Unions - Was Mrs Thatcher Right?

magpie

I was watching the news last night to see SIPTU claiming that DART drivers had the right to higher pay as they would be expected to carry 6+ cars of passengers, claiming higher responsibility and productivity.

They then had an Iarnrod Eireann representative who pointed out that under the PPF agreement DART drivers earn €48000 pa for a 40 hour 5 day week! Considerably more than many boards.ie users who have 3rd and even 4th level qualifications.

So it struck me, maybe Thatcher was right to break the Unions' stranglehold. The time when Unions stopped the working class from being exploited has passed, now they exploit their position to bully and extort unrealistically high salaries for low-qualification positions under the threat of destroying the country's infrastructure through strikes.

Given the vast quantity of highly-skilled workers available in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania who I'm sure would be delighted to drive DARTS, Busses etc for I suspect a fraction of what we have to pay our homegrown Unionised racketeers why can't we bring in foreign labour to do these jobs and break the unions for once and for all?

Irish society would benefit enormously from this sector of the workforce being thankful to have work, rather than demanding what are effectively professional salary levels for unskilled labour.

More info here

bonkey

magpie wrote:

They then had an Iarnrod Eireann representative who pointed out that under the PPF agreement DART drivers earn €48000 pa for a 40 hour 5 day week!
Considerably more than many boards.ie users who have 3rd and even 4th level qualifications.

Are you basing that last sentence on a guess, or are there figures to back it up? National average salaries against educational level, perhaps?

And, I have to say, my immediate reaction is "so what if they're earning more". Is playing a key role in the struggle to contain Dublin's traffic not important enough for you to want to pay for it?

Even if you're right....can't the boards.ie users who are losing out financially apply for jobs driving the DART? Its an open market, and if - as you keep suggesting - the qualifications required are so low, then they're not an obstacle to anyone with a higher education qualification, are they?

The time when Unions stopped the working class from being exploited has passed, now they exploit their position to bully and extort unrealistically high salaries for low-qualification positions under the threat of destroying the country's infrastructure through strikes.

I'd argue they do both. There is no shortage of examples of workers still getting screwed today, just as there is no shortage of examples of unions taking govt. to the cleaners.

Can you show, as a matter of interest, that average civil service salaries match or beat average private-sector salaries in any fields relevant to the discsussion? If they don't beat them then it would seem that unions aren't doing as well for state and semi-state employees as market forces do for the rest of us.....which would call into question the suggestion that its time for unions to go because they're getting too much.

Given the vast quantity of highly-skilled workers available in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania who I'm sure would be delighted to drive DARTS, Busses etc
...
rather than demanding what are effectively professional salary levels for unskilled labour.

I find it interesting that whenever you talk about the Irish people in these positions, it is unskilled / low-qualified work. When you refer to the foreigners who would be glad to take the position...they are highly skilled.

for I suspect a fraction of what we have to pay our homegrown Unionised

Anything more than a suspicion to help us along here? Or is a suspicion all it takes these days to second-guess the government?

jc

pickarooney

Well a DART driver earns more than twice what I do, with a 4-year degree and 7 year's experience, but all I do is push a mouse around all day.
I wouldn't turn down 50,000 a year for doing what I do, but I certaily wouldn't say I was really earning it. If the government wants to pay DART drivers that amount for 'pushing a few buttons' as one poster on the other thread in AH put it, then they'd be fools not to take it.

magpie

Can you show, as a matter of interest, that average civil service salaries match or beat average private-sector salaries in any fields relevant to the discsussion?

Why don't we privatise public transport and find out which is cheaper and/or more efficient? Otherwise you're not comparing like with like

whenever you talk about the Irish people in these positions, it is unskilled / low-qualified work. When you refer to the foreigners who would be glad to take the position...they are highly skilled.

Because Irish people with 3rd level education don't drive DARTS, people who leave school at 15 with no qualifications do. However there are lots of people with 3rd level education in Eastern Europe who are driven by economic necessity to come over and do unskilled work, and who are quite happy to do it.

Anything more than a suspicion to help us along here?

I guarantee you can find people to drive DARTS for 50% less than what we are currently paying, if you could remove the obstacle of SIPTU from preventing the free market from sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Barry Kenny quoted the €48,000 for a 40 hr 5 day week on last nights 9 news on RTÉ and on morning Ireland,they can also get overtime.
Willie Noone of Siptu stated that it takes 10 yrs to get tothat level and starter drivers are on €38,000

They want a 9.5% pay rise for driving trains with 2 extra carriages-whats the inflation rate again?
I'd like to know if they have been getting the annual increases due to the various annual national wage agreement programmes.

Kenny also said that this improvement ie the the extra 2 trains and the improved track to carry them was approved in an agreement with the unions in 2000 and that the improvement would be brought in without disruption.

He said that what the union is argue-ing from a 1983 deal which was superceded by the 2000 agreement.

