More Trade-Union Tyranny

arcadegame2004

Postal disruption in Galway tomorrow
An Post has said mail deliveries to Galway city and county will be disrupted tomorrow because of industrial action by local members of the Communications Workers Union.

An Post said 34 staff refused to attend work yesterday, after the company rejected a union demand relating to Christmas overtime.

This weekend's action comes days ahead of a national one-day stoppage planned for Wednesday, in protest at what the union has said were breaches of an agreement by management of An Post.

Today the company said the workers' action in Galway was in breach of an agreement concluded last month over Christmas arrangements.

Charity urges postal workers not to strike

The housing charity, Focus Ireland, has appealed to management and unions at An Post to avoid a Christmas postal strike at all costs.

It said a Christmas strike could cripple fundraising drives by charities.

The Communication Workers' Union warned that the protest would be the first step in a vigorous campaign.

An Post management said the strike would prevent thousands of welfare recipients and pensioners from collecting their payments next week.

The Minister for Social Affairs, Seamus Brennan, said his department was making every effort to minimise disruption to payments.

These public-sector unions are at it again! I am sick and tired of them inconveniencing the public. An Post is a loss-making company and desperately needs to cut costs. If Bertie thinks that being soft on the unions is going to win him votes he has another thing coming. Polls a few years ago used to show Irish people tending to sympathise with unions when they go on strike but in more recent years, especially since the ASTI strike, that trend has reversed itself. The unions want to stop some of the poorest and most vulnerable sections of Irish society from getting their pensions/disability benefits.

I think new industrial-relations laws are needed in order to encourage more responsible behaviour from the demagogues that head some of the unions in this country. Decisions on striking should not be made by some politburo-style elite within the unions. Proposals to strike should come from the union members and not be decided before the event by Trots and Reds.

Lennoxschips

* refuses bait *

AngelofFire

Arcade your post sickens me, my mother will be striking on wednesday in order to save her job. The department of communications are bent on closing the SDS for ideological reasons. The SDS had cut their losses significantly in the last 2 years, yet the government wants to shut it down, whats even worse is that they are creating false financial figures. They have failed to address the inefficancies within the service, for the past 2 years they have been cutting the amount of working staff and increasing the numbers of management staff, thats no way to run a public service. Your arguments against unions are a rehashing of the ones made by thatcher against the workers involved in the miners strike back in the 1980s.

ixoy

I can - eep - see vaguely where ArcadeGame2004 is coming from. Certain models of business employed in state services would never survive in the private sector. Some of these shouldn't have to, or be comparable, but that doesn't necessarily mean what's there shouldn't be reformed and streamlined. Has anyone actually worked out if there's value, for the customer and taxpayer, in An Post's reforms? Is there a better approach or should one be taken?

As to the striking tactic, I'm not a member of the company and nor of any union. This week I lost my job in a company that, whilst not meeting sales targets, still made a slim profit. I'm still out the door. I'm part of the dumping ground of capitalism. The news was greeted with dull acceptance, as we accepted almost that this was how the (private) market works and there was nothing that could be done. Is our dull acceptance, fatalism if you will, worse or better than inconveniencing others to save ourselves? As it is a strike, or work stoppage, would yield no results and not just because of a union. Where's the happy compromise? I'm not happy with the way things resulted for me and yet I still find anger at massive strikes. What IS the best action take in times like these. I wish I knew.

arcadegame2004

Your arguments against unions are a rehashing of the ones made by thatcher against the workers involved in the miners strike back in the 1980s.

She had the right attitude to the unions, I'll give her that! A democracy should not be held to ransom by one trade-union. I did not elect the bosses of these unions.

The SDS had cut their losses significantly in the last 2 years, yet the government wants to shut it down, whats even worse is that they are creating false financial figures.

How do you know they are creating false financial figures? Anyway, the practice of this government has been to leave the public-sector management to run their companies as they see fit, provided the company isn't being sold off. I personally agree with this approach. To have ministers intervening in every public-sector industrial dispute can only encourage an avalanche of strikes. My evidence for this assertion comes from what happened a few years ago in France during the fuel-protests, where concessions by the government there to fishermen quickly led to practically the whole country going on strike.

Regarding your mother, are you certain that she is actually going to lose her job? I sympathise with anyone losing their job, but An Post's endless lossmaking has to be tackled. I think that greater competition in the postal-sector would make An Post more efficient and careful with its spending, as it would have to compete with rivals. What answer would you propose to the SDS issue? Would you like the Government to bail it out? If that happened, I guarantee you the unions would be demanding the same treatment for other failing semi-state companies, and would probably pursue industrial-action to that end, paralysing the country. Why should the Government bail-out An Post? Ryanair doesn't get bailouts. Why is An Post any more deserving a charity than the thousands of private-sector companies, who are utterly unshielded from competition, unlike An Post which is protected from competition like one of the guilds of the Middle Ages.

