Trade union

shakin

Legally by my contract i must join SIPTU, personally i hate all union the are self serving scum! Is it legal that i must join a union even though i really dont want to?

Xcellor

shakin wrote: »

Legally by my contract i must join SIPTU, personally i hate all union the are self serving scum! Is it legal that i must join a union even though i really dont want to?

I think you answered your own question. If its a condition of employment then you have to join.

If you disagree with anything the union does just abstain from voting or vote the way you agree with.

I believe unions serve a purpose in todays Ireland but they need to come down from their high horse and accept the reality of the situation or ultimately its their members who will suffer

Guill

I was in the same boat, I had to join a union, paid them weekly for 6 years with no need for them and as far as i seen all they did was keep lazy c*nts in jobs.

Xcellor

shakin wrote: »

Legally by my contract i must join SIPTU, personally i hate all union the are self serving scum! Is it legal that i must join a union even though i really dont want to?

In my contract I had to pay money towards a pension. It was part of my contract, there was no way out of it. Accept it or don't accept the job. Course a pension is actually worth something. In the life time of your job a union may do absolutely nothing that benefits you... :eek: Money down drain.

gandalf

Have you asked if you can get the contract amended without that stipulation?

Delancey

I always thought the ' closed shop ' was outlawed in Ireland ? Obviously I was wrong - have to agree with the OP , I paid SIPTU ' dues ' and found them utterly useless , I wouldn't give them a penny again.

markpb

Delancey wrote: »

I always thought the ' closed shop ' was outlawed in Ireland ?

SIPTU and Veolia have a closed shop arrangement for Luas tram drivers in Dublin. The current agreement was signed in 2010 so they're obviously still legal.

Eoin

Xcellor wrote: »

I think you answered your own question. If its a condition of employment then you have to join.

Provided that the clauses in the contract are legitimate (e.g. if you signed a contract specifying 10 days leave per year, it would not be binding).

This is from the same site as linked to earlier:

This is a term used to describe the right of workers to form and join trade unions and to take part in their activities. In Ireland this is given recognition and protection in Article 40.6.1.iii of the Constitution, which protects "the right of the citizen to form associations and unions". In Ireland this has been held to include the right to join a trade union , but only where the union is willing to accept the applicant into membership, and the right not to be compelled to be a trade union member. It has been held that freedom of association does not compel an employer to bargain with a trade union. The right not to be dismissed for trade union membership or activities is further protected under section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. See Constitution of Ireland .

I suppose it might come down to what "compels" means. The union isn't compelling you, and you've the choice of not taking the job - it's just something you're agreeing to as you said.

I think it's a disgrace though if it is legit. The right to association should also mean the right to disassociate from a union. Especially as you have to fork out for it.

However OP, do you want to be the one person not in the union? It might make for an unpleasant working environment - and that's before any industrial action.

Xcellor

Eoin wrote: »

Provided that the clauses in the contract are legitimate (e.g. if you signed a contract specifying 10 days leave per year, it would not be binding).

This is from the same site as linked to earlier:



I suppose it might come down to what "compels" means. The union isn't compelling you, and you've the choice of not taking the job - it's just something you're agreeing to as you said.

I think it's a disgrace though if it is legit. The right to association should also mean the right to disassociate from a union. Especially as you have to fork out for it.

However OP, do you want to be the one person not in the union? It might make for an unpleasant working environment - and that's before any industrial action.

I thought it was normal enough, afaik all public servants/civil servants need to join the union.

I suppose from an employers point of view easier to negotiate with one body than individuals...

The company I work in has a union but its certainly not enforced to join. Recently all non-union members got a bonus which union members didn't receive because the union couldn't agree to changes in work practices/or were holding out for more. I would be sickened to be in that union.... But at least it was their choice to join...

deise blue

I must say that I was blessed to be a Trade Union member in all the jobs I worked in across many areas of the Private Sector.

Terms & conditions freely negotiated between Unions & employers were universally good - in my last job I worked a 32.5 hour week , had 30 days annual leave & was a member of a defined benefit scheme for a nominal contribution allied to a competitive salary & when contentious matters occurred with employers no single employee was isolated as the Union was the bulwark between employers & employees.