I'm inclined to think this is greedy to be honest.
Some background and links to listen to the morning Ireland interviews can be got here

It reminds me of my local post office workers who got lump sum disturbance money to move to a new building-the new building was next door... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

I don't think the unions have a leg to stand on to be honest, as has been pointed out they reached an agreement in 2000 and now are rejecting this agreement and basing their grevience on a much older agreement.

I would point out though that €48,000 isn't a lot of money. It might seem it is to a single, under 30, IT professional earning less that €30k a year (ie me) but to a person in with a morgage, 3 kids and a wife to support, €48 isn't going to go that far. The point the drivers are making is that the 48k is the maximum that a driver can earn, even if they take on more carriges. Both my parents earned a lot more than that and they wouldn't be considered that well off.

Like i said, I don't think they have a leg to stand on, but I still wouldn't be thinking they are loaded already

magpie

The point the drivers are making is that the 48k is the maximum that a driver can earn, even if they take on more carriges. Both my parents earned a lot more than that and they wouldn't be considered that well off.

In the ratio of qualifications to earnings €48,000 is a lot of money.

You seriously expect me to feel sorry that its the ceiling to their income? €48000 is double what the government should be paying for unskilled labour.

to a person in with a morgage, 3 kids and a wife to support, €48 isn't going to go that far.

What percentage of DART drivers have mortgages, and what percentage live in Council Houses I wonder?

As for the 3 kids and a wife, I didn't realise that entitled you to be paid dramatically over the odds. I was always under the impression it was up to you to meet your own responsibilities, by taking on a second job if necessary. I must have a word with my boss about the money I'm evidently owed.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

You seriously expect me to feel sorry that its the ceiling to their income? €48000 is double what the government should be paying for unskilled labour.

You think an "unskilled" (I think you mean "un-3rd-level-qualificationed," last time I check the train drivers have a skill, ie driving trains) should make €23,000 a year no matter how long they have worked at the company? Why, exactly? Cause they didn't spend 3 years getting high and partying in college?

magpie

magpie wrote:

You seriously expect me to feel sorry that its the ceiling to their income? €48000 is double what the government should be paying for unskilled labour.

While I do think the Dart drivers are trying it on.
I don't think it's accurate to describe their job as unskilled.
I doubt that it requires more skill though to take on an extra 2 carriages.

When pressed on the reason for the rise,SIPTU said because it's a bigger work load with being responsible for more passengers.
Pressed further they said for example evacuating the passengers during break downs.They couldnt come up with a reasonable(in my view) explanation as to any other increased work load-probably because there isn't any.

I've been on plenty half empty Dart's-should we bring in a scheme of payment per passenger perhaps? Say halve their pay when the trains are half empty?
I wonder how that would go down?

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

What percentage of DART drivers have mortgages, and what percentage live in Council Houses I wonder?

What are you talking about?

magpie wrote:

As for the 3 kids and a wife, I didn't realise that entitled you to be paid dramatically over the odds.

It isn't dramatically over the odds, thats the point .. it is actually quite a crap pay if you compare it to the same pay in other jobs.

magpie wrote:

I was always under the impression it was up to you to meet your own responsibilities, by taking on a second job if necessary.

Or you know, the company you work for could pay you a decent wage for your experience and years of service. Just an idea.

magpie wrote:

I must have a word with my boss about the money I'm evidently owed.

I have no idea what you do, but if you like me work in IT you would be expecting to be making a lot more than €48k when you are 40 or over. Most of the senior developers at the company I work at, who have been with the company for more than about 10 years and have about 15 years experience, are on about 60k-65k. And that is before you get to managment, that is just developers, doing the same job I am doing.

Baz_

Yeah lets get rid of the unions, then we can end up like america, getting shafted every which way the boss's can.

Mrs. Thatcher was right about only one thing in her life:
Nothing!*

Baz_

*The author of this post knows absolutely nothing about the life and career of Mrs Margaret Thatcher and as such this statement should not be taken as factual.

magpie

should make €23,000 a year no matter how long they have worked at the company? Why, exactly?

Because that's the price that the company could find someone else to do the same job. If the person doesn't like it they can leave and be replaced by another highly-replaceable unskilled worker. Its not a question of loyalty, its economics. If you could train a chimp to do it for bananas I'd be in favour of that, and wouldn't expect the chimp to demand more bananas based on his years of service.

It isn't dramatically over the odds, thats the point .. it is actually quite a crap pay if you compare it to the same pay in other jobs.

Oh really? Do suburban train drivers elsewhere in Ireland get paid more than €48k? Or are you comparing it with pay in jobs that require 3rd or 4th level qualifications? In which case you probably think its terrible that bin men don't get the same as the CEO of AIB.

the company you work for could pay you a decent wage for your experience and years of service

In private industry a company will weigh up whether it would be more expensive to replace you or give you a pay rise. The same thing should and would happen in the public sector if it wasn't for the unions.