Only 1% of the labour-force are categorised as long-term unemployed. The unemployment rate has stayed within a fairly narrow band of 3.5-4.5% in the last few years so chances are, those losing their jobs will find new ones. Aer Lingus had to cut the workforce a great deal to return to profitability. Why should An Post be any different? I would remind you of the extremely generous redundancy terms awarded to those who took up the redundancy offer in Aer Lingus. The unions should negotiate with management. I have heard that they may already have breached industrial-relations law by failing to give sufficient notice of strike-action. If this is true, then An Post should sue them.

ionapaul

The stars have aligned, the Seven Swords of Sheba have been re-united, Pluto may have in fact crashed into Uranus and the Four Horsemen can be seen in the West at dusk...oh yes, the signs point to one unlikely event, I am in agreement with Arcade... :eek:

dabhal

I agree with arcade,
I believe that Public opinion has changed.
It's not the little guy standing up for his rights anymore, its denial.
If they are losing money and there is no market, shut it down.
Yes people will lose their jobs but like arcade pointed towards, why are certain jobs more important than other?
Every day private companies lay people off.
A more comprising approach is needed from the unions. They are rapidly eroding the good will they have enjoyed in the past. :mad:

Lennoxschips

My granny is loss making. We're considering privatising her.

Trizo

I too am sick of unions in this country someone as much as farts and there’s a strike how long will Ireland be held up by Unions?
They are preventing progress in so many areas and holding the public to ransom so they can get what they want. They don’t care about anyone but themselves….

bonkey

AngelofFire wrote:

Arcade your post sickens me, my mother will be striking on wednesday in order to save her job.

Thas why it sickens you? Because your mum's job is on the line?

As a matter of interest, if it was a private company, would your mum have any right to keep her job?

If your mum wasn't working there...would arcade's comment still sicken you?

Does it sicken you that peopel can lose their jobs in private companies?

I don't know the details of what is and isn't happening, so I can't given an opinion as to who is right and wrong....but I will say that this appears - yet again - to be a situation where a strike is being not as a means of last resort, but simply as a de facto bargaining tool that the Unions have at their disposal to trot out whenever they want to put the thumbscrews on.

As a matter of interest, has this strike been condoned by the Labour Court? Have the parties even bothered to take their dispute there?

jc

magpie

I say Lock Them Out.

ionapaul

Bertie's a socialist now, surely he'll give in to them!

I often imagine my working life if public-sector style unions were tolerated everywhere...a threat of strike and the resulting payoff each and every time you are asked to learn something new or do something a little differently. Use a new telephone system, get a payoff. Use a new application, get a payoff. See someone else with the same degree earning more in a different sector, demand benchmarking. See the other sector where reward was tied to risk and performance go belly up, keep your mouth shut and the benchmarking money close to your chest. What a life. Course, they did make the country what it is today, kept the belts tightened during the lean years and so on...

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

I don't know the details of what is and isn't happening, so I can't given an opinion as to who is right and wrong....but I will say that this appears - yet again - to be a situation where a strike is being not as a means of last resort, but simply as a de facto bargaining tool that the Unions have at their disposal to trot out whenever they want to put the thumbscrews on.

I'll second that sentiment.

But am I alone in thinking "tyranny" is a tad harsh to describe the actions of CWU? Its not as if they're burning old age pension books and smashing Christmas presents...

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

These public-sector unions are at it again! I am sick and tired of them inconveniencing the public.

Specifically?

What has your post got to do with the news report you quoted, other than being a jumping off point for your rant?

Regarding the social welfare payments issue, to the best of my knowledge there is no reason why social welfare payments issued in post offices can't be brought forward by 1 day. Not everyone actually collects on the same day of the week, after all.

arcadegame2004

pete wrote:

Specifically?

What has your post got to do with the news report you quoted, other than being a jumping off point for your rant?

Regarding the social welfare payments issue, to the best of my knowledge there is no reason why social welfare payments issued in post offices can't be brought forward by 1 day. Not everyone actually collects on the same day of the week, after all.

Why do you think they chose Wednesday? Was it just a coincidence that this is when most people collect their social-welfare? I feel that the intention was to inconvenience people as much as possible. Okay so this week the payments will be on Tuesdays. But the unions have said they will '"intensify" their action so I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to obstruct any payments altogether.

Use a new telephone system, get a payoff. Use a new application, get a payoff. See someone else with the same degree earning more in a different sector, demand benchmarking. See the other sector where reward was tied to risk and performance go belly up, keep your mouth shut and the benchmarking money close to your chest.

