Unions the cause of high unemployment in waterford?

Master and commander · 04-10-2011 05:53PM #1

i Have been talking to a few business people i know lately about Waterford being a high unemployment blackspot and that industries looking for an irish base seem to be avoiding waterford and heading to the other cities instead. Some of them told me (in not so polite language) that the waterford population want to have their cake and eat it, saying that they want the jobs to come but also their unions are so demanding and trigger happy at striking that it just puts potential employers off the idea of waterford.
The same sort of thing was said to me by another businessman who said that waterford folk are always striking and stuff and he would never set up there as the unions are a nightmare. He gave examples that Waterford Crystal would still be there if it wasn't from the striking workers and their demands.

I know it perhaps a little exagerated but TBH i think there is a grain of thuth here, i mean unions and Left Wing parties have traditionally been strong in the waterford area - SWP and Workers party, and its a big Union base. so thats a big turn off to any potential employer looking to set up in waterford. It seems we have the roads, industrial sites but our labour force is too fickle. Is it too much to say that waterford's people are their own worst enemy? They are so militant and left wing that employers just say, "meh, why bother" and move on to somewhere else?

EDIT: I'm just saying is all, if you really want to know what the first man (in road haulage industry) said, it is this: "oh, the people down in waterford are pure cnuts, always fcuking striking" I was surprised at this at first, but after thinking about it, i thought there may be a grain of truth. BTW, i live in waterford.

Yes Boss · 04-10-2011 06:22PM

They have certainly contributed to that "militant attitude" but it is not the only reason...:rolleyes:

Psychedelic · 04-10-2011 06:27PM

I dunno, there haven't been many (any?) major strikes here in the last 10 years. Surely we would've lost any bad reputation we had by now. And how would potential employers (FDI companies) know if we have a reputation for striking, when they are considering setting up here? I assume they do their own research on locations but they woulnd't have anecdotal "evidence" from the likes of your haulage industry buddy that we're a bunch of striking cnuts. Another thing is, if it were true that were are seen as strikers, then why did companies like Genzyme set up here?

ziedth · 04-10-2011 06:30PM

I can't think think of a single strike that has happened in recent years outside of school/nurses which would be a nationwide thing.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of unions. The "us&them" mentality is poison to a business and is in my experience caused by union types.

Master and commander · 04-10-2011 06:39PM

Genzyme, i don't know. Perhaps they just took the gamble. What i'm sayin is that its not a hard and fast rule, just a sort of reputaion that waterford has.
I would agree, if i was a businessman looking to set up, the last place i would want to do it is in a place run by unions and brainwashed by left wing nutcases like Davy Walsh and Joe Tobin and RBB.

On a wider scale, its a wonder any FDI was made at all in ireland given that unions are so strong.

As far as waterford goes, we can expect noting to change anytime soon since FG an Labour simply don't have the spine to take on the unions. What would really help bring jobs is to make business in waterford more competitive by taking some of the unions down a peg or 2, but no-one has the guts to do it.

another thing thats going agaist waterford, is the fact that many people are still locked into a 1970's midset and think that some "big factory" or call centre will decent on them and save the day. We must realise that maunacturing and general low/semi skilled jobs are a thing of the past and manufacturing is a dying breed in ireland. The only sustainable solution is to either upskill or encourage more entrepreurs. And by upskill i mean proper, useful courses, not wishy washy FAS stuff.
It may even be that waterford can no longer sustain jobs for its population and the only solution is to depopulate, with the unemployed emigrating or otherwise moving on.

justbored · 04-10-2011 06:46PM

This post has been deleted.

dayshah · 04-10-2011 06:48PM

ziedth wrote: »

Having said that, I'm not a fan of unions. The "us&them" mentality is poison to a business and is in my experience caused by union types.

There should be cooperation to make the pie bigger, but it will always be us & them when it comes to dividing the pie. Its the way it is, and the way it always will be.

Anyway, God gave us the Sabbath, but unions gave us the weekend.