Most of the senior developers at the company I work at, who have been with the company for more than about 10 years and have about 15 years experience, are on about 60k-65k. And that is before you get to managment, that is just developers, doing the same job I am doing.

Which is only proper as these are considerably more skilled and educated people than train drivers. They also contribute to the economy through the creation of jobs, the expansion of business and the development of marketable ideas. They don't sit in a carriage reading the Star and pressing green and red buttons alternately.

SparkyLarks

Your qualifications and your education shouldn;'t have a bearing on what you earn.

What affects your wages is how essential the job you do is, it's value to the users and how much others are willing to do the job for.

Personally I think the Unions have too much power in this country. Unions are needed to protect workers from Companies like Gama. Not to threathen strikes after labour court rulings.

The problems with working in heavily unioinised companies is that the laziest people are protected. Promotins occur on time served rather than expertise and effort. Bonuses are not heavily performance related. I even know of a hevily unionised company wher workers get a bonus as compensation for being paid electronically, as opposed to being paid by cash. :eek:

It becomes difficult for companies to bring in more efficant work practices because the Unions will demand wage increases, sometimes justified sometimes not.

I think the problem is when you have trade unionis for their own sake. Someone who works for a trade union will always be looking for something to complain about. If each company had their own union then the balance would be fairer. The fact that Large trade unions can crippe the Ecomomy gives them too much bargining power with the public sector.

The fact that if The Train drivers strike then SIPTU can get the bus and rail drivers to strike as well. Leaving Dublin transport in a compleate mess.

Mighty_Mouse

I would come from the left on most political arguments but I must admit that I was a little confused as to how a train driver would deserve an increase for driving a longer train. Is it harder work?

I dont know enough about it though.

Zombrex

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

I would come from the left on most political arguments but I must admit that I was a little confused as to how a train driver would deserve an increase for driving a longer train. Is it harder work?

It is a measurement of experience/pay-rate I think ... they don't really care about carrying more trains, but it is the fact that the ceiling for pay is still set at €48k.

It is like a managment position. Being a manager doesn't necessaryly mean you are actually doing more work, or that your work is more stressful (in fact quite the opposite most of the time), but you still get paid a hell of a lot more.

BTW, i don't support the drivers in this case ... they seem to be trying to bend the rules for this ... the labour court has already rejected it afaik

foxybrowne

I just joined a union last month cos I was having some trouble in work, and I have to say, it was really helpful. I got advice about my basic entitlements and about how to request them. It gave me a lot more confidence to talk to my boss about such issues, knowing that I had some back-up. Now what's wrong with that?

"Was Mrs. Thatcher Right?" - well she was hardly left!

therecklessone

SparkyLarks wrote:

Personally I think the Unions have too much power in this country. Unions are needed to protect workers from Companies like Gama. Not to threathen strikes after labour court rulings.

SIPTU represented the Turkish employees of Gama during their dispute.

SIPTU are on of the two unions involved in this dispute with IE.

So do they have too much power? Or they're necessary to protect against a Gama-type situation again?

Sparkylarks wrote:

If each company had their own union then the balance would be fairer. The fact that Large trade unions can crippe the Ecomomy gives them too much bargining power with the public sector.

The fact that if The Train drivers strike then SIPTU can get the bus and rail drivers to strike as well. Leaving Dublin transport in a compleate mess.

If you limited unions to company-wide representation, wouldn't the fact that public transport workers are ultimately employees of CIE negate your efforts in this instance?

lostexpectation

i think the reporting of the dart drivers thing has been unfair, look at the gate gourmet instigating a stirke so they can avoid severance pay and aer lingus too screwing around with employees you need a union as a counterbalance neither's perfect...

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

you need a union as a counterbalance neither's perfect...

exactly ... just like you get corrupt/greedy companies you will inevitably get corrupt/greedy worker unions ... doesn't mean we should get rid of companies, doesn't mean we should get rid of unions.

I don't support the DART workers in this instance, but it is hardly an example of the unions running riot ...

therecklessone

lostexpectation wrote:

i think the reporting of the dart drivers thing has been unfair, look at the gate gourmet instigating a stirke so they can avoid severance pay and aer lingus too screwing around with employees you need a union as a counterbalance neither's perfect...

Who's screwing who now? They made a claim to the Labour Court, it ruled against them, they're threatening strike. They're in the wrong, end of.

murphaph

It takes 18 weeks training to be a fully 'qualified' DART driver. It is unskilled labour. Working in McDonald's requires training but you wouldn't say their employees were skilled workers.

hmmmm when I was in jfk recently, there was a perfectly effecient electric train system running 2 carriages over a couple of miles with no driver at all...

bonkey

I'm willing to bet it didn't have any level-crossings, bridges that were likely to be taken out by idiot road-traffic, or any of the other problems that require human intervention on lines like the DART.