Correct Ionapaul. Look at what's going on with the trade-unions obstructing reforms of the Health-Service e.g. abolition of the wasteful bureaucratic Health-Boards. They remind me of Dick Turpin, demanding money at every opportunity when change is required. Stand and deliver, your money or your social-welfare/your health-care/your education etc. Private-sector trade-unions are far less likely to strike and I think that shows that monopolies allow unions to hold us all to ransom and thus the need for greater competition, including removing An Post's monopoly over providing social-welfare, becomes all the more evident. I say that people should be allowed to get their social-welfare payments at the bank. I'd be interested to hear any justifications from contributors to this forum for the present state of affairs with respect to social-welfare having to be channeled through An Post. I personally can see no justification for it.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why do you think they chose Wednesday? Was it just a coincidence that this is when most people collect their social-welfare? I feel that the intention was to inconvenience people as much as possible.

Actually it was probably to inconvenience management. Getting paid a day early isn't really all that much of an inconvenience for the customers.

Okay so this week the payments will be on Tuesdays. But the unions have said they will '"intensify" their action so I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to obstruct any payments altogether.

Oh really? And you have a source for this?

No chance of you responding to the request for specific examples to support your "These public-sector unions are at it again! I am sick and tired of them inconveniencing the public." statement? How surprising.

An Post's monopoly over providing social-welfare, becomes all the more evident. I say that people should be allowed to get their social-welfare payments at the bank. I'd be interested to hear any justifications from contributors to this forum for the present state of affairs with respect to social-welfare having to be channeled through An Post. I personally can see no justification for it.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? I suggest you do a little reading before blathering on in future.

9. How is Payment Made?
Disability Benefit may be paid:
directly into your Bank or Building Society Account-this is known as Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) - payment is made to any of the financial institutions listed below
by cheque, which is posted directly to you.

Source: http://www.cidb.ie/live.nsf/0/802567ca003e043d80256e430059bb1a?OpenDocument

7. How Payment is Made
Old Age Non-Contributory Pension can be paid :

directly into your Bank, Building Society or An Post Savings Account - this is known as Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) - and payment is
made 2 weeks in arrears - see below for details of financial institutions
or
by a book of Payable Orders which can be cashed weekly at a chosen Post Office.

Source: http://www.cidb.ie/live.nsf/0/760f0783e944279480256db2005590e4?OpenDocument

Welfare Topics
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT)


Index
Direct payment to your bank account is available on all Social Welfare payments (including Disability Benefit) except Disablement Benefit. This means that instead of getting your payment by cheque, your payment is lodged directly to your bank or building society account, by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

On receipt of an EFT application, the Department will undertake a number of validation procedures to ensure that the application is genuine. In the case of customers in receipt of Unemployment payments this will require the customer visiting their Local Office to discuss their application.

Source: http://www.welfare.ie

Back to Education Allowance is paid on a weekly basis by the Social Welfare Local Office. Participants are requested to supply details of their bank account and payment of the allowance may be made by Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT).
Other methods of payment include postdraft or cheque payment.

Source: http://www.welfare.ie/foi/bte_all.html

and so forth.

arcadegame2004

pete wrote:

Actually it was probably to inconvenience management. Getting paid a day early isn't really all that much of an inconvenience for the customers.



Oh really? And you have a source for this?

No chance of you responding to the request for specific examples to support your "These public-sector unions are at it again! I am sick and tired of them inconveniencing the public." statement? How surprising.



You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? I suggest you do a little reading before blathering on in future.



Source: http://www.cidb.ie/live.nsf/0/802567ca003e043d80256e430059bb1a?OpenDocument



Source: http://www.cidb.ie/live.nsf/0/760f0783e944279480256db2005590e4?OpenDocument



Source: http://www.welfare.ie



Source: http://www.welfare.ie/foi/bte_all.html

and so forth.

I am someone who has arranged to have my disability-benefit paid to me via the cash simply being lodged in my bank-account. However, I have been informed when doing so that the An Post industrial-action may disrupt this too because An Post staff are personally responsible for sending the money to a person's bank-account. No escape it seems!

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am someone who has arranged to have my disability-benefit paid to me via the cash simply being lodged in my bank-account.

Obviously you have a different definition of 'monopoly' then.

However, I have been informed when doing so that the An Post industrial-action may disrupt this too because An Post staff are personally responsible for sending the money to a person's bank-account. No escape it seems!

