Employment Conditions.

jimgoose

According to the Irish Times last year: "It estimated that 5.3 per cent of employees in Ireland – about 100,000 people – have constantly varying working hours. But only a subset of these would be on “if and when“ contracts."

So there's probably not that many on actual zero-hour contracts. Nevertheless, I'm appalled by this carry-on. The U.K. is destroyed with it, with vast numbers of (usually young) people working hard and pumping the treadmill and barely earning enough to feed themselves. I don't know what I'd do if I were stuck in such a situation - when I worked in a factory over twenty years ago this kind of abuse of ordinary workers was unheard-of here. We're definitely inclined to move backwards rather than forwards around here these days.

jimgoose

mariaalice wrote: »

An interesting point both of mine worked in retail when they were teen's and both were offered a rout in to management, now when the the older one considered it, the job was trainee manager, however it had changed to supervisor by the time the second was in the same position.

They didn't do it, but the first worked in the head office for a while which she described as a nightmare.

These "managers" tend to be the buck-ape/doe-ape who'll put on the cheap suit and name-tag and bate the rest of them into line for even less money. :pac:

MarkAnthony

PMBC wrote: »

[/B]

Well done and you have the added advantage that, if like me you are 'follicly challenged' you can put on the wig. However it is a hard path except for those who make it. Best of luck.

Thank you, very much appreciated! It's been a long path and one that might not go anywhere but here's hoping.

PMBC wrote: »

You are saying therefore that these 'poor conditions' only apply to the minority?

You'd need to define poor conditions really.

Using Greenmachine as an example, he's not who retail actually want. They want people down the road - who can come in to cover when people are out. I completely disagree with zero hour contracts but 8-16 hour contracts at 4 hours a day, there is a section of the work force that suits down to the ground. It does mean that well intentioned people like GM end up looking at those jobs and concluding their better off on the dole and I certainly don't begrudge them that especially as I'd have taken one look at the CV and though - too far away.

Retail and various other jobs aren't great, but they're hardly mistreating people (in the main). Where there are breaches they should be robustly dealt with. The problem is while people demand lower and lower prices payrolls will continue to be squeezed.

KomradeBishop

PMBC wrote: »

Two general issues are being raised on this thread but they both relate to woking conditions - Irish workers and workers overseas e.g. Bangladesh sweat factories. There is a general trend in the developed economies to effect economies in business by reducing labour costs and even minimum wages may not be enough to overcome that. Very few people call for Socialism and it was never very popular in Ireland. Some posters seem to be fine with zero hours or very low fixed hours but most posters, and I'm open to correction on that are not. At least one poster has voted with their feet and does not shop at those big retailers but it will take more than that to change things. Its curious that while labour costs/conditions are being reduced, profits are rising and CEOs are being better rewarded. Recently BPs CEO ran into trouble over approval of his annual salary of +£3 m. while the group lost +£6 bn. In the USA figures show a huge movement of 'wealth' from labour to Capital. It is indeed a race to the bottom as the lower rewards to workers result in less consumption, whether or not the idea of increasing consumption is logical, in any case.
So what to do? A concerted effort is needed to make the case to those who can effect change - politicians (including Unions), public opinion and businesses. Businesses will respond if they see that their bottom line is being affected and politicians will if there are enough people involved to scupper their next appearance in front of the electorate. A master strategist and one with charisma is needed - attributes which I don't have, unfortunately. But I can type.

Why not directly build a new movement to promote discussion, political activity and lobbying on these issues ourselves, instead of deferring to existing authorities - who don't seem to give a toss?

The thing about issues like this, is it's pretty much never going to change so long as people expect 'someone else' to do something about it - everyone individually has to be active - and complaining to politicians won't change a thing, there has to be active political disruption for any change to actually happen.

Much of the existing power structures capable of changing this - unions particularly - are a bit old/stale and partially co-opted (I do not trust Labour one bit either), so we pretty much have to start anew, building new political/labour movements.

