Lufthansa Airmotive workers can feck off!!

Clytus · 21-04-2009 09:29PM #1

So the Lufthansa Airmotive workers basically told their bosses in Germany to F*** Off...that they deserve to be paid more than their counterparts in Germany.
I reckon if the Germans take the attitude "Sod the Paddys" and close up shop here...none of the Airmotive workers should get Jobseekers allowance because they more or less forced the plant to close.

Same applied to the SR Tecniques lads...they all figured theyd get a nice cushy redundecy package...but got the land of their lives when the Big Wigs in Zurich handed them a bucket of cash and said thats it....divey it up as yiz please!!

The Irish Trade Union movement has caused more damage in recent times than 10 life times of Financial crises...its time we told them where to go.

spoonbadger · 21-04-2009 09:32PM

Have fun living in a country without trade unions.

SC024 · 21-04-2009 09:38PM

+1 I think your 100% right there.... It's about time they stopped running this country as if it were a full owned subsidary of siptu/ICTU

bleg · 21-04-2009 09:41PM

wasn't it the workers who took a ballot on this? dunno how you can blame the trade unions for the stupidity of the workers voting against cost cutting measures that will save their jobs. and i wouldn't be the trade unions' biggest fan either.

SEPT 23 1989 · 21-04-2009 09:49PM

Fritz :work a bit harder for a few quid less and we will keep you employed
for the next fifteen years

Paddy:no thanks shut down the plant and we will go on the dole

Gob****es of the highest order:mad:

Mr Benevolent · 21-04-2009 09:55PM

Have fun living in a country without trade unions.

Trade unions caused this problem in the first place.

Terry · 21-04-2009 09:56PM

I know a dude who works there.
I must ask him about this.

robinph · 21-04-2009 10:01PM

I'm pretty sure that you cannot claim anything for a good while if you walked out of your job for any reason, certainly sounds along the lines of what they have done to themselves.

Terry · 21-04-2009 10:04PM

robinph wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that you cannot claim anything for a good while if you walked out of your job for any reason, certainly sounds along the lines of what they have done to themselves.

I remember it being 6 weeks, but that was years ago. I don't know if it's still the same.
I know they made a lot of changes to the welfare system over the last ten years.

Clytus · 21-04-2009 10:04PM

bleg wrote: »

wasn't it the workers who took a ballot on this? dunno how you can blame the trade unions for the stupidity of the workers voting against cost cutting measures that will save their jobs. and i wouldn't be the trade unions' biggest fan either.

On the day of the ballot I distinctly remember hearing a Siptu Rep on the radio....and then another T.U rep ( cant remember which Union it was)...but she came across as a hardliner...militant..and very aggressive towards the management.
The issues seemed to be along the lines of a reduced premium for overtime...so lets say double time reduced to time +1/2 and sending lads home early when there wasnt enough work......all of which seems fair &reasonable given the times we are in...yet this "looney" makes claims about Management being liars and cheats....but seems to be forgetting that these are the same people that pay her salary!

brianthebard · 21-04-2009 10:10PM

Clytus wrote: »

On the day of the ballot I distinctly remember hearing a Siptu Rep on the radio....and then another T.U rep ( cant remember which Union it was)...but she came across as a hardliner...militant..and very aggressive towards the management.
The issues seemed to be along the lines of a reduced premium for overtime...so lets say double time reduced to time +1/2 and sending lads home early when there wasnt enough work......all of which seems fair &reasonable given the times we are in...yet this "looney" makes claims about Management being liars and cheats....but seems to be forgetting that these are the same people that pay her salary!

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that 'looney' knows more about the company and its condition than you do.

ShooterSF · 21-04-2009 10:10PM

robinph wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that you cannot claim anything for a good while if you walked out of your job for any reason, certainly sounds along the lines of what they have done to themselves.

I severly doubt it. Two parties (employer and employee) agreed terms for one to work for the other. This is a contract. One party wanted to negotiate a new contract but the other wasn't happy to. They are perfectly with in their rights to do so (1 party can't change a contract between two). The employer now may terminate the current deal. That my friend is redundancy.

FlutterinBantam · 21-04-2009 10:23PM

Clytus wrote: »

On the day of the ballot I distinctly remember hearing a Siptu Rep on the radio....and then another T.U rep ( cant remember which Union it was)...but she came across as a hardliner...militant..and very aggressive towards the management.
The issues seemed to be along the lines of a reduced premium for overtime...so lets say double time reduced to time +1/2 and sending lads home early when there wasnt enough work......all of which seems fair &reasonable given the times we are in...yet this "looney" makes claims about Management being liars and cheats....but seems to be forgetting that these are the same people that pay her salary!

I heard her too buddy and you are right.

