strike action is called for by the union in Teva.

Blaaface · 27-05-2010 01:23PM

There's about 30 people in the inhalor factory that want to take the redundancy but are not being allowed to leave because the company do not want full seniority. These people are working there up to about 13-20 years and would like to take this good package and then you have people in tablets who want to stay who are there about 5-13 years but are not being allowed to stay and are forced to take the redundancy.
The company are keeping people who want to leave and are letting go people who want to stay which is completley ridiculous. In 4 years time if the company closes, the 13-20 years people will only recieve the 6 weeks. They had the same problem in Bausch and Lomb and Hasbro, the companies eventually gave in and let these people go which is the right thing to do.
That is why the No vote should be respected.

hardybuck · 27-05-2010 02:55PM

19.5V wrote: »

It is the responsibility of management to ensure that there is adequate training for their employees, this would ensure that the “dead weight” as you suggest, would not exist.
Thank god there are unions, the law of the land and the Labour Court is there to protect the worker from the law-of-the-jungle cowboys. If you are there for a few more years than someone else you have gained seniority, whether you agree with this or not it dosent matter. The labour court will favour seniority over big boot tactics.
Dead weight is the result of poor management.

Actually the Irish trade union system is based on a voluntarist approach. We have one of the least regulated systems in Europe or other common law terrorities. Most new greenfield site MNCs refuse to deal with unions at all.

19.5V · 27-05-2010 03:05PM

hardybuck wrote: »

Actually the Irish trade union system is based on a voluntarist approach. We have one of the least regulated systems in Europe or other common law terrorities. Most new greenfield site MNCs refuse to deal with unions at all.

So thank God for the law of the land and the labour court, a person has rights with or without union.
It is against the law for a company to discriminate against unions and union membership

By the way have you ever noticed that,
its always unions that close a company :rolleyes:
its always management that save a company :rolleyes:

hardybuck · 27-05-2010 03:09PM

No its not against the law for employers to refuse to deal with a union. The word discrimination is a whole different entity, and the word can only be applied to certain scenarios.

Employers have two choices in deciding how they wish to make people redundant:

1. First in first out

2. Merit based. This involves every employee being ranked on a scoring system. Points awarded for experience, qualifications etc. Points deducted for attendance, disclipinary action etc.

Its a very careful process, and employers can face hefty fines if they are seen to have acted unfairly.

Bduffman · 27-05-2010 03:14PM

19.5V wrote: »

It is the responsibility of management to ensure that there is adequate training for their employees, this would ensure that the “dead weight” as you suggest, would not exist.
Thank god there are unions, the law of the land and the Labour Court is there to protect the worker from the law-of-the-jungle cowboys. If you are there for a few more years than someone else you have gained seniority, whether you agree with this or not it dosent matter. The labour court will favour seniority over big boot tactics. Dead weight is the result of poor management.

The management are complying with the Labour Court recommendations to the letter - that is a fact.

Yet the Union is recommending a no vote - anybody have a clue why?

Bduffman · 27-05-2010 03:16PM

Blaaface wrote: »

That is why the No vote should be respected.

Yeah - why stop at 300 redundancies? Why not close the Inhalation plant as well? :rolleyes:

19.5V · 27-05-2010 03:32PM

hardybuck wrote: »

No its not against the law for employers to refuse to deal with a union. The word discrimination is a whole different entity, and the word can only be applied to certain scenarios.

Employers have two choices in deciding how they wish to make people redundant:

1. First in first out

2. Merit based. This involves every employee being ranked on a scoring system. Points awarded for experience, qualifications etc. Points deducted for attendance, disclipinary action etc.

Its a very careful process, and employers can face hefty fines if they are seen to have acted unfairly.

Merit based, management would have to have their i's dotted and their t’s crossed on this point. If Johnny had an attendance or disciplinary issue it has to be dealt with under normal industrial relations and be closed off in a normal period of time 6 to 12 months would be normal.
Johnny also has to be afforded adequate training by the company, it isn’t as simple as to bring in someone else to do Johnny’s job just because technology has improved and poor auld Johnny needs to be put out to pasture. Yes you can put Johnny out to pasture if he is in agreement with the terms
It is a very tricky one to make someone redundant just because they had issues such as those mentioned. The spotlight would be turned on management procedures, if these procedures weren’t in place or not followed while dealing with Johnny’s case, or weren’t seen to be applied evenly, Johnny would walk away with an unfair dismissal / unfair selection case.