As for the "unqualified" claims...sorry...but thats just ridiculous. FFS...I've spent less time picking up some of my IT qualifications, and you see ppl on the Programming board constantly asking about the best way to obtain same. I also think that if you're going to knock 18 weeks of training as not counting for anything....spend 18 weeks doing something and tell me at the end of it that you've neither learned anything nor actually spent any time doing it. I studied subjects in university for less time....apparently I've no qualification in those either.

The union is making unreasonable demands, but doing so based on what is a long-established tradition in this country. They don't deserve a raise, and I hope they don't get it....but trying to knock every aspect of their job just because you don't like that they're looking for more money is - being as charitable as I can - pointless and petty.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

I'm willing to bet it didn't have any level-crossings, bridges that were likely to be taken out by idiot road-traffic, or any of the other problems that require human intervention on lines like the DART.

You'd be right,I wouldn't have given ya odds good enough to entice you to bet on that though
That said it was quite impressive.

The union is making unreasonable demands, but doing so based on what is a long-established tradition in this country. They don't deserve a raise, and I hope they don't get it....but trying to knock every aspect of their job just because you don't like that they're looking for more money is - being as charitable as I can - pointless and petty.

jc

Well said.
As Regards why they are looking for this,
I suppose they are like any lobby group.
If they don't look for something, theres definitely no chance of getting it.
That applies to a lot of things.

SkepticOne

bonkey wrote:

Even if you're right....can't the boards.ie users who are losing out financially apply for jobs driving the DART? Its an open market, and if - as you keep suggesting - the qualifications required are so low, then they're not an obstacle to anyone with a higher education qualification, are they?

I don't think the unions would be happy with that - taking on lower paid workers in place of higher paid ones.

cal29

magpie wrote:

.

Given the vast quantity of highly-skilled workers available in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania who I'm sure would be delighted to drive DARTS, Busses etc for I suspect a fraction of what we have to pay our homegrown Unionised racketeers why can't we bring in foreign labour to do these jobs and break the unions for once and for all?

Irish society would benefit enormously from this sector of the workforce being thankful to have work, rather than demanding what are effectively professional salary levels for unskilled labour.

]

I notice your not suggesting we bring in cheap foreign labour to do your job I'm sure we could find people in less well off countries to do any job in this country for less money than the current employee is earning

Or do you believe that because you have some 3rd level education your position should be protected I gaurantee that there are plenty of people who are just as qualified as you who will do your job for less money than you are currently earning.

Honestly I think there is a rascist undercurrent to what you are suggesting lets get in highly educated foreigners to do the jobs I dont want to do for very little money. Basically you want to take advantage of migrant workers in a similar fashion to the way companies like gama and Irish ferries operate


Also any kind of action along the lines you are suggesting ie sacking moderately paid people and replacing them with cheap foreign labour would only act to encourage rascism and play into the hands of racist groups like storm front and immigration control platform.

magpie

notice your not suggesting we bring in cheap foreign labour to do your job

Since I work in the private sector I fully expect that as an when it becomes cheaper and more efficient to replace me with foreign labour that's exactly what will happen.

This is precisely why I make a point of continually improving my skills and gaining further professional qualifications as I go along, coupled with my 10+ years experience. You'll note I'm not sitting on my arse after 18 weeks training expecting a permanent pensionable job, with regular pay rises every time the union suspects I might have to walk a further 3 feet along the platform.

ambro25

Must admit I'm siding with Magpie insofar as public workers' expectations (and proactive ways of attaining same, as per the OP) are concerned.

Thatcher was right... there, I've said it. And the reason I believe she was? I'm French, was a 'highly-skilled migrant' and at the time of emigrating ('94) and was willing to take on anything, because unemployment rate in France was knocking on 12.5% and I knew full well I'd be either (i) working for my Dad, or (ii) on the dole, or (iii) bounced from company to company (assuming job interview success in each case) as they'd get rid at the end of the probation period or not renew the short-term contract. Lucky me, I had three options in the day - most people had but one.

That was after 7 years of Socialist rule under Mitterand, during which large 'very left' unions (CGT/CFDT) ballooned, mostly from the public sector.

The situation for your average white collar guy today? The same (i)/(ii)/(iii). And the FR public sector? well, ballpark guess is 2,000 applicants for any public sector job, with tests/exams (just like Leaving Cert/Degree exams) in lieu of job interviews.

The private sector is endemically stretched in terms of human resources and the 35-hour week, claimed as right by the public sector mostly (who have a very marginalk unbderstanding of such abstract concepts as 'performance measurement', 'value for money', 'service levels, etc.), has further decimated the private sector, a very big f*cking lot of which just cannot compete economically any more with even European competitors, never mind India/China/S.Africa...

So what do we have now - snapshot: strikes (I think you'll have seen enough of those reported on TV by now) every school holiday or on any mention of pension/working hours reform, unemployment still at 10%, average private sector pay & increases below inflation rate whereas public sector's are above, and a growing resentment dividing public sector workers from private sector workers, turning quite bitter these days...