Affected people don't seem interested in this though, despite the worsening conditions they have to deal with.

mariaalice

jimgoose wrote: »

According to the Irish Times last year: "It estimated that 5.3 per cent of employees in Ireland – about 100,000 people – have constantly varying working hours. But only a subset of these would be on “if and when“ contracts."

So there's probably not that many on actual zero-hour contracts. Nevertheless, I'm appalled by this carry-on. The U.K. is destroyed with it, with vast numbers of (usually young) people working hard and pumping the treadmill and barely earning enough to feed themselves. I don't know what I'd do if I were stuck in such a situation - when I worked in a factory over twenty years ago this kind of abuse of ordinary workers was unheard-of here. We're definitely inclined to move backwards rather than forwards around here these days.

Very good point, mine live in the UK and the wealth divide is huge and the working poor and actual poor is much worse than here.

FixdePitchmark

PMBC wrote: »

Two general issues are being raised on this thread but they both relate to woking conditions - Irish workers and workers overseas e.g. Bangladesh sweat factories. There is a general trend in the developed economies to effect economies in business by reducing labour costs and even minimum wages may not be enough to overcome that. Very few people call for Socialism and it was never very popular in Ireland. Some posters seem to be fine with zero hours or very low fixed hours but most posters, and I'm open to correction on that are not. At least one poster has voted with their feet and does not shop at those big retailers but it will take more than that to change things. Its curious that while labour costs/conditions are being reduced, profits are rising and CEOs are being better rewarded. Recently BPs CEO ran into trouble over approval of his annual salary of +£3 m. while the group lost +£6 bn. In the USA figures show a huge movement of 'wealth' from labour to Capital. It is indeed a race to the bottom as the lower rewards to workers result in less consumption, whether or not the idea of increasing consumption is logical, in any case.
So what to do? A concerted effort is needed to make the case to those who can effect change - politicians (including Unions), public opinion and businesses. Businesses will respond if they see that their bottom line is being affected and politicians will if there are enough people involved to scupper their next appearance in front of the electorate. A master strategist and one with charisma is needed - attributes which I don't have, unfortunately. But I can type.

Excellent post.

I am lucky that I am not affected by these issues - but have asked a couple of people exposed to the work practises of the likes of Dunnes and M&S - my heart really went out to one particular individual in his 50s - who from one week to the next is told what hours he is doing.

He can't claim dole and his conditions and hours are diminished further by students coming in - who really have no long term career in the industry.

I genuinely would support a black list.

The public used their power incorrectly with water chargers - these issues are far more serious.

The reduction of wages for new public servants and wages in many private tax exile companies are disgusting.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

PMBC

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why not directly build a new movement to promote discussion, political activity and lobbying on these issues ourselves, instead of deferring to existing authorities - who don't seem to give a toss?

The thing about issues like this, is it's pretty much never going to change so long as people expect 'someone else' to do something about it - everyone individually has to be active - and complaining to politicians won't change a thing, there has to be active political disruption for any change to actually happen.

Much of the existing power structures capable of changing this - unions particularly - are a bit old/stale and partially co-opted (I do not trust Labour one bit either), so we pretty much have to start anew, building new political/labour movements.

Affected people don't seem interested in this though, despite the worsening conditions they have to deal with.

yes I agree it need a new movement and I'm interested in doing what I can.

Grandeeod

As I'm sure many already know, there are a few debates going on here and on other forums about the luas strikes and the potential for strikes in Irish Rail. Within these debates there are basically two sides.

1. Pro Union - give the workers what they want.
2. Screw the Union - the workers are well paid and conditions are good.

Obviously the public transport issues are high profile. Despite the luas being a private concern, it has been dragged into the age old CIE Union thing.