Direct Payment: Direct Payments (EFT) are lodged directly to a Bank/Building Society account

Source: http://www.welfare.ie/topics/payments/howmade.html

See also Report of the Post Office Working Group, 2001

The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs (“DSCFA”)
represents the most significant single source of revenue to the Post
Offices division, accounting directly for 43% (£36.0m) of total third
party revenues in 2000.

snip

The Post Office network currently (April 2001) handles 71% of welfare
recipients. The remainder paid by electronic funds transfer (EFT: 19%)
and cheque (10%).

snip

DSCFA income is under threat in the medium term due to increasing EFT substitution

sceptre

I'm ignoring the main issue (sorry guys, may have a contribution on that one of the days - I can see some good points in AG's POV and some good points from the other side) but isn't "tyranny" overstating it a bit? "More trade-union meanness" or "more trade union messing" or even "more trade union holding someone or other to ransom over a peck of pickled peppers in a jar" perhaps?

dabhal

Pete your right funds transfer is there but you would be surprised at the amount of people who still go and collect it as cash at the post office.
I walk by my post office every day and on some days there are queues out the door.
I think you guys need to chill a bit and stop focusing on a single point so much.

Dabhal

pete

surprised? hardly. The issue wasn't how few or how many people collect at the post office, it was:

... I think that shows that monopolies allow unions to hold us all to ransom and thus the need for greater competition, including removing An Post's monopoly over providing social-welfare, becomes all the more evident. I say that people should be allowed to get their social-welfare payments at the bank. I'd be interested to hear any justifications from contributors to this forum for the present state of affairs with respect to social-welfare having to be channeled through An Post. I personally can see no justification for it.

I was merely refuting the usual inaccurate, unresearched, misleading, scaremongering "facts" posted in support of the poster's original comments.

(Incidentally, 71% of recipients were paid in the post office in 2001, as quoted from An Post figures above.)

(Oh and the queues could also be down to under-staffing, you know )

Sleepy

If a company needs to lay off people to turn a profit, it has to do so. Why don't unions understand that by accepting a number of layoffs, they are benefitting the rest of the workers by saving their jobs? Because these are government institutions that can't be allowed to fold and the union bosses realise that. It's sheer greed from the unions because they know they can hold the government to ransom through the pity of a naieve public.

Sure, I have sympathy for someone if they're laid off, it's not a nice thing to have happen but in the modern world it will happen most of us at some stage of our lives. The stranglehold these unions have on our country are easily the strongest argument for privatisation in the current climate.

pete

Questions & Answers, December 6th:

"Given the difficulties at An Post, what does the panel think the future holds for the postal service?"

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1206/qanda/qanda4.smil

sovtek

Sleepy wrote:

If a company needs to lay off people to turn a profit, it has to do so.

That "need" is usually pretty subjective though.
Boeing had a large layoff after Sept 11th...yet a top CEO was still drawing $500mill a year....not to mention still getting huge subsidies from the government.

Of course that's in private sector company where their reason for being is short term profit. An Post's reason for being is (sorry I don't know French) to deliver mail.
(Anybody here try to get a package sent from the US lately by that shining example of privatization known as Global Package Systems?) :rolleyes:

The stranglehold these unions have on our country are easily the strongest argument for privatisation in the current climate.

And an argument against would be many examples of private companies holding countries to ransom by raising prices whilst cutting services/disinvestment of infrastructure and virtually eliminating unions.

Having said that I'm not all that up on the current An Post situation.

therecklessone

sceptre wrote:

I'm ignoring the main issue (sorry guys, may have a contribution on that one of the days - I can see some good points in AG's POV and some good points from the other side) but isn't "tyranny" overstating it a bit?

And ignoring some earlier posts as well, but thats all right. Good to see I'm not alone in thinking that after all...

sceptre

therecklessone wrote:

And ignoring some earlier posts as well, but thats all right. Good to see I'm not alone in thinking that after all...

Oops, that's what I get for ignoring the main issue and not reading any of the following posts as a result.

dub45

A few general points which posters do not seem to be aware of -

Because of the universal service requirement An Post is required to deliver throught out the country for the same basic price - this imposes considerable costs on the Company which the much quoted private companies would simply not tolerate. It would be quite eas for An Post to make profits if it only had to deliver in Cities and large towns and these are the targets for private companies.

An Post is not endlessly loss making check your figures before you make this type of statement and An Post (probably mistakenly!) did not increase the basic price of a stamp for quite a number of years. Can many private companies boast of not increasing the cost of their main service over a number of years?

Many post offices throught the world are suffering similar problems to An Post because of the continuing changes in society e.g. emailing texting and so on. The average person simply does not use the post any more for personal communication.

As regards the payment of social welfare it is not certain that there are many alternatives to An Post having the contract for this service and as a poster has pointed out there are plenty of alternative methods even with An Post having the contract. Do you really think the banks want this contract?

And as for all those diputes constantly holding the company to ransom?

I too am sick of unions in this country someone as much as farts and there’s a strike how long will Ireland be held up by Unions?
They are preventing progress in so many areas and holding the public to ransom so they can get what they want. They don’t care about anyone but themselves…

Have a look at Table 3

These figures would suggest that the number of disputes in Ireland is relatively
small