In short, a broad brush picture of a country which may represent today what Ireland might some day in the not-so-distant-future. And Thatcher in all that? Well, before emigrating to IE, I had emigrated to the UK - it wasn't any greener, nor is IE compared to the UK... but at least their public sector has started (it's taken long enough!) to assimilate private sector notions where service levels are concerned, and public/private sector workers are no worse off there with so few unions than here with powerful ones.

the_syco

Wicknight wrote:

It isn't dramatically over the odds, thats the point .. it is actually quite a crap pay if you compare it to the same pay in other jobs.

Most jobs start at 20K. Any IT job you look at starts at about 20K, if you have little to no experience. The train drivers start at €38K.

=-=

Gama was one thing. Irish Ferries, tho, was employing a company to contract staff. That company paid good wages (for that country), but compared to th country thy were working in (Eire), it was sh|te. OT, but if you think that you should be paid the same as the "local rate", then no-one would do work in a foreign country where the wages may be 1/8 of the wages here.

=-=

I support the right of a trade union. They're still all lefty socialist bas*ards, tho.

Flukey

We need employers, employees, unions etc. They all have their role to play. Finding the balance is the usual problem. The various social partnership agreements, which started with the Programme for National Recovery in 1987, were among the factors that brought about the Celtic Tiger. The various agreements between the social partners have always been difficult to achieve, with everyone trying to get their piece, but they have helped. Anyone that remembers the 1970s and early 1980s and the amount of strikes and disruption we had then will know that they did make a difference.

The more recent agreements have had their own problems, coming in a time of a booming economy which lead to even higher demands by everyone, but still we have got through them and in many ways we have a better economy and conditions than we could have. These agreements have caused some difficulties as well, but it is far better to have the social partners working together, albeit with the occasional industrial dispute, than what we had prior to 1987.

Unions and employers will always be at loggerheads trying to get their interests served. That will always lead to problems. Still, it is better to have unions to represent workers, even if it does cause problems, than not having them.

cal29

magpie wrote:

Since I work in the private sector I fully expect that as an when it becomes cheaper and more efficient to replace me with foreign labour that's exactly what will happen.

This is precisely why I make a point of continually improving my skills and gaining further professional qualifications as I go along, coupled with my 10+ years experience. You'll note I'm not sitting on my arse after 18 weeks training expecting a permanent pensionable job, with regular pay rises every time the union suspects I might have to walk a further 3 feet along the platform.

No what you suggested was that people currently working for IE should be sacked and people who would be willing to work for half that ammount of money be brought into the country to do their jobs so should the same happen to your own job if your employer can find someone from outside the country willing to do your job for half your current wage should you just be sacked

As for slapping yourself on the back because you are still training that is the nature of your employment it is not the nature of everyones employment However Iam fairly sure that Dart drivers would have received training on the introduction of the new traction units and more than likely undergo regular training on changes in the nature of their employment etc

And whilst you dont have a permanent pensionable job I get the impression that you would like one and are jealous of those that have chosen careers that provide those benefits can I suggest that you think about a change of career

cal29

the_syco wrote:

I support the right of a trade union. They're still all lefty socialist bas*ards, tho.

Unfortunately thet are not all like that that is why we end up with national pay agreements that at stages barely if even covered the rate of inflation. Look at the leadership of ICTU and the big unions they have as much in common with the workers they represent as the employers do

magpie

so should the same happen to your own job if your employer can find someone from outside the country willing to do your job for half your current wage should you just be sacked

Yes. Absolutely.

whilst you dont have a permanent pensionable job I get the impression that you would like one

I do have a permanent pensionable job. Its just not Union-Protected. Ever hear of being made redundant? Its what happens to people who are surplus to requirements in the private sector. In the public sector they're given annual increments and flexi-time.

cal29

magpie wrote:

Yes. Absolutely..

Yes I'm sure you would be more than happy to stand aside. To follow your logic why should companies employ any Irish people there are a Billion Chinese people to exploit. It would be a lovely society to live in your orwellian dream.

magpie wrote:

I do have a permanent pensionable job. Its just not Union-Protected. Ever hear of being made redundant? Its what happens to people who are surplus to requirements in the private sector. In the public sector they're given annual increments and flexi-time.

But Dart drivers are not Public Sector workers they are employees of CIE and IE. I presume you do know the difference.

So your problem is that they are union members you have made a choice not to be in a union that is your problem deal with it.

And where did you get the notion that Union members can not be made redundant I hear about companies with Unions laying off workers all the time surprised you never heard of it.

And CIE in the past has made people redundant it would not make much sense to do it at the moment considering they are looking to take people on all the time

Zombrex

the_syco wrote:

Most jobs start at 20K. Any IT job you look at starts at about 20K, if you have little to no experience. The train drivers start at €38K.

And if you worked for 25 years in IT how much money would you expect to be on? A lot more than €48,000 I would imagine.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

I do have a permanent pensionable job. Its just not Union-Protected. Ever hear of being made redundant? Its what happens to people who are surplus to requirements in the private sector. In the public sector they're given annual increments and flexi-time.