What disgusts me, is how the pro transport union types talk it up and behave like comrade klinski on coke, yet refuse to make any real contribution to issues similar to the ones on this thread. I believe that unions have totally and utterly failed to address the disgraceful carry on in areas like the retail sector. From experience, I can safely say that retail employees are under paid and taken advantage off. Yet Mandate (the retail union) do so little outside of the big players like Dunnes and Tescos. (even within those companies, Mandate don't exactly do a whole lot.)

The bottom line in relation to Unions is that they are only interested in the public sector and semi-states. Luas is an exception, because I believe SIPTU want it under state control. This brings us back to the state mechanisms for private sector employees and it's really a political thing and a total and utter lack of interest in genuinely low paid workers combined with useless unions such as Mandate. Someone mentioned earlier that a new approach is needed and I'd agree. The retail sector in Ireland is toxic in relation to conditions and I think that the lack of progress in improving it, is down to the high turnover of staff, it not being seen as a major career opportunity and believe it or not....wait for it....an abuse of the "probationary period."

CelticRambler

Grandeeod wrote: »

This brings us back to the state mechanisms for private sector employees and it's really a political thing and a total and utter lack of interest in genuinely low paid workers combined with useless unions such as Mandate. Someone mentioned earlier that a new approach is needed and I'd agree. The retail sector in Ireland is toxic in relation to conditions and I think that the lack of progress in improving it, is down to the high turnover of staff, it not being seen as a major career opportunity and believe it or not....wait for it....an abuse of the "probationary period."

That sounds great in principle. If you want to see what happens when the unions (and others) succeed in getting "state mechanisms for private sector employees" in place, you only have to look at the situation in France. Recruitment is dead.

France is now the only country in Europe with rising unemployment across all sectors of the work force. 80% of the jobs created over the last three years were as a result of self-employment. Of the remaining 20%, 80% of those were fixed-term contracts because employers don't want to be saddled with "protected" workers that are more hassle than they're worth.

At the end of last year, a new Code was proposed, which included radical proposals such as allowing employers to make arrangements directly with their workers, allowing employers to let people go if the business was making a loss, and protecting employers from being hauled before (the equivalent of) EAT for compensation *after* they'd negotiated terms with a redundant employee.

Between that and the taxis and the air traffic controllers, we've had three strikes a week since the start of the year to get the new legislation defeated, and now there's a new permanent demonstration "Nuit Debout" complaining about who-knows-what (in fact nobody seems to know what, except that it's something to do with the reforms).

When all is said and done, the more legislation you put in place, the more you encourage people to find a way around it, and that goes for workers as well as employers. Those zero-contract hours in the UK? There's no shortage of people happy to sign up for them. One could argue "they have no choice" but they do have a choice: they could change their lifestyle.

There was a research paper published (?) last week that showed how Creative Arts/Communications graduates in the UK end up worse off ten years after graduation than those who didn't go to university. Are they the ones working on zero-hours contracts? Probably. So maybe the problem starts with young people being made to believe that these nonsense degrees are worth anything, then being left with nothing ...

radical

esforum

Grandeeod wrote: »

As I'm sure many already know, there are a few debates going on here and on other forums about the luas strikes and the potential for strikes in Irish Rail. Within these debates there are basically two sides.

1. Pro Union - give the workers what they want.
2. Screw the Union - the workers are well paid and conditions are good.

Obviously the public transport issues are high profile. Despite the luas being a private concern, it has been dragged into the age old CIE Union thing.

What disgusts me, is how the pro transport union types talk it up and behave like comrade klinski on coke, yet refuse to make any real contribution to issues similar to the ones on this thread. I believe that unions have totally and utterly failed to address the disgraceful carry on in areas like the retail sector. From experience, I can safely say that retail employees are under paid and taken advantage off. Yet Mandate (the retail union) do so little outside of the big players like Dunnes and Tescos. (even within those companies, Mandate don't exactly do a whole lot.)