Trade Unions are not perfect but they certainly serve a purpose .

Manco

Let's just hope you don't run afoul of an unfair or unscupulous employer, or else you might change your attitude to the 'scum' unions with a bang. When you think of what the Vita Cortex workers, among others, are going through, sheltered attitudes like the OP's piss me off.

Eoin

deise blue wrote: »

I must say that I was blessed to be a Trade Union member in all the jobs I worked in across many areas of the Private Sector.

Terms & conditions freely negotiated between Unions & employers were universally good - in my last job I worked a 32.5 hour week , had 30 days annual leave & was a member of a defined benefit scheme for a nominal contribution allied to a competitive salary & when contentious matters occurred with employers no single employee was isolated as the Union was the bulwark between employers & employees.

Trade Unions are not perfect but they certainly serve a purpose .

They certainly do serve a purpose if they can secure plum agreements like that.

I worked in a unionised company previously and would rather not do so again. Granted I wouldn't mind a handy number like the one you had, but the sense of entitlement and resistance to any change was very frustrating.

c_man

Manco wrote: »

Let's just hope you don't run afoul of an unfair or unscupulous employer, or else you might change your attitude to the 'scum' unions with a bang.

He might change his mind faster if he wasn't forced to join up.

Have a housemate who's in the same position OP. He just bit the bullet. No point arguing, let them have their subs. In those kinda places, you'd probably encounter plenty of cold shoulders if you somehow managed to bypass that requirement.

Cian92

You don't have to join the union, you have the right to disassociate. It is one of your unenumerated constitutional rights. This right to not join a trade union was first founded in the case of Meskill v CIE [1973].

I would strongly advise joining a union though, never a wise move not to.

Eoin

Cian92 wrote: »

You don't have to join the union, you have the right to disassociate. It is one of your unenumerated constitutional rights. This right to not join a trade union was first founded in the case of Meskill v CIE [1973].

Yeah, I saw that case quoted alright; though it seems to be more implicit than spelled out.

Cian92 wrote: »

I would strongly advise joining a union though, never a wise move not to.

That's too much of a sweeping generalisation. There are a good few situations where union membership is irrelevant or not particularly helpful.

deise blue

Eoin wrote: »

They certainly do serve a purpose if they can secure plum agreements like that.

I worked in a unionised company previously and would rather not do so again. Granted I wouldn't mind a handy number like the one you had, but the sense of entitlement and resistance to any change was very frustrating.

Just because negotiated terms & conditions were excellent doesn't make it a " handy " number - the work was complex & challenging & at times meant working long hours which thanks to the Union meant that all overtime had to be recorded & paid for.

Let's not pretend either that resistance to change is necessarily a bad thing - many employers want to introduce changes that negatively impact employees & Unions are quite entitled to resist such changes - failure to do so would be seen as compliant by their members.

the_syco

shakin wrote: »

Legally by my contract i must join SIPTU

Does it say that you must stay joined to SIPTU, or can you leave after your initial payment runs out?

Eoin

deise blue wrote: »

Just because negotiated terms & conditions were excellent doesn't make it a " handy " number - the work was complex & challenging & at times meant working long hours which thanks to the Union meant that all overtime had to be recorded & paid for.

I didn't mean to imply that the work was easy, sorry about that. I just mean that those conditions (effectively a 4 day week before OT kicks in) are far and above what most employees can expect.

deise blue wrote: »

Let's not pretend either that resistance to change is necessarily a bad thing - many employers want to introduce changes that negatively impact employees & Unions are quite entitled to resist such changes - failure to do so would be seen as compliant by their members.

Not always a bad thing, no. But where I was, it lead to a very inefficient organisation where length of service was rewarded before experience or ability, where pay rises were not linked to performance - and there's little doubt in my mind that this was a large factor in the redundancies and pay cuts that eventually had to be made - and which the unions had to grudgingly agree to before it all went completely tits up.

Having to learn new skills or perform slightly different tasks shouldn't be seen as "negatively impacting" employees, but that's how the unions often see it.