A little bitter are we ... you haven't explained why you believe the non-Union method is better for society as a whole?

You seem to be siding with the greedy money-first corporation who would gladly fire all their employees (including you) and replace them with college grads. You seem to be forgetting the point of unions. The employers actually need the employees as much as vice versa. You might fire one guy because you want to replace him with a robot, but you will piss of the union and you can't run a company with absolutly no workers.

Their are plent of unions in the private sector (as someone has already pointed out CIE isn't exactly public sector). You don't find much unions in the IT industry precisely because the IT industry doesn't have a reputation for treating employes badly. All the waffle about people being replaced by younger people etc doesn't happen in the IT industry. In fact it is quite the opposite, experience is regarded over nearly everything else. Yes you are much more likely that your company will go broke, it certainly isn't stable. But you are far more likely to be replaced by the Scew-o-matic 2000 automatic robot working in a construction/manual labour job.

So it is quite easy to preach about the dangers of unions for a position in an industry sector that actually rewards employee loyalty quite well. I have never heard of anyone in the IT industry being fired and replaced with a college grad purely cause the company can (ie it wasn't cause the company was desperate for money).

magpie

A little bitter are we ... you haven't explained why you believe the non-Union method is better for society as a whole?

Free market economy

You seem to be siding with the greedy money-first corporation who would gladly fire all their employees (including you) and replace them with college grads.

All successful businesses are money-first. I'd rather have public transport run by a successful (i.e. efficient) business than a semi-state with unionised labour. Trains running on time and all that.

it is quite easy to preach about the dangers of unions for a position in an industry sector that actually rewards employee loyalty quite well.

Loyalty, no. Experience yes.

A DART driver who's been driving DARTs for 10 years is hardly any better than someone straight out of "DART Skool". They both press the green button to go, red to stop.

My entire point is that there should be rewards for education, skill and experience. Low-achievers who become train drivers should expect low salaries, as they are eminently replaceable. If they don't like it they could always try passing their Leaving Cert.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

Free market economy

Which is good why?

magpie wrote:

All successful businesses are money-first. I'd rather have public transport run by a successful (i.e. efficient) business than a semi-state with unionised labour. Trains running on time and all that.

Well I am afraid trains running on time have nothing to do with a completely for profit train company. In fact quite the opposite as Britian demonstrated with the disaster that was the privisation of the rail network.

Why? Because the point of a public transport system is to serve the public, not make money. If you make the point to make money then the interests of the public become a very low second. What are you going to do if you don't like how crap a private rail company is run? Use the other DART line? :rolleyes:

magpie wrote:

A DART driver who's been driving DARTs for 10 years is hardly any better than someone straight out of "DART Skool".

Says who?

magpie wrote:

They both press the green button to go, red to stop.

As has been explained to you, it is a bit more complicated than that. Sure all IT is is "glorified typing", as my grandfather once said.

magpie wrote:

My entire point is that there should be rewards for education, skill and experience.

There are, you get paid a hell of a lot more money the better the education you have and the better experience you have in "boom" industries like IT.

What there shouldn't be is punishment for people who don't enter these industries or who don't have a high level of education.

magpie wrote:

Low-achievers who become train drivers should expect low salaries

Low-achievers ... please!, the majority of 3rd level college kids in Ireland get there because mammy and daddy pay their way. How is living without responsibility or want for 3 years on your parents pay cheque while you drink and screw your way to an "education" being a high-achiever?

Some of the hardest working people in ireland are doing the least paid jobs. I have far more respect for someone who went out and got a job to support themselves than leeched of their parents for a further 3-6 years.

magpie

What there shouldn't be is punishment for people who don't enter these industries or who don't have a high level of education.

Explain how getting paid €38,000 pa starting salary is being punished?

Low-achievers ... please!, the majority of 3rd level college kids in Ireland get there because mammy and daddy pay their way. How is living without responsibility or want for 3 years on your parents pay cheque while you drink and screw your way to an "education" being a high-achiever?

You obviously have some kind of guilt about this. I got a university scholarship and washed dishes in a hotel for 5 years through my degree and masters, so I don't owe 'nobody nuthin' as they say.

Some of the hardest working people in ireland are doing the least paid jobs.

What's that based on?

Did you read the article about Polish workers in Ireland in Saturday's Irish Times (I know, how bourgeois...) where the Employers quoted the belief that a single Polish worker was worth 2 1/2 times the standard Irish 'worker'.

the least paid jobs

Like the people working in the technology sector getting a fraction of what those high-earners like Plumbers, Bricklayers and Train Drivers get paid? I assume that's what you mean.

cal29

magpie wrote:

Like the people working in the technology sector getting a fraction of what those high-earners like Plumbers, Bricklayers and Train Drivers get paid? I assume that's what you mean.