You see these people make a living around this type of shyte.
That's what happened out in SRT, you have these warhorses prancing around with no realistic view on how to survive in business.
It's dark ages stuff with these people fuelled by the loony left in the workforce who want the money mailed home to them without even coming in!!

B Ahearne supported this stuff.."Aaah now sure give a bit here take a bit there ,we'll agree to sort out productivity"

NEVER HAPPENS NOTHING CHANGES!!!!!

And the cost base just goes up, which in times of plenty can be survived,but when the chill winds of recession blow..... well, you see what's happening.

Watch Aer Lingus.... there's a tip watch Aer Lingus.... big shít further down the line.

Clytus · 21-04-2009 10:24PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

I severly doubt it. Two parties (employer and employee) agreed terms for one to work for the other. This is a contract. One party wanted to negotiate a new contract but the other wasn't happy to. They are perfectly with in their rights to do so (1 party can't change a contract between two). The employer now may terminate the current deal. That my friend is redundancy.

Im afraid your view in such matters is flawed. The trading conditions in which the original "contract" was drawn up under have changed more than anyone could ever have imagined....so the contract has to become redundant.

Businesses have to trade profitably or else make changes if losses are recorded....theres no alternative.

gerrycollins · 21-04-2009 10:30PM

What about Jack O'Connor of SIPTU threathening the government about the social partnership deal or the private sector will strike.

Dunno bout you but I fancy hanging on to my private sector job abd will cross any stupid striking line to keep my job.

ShooterSF · 21-04-2009 10:33PM

Clytus wrote: »

Im afraid your view in such matters is flawed. The trading conditions in which the original "contract" was drawn up under have changed more than anyone could ever have imagined....so the contract has to become redundant.

Businesses have to trade profitably or else make changes if losses are recorded....theres no alternative.

To use that excuse then say I sell a customer a PC on credit we sign a contract and we agree he has to pay me 50 a month for 2 years. I decide 6 months in that my business is suffering so I decide to change the contract to trade profitably and let the customer know he's now to pay 80 a month quoting your legally sound advice "The trading conditions in which the original "contract" was drawn up under have changed more than anyone could ever have imagined....so the contract has to become redundant."

Contracts do not become redundant based on trading conditions. If they wanted to do that they should have paid by commission.

Fozzie Bear · 21-04-2009 10:37PM

They have a pretty cushy number as it is. I have been in this plant through my own job and witnessed the working conditions they have.

They recondition and repair aircraft and there engines. As a result they have to work in stress free conditions as they are working on airplanes and obviously a stressed worker may make mistakes or forget to tighten a bolt. So they can take breaks whenever they want, go read a newspaper, play some pool have a fag, scratch their balls basically doss and piss about. There are few or no dead lines and its a very relaxed atmosphere. I have never witnessed anywhere like and I can tell you if I had a job there I'd be bending over right now and telling Fritz and Hans to do whatever they wanted to me as long as they don't take my cosy job away to Eastern Europe.

I am absolutely shocked and amazed that the workers are doing what they are doing in the depths of the worst recession we have seen in modern times. Absolute greedy miopic fúcking idiots. They deserve to be unemployed.

thelordofcheese · 21-04-2009 10:59PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I heard her too buddy and you are right.

You see these people make a living around this type of shyte.
That's what happened out in SRT, you have these warhorses prancing around with no realistic view on how to survive in business.
It's dark ages stuff with these people fuelled by the loony left in the workforce who want the money mailed home to them without even coming in!!

B Ahearne supported this stuff.."Aaah now sure give a bit here take a bit there ,we'll agree to sort out productivity"

NEVER HAPPENS NOTHING CHANGES!!!!!

And the cost base just goes up, which in times of plenty can be survived,but when the chill winds of recession blow..... well, you see what's happening.

Watch Aer Lingus.... there's a tip watch Aer Lingus.... big shít further down the line.

It's funny how you can write an insightless and cliché ridden diatribe about the "looney left" when you've got nothing to do with the place.

Amazing really.

mikemac · 21-04-2009 11:14PM

Terry wrote: »

I remember it being 6 weeks, but that was years ago. I don't know if it's still the same.
I know they made a lot of changes to the welfare system over the last ten years.

9 weeks.

Jim236 · 21-04-2009 11:17PM

Clytus wrote: »

Same applied to the SR Tecniques lads...they all figured theyd get a nice cushy redundecy package...but got the land of their lives when the Big Wigs in Zurich handed them a bucket of cash and said thats it....divey it up as yiz please!!

The Irish Trade Union movement has caused more damage in recent times than 10 life times of Financial crises...its time we told them where to go.