Merit based is an exercise that management would do behind closed doors, then fabricate a case to fit their plan, I know what I am talking about, I know IBEC
Fight for your rights Johnny

hardybuck · 27-05-2010 03:39PM

19.5V wrote: »

Merit based, management would have to have their i's dotted and their t’s crossed on this point. If Johnny had an attendance or disciplinary issue it has to be dealt with under normal industrial relations and be closed off in a normal period of time 6 to 12 months would be normal.
Johnny also has to be afforded adequate training by the company, it isn’t as simple as to bring in someone else to do Johnny’s job just because technology has improved and poor auld Johnny needs to be put out to pasture. Yes you can put Johnny out to pasture if he is in agreement with the terms
It is a very tricky one to make someone redundant just because they had issues such as those mentioned. The spotlight would be turned on management procedures, if these procedures weren’t in place or not followed while dealing with Johnny’s case, or weren’t seen to be applied evenly, Johnny would walk away with an unfair dismissal / unfair selection case.

Merit based is an exercise that management would do behind closed doors, then fabricate a case to fit their plan, I know what I am talking about, I know IBEC
Fight for your rights Johnny

Yes, you are correct. Its a very careful process. That is why companies spend a lot of money on their HR departments to document absolutely everything from the day you walk in the door. There are many specialist consultants who will handle this sort of stuff yourself.

You know IBEC do you-tell him I said hi! Whats all this closed doors fabrication nonsense? Its a very black and white process and the courts won't allow for anything different. I think you have a fantasy of some grand conspiracy to keep the people down.

19.5V · 27-05-2010 03:42PM

hardybuck wrote: »

Yes, you are correct. Its a very careful process. That is why companies spend a lot of money on their HR departments to document absolutely everything from the day you walk in the door. There are many specialist consultants who will handle this sort of stuff yourself.

You know IBEC do you-tell him I said hi! Whats all this closed doors fabrication nonsense? Its a very black and white process and the courts won't allow for anything different. I think you have a fantasy of some grand conspiracy to keep the people down.

Your thoughts are your own

hardybuck · 27-05-2010 03:49PM

19.5V wrote: »

Your thoughts are your own

Fair enough, but this anti business approach will finish off whats left of our economy. Strike actions, worker unrest and nonsensical anti-worker conspiracy theories, all make us look very unattractive on an international front when it comes to future investment.

While I agree that worker protection is fundamental to a successful economy and a healthy society, we need to strike a balance. We all need to pull up our sleeves and work together here, regardless of your political leaning.

As someone else highlighted, its a bit of a coincidence that those shouting loudest for seniority on the redundancies just happen to be the most senior. Now thats a 'behind closed doors" fabrication if I ever heard it...may the best men(or women) win!

Yes Boss · 27-05-2010 03:49PM

19.5V wrote: »

It is the responsibility of management to ensure that there is adequate training for their employees, this would ensure that the “dead weight” as you suggest, would not exist.
Thank god there are unions, the law of the land and the Labour Court is there to protect the worker from the law-of-the-jungle cowboys. If you are there for a few more years than someone else you have gained seniority, whether you agree with this or not it dosent matter. The labour court will favour seniority over big boot tactics.
Dead weight is the result of poor management.

I really don't know what planet you came from but i believe that everyone should take responsibility for their own actions and not be waiting for someone else to help them or blame someone else if their wall falls in on them!!

Therefore, dead weight is the responsibility of the individual and not the management. It is either in you to get off your arse or it is not. If it is not, with all the management in the world you will still be a "Dead Weight"!!!!!

19.5V · 27-05-2010 04:11PM

Yes Boss wrote: »

I really don't know what planet you came from but i believe that everyone should take responsibility for their own actions and not be waiting for someone else to help them or blame someone else if their wall falls in on them!!

Therefore, dead weight is the responsibility of the individual and not the management. It is either in you to get off your arse or it is not. If it is not, with all the management in the world you will still be a "Dead Weight"!!!!!

