handsomecake wrote: » yeah. its statutory plus .84 of a weeks wage. but the company can apparently get the government to contribute the statutory bit afaik. all i know is that it was an abysmal package they got.
Turkeyspotter wrote: » To 2nd of 465 I actually have a lot of sympathy for you and the others who have lost their jobs. I really hope people will see sense before it is too late. The unions are dinosaurs and with modern employment legislation are not actually required at all. Its a shame the government hasn't modernised our labour relations legislation instead of continually buying them off.
Mailman wrote: » To me that sounds like a standard redundancy package capped at two years salary but I'd need to see the figures to be sure. With twenty years service that person is probably over 40 and qualifies for a higher redundancy package of which a sizable proportion is tax free. Being clever and sending a portion of the balance to pension leaves less of the remainder exposed to tax. Can any of the guys in there tell if the long serving union members in Lufthansa Airmotive are angling for a redundancy package? I expect the Union would be pushing for voluntary redundancy on the basis of FIFO.
memo_to_all wrote: » If I was an Airmotive worker right now...Id be gathering like minded workers march to the managements office and declare they are the true repersentitives of the Airmotive workers and work at securing the plants survival.
Mailman wrote: » yeah well obviously the guys under two years service will be sacrificied but in some minds if that's the cost of getting a payout for the long serving so be it. That's speculation on my part but have you seen anything to suggest that some are manouevering for a payout?
2nd of 465 wrote: » Management know well who the Trouble makers are,
2nd of 465 wrote: » I was called a spineless B*****d because I stood my ground in voting to accept the companys proposals,
2nd of 465 wrote: » I am a Craftsperson at LTAI and am required by the company to be a member of a Trade Union, I would be in breech of my conract if I left the Union, Believe it or not,
wylo wrote: » do you reckon it will be the nay sayers that will be the first to lose jobs? reading what you guys have to say sickens me tbh, so im glad management know who the troublemakers are. I think thats why the likes of Shannon Aerospace is quite safe now compared to the likes of what happend at SRT, people decided to take a hit regarding overtime etc (not sure of details tbh) and that was a few years ago before any recession
Turkeyspotter wrote: » To my mind this is part of the reason why the union nettle should have been grasped long ago and these kind of restrictive practices outlawed. Nobody should be forced to be in a union. I have friends in the Public Service who are required by contract to be in a union. Basically the workers with the most rights in the country in many cases are forced to have union membership thatt none of them need in the first place. All of this should have been sorted out in the greater interest when the public mood was right back in 1997 when Bertie came to power. He, however, neglected this duty and this was not to be the only occasion as the current state of our economy illustrates.
tommu wrote: » 148 Neg V 317 Pos. The majority who are willing to save the company should form a workers council (non union), this should include all personnel, management and shop floor. as the largest representative group they are in control. The negative element, as a minority, get real or get replaceable. Painful but democratic. I would do whatever is necessary to protect my future and more importantly my family's future.
2nd of 465 wrote: » Wouldn't get carried away with the most rights in the country Turkey, we have the same rights as everyone else in the country, Labour Laws are there for all of us,
Turkeyspotter wrote: » Which I agree with completely - they are indeed there for all of us. However given that Labour Laws are so comprehensive these days most people in the private sector absolutely feel no need to be in a union. In fact a large portion of the public actualiy hold unions and the 'me rights' mentality of the militants in contempt.
2nd of 465 wrote: » Not sure where youre going there Turk, I am in the Private sector, as I have said my Employer insists on my membership of a Trade Union,
Turkeyspotter wrote: » I would nearly put money on it that the mandatory union clause that your employment contract contains was placed there in turn for some concession or demand from the union in the past. Basically your employer bought them off at some point...
As I said I would loose my job on the spot if I left the Union,
tommu wrote: » Will you retain your job if you stay in the union, something must change !!!!!
Turkeyspotter Speaking of constitutions - wouldn't it be interesting to know if it was constitutional to force an employee (by whatever means) to be in a union?
Turkeyspotter wrote: » Speaking of constitutions - wouldn't it be interesting to know if it was constitutional to force an employee (by whatever means) to be in a union?
2nd of 465 wrote: » we are not all Morons as has been suggested, I take great offence to the suggestion that we are,