Go syndicalism!!!

dayshah · 04-10-2011 06:51PM

Master and commander wrote: »

On a wider scale, its a wonder any FDI was made at all in ireland given that unions are so strong.

MNEs have a higher rate of union density than domestic firms.

It takes two to tango. You don't hear anything about unions where they have a good relationship, it doesn't make the news. You only hear about it when there is a bad relationship, and at least part of that is due to management skill (which unfortunately, is below our peers).

cococoady · 04-10-2011 06:53PM

Wasn't the most recent strike the corporation striking outside the new Waterford crystal. Made big news

Master and commander · 04-10-2011 07:09PM

Could there be some instrument where a company will set up here on the condition that unions are not allowed into the place or to canvas the workers for say, 10 years or whatever. Like some kinda contract. Then there'd be some hope. Think is though, even with that the unions still have a huge influence on the city and control many areas such as CIE and the corpo so the leftie mentality is still there.

The us and them attitude is bonkers, just cos your busines's owner made more money doen't mean you are entitled to more. You get your wages that you signed up for.
It smacks of good ol fashiond begrudgery - "you made more money, i want some of it, and if i cant get it i'll just do all i can to try and fcuk you up by striking"

ziedth · 04-10-2011 07:10PM

cococoady wrote: »

Wasn't the most recent strike the corporation striking outside the new Waterford crystal. Made big news

Good point, public service though. They don't count

dayshah · 04-10-2011 07:10PM

cococoady wrote: »

Wasn't the most recent strike the corporation striking outside the new Waterford crystal. Made big news

It was a wildcat strike. It did NOT get union approval, so if anything evidence of the responsibility of unions in Waterford.

dayshah · 04-10-2011 07:13PM

Master and commander wrote: »

Could there be some instrument where a company will set up here on the condition that unions are not allowed into the place or to canvas the workers for say, 10 years or whatever. Like some kinda contract. Then there'd be some hope. Think is though, even with that the unions still have a huge influence on the city and control many areas such as CIE and the corpo so the leftie mentality is still there.

It would violate fundamental constitutional rights (freedom of assembly) so is a non-runner.

Master and commander wrote: »

The us and them attitude is bonkers, just cos your busines's owner made more money doen't mean you are entitled to more. You get your wages that you signed up for.
It smacks of good ol fashiond begrudgery - "you made more money, i want some of it, and if i cant get it i'll just do all i can to try and fcuk you up by striking"

I was going to go into how the owner would make no money without workers, wages are bargained, fundamental right of association, bla, bla, bla; but your use of the word begrudgery has automatically invalidated all your arguments.

Partizan · 04-10-2011 07:14PM

Master and commander wrote: »

i Have been talking to a few business people i know lately about Waterford being a high unemployment blackspot and that industries looking for an irish base seem to be avoiding waterford and heading to the other cities instead. Some of them told me (in not so polite language) that the waterford population want to have their cake and eat it, saying that they want the jobs to come but also their unions are so demanding and trigger happy at striking that it just puts potential employers off the idea of waterford.
The same sort of thing was said to me by another businessman who said that waterford folk are always striking and stuff and he would never set up there as the unions are a nightmare. He gave examples that Waterford Crystal would still be there if it wasn't from the striking workers and their demands.

I know it perhaps a little exagerated but TBH i think there is a grain of thuth here, i mean unions and Left Wing parties have traditionally been strong in the waterford area - SWP and Workers party, and its a big Union base. so thats a big turn off to any potential employer looking to set up in waterford. It seems we have the roads, industrial sites but our labour force is too fickle. Is it too much to say that waterford's people are their own worst enemy? They are so militant and left wing that employers just say, "meh, why bother" and move on to somewhere else?

EDIT: I'm just saying is all, if you really want to know what the first man (in road haulage industry) said, it is this: "oh, the people down in waterford are pure cnuts, always fcuking striking" I was surprised at this at first, but after thinking about it, i thought there may be a grain of truth. BTW, i live in waterford.

So it's the SWP, WP, trade unions fault for the high unemployment in Waterford City? Nothing to do with the distrastrous neo-liberal economic policy of FF/PD which irresponsibly fuelled a massive property bubble off the back of a huge credit splurge which resulted in vital billions being directed away from real economic wealth into a credit bubble.

It was the unions which gave you a 5 day week, the right to work in a healthy environment, 40 hour week, guaranteed compulsory paid holidays, maternity leave, statury redundancy in event of unemployment, the right not to be exploited. Besides in some of the multinationals that have recently left Waterford, like Talk Talk, unions were not permitted to represent workers there. Now are you going to blame Joe Tobin and RBB in the WP for those job losses.

Seriously, somebody had to highlight your fascist filled hate rant.

Master and commander · 04-10-2011 07:38PM

dayshah wrote: »

It would violate fundamental constitutional rights (freedom of assembly) so is a non-runner.

I was going to go into how the owner would make no money without workers, wages are bargained, fundamental right of association, bla, bla, bla; but your use of the word begrudgery has automatically invalidated all your arguments.

But it would have ot be consented to by the relevant parties so then it would not violate it.

ha? I'm just pointing out that often when unions start kicking up it's when they hear that the relevant company has made good profits. Then they get the hump because they see the shareholders making money and think they are "owed" a piece of the pie.

It was the unions which gave you a 5 day week................

i don't intend to be a wage labourer.

guaranteed compulsory paid holidays, maternity leave,

incidentally, i do not and never have approved of these two things. If i was an employer i would be raging mad at the thought having to pay someone for work they are not doing. In my business activities that i have been involved with up to the present i have operated on the priciples of 1)a fair days pay for a fair days work and 2) you get what you pay for and you earn what you're worth - no wishy washy stuff.
On the above, i once heard a guy who used to let go his workers every year just before they would have become entitled to statutory entitlements. How can anyone expect business to prosper under a totalitarian trade union state like this.

dayshah · 04-10-2011 07:55PM

Master and commander wrote: »

But it would have ot be consented to by the relevant parties so then it would not violate it.

That would still violate freedom of association. No-one has the right to sell their rights.

Master and commander wrote: »

ha? I'm just pointing out that often when unions start kicking up it's when they hear that the relevant company has made good profits. Then they get the hump because they see the shareholders making money and think they are "owed" a piece of the pie.

:rolleyes: Christ, you never worked in the real world have you? Employment contracts are regularly altered. Suppose a firm made an employment contract. Every now and then it is in the firms interest to change the contract. That's what makes a work to rule so effective.

If contracts were to have the rigidity you suggest the whole economy would grind to a halt. Also, the employer is free not to agree to the union demands, shut up shop, and stop making profits.

Its called bargaining.

The rest of you post is pure trolling.

Yes Boss · 04-10-2011 08:05PM

The vast majority of workers rights/conditions are in place because of European Law and not Unions....:o

dayshah · 04-10-2011 08:09PM

Yes Boss wrote: »

The vast majority of workers rights/conditions are in place because of European Law and not Unions....:o

Is Ireland the only country with unions?

I think they might have them over in France and Germany too.

Anyway, not a lot of employment law is from the EU. There are some directives, but they are as a result of union lobbying at the EU level.

ex_infantry man · 04-10-2011 08:49PM

actually the op has a point!! it was in fact striking dock workers that brought this fine city to its knee,s, waterford was ya could say "D" main port in the country well ahead of dublin,cork,and limerick , until the gangs that unloaded the ships that came in decided to strike over pay!!!! this damaged waterford port and yes it made companies think differently about setting up here, oooh and the strike never ended it still is running to this day

sunnysoutheast · 04-10-2011 09:24PM

dayshah wrote: »

That would still violate freedom of association. No-one has the right to sell their rights.

:rolleyes: Christ, you never worked in the real world have you? Employment contracts are regularly altered. Suppose a firm made an employment contract. Every now and then it is in the firms interest to change the contract. That's what makes a work to rule so effective.

If contracts were to have the rigidity you suggest the whole economy would grind to a halt. Also, the employer is free not to agree to the union demands, shut up shop, and stop making profits.

