Irish Ferries denies tear gas report 26/11/2005 - 10:29:12 Irish Ferries have denied a report published in today's Irish Independent that the company sanctioned the use of tear gas by security personnel on board its vessels Isle of Inishmore and Ulysses. The company also denies reports that security personnel on board were equipped with weapons. Irish Ferries have cancelled all weekend crossings due to industrial action as the tense stand off between the company and workers shows no signs of abating. SIPTU members remain in control of two of the company's vessels which have been prevented from setting to sea now for two days. The action came to a head on Thursday when overseas' workers and security staff were deployed on board the Isle of Inismore and Ulysses ferries. The worker’s union is now threatening to mount blockades of ports unless the security personnel and agency crews are removed.
Conditions of Carriage Irish Ferries Ltd. (hereafter called the carrier) Incorporated in Ireland, Registered Office: Alexandra Road, Dublin 1. The attention of passengers and goodsowners is drawn to the restriction of their rights and the limitations of the carrier's liability by the carrier's conditions of travel, which also cover periods preceding and following the period of carriage on the vessel. The following items are classified as dangerous and may not be transported for reasons of safety and security. .... Tear gas, mace or CS gas devices. ...
shltter wrote: The workers are well aware of who the people on board are now The point is that not even the captain was informed that they were coming aboard For all the staff knew they could have been terrorists BTW are you in Human Resources in Irish Ferries by any chance
D'Peoples Voice wrote: Perhaps I'm biased here, but many of us have had to bite this bitter bullet of redundancy, yet few of us sought to deceive the people of Ireland in this way!
Borzoi wrote: From listening to an early interview with the engineers, they reacted to a percieved threat.
HelterSkelter wrote: Maybe you are right and the whole terrorist thing is a heap of shít, but so what.
HelterSkelter wrote: This is as much a propaganda war as anything else and you can be sure the management are telling as many porkies which I don't see you knit picking about.
D'Peoples Voice wrote: Because the media would have us think different. The media are putting these SIPTU workers up as heroes like those of Connolly, Pearse & Michael Collins etc. We're led to believe that when these men saw what looked like terrorists, they could have taken the easy option and left the ship, but instead they risked their own lives, and risked never seeing their family members again, by running to the control room so that this ship could not use be used as a terrorist vehicle. They knew that the terrorists would not think twice about killing them, but these men were thinking of all those people back home who could be killed by these terrorists. These men put thier lives on the line for us!
D'Peoples Voice wrote: No-one really has any respect for management over their so-called wage offer to existing staff, but at least they didn't resort to telling lies to the people of Ireland like the Union workers!
D'Peoples Voice wrote: But do you honestly believe them when they say this? They said Terrorist threat.This is my bone of contention! The last time I travelled by sea was in the early nineties, and we had to go through security. Therefore if the engineers thought these people were carrying weapons, it says a lot for their respect of the security procedures at Dublin Port & elsewhere. You see I believe that at no stage did the engineeers ever believe these people were terrorists. That was all spin! I just want to see is there anyone else out there who believes that the engineers knew very quickly who these men were, and that the engineers did the best to make sure the ship could not be sailed and their jobs replaced! The whole terrorist thing is heap of sh1t!
We're led to believe that when these men saw what looked like terrorists, they could have taken the easy option and left the ship, but instead they risked their own lives, and risked never seeing their family members again, by running to the control room so that this ship could not use be used as a terrorist vehicle. They knew that the terrorists would not think twice about killing them, but these men were thinking of all those people back home who could be killed by these terrorists. These men put thier lives on the line for us!
kbannon wrote: * Nobody is being made redundant. They are being displaced by cheaper labour. Redundancy suggests that the position will no longer be there which isn't the case. .... * Irish Ferries have done absolutely nothing illegal. They are just being morally wrong but this is business. I would like to know what the potential foreign workers think of their new jobs and the payment for it.
