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.
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.
Blaaface wrote: » That is why the No vote should be respected.
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.
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
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.
19.5V wrote: » Your thoughts are your own
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"!!!!!
19.5V wrote: » Looks as if you would fit in as a managerless society, what planet would that be on
Yes Boss wrote: » So you need someone to manage you?? And you wonder why the Country is the way it is!!
19.5V wrote: » Save us and Show us the way oh great one
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.
Bduffman wrote: » Yeah - why stop at 300 redundancies? Why not close the Inhalation plant as well? :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