Now we are getting to the nub of it

You are jealous of people you perceive to be beneath you

Not everybody goes to college not everybody can or wants to if they did then we would not have plumbers bricklayers or train drivers

To be honest I dont see the difference between doing an apprenticeship and going to college other than you have to actually work when you are doing an apprenticeship

Personally I think it is time you took the chip of your shoulder ok you worked hard to be what ever you are and to have whatever you have but so did the traindriver bricklayer and plumber you are not any better than them and they are not any better than you time you stopped looking down your nose at people and got on with your life

therecklessone

magpie wrote:

What's that based on?

An interesting question. Apply it to the following:

magpie wrote:

Low-achievers who become train drivers should expect low salaries

magpie wrote:

Because Irish people with 3rd level education don't drive DARTS, people who leave school at 15 with no qualifications do

magpie wrote:

What percentage of DART drivers have mortgages, and what percentage live in Council Houses I wonder?

magpie wrote:

these are considerably more skilled and educated people than train drivers. They also contribute to the economy through the creation of jobs, the expansion of business and the development of marketable ideas. They don't sit in a carriage reading the Star and pressing green and red buttons alternately.

And finally...

magpie wrote:

You'll note I'm not sitting on my arse after 18 weeks training expecting a permanent pensionable job

Not sitting on it, no. Talking out it maybe.

SkepticOne

48,000? I'm surprised it is so little. If they got together with other transport workers they could bring the the country to its knees if they so wished.

Sand

48,000? I'm surprised it is so little. If they got together with other transport workers they could bring the the country to its knees if they so wished.

Only for 18 weeks. By then wed have the next generation of hard working immigrants trained up - people who are willing to work. And in the long run wed be better off. I think we could do with a Thatcher to break the backs of the unions and remind them they are there to protect workers from exploitation, not to exploit the public.

cal29

Sand wrote:

Only for 18 weeks. By then wed have the next generation of hard working immigrants trained up - people who are willing to work. And in the long run wed be better off. I think we could do with a Thatcher to break the backs of the unions and remind them they are there to protect workers from exploitation, not to exploit the public.

perhaps you need reminding unions do not just exist to protect workers from exploitation they exist to get the best deal possible for their members their loyalty should be to their members and they should act in their members best interests not in your interests or the governments


Now quick question who would train these immigrants you want to bring in and exploit not too mention that the course of action you suggest would lead to an immediate national public transport strike


but troll on Sand troll on

bonkey

cal29 wrote:

perhaps you need reminding unions do not just exist to protect workers from exploitation they exist to get the best deal possible for their members

I think Sand knows that very well, which is why he suggested that what we need is to break the backs of the unions.

their loyalty should be to their members and they should act in their members best interests not in your interests or the governments

Working against the best interests of the nation (which would be my best interests and the governments) is ultimately self-defeating.

Now quick question who would train these immigrants you want to bring in and exploit

]
Exploit? You mean giving them a job which would pay an honest days wage for an honest days work is exploitation. Are you speaking unionese are something?

This reminds me of the time ESB fitters went on strike because they were offered more money for working less hours. That too, apparently, was exploitation....because their basic objection was that they were concerned they'd be expected to work for the hours for which they were employed.

not too mention that the course of action you suggest would lead to an immediate national public transport strike

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the government actually wanted to tackle the problems in public transport.

I've sat at bus-stops where the bus was 50 yards away, and the driver reading a paper. He sits there for 30 mins then drives up to pick up passengers....15 minutes late.

I now live in a country with an exceptional public transport system...and you know what one of the major differences is? The workers of said system aren't just out for themselves and the best deal they can get. They are actually out to provide the service they are paid to provide.

Its a shocking concept, I know, but when unionism becomes synonymous with laziness, I don't find threats of a national strike all that intimidating. No service for a while, followed by an improved service? I'd say most ppl would take that over a cr@p service any day.

but troll on Sand troll on

/me nods in thedirection of forum rules.

Careful now. Down with that sort of thing.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

It never ceases to amaze me when people go off on one because they are envious and jealous about the working conditions and salary packages of other workers. I would love to know what steps these folk have taken to do the job they are so sure requires no skill.

It is possible to be totally against this chancing of the arm by the DART drivers (which has now been resolved) and not portray yourself as a green eyed monster.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

Working against the best interests of the nation (which would be my best interests and the governments) is ultimately self-defeating.

I cannot think of any private company that would not work against the best interests of the nation if it was in the best interests of their shareholders/owners/invester.

Unions work to protect their members interests, companies work to protect their invester/shareholder/owners interest. Is there a fundamental difference?.

magpie

They've backed down. They may be unconscionably greedy, but they're not so stupid that they can't recognise when they've got a good thing going. Its a shame they didn't strike, it would've been a great opportunity to replace the lot of them.


From: Ireland.com

Drivers' vote averts disruption to Dart services
James Fitzgerald

Disruption to Dublin's Dart services today was averted last night as drivers voted to withdraw their opposition to Iarnród Éireann's plans to introduce longer trains.