The bottom line in relation to Unions is that they are only interested in the public sector and semi-states. Luas is an exception, because I believe SIPTU want it under state control. This brings us back to the state mechanisms for private sector employees and it's really a political thing and a total and utter lack of interest in genuinely low paid workers combined with useless unions such as Mandate. Someone mentioned earlier that a new approach is needed and I'd agree. The retail sector in Ireland is toxic in relation to conditions and I think that the lack of progress in improving it, is down to the high turnover of staff, it not being seen as a major career opportunity and believe it or not....wait for it....an abuse of the "probationary period."

I gave this a chance until I read this line and I just thought, not another one.

Theres something like 100 unions / rep bodies in this country representing 35% of workers and more than half of them do not represent public sector workers. Even SIPTU who represent DFB and civil servants have less public sector members than private.

I am also confused as to why you would expect the teachers union as an example, to fight for retail staff rights. If MANDATE are the union that most retail staff are members of, then thats the union that fights for them.

Grandeeod

esforum wrote: »

I gave this a chance until I read this line and I just thought, not another one.

Theres something like 100 unions / rep bodies in this country representing 35% of workers and more than half of them do not represent public sector workers. Even SIPTU who represent DFB and civil servants have less public sector members than private.

I am also confused as to why you would expect the teachers union as an example, to fight for retail staff rights. If MANDATE are the union that most retail staff are members of, then thats the union that fights for them.

I say you gave it a chance until I was critical of unions.

As for this...

I am also confused as to why you would expect the teachers union as an example, to fight for retail staff rights.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Unions have a role, but I believe many are too wrapped up in particular battlefields to really make a difference to those that deserve it most.

esforum

Grandeeod wrote: »

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

and yet he once again states that unions are too caught up in their own battles to help those that need their help the most.

Grandeeod wrote: »

Unions have a role, but I believe many are too wrapped up in particular battlefields to really make a difference to those that deserve it most.

who ta **** are you talking about and what unions arent helping them?

You are moaning about the retail industry and then moaning that unions outside of mandate dont care

MANDATE is their union!!!!

Grandeeod

esforum wrote: »

and yet he once again states that unions are too caught up in their own battles to help those that need their help the most.



who ta **** are you talking about and what unions arent helping them?

You are moaning about the retail industry and then moaning that unions outside of mandate dont care

MANDATE is their union!!!!

Seriously dude, you are off with the fairies. Gonna hit the report button.

Greenmachine

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I completely understand the decision not to take those jobs, but no time to find other work - pull the other one. I know people who've done PhDs working similar jobs with crappy commutes.

You have time when you don't take those jobs. But when you do take those jobs. It takes something out of you. If you are happy to keep applying for similar work in the hope of getting something similar but with more hours then it doesn't take much to time to submit an application.

But if you want to apply for jobs you are really passionate about, research the roles, create targeted CV's and covering letters, and follow up with the jobs you have applied for, you will soon feel yourself limited. It is a question of how serious you take your job hunt if you just sent the same CV to every job, then, it doesn't really matter sure, you can do it all on your phone while you are on your way home from your 4th 4 hour shift of the week.

esforum

Grandeeod wrote: »

Seriously dude, you are off with the fairies. Gonna hit the report button.

Its an easy question, you are complaining about unions not helping people. Which unions and who are they not helping?

(because, according to you, they are too busy looking after the public sector)

Grandeeod

esforum wrote: »

Its an easy question, you are complaining about unions not helping people. Which unions and who are they not helping?

(because, according to you, they are too busy looking after the public sector)

I will leave it to you to look back on what I said and your responses. (which were bizzare)

Once you have figured out how you reacted, I will gladly answer your questions.

Nite nite.

melissak

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Maybe I'm biased, I dunno. I picked a career that involves paying for the privilege of turning up to work for at least the first few years!

Well for those who can afford to pay for the privilege of turning up to work for the first few years. This thread is about those who have to work for money to survive and feed their families. They have no cake...