Wanderer2010 wrote: » One thing is for sure when or if this company does get the green light in Waterford- it won't be unionized. After all the hassle that certain companies got in the past few years from die-hard Waterford union heads who wouldn't know a good deal if it bit them on the face, not to mention our already well-established reputation for being difficult when it comes to working conditions and striking (i'm not saying its a justified rep, but well-established), no company worth their salt is going to get attached to a union here. Genzyme are thriving and they have no union, plus the fact that unions never ever saved a single job here in Waterford, its no bad thing. I welcome the investment if it goes ahead, and all the accompanying benefits to the city and economy. :pac:
BBM77 wrote: » Never bