and tourist figures ( I was a tourist for many years!!!) .

Deja vu, as they might say in Brussels.

thebman

Can't companies write off redundancy against tax anyway or something like that anyway.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

You won what ? I haven't won anything . My youngfella didn't win anything either.

I grew up in a different Ireland where when we joined the EU the textile mills and factories closed and the men held up the post office walls or emigrated. The good guys did that and we opened our borders for grant aid.

That does not make me ancient and that was Ireland c 1990.

Which is, to be fair, some 18 years after we joined the EC, and after a decade of disastrous domestic economic policies had left the country in tatters (sounds familiar, somehow).

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

thebman wrote: »

Can't companies write off redundancy against tax anyway or something like that anyway.

There are a hell of a lot of employer obligations like holiday pay is 8 % or more of payroll.

I wonder what the other budget costs are that makes this expensive.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

There are a hell of a lot of employer obligations like holiday pay is 8 % or more of payroll.

I wonder what the other budget costs are that makes this expensive.

I've worked in companies who have supplied workers to other companies, and also in companies who have used agency workers, or bodyshoppers, as it's known in IT.

Anyway the additional costs are: equivalent salary, increments (public sector), bonus payments, holiday leave above and beyond statutory, any employer contributions to pensions, and any additional perks offered by the permanent employer rather than the agency.

I can add up to a significant amount, I worked in one company where using staff supplied by another company for a particular role, we saved 50% on what would have been paid to permanent company employees.

Another cost /factor that's not been mentioned is the right of staff in some organisations to be represented by and have a union recognised, not something done by a lot of agency type companies.....

CDfm

They both can't be right.

Chambers Ireland: Agency Workers Directive will damage economy

Thursday, December 01, 2011 - 11:02 AM

Chambers Ireland has today called on unions to re-enter talks regarding the upcoming implementation of the Agency Workers Directive.

Jobs Minister Richard Burton had attempted to delay the introduction of the EU Directive, which is set to come into effect next week, which would entitle agency workers to better pay and terms of employment.

The deal fell apart yesterday when unions and employers failed to agree.

Chambers Ireland has claimed however that it will "take cost out of economy rather than drive costs up".

Speaking this morning, John Forde, Chambers Ireland HR policy council chair said: "We clearly need responsible management of the economy and everyone must play their part.

"The principle of equal treatment for all workers must be accompanied by a qualifying period to ease pressure on businesses and enable flexibility, particularly for those companies seeking to hire agency workers on a short-term basis.

"If we do not have flexibility, then companies will simply not hire staff.

"Unions need to be mindful of our collective need to facilitate work and employment in the economy, their current negotiating position on agency workers will lead to destruction of jobs and opportunities."

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/chambers-ireland-agency-workers-directive-will-damage-economy-530505.html#ixzz1fIjvMk3G

And

The INMO has said it will lodge pay claims for agency nurses next week to ensure they secure equal treatment as provided for in an EU directive which comes into force on Monday.

The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation has said it will lodge pay claims for agency nurses next week to ensure they secure equal treatment as provided for in an EU directive which comes into force on Monday.
Under the terms of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, agency workers will be entitled to equal treatment from the first day of employment by a client company.
Yesterday employer and union representatives failed to negotiate a derogation or qualifying period for entitlement to equal treatment. As a result agency staff will be entitled to equal treatment from day one.
Earlier this year, the HSE forced down pay for agency staff, including nurses, by renegotiating procurement contracts with employment agencies.
INMO General Secretary Liam Doran said they want agency nurses to get the same incremental credit scale as directly employed nurses.
It has been estimated that the directive will increase the staffing costs of the Health Service Executive by €33m a year.


Frank Collins of the National Recruitment Federation said the directive would have serious implications for employment agencies.
He said that while the directive becomes effective from this Monday, the Government had so far failed to publish legislation giving clear indications of the liabilities end-user employers and agencies would face - including a definition of pay and what would be required to prove compliance with the directive.
He said employment agencies could find themselves running the risk of financial suicide in continuing to supply agency workers in the absence of knowing details of the legislation they would have to comply with.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1201/jobs.html

n97 mini

The unions have forced this in as it means agency workers will be more expensive and therefore the fulltime workers, who are largely unionised, are protected somewhat from being replaced by agency staff.

Makes it very expensive to deal with one-off or seasonal increases in workload.

Juxtapose

I work for an agency who are subcontracting us for a bigger company. Signed a 48 week contract with them that outlies my rights to holiday pay and sick pay etc and set wage, which is less than the permanent workers there.

Im confused at this though, will it mean that only new workers will be eligable to higher pay and same rights as permanent staff or because i have a contract i would have to see out that contract before any changes can be made? Or will it be implimented immediately and i get backpaid from my "first day of work". There seemed so many possiblilities from the wording i read in the paper this morning.. Any clarification would be hugely appreciated as im quite worried about my job and the rate of pay i am/could be getting.

CDfm

The National Recruitment Federation seem to be saying to agencies don't take the risk in a roundabout way. "financial suicide" is what they say.

The bottom line is there is no legislation and no-one knows.

One side is saying people will be taken on as permanent workers and the other says that is BS because the money is not there to pay them in the private sector anyway.

I can't imagine the Troika wants to see public sector numbers increase when in Greece they are letting people go and cutting wages.

So really, no-one knows, and its only guesswork but the omens seem bad for the non public service types.

Juxtapose

So nobody knows yet?

I thought this was coming into pass this monday..