There had been concern that the drivers would proceed with unofficial industrial action, as the company's plan for testing the longer trains, due to be implemented last night, was postponed.

But in a meeting of drivers in Liberty Hall last night unions conducted a further ballot of their members and they decided against industrial action.

"The drivers have agreed to go ahead with the testing of the new, longer trains and there will now be no further ballot on whether to take industrial action," said a Siptu spokeswoman.

The row was over the attempted implementation of eight-carriage trains by Iarnród Éireann, which drivers claimed was contrary to a 1984 agreement that stated the maximum number of carriages on any Dart train would be six.

Drivers felt that the increased productivity and responsibility associated with carrying more passengers should be rewarded accordingly.

But following a two and a half hour meeting with union leaders last night it was agreed to call off the protest.

"The drivers recognise that they have had a very good industrial relationship with the company up to now and they would like that to continue," said the Siptu spokeswoman.

"They were disappointed with the action that the company took but ultimately they are going to accept the longer trains and that is an end of the matter as far as we are concerned," she said.

Despite staff disquiet, management maintained that a more recent agreement in 2000 superseded the 1984 accord and the company refused to offer a pay increase or once-off payment for agreeing to operate the longer trains. The company said that drivers had already been paid for the work in the 2000 deal.

"We welcome the result of the drivers' ballot," said Barry Kenny of Iarnród Éireann last night.

"It is a good outcome for ourselves and more importantly for our customers, who have had to put up with all the disruption while the upgrading of our services has been going on."

It is thought that the longer trains will be in use by the middle of next month.

The Labour Court had heard the drivers' grievance in June and rejected their claim.

The unions involved, Siptu and the National Bus and Rail Union, had balloted their 84 Dart-driving members yesterday and they overwhelmingly voted to reject the court's ruling. But that decision was overturned at last night's meeting in Dublin.

Earlier, Dublin Chamber of Commerce had called the drivers' grievance "spurious" and said that unions were holding public transport investment to ransom.

". . . passengers have endured many weekends without an available service as these works are completed and now . . . a spurious claim is introduced attempting to delay a much-needed boost to the capacity of Dublin's rail system, said chamber chief executive Gina Quin.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

Explain how getting paid €38,000 pa starting salary is being punished?

Its not, getting paid €48,000 after 20 years service is

magpie wrote:

You obviously have some kind of guilt about this. I got a university scholarship and washed dishes in a hotel for 5 years through my degree and masters, so I don't owe 'nobody nuthin' as they say.

No offense, but I find it very hard to believe that you paid for college fees, rent, food, transport books etc etc from washing dishes in a hotel for 5 years ... if you are like any of the people i went to college with i would say your dish washing money went to top up your drink money.

magpie wrote:

Like the people working in the technology sector getting a fraction of what those high-earners like Plumbers, Bricklayers and Train Drivers get paid? I assume that's what you mean.

Well weren't you dumb to pick IT as a career. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that you are talking about starting salaries (which is a bit pointless lets be honest, it is only when someone gets married and has kids that they really feel the pinch of a low salary), do you think other workers who you feel are educationally beneath you should not earn more money than you starting out?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Its not, getting paid €48,000 after 20 years service is

How can it be a punishment when people choose to take the job and stay in it, in the full knowledge of what it's conditions are?

cal29

bonkey wrote:

I think Sand knows that very well, which is why he suggested that what we need is to break the backs of the unions.

The union is obliged to get the best Deal possible for their members they would be negligent in their duty to their members if there was money available and they did not try to get it for their members In this case they tried but ultimately there was no money available
The Unions were doing exactly what they should be doing

bonkey wrote:

Working against the best interests of the nation (which would be my best interests and the governments) is ultimately self-defeating.

The Unions are there to work for the best interest of there members the Governments job is to work for the best interest of the People as a whole sometimes the two coincide often they do not


]

bonkey wrote:

Exploit? You mean giving them a job which would pay an honest days wage for an honest days work is exploitation. Are you speaking unionese are something?

No if you sack people with the intention of taking on Foreign nationals to work in worse conditions and for lower wages you are exploiting them

bonkey wrote:

This reminds me of the time ESB fitters went on strike because they were offered more money for working less hours. That too, apparently, was exploitation....because their basic objection was that they were concerned they'd be expected to work for the hours for which they were employed.

Does it dont see the link perhaps you could expalin

Dart drivers were not offered any more money or shorter hours

bonkey wrote:

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the government actually wanted to tackle the problems in public transport.

I've sat at bus-stops where the bus was 50 yards away, and the driver reading a paper. He sits there for 30 mins then drives up to pick up passengers....15 minutes late.

And did you complain to the company and look for an explanation if you didn't no point in moaning about it here

bonkey wrote:

I now live in a country with an exceptional public transport system...and you know what one of the major differences is? The workers of said system aren't just out for themselves and the best deal they can get. They are actually out to provide the service they are paid to provide.

And I'm sure they are well paid and well looked after



jc[/QUOTE]