Bit of advise Clytus, stfu about things you know nothing about. Its easy for you to sit there at your computer and bullsh*t away at how SR Technics workers got what they deserved in redundancy, but the fact is they didn't. My uncle was one of the people laid off by those shower of swiss wan*ers, and he was told by SRT when they took over FLS that he should transfer his pension over to SRT from Aer Lingus(as it was Team Aer Lingus prior to FLS), because he would get more that way. Now not only did he get a crap redundancy package, he got no pension, which is a fu*kin disgrace because hes put over 20 years into that company and those sh*theads in Zurich who told him he'd get a bigger pension with them have robbed him of what he deserves, and had he kept it with Aer Lingus he'd have a good pension now.

And its those same management, that you seem to think are trying their best to give the best deal possible, that forced the company to close it's operations in the first place. They purposely gave the Dublin operation all the crap contracts such as Gulf Air who had Boeing 767s that were rusted as fu*k and completely unflyable and which they'd make no money on because of the scale of overhaul involved, while the Zurich operation got all the good contracts that were simple maintenence that they made a lot of money from. It was all about protectionism, keeping jobs in Switzerland. Though personally I wouldn't put past them to have bought the FLS operation just to close it down and give it's contracts to Zurich from the start, regardless of any recession.

handsomecake · 21-04-2009 11:21PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Bit of advise Clytus, stfu about things you know nothing about. Its easy for you to sit there at your computer and bullsh*t away at how SR Technics workers got what they deserved in redundancy, but the fact is they didn't. My uncle was one of the people laid off by those shower of swiss wan*ers, and he was told by SRT when they took over FLS that he should transfer his pension over to SRT from Aer Lingus(as it was Team Aer Lingus prior to FLS), because he would get more that way. Now not only did he get a crap redundancy package, he got no pension, which is a fu*kin disgrace because hes put over 20 years into that company and those sh*theads in Zurich who told him he'd get a bigger pension with them have robbed him of what he deserves, and had he kept it with Aer Lingus he'd have a good pension now.

And its those same management, that you seem to think are trying their best to give the best deal possible, that forced the company to close it's operations anyway. They purposely gave the Dublin operation all the crap contracts such as Gulf Air who had Boeing 767s that were rusted as fu*k and completely unflyable and which they'd make no money on, while the Zurich operation got all the good contracts that were simple maintenence to make a lot of money from. It was all about protectionism, keeping jobs in Switzerland. Though personally I wouldn't put past them to have bought the FLS operation just to close it down and give it's contracts to Zurich from the start, regardless of any recession.

i agree with a lot of your post. id like to add this though. i work in the business and it was blatantly obvious that this company (and shannon aerospace) are extremely top heavy with middle management top management etc.far too many people in offices as opposed to actually down fixing planes etc

handsomecake · 21-04-2009 11:22PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Bit of advise Clytus, stfu about things you know nothing about. Its easy for you to sit there at your computer and bullsh*t away at how SR Technics workers got what they deserved in redundancy, but the fact is they didn't. My uncle was one of the people laid off by those shower of swiss wan*ers, and he was told by SRT when they took over FLS that he should transfer his pension over to SRT from Aer Lingus(as it was Team Aer Lingus prior to FLS), because he would get more that way. Now not only did he get a crap redundancy package, he got no pension, which is a fu*kin disgrace because hes put over 20 years into that company and those sh*theads in Zurich who told him he'd get a bigger pension with them have robbed him of what he deserves, and had he kept it with Aer Lingus he'd have a good pension now.

And its those same management, that you seem to think are trying their best to give the best deal possible, that forced the company to close it's operations in the first place. They purposely gave the Dublin operation all the crap contracts such as Gulf Air who had Boeing 767s that were rusted as fu*k and completely unflyable and which they'd make no money on because of the scale of overhaul involved, while the Zurich operation got all the good contracts that were simple maintenence that they made a lot of money from. It was all about protectionism, keeping jobs in Switzerland. Though personally I wouldn't put past them to have bought the FLS operation just to close it down and give it's contracts to Zurich from the start, regardless of any recession.

the pension dabacle is a disgrace. i would assault someone over that

brianthebard · 21-04-2009 11:24PM

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

They have a pretty cushy number as it is. I have been in this plant through my own job and witnessed the working conditions they have.

They recondition and repair aircraft and there engines. As a result they have to work in stress free conditions as they are working on airplanes and obviously a stressed worker may make mistakes or forget to tighten a bolt. So they can take breaks whenever they want, go read a newspaper, play some pool have a fag, scratch their balls basically doss and piss about. There are few or no dead lines and its a very relaxed atmosphere. I have never witnessed anywhere like and I can tell you if I had a job there I'd be bending over right now and telling Fritz and Hans to do whatever they wanted to me as long as they don't take my cosy job away to Eastern Europe.