Looks as if you would fit in as a managerless society, what planet would that be on

Yes Boss · 27-05-2010 04:15PM

19.5V wrote: »

Looks as if you would fit in as a managerless society, what planet would that be on

So you need someone to manage you?? And you wonder why the Country is the way it is!!

19.5V · 27-05-2010 05:05PM

Yes Boss wrote: »

So you need someone to manage you?? And you wonder why the Country is the way it is!!

Save us and Show us the way oh great one

Yes Boss · 27-05-2010 06:29PM

19.5V wrote: »

Save us and Show us the way oh great one

I suppose some people don't have the ability to think or are simply lazy!!

urhavinalaugh · 27-05-2010 06:38PM

Gogirl2010 wrote: »

I totally agree, this is what's happening. That extra money would buy them time when they leave but people are being bullied into rejecting and going on strike. Union haven't put anything down on paper in 9 months about what they were asking for so no-one knows exactly what they want as it seems to change all the time. Was 39 people to transfer but when company gave 45 union immediately jumped up to 75, joke. If people don't reject, the reps are frightening people to say that they'll have no union as they'll all stand down. I would say leave them because if there is a strike they should hang their heads in shame as they will cause the ruin of so many more people after TEVA is closed, which will happen sooner because of it.

remember its a secret ballot ,so who knows what way even committee will vote ,i hope the no vote at least outnumbers the committee members ,how embarrassing would that be ,but it is a great deal ,even deep down (in their pockets) they know that .;)

Gogirl2010 · 28-05-2010 12:04AM

19.5V wrote: »

It is the responsibility of management to ensure that there is adequate training for their employees, this would ensure that the “dead weight” as you suggest, would not exist.
Thank god there are unions, the law of the land and the Labour Court is there to protect the worker from the law-of-the-jungle cowboys. If you are there for a few more years than someone else you have gained seniority, whether you agree with this or not it dosent matter. The labour court will favour seniority over big boot tactics.
Dead weight is the result of poor management.

Sorry!!! labour court recommended partial seniority which has happened to the tune of 23% whilst retaining the skills of the inhalations business. It is also agreed in the site agreement that skills will be retained before seniority. If it's rejected and we go on strike there will be lower money, no seniority and immediate closure of the tablet business. Don't think anyone will be saying thank god for unions if this happens and if they do they are fools.

Gogirl2010 · 28-05-2010 12:10AM

Bduffman wrote: »

Yeah - why stop at 300 redundancies? Why not close the Inhalation plant as well? :rolleyes:

Might just happen yet with all the **** that's going on. A strike would be sooo bad for the business in Waterford and it will achieve nothing.

Yes Boss · 28-05-2010 12:32PM

Gogirl2010 wrote: »

Sorry!!! labour court recommended partial seniority which has happened to the tune of 23% whilst retaining the skills of the inhalations business. It is also agreed in the site agreement that skills will be retained before seniority. If it's rejected and we go on strike there will be lower money, no seniority and immediate closure of the tablet business. Don't think anyone will be saying thank god for unions if this happens and if they do they are fools.

Well said...Unfortunately you are talking to some people here with a reality deficit!!

Tom_west · 28-05-2010 04:47PM

companies option
eight weeks and 45 people get transfered

Unions option
six weeks and dead beats keep there jobs as they will not get a job anywhere else and 285 people suffer so these 30 belly rubbers can have their jobs at the expence of there co workers.

UNION????

where is the union in this?????????

Mugser · 28-05-2010 06:14PM

Strike action has NOT been called by the union, the vote on sunday is on whether or not to accept the companies final position. If, and only if its rejected then there will be a ballot on whether or not to take industrial action.

chimerical26 · 28-05-2010 07:03PM

Forgive me if I'm not seeing the forest for the trees but is SIPTU requesting that their members gamble the 8 weeks + 45 jobs and the reputation and future of the inhalations factory? And are they asking this of people who have spent a large portion of their lives building this reputation and earning this 8 weeks with no promise of anything in return? Please clarify.

tom111 · 28-05-2010 07:48PM

People must remember that only for previous siptu agreements company had option to only pay out 2 weeks statutory, and if siptu hadnt have submitted request for labour court hearing 8 weeks wouldnt be on the table for anyone...... some people have a short memory ,As for the last 9 months union members and non union members have not only asked but encouraged union to try and get more money and now that its got they think the union are a shower on c**ts, teva in ireland is going to close no matter what is outcome of this ballot due to patent being up in a couple of years so people should realise they have to stick together, if they want the next package to be any way decent.....

chimerical26 · 28-05-2010 09:35PM

The package is decent. The union should realise they have won it. Their momentum is carrying them a bridge to far. Any gamble is based on clearly knowing what you may lose versus what you could win. Everyone knows what they stand to lose. There is no clarity on what could be won. With regards to people standing to together, the very definition of a majority vote is people standing together.

Blaaface · 28-05-2010 10:07PM

The performance of the Teva management during the past 9 months has been disgusting, the managing director and the head of HR haven't met with the workers since last September when the announcement was made. There's been letters sent to people houses the past 2 weeks (which is a usual tactic) warning them about closures and the damage it could cause, if it was so serious why can't they tell us face to face. It's a complete lack of respect by them to people who have worked there for over 20 years.
When the labour court recommendation came out the company and the union were split on the some of the wording so Martin King from the labour court came down and explained it to them and hopefully get a deal done (he worked on the Aer Lingus deal), he left after one day as he couldn't deal with the company.
As far as i know if the company gave the redundancy to the people in Inhalors who want to go then it basically solves the problem but they're keeping them even though they want out and in my view they should be allowed leave.
The company are trying to buy senoirity as the jobs they're giving to the workers coming over from the tablet factory are the tempory workers they're leaving go( the company lied to them telling them their jobs were safe but told the labour court they were leaving them go).
It's the managing directorwho is also high up in the IBEC tree taking on the Union. The performance of the managment during this should really be highlighted as if they get away with this then it doesn't bode well for factories in the future.

Bduffman · 28-05-2010 10:35PM

I never read such a misinformed post in my life. Here are some facts

Blaaface wrote: »

The performance of the Teva management during the past 9 months has been disgusting, the managing director and the head of HR haven't met with the workers since last September when the announcement was made. There's been letters sent to people houses the past 2 weeks (which is a usual tactic) warning them about closures and the damage it could cause, if it was so serious why can't they tell us face to face. It's a complete lack of respect by them to people who have worked there for over 20 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the unions job to talk to their members? And as for management with workers, they HAVE met with non-union workers several times - after all, there are more non-union than union workers in Teva in case you didn't notice. And as we're on the subject, I hope you realise that Inhalations workers have hardly seen your beloved union committee over the last 9 months. They've met with SD workers far more. I wonder why that is? Is it something to do with the fact that they're nearly all SD on the committee?

Blaaface wrote: »

When the labour court recommendation came out the company and the union were split on the some of the wording so Martin King from the labour court came down and explained it to them and hopefully get a deal done (he worked on the Aer Lingus deal), he left after one day as he couldn't deal with the company.

How come the company is agreeing to implement ALL of the Labour Court recommendations without exception? And the union are recommending rejecting them?

Blaaface wrote: »

As far as i know if the company gave the redundancy to the people in Inhalors who want to go then it basically solves the problem but they're keeping them even though they want out and in my view they should be allowed leave.

Bollix. Its the union who have insisted from the start that temporary workers must go ahead of permanent workers who want to go. Them & their precious seniority.

Blaaface wrote: »

The company are trying to buy senoirity as the jobs they're giving to the workers coming over from the tablet factory are the tempory workers they're leaving go( the company lied to them telling them their jobs were safe but told the labour court they were leaving them go).

The company wanted to keep some temporaty staff but are complying with the courts recommendations that they must go first.

Blaaface wrote: »

It's the managing directorwho is also high up in the IBEC tree taking on the Union. The performance of the managment during this should really be highlighted as if they get away with this then it doesn't bode well for factories in the future.

You're in the minority mate - the unions have been disgraceful in their attitude. What about their announcement this week that the apparently have some 'information' about the managements postion but they would not disclose it until next Sunday - just before the vote. Thats BS. Whatever crap they come up with can't be denied or challenged by the company as the vote is due to take place 5 minutes later. And then they expect their own members to vote on one of the most important decisions in their working lives with just a few minutes consideration?

tom111 · 28-05-2010 11:45PM

The most basic principle of any union is seniority,in the cases of redundancies this means that voluntary redundancies are first issued and if these arent fully taken up it goes to last in first out.Unions in no way shape or form can negotiate the seniority of any one of its members no matter who they are. as for meeting sunday morning you will be informed by union what is going on, you can ask questions and then vote what ever you want,its not the union committee who decides what happens its the workers votes who decide to accept/reject offer, not forgetting for the past 24 years this policy of selection has been used by this company.