Its called bargaining.

The rest of you post is pure trolling.

You still think the good old days will return then, clearly. They won't.

The days of the militant unionized workforce are over. You know it. I know it. The union leaders know it. The politicians know it.

As a thought experiment what would people's views be if a company wanted to set up a major operation here, but were adamant that it would be non-unionized? I'd say reality would dawn quickly and they would be deluged with applications. One thing I don't know though - is IDA assistance dependent on union representation - I assume not due to AOL BB/Talk Talk - but does anyone know for certain?

SSE

dayshah · 04-10-2011 09:43PM

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

The days of the militant unionized workforce are over. You know it. I know it. The union leaders know it. The politicians know it.

Over a third of workers are union members, and many more are covered by union agreements. There is no point in starting arguments just for the sake of it, but that applies to both sides. There are plenty of crap managers working in supermarkets and factories. Their incompetence can lead to them putting pressure on their workers, and if the place is not unionised they can get away from it. Of course most places are reasonably well run, and there are good employer/worker relations, so they don't make the news. Things only make the news when they take a bad turn.

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

As a thought experiment what would people's views be if a company wanted to set up a major operation here, but were adamant that it would be non-unionized? I'd say reality would dawn quickly and they would be deluged with applications. One thing I don't know though - is IDA assistance dependent on union representation - I assume not due to AOL BB/Talk Talk - but does anyone know for certain?

IDA assistance is not dependent on union recognition, it used to be, but that ended years ago. I really don't see what your point is. If a major operation opened in Waterford I'm sure there would be thousands of applications, whether it was unionised or not.

Tesco and Super Quinn are unionised, Lidl isn't. In general people would rather work for Tesco or Super Quinn, but Lidl still gets applications.

I don't see why its ok for shareholders to come together and incorporate themselves, and try to make a profit; but its such a major sin for workers to form themselves into a union and try get decent wages and conditions.

Often people form unions just to have their basic rights enforced.

Deise_Davy · 04-10-2011 10:41PM

ex_infantry man wrote: »

actually the op has a point!! it was in fact striking dock workers that brought this fine city to its knee,s, waterford was ya could say "D" main port in the country well ahead of dublin,cork,and limerick , until the gangs that unloaded the ships that came in decided to strike over pay!!!! this damaged waterford port and yes it made companies think differently about setting up here, oooh and the strike never ended it still is running to this day

That's right. They were claiming the pay of worker's who had died and when the owners copped on, the boys went on strike claiming it was a work practice.

sunnysoutheast · 04-10-2011 10:50PM

dayshah wrote: »

Over a third of workers are union members, and many more are covered by union agreements. There is no point in starting arguments just for the sake of it, but that applies to both sides. There are plenty of crap managers working in supermarkets and factories. Their incompetence can lead to them putting pressure on their workers, and if the place is not unionised they can get away from it. Of course most places are reasonably well run, and there are good employer/worker relations, so they don't make the news. Things only make the news when they take a bad turn.

IDA assistance is not dependent on union recognition, it used to be, but that ended years ago. I really don't see what your point is. If a major operation opened in Waterford I'm sure there would be thousands of applications, whether it was unionised or not.

Tesco and Super Quinn are unionised, Lidl isn't. In general people would rather work for Tesco or Super Quinn, but Lidl still gets applications.

I don't see why its ok for shareholders to come together and incorporate themselves, and try to make a profit; but its such a major sin for workers to form themselves into a union and try get decent wages and conditions.

Often people form unions just to have their basic rights enforced.

My point is quite straightforward. Capital is fungible worldwide. Companies making investment decisions have a multitude of places to choose from. They are unlikely to select a location with a history, however undeserved, of militant unionism. Perhaps if our local union representatives, TDs and City Council were to start putting out joint messages that our city is open and welcoming for businesses that would help. We cannot keep relying on the IDA or anyone else to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

SSE

jad2007 · 04-10-2011 11:04PM

Personally I dont think the level of union activity in Waterford would be rate highly in the decision making matrix of any company looking to invest in the area ( sadly we have much bigger problems)

In relation to the dockers strike I spoke at lenght about this topic to a gentleman from the SWP recently who was active at this time and the majority of what is thrown about in the public domain about this event is incorrect.