I am absolutely shocked and amazed that the workers are doing what they are doing in the depths of the worst recession we have seen in modern times. Absolute greedy miopic fúcking idiots. They deserve to be unemployed.

WTF, so because they do the work as they are told to, they are greedy ****ing idiots? Sounds more like you are a jealous fool.

Jim236 · 21-04-2009 11:24PM

handsomecake wrote: »

i agree with a lot of your post. id like to add this though. i work in the business and it was blatantly obvious that this company (and shannon aerospace) are extremely top heavy with middle management top management etc.far too many people in offices as opposed to actually down fixing planes etc

Ah yeah sure they had more middle management doing office work at the time of the job losses than when they took over FLS, despite having less contracts. I can understand why there needs to be a lot of middle management because every bit of maintence carried out has to be documented, but SRT let it get out of control and had they curtailed they amount of middle management, they would've saved a lot of money. But it still came back to the type of contracts they were giving Dublin, no matter what sacrifices workers made nothing would make the operation profitable with contracts like the Gulf Air one.

handsomecake · 21-04-2009 11:29PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Ah yeah sure they had more middle management doing office work at the time of the job losses than when they took over FLS, despite having less contracts. I can understand why there needs to be a lot of middle management because every bit of maintence carried out has to be documented, but SRT let it get out of control and had they curtailed they amount of middle management, they would've saved a lot of money. But it still came back to the type of contracts they were giving Dublin, no matter what sacrifices workers made nothing would make the operation profitable with contracts like the Gulf Air one.

true. the contracts were pants.

wylo · 21-04-2009 11:29PM

anyone got any details of what these guys are being asked of salary wise, how do we know its not some insane pay cut that would make it pointless working there.

If its only something small they are being very very stupid about this whole thing, they probably thought they were invincible

mikemac · 21-04-2009 11:32PM

Sorry for the hijack OP

I've heard and read several reports of the poor redundancy package that workers are getting.
Well one poster here calls it crap.

Can I ask what is the package, 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks? What is it?
Just interested to know as if all the coverage that RTE gave to the protest they never once announced this

handsomecake · 21-04-2009 11:36PM

mikemac wrote: »

Sorry for the hijack OP

I've heard and read several reports of the poor redundancy package that workers are getting.
Well one poster here calls it crap.

Can I ask what is the package, 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks? What is it?
Just interested to know as if all the coverage that RTE gave to the protest they never once announced this

i know this for a fact. its .84 of a weeks wages for every year worked.
one guy got 38000 for 20 years service.****e

mikemac · 21-04-2009 11:45PM

Man, that is terrible.

I know our company gave 6 weeks per years service.
Now that's above and beyond and yes, anything above statuatory minimum is extra

But 0.84 weeks is harsh.
And maybe the workers need to get that message out if they want some sort o of public support.
Because I read articules, watched TV and heard the radio and never once was that figure given.
Your post changed my view on their actions and their protests.

handsomecake · 21-04-2009 11:50PM

mikemac wrote: »

Man, that is terrible.

I know our company gave 6 weeks per years service.
Now that's above and beyond and yes, anything above statuatory minimum is extra

But 0.84 weeks is harsh.
And maybe the workers need to get that message out if they want some sort o of public support.
Because I read articules, watched TV and heard the radio and never once was that figure given.
Your post changed my view on their actions and their protests.

crazy. i know a few lads there who are mid twenties like myself. no pension. they own houses and cars and said the redunancy would not even clear their credit card.also its a specialised industry. these guys invested time and money to become qualified,a lot of them dont know how to work at anything else

Terry · 22-04-2009 12:01AM

mikemac wrote: »

9 weeks.

Is that right?
I suppose it makes sense in the current climate.
You really don't want to walk out of a job when there is very little else out there. You should just be happy you have a job (not that employers should take advantage of that either).

I'm not going to look for the quote now, but there was a Taoiseach in the 70's who said that if unemployment ever reached above 100,000 in Ireland that the government of the time should step down immediately.

Now we know from the 80's that it never happened that way and FF and FG kept screwing things up and that it just keeps getting worse.

mikemac wrote: »

Man, that is terrible.

I know our company gave 6 weeks per years service.
Now that's above and beyond and yes, anything above statuatory minimum is extra

But 0.84 weeks is harsh.
And maybe the workers need to get that message out if they want some sort o of public support.
Because I read articules, watched TV and heard the radio and never once was that figure given.
It's changed my view on their actions and their protests.

0.84 weeks is a bit of a joke.
The last union job I had (early 90's) paid 2 weeks per year worked.
I really don't think that should be changed for either voluntary or forced redundancy.
Anyone fighting against that is in the right.

Lufthansa Airmotive workers can feck off!!

Comments