Why did SIPTU not raise the same level of fuss a year ago when the Rosslare-France staff were displaced?
kbannon wrote: * Irish Ferries need to reduce costs or they will be gone within 2 years.
* Apparently 90% of staff accepted the severance package voluntarily as they believe that they will easily find alternative work.
They are just being morally wrong
Victor wrote: thought it was illegal to make people redundant, only to hire different people to do the same job.
gjim wrote: Could someone explain who the injured party is here? From my understanding, 90% of the workers happily accepted the generous severence offer. The remainder get to work on under their current conditions. The eastern Europeans anxious to try to get a leg up in the world will have an opportunity to earn many multiples of what they'd get on their own ships. If you're of a particular ideology, then of course you'll perceive that either the behaviour of SIPTU or that of the management is completely reprehensible. If you're in the media or a politician then you'll want to wade in shouting an opinion to attempt to interest the public in a non-story. If you're gullible (or ideologically inclined) then you'll join in with gusto. But really WTF is the big deal here? The shrill indignation and sanctimonious claptrap is a load of hot air over absolutely FA. Every other part of our economy is subject to global competition and shipping is no different.
90% of staff did not accept the offer
And happily accepted it how do you know how they felt about it as the option they were given is accept this redundancy offer or stay and have your pay cut by upto 50% and have no holidays
This is wrong for many reasons including the fact that it plays into the hands of racists and the anti immigration platform types.
Answer: The taxpayer - you and me.
This flag of convenience thing is a total crock. If you're operating an airline between Ireland and Britain you can't register under the flag of, say, the Bahamas and pay the crew half nothing, so why should shipping companies be allowed to do so?
The worring part of all of this is that is a trend that if it succeeds can sweep through lots of sectors.
Mailman wrote: Gjim with regard to redundancy payments you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Redundancy payments are not tax deductible. Statuatory Redundancy payments are paid by the employer and re-imbursed in part by the Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Totally different - it isn't a business expense. It's a rebate to the employer for making a payment on behalf of the government to the former employee.http://www.entemp.ie/employment/redundancy/guidelines.htm. Retire from the debate until you are better informed.
etemp.ie wrote: A redundancy situation arises where an employee's job ceases to exist, and the employee is not replaced for such reasons as rationalisation/reorganisation, not enough work available, the financial state of the firm, company closures etc.
gjim wrote: What percentage accepted the offer? Every media source has given this figure. If you've a reference to some other figure, then please enlighten us instead of just dismissing this widely quoted figure without any qualification.
gjim wrote: Without know what exactly the change in terms and conditions were, I call bull on your claim that the staff choosing to remain were to be subjected to a 50% pay cut and would have to work every single day of the year without a single days holiday. This is a prime example of the hysterical claims and hot air that surround this issue.
It has told them they must sign up to the offer by this weekend or accept lower pay and an erosion of their working conditions. Anyone who opposes the move has been told they will be sacked with just their statutory entitlement of two weeks' pay per year of service.
gjim wrote: Jeezus that's pretty twisted logic; we should fight against our eastern European neighbours getting a leg up because it'll rile up the racists and anti-immigration types? gjim wrote: No we should bring in our neighbours or anyone else on the same wages and terms and conditions as Irish workers enjoy if you use immigrants to undercut wages of Irish employees you are obviously going to breed resentment towards immigrants it is pretty common sense
gjim wrote: No we should bring in our neighbours or anyone else on the same wages and terms and conditions as Irish workers enjoy if you use immigrants to undercut wages of Irish employees you are obviously going to breed resentment towards immigrants it is pretty common sense
gjim wrote: I'd imagine that many of the foreign ships going in and out of the port are manned by workers earning far less than Irish minimum wage and with far less statutory protection. How come there's no screaming about this? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that SIPTU don't feel threatened by losing members in a strategic industry? If it's purely out of concern for the conditions of workers in general, then surely they'd have been blocking these ships years ago.