The dockers strike was more about a dispute between two competing unions than between labour and management. Now thats not to say that the workers raised issues but the duration of the dispute was due soley to inter- union rivalry.

When any body whether its unions or management have to much power its a bad thing. Rather than looking for scapecoats we need to focus on what we can do to improve our situation.

Marchandire · 05-10-2011 12:54AM

This thread is bizarre. At a time when the economies of our City and Country have been all but destroyed by the business class, we have a thread bemoaning Union membership and blaming unions for continued unemployment in Waterford.

For that matter, how does anyone conclude that a Dockers Strike twenty years ago is still influential, compared to the ten years of economic insanity that was the Celtic Tiger?

Sikie · 05-10-2011 01:19AM

jad2007 wrote: »

Personally I dont think the level of union activity in Waterford would be rate highly in the decision making matrix of any company looking to invest in the area ( sadly we have much bigger problems) .

Unfortunately I don't think this is the case if you are depending on inward investment through an IDA backed company. Part of the decision process will be comparing locations on a decision matrix. There will be a HR input into the decision on where to locate. If things were close it wouldn't help.

dayshah · 05-10-2011 08:02AM

Out of curiosity, has their ever been a strike in Hasbro or Bausch and Lomb?

These places have union representation, but seem to have a good relationship.

Lots of managers don't like unions, because its something to be managed. But unions raise HR issues early, whereas in other firms they end up having a huge problem with staff turnover. Good managers are happy enough to develop a good relationship, because they know problems will be aired earlier, and they can be nipped in the bud. In Dublin, the Luas actually agreed to a closed shop arrangement with SIPTU, because the management recognised there will always always be a disagreement over sharing the spoils, but they want a good relationship for the day to day stuff.

Unions don't just mushroom overnight in workplaces. Workers have to a have a reason to go to the effort of forming one.

Anyway, the richest small open economies in Europe (Denmark, Finland, Sweden), also have the highest level of trade union membership.

I strongly doubt companies look at events from 20 years ago to decide whether to set up here. They will look at places like Bausch and Lomb, and see that things go well here.

If Waterford is to develop, people have to stop looking for scapegoats, and stop looking to Dublin to help us. Gladly, I think the local city council recognise this, and they have done great work over the past few years, especially with things like the Tall Ships (which wasn't just the city council of course).

wellboytoo · 05-10-2011 08:31AM

Master and commander wrote: »

Could there be some instrument where a company will set up here on the condition that unions are not allowed into the place or to canvas the workers for say, 10 years or whatever. Like some kinda contract. Then there'd be some hope. Think is though, even with that the unions still have a huge influence on the city and control many areas such as CIE and the corpo so the leftie mentality is still there.

The us and them attitude is bonkers, just cos your busines's owner made more money doen't mean you are entitled to more. You get your wages that you signed up for.
It smacks of good ol fashiond begrudgery - "you made more money, i want some of it, and if i cant get it i'll just do all i can to try and fcuk you up by striking"

I guess your next thread will be about how knackers need to be culled for the sake of the country , followed by why we should never have given Women the vote, no a window in the kitchen.
Go away out of it Boi your only stirin the pot , and badly I might add.

mickmcl09 · 05-10-2011 09:59AM

dayshah wrote: »

O

I strongly doubt companies look at events from 20 years ago to decide whether to set up here. They will look at places like Bausch and Lomb, and see that things go well here.

If Waterford is to develop, people have to stop looking for scapegoats, and stop looking to Dublin to help us. Gladly, I think the local city council recognise this, and they have done great work over the past few years, especially with things like the Tall Ships (which wasn't just the city council of course).

I would agree with your point regarding what companies look at and don't look at, in fact they'd have a fairly broad matrix of considerations.