As for company meeting nonunionised members, they were asked to meet with union member in sd but refused and instead sent emails and letters to peoples homes, maybe company should have communicated more with the union members and explained clearily what was on offer and what was the consicuencases as these are the one who will be casting the votes, the whole situation has been shambolic,

Money Tree · 28-05-2010 11:46PM

Well said BDuffman
Unfortunately it is the bulls**t and untruths that is spouted above that the union members will be subjected to at Sundays meeting

jay.i.am · 29-05-2010 04:37AM

Bduffman wrote: »

I never read such a misinformed post in my life. Here are some facts

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the unions job to talk to their members? And as for management with workers, they HAVE met with non-union workers several times - after all, there are more non-union than union workers in Teva in case you didn't notice. And as we're on the subject, I hope you realise that Inhalations workers have hardly seen your beloved union committee over the last 9 months. They've met with SD workers far more. I wonder why that is? Is it something to do with the fact that they're nearly all SD on the committee?
Correct me if im wrong but isnt it the managments job to met with all workers so what if there is more non unionised workers??? Its very easy to hid behind a computer and bang out e-mails and post out letters to peoples homes not to mention the crap on the plazma screen in the canteen if their trying to annoy people their going the right way about it.
How come the company is agreeing to implement ALL of the Labour Court recommendations without exception? And the union are recommending rejecting them?what compulsory minimized.By the way i worked in both plants skill sets my Well you could debate this one all day
The court recommends minimizing compulsory redundancies if they let everyone who has shown an intrest in going from inhaltions go guess what what compulsory minimised.By the way i worked in both plants skill sets my bollix.Its not N.A.S.A!!!!
Bollix. Its the union who have insisted from the start that temporary workers must go ahead of permanent workers who want to go. Them & their precious seniority.Seniorty is not some new concept drawn up to suit solid dose workers it has worked both ways over the years people got left go from S/D to accommadate inhalation workers when there was a dip in that businesss because they had more service.Do you think its fair that someone with 10yrs plus service with a good record should be shown the door for someone with maybe 3.

The company wanted to keep some temporaty staff but are complying with the courts recommendations that they must go first.

You're in the minority mate - the unions have been disgraceful in their attitude. What about their announcement this week that the apparently have some 'information' about the managements postion but they would not disclose it until next Sunday - just before the vote. Thats BS. Whatever crap they come up with can't be denied or challenged by the company as the vote is due to take place 5 minutes later. And then they expect their own members to vote on one of the most important decisions in their working lives with just a few minutes consideration?

5mins later have you seen the agenda for the meeting.You must think were all stupid that we cant go down and listen ask questions and make up our own mind.Its been embarassing watching/listening to middle managment going around canvassing for a yes vote all week.

tom111 · 29-05-2010 10:30AM

jay.i.am wrote: »

5mins later have you seen the agenda for the meeting.You must think were all stupid that we cant go down and listen ask questions and make up our own mind.Its been embarassing watching/listening to middle managment going around canvassing for a yes vote all week.

Quit true, some bosses in work were going around canvasing a yes vote and when asked if not for union what would they be getting, 8 weeks, six weeks or statuatory, non could reply, this offer is not on the table for any non unionised workers, its only there becausce you are discrimaniting against people if you give one person one package and somreone else a different offer and this is against the Employment Equality Act, and company can be sued for being in breach of this. Why didnt the senior management talk to the normal unionised worker??????? :Instead they sent down people whow were 1. being made redundant and 2 these people wanted the best deal for themselves which can be completely understanded. If anything over the past week management tactics alone have made people vote no, I think vote to accept company proposal will be close but if rejected vote for industrial action will be a landslide and if this happens i cant see siptu calling off strike for a package that doesnt contain 8 weeks at the minimum.

strike action is called for by the union in Teva.

Comments