On the other hand, one might perceive that the City Council are doing great work but IMO, they are not. Car parking most expensive outside Dublin - killing City centre business, look at Kilkenny and Clonmel. The tall ships to be fair was more of a food festival, where a few ships turned up. Waterford should have ships of that calibre visiting the quay year round. You'd see a more impressive array of ships in small town harbours on the mediterranean.

If the City Council could see beyond the price of parking, the influx of people into town would ensure that businesses could pay their rates. Everybody wins, the Council get their revenue by other means and the City centre holds onto and creates employment.

Back to the topic of unions. I've worked for Lidl, it has been infiltratrated by unions up at sales assistant and supervisor level, possibly a few Store Managers here and there as well, but that's about all. Lidl don't recognise them but have had a few run ins over the years. Unions are virtually of no use for representing a group in this environment because the staff are paid more than any other retailer out there. Yes, Lidl staff are worked hard, but laws aren't broken. The union might come in handy for an individual if they had an issue, but the member of staff would only be 'marking their card' in the long term. Besides it only takes a handful of staff to run one, so worst case scenario, all the staff walk out, Lidl still have the staff resources to keep it running.
Lidl is run extremely efficiently, unlike many of the heavily unionised outfits such as the ESB, didn't one of the top union leaders in the ESB say that the employees were 'spoiled brats'. I also worked for Aer Lingus back in the day, again highly unionised and nearly went to the wall.

Unions are outdated. They had their day. Statutory law now governs work conditions, hours, breaks etc. Which essentially is a fair days work for a fair days pay. Anybody who thinks unions are needed, come work in an environment with no unions, work hard but fair and the rewards are higher.

My experience of Unions is that they stifle productivity, this is not a sustainable model for modern day business.

Point to OP. I went to college down here in the mid ninties, I now live down here for the last 3 years. I never heard of the anti Waterford element in all my travels, because of a Unionised reputation. These business people you speak of were 'sturring'. If they were afraid of unions, there's a reason for it and I wouldn't want to work for them one way or the other. Unions will infiltrate any business, anywhere as they see fit, not as Waterford people see fit. Rubbish talk IMO from these people.

Waterford is the forgotten City, even during the boom. It was the last City on the list for the big land speculators and developers in Dublin.

Waterford also needs as much help as possible from Dublin. Locals TDs need to pull their fingers out and fast. My sisters brother-in-law is a TD and his whole day is about ensuring there's as much employment retained and obtained in his area, even if that means taking down the govt. He's not a FG 'yes Enda, how many bags full, Enda' man. FG TDs in Waterford should take note and have a pair of 'cahunas'.

If the Council was doing their job, the Quays would be used alot more, for festivals, sporting events, a Marina facility/ club house /visitor area in place as a tourist attraction and as a facility for various water orientated clubs.

Cabaal · 05-10-2011 01:42PM

Partizan wrote: »

like Talk Talk, unions were not permitted to represent workers there.

Factually incorrect,
No unions ever got a foothold in TalkTalk as the VAST majority of people working there had no interest in joining them. At no point were they stopped or banned.

I will say the SWP went on big time about workers rights and unions however their behaviour towards TalkTalk employee's was disgraceful specifically on their Facebook page which they later deleted in order to hide what they said.

deise blue · 05-10-2011 03:18PM

The question posed in the thread title is probably moot at the current time as employers whilst forced to recognise an employee's right to join a Union are not obliged to recognise Unions Right's to collectively bargain/negotiate on behalf of Union members - thankfully the current Government have undertaken in the current plan for Government to introduce legislation to ensure mandatory Trade Union recognition to comply with recent European Court Judgements ( all political parties in opposition are in agreement ), ICTU have also raised a complaint with the International Labour Organisation ( whose treaties are binding on both the Government & Judiciary ) to ensure that collective bargaining rights are legislated for - it is hoped that this complaint will be heard this year.

Hopefully the day is close at hand when employers are forced to collectively bargain with Unions & employees can be assured that they can join a Union , safe in the knowledge that employers can no longer refuse to collectively bargain/negotiate with such Unions.

Unions the cause of high unemployment in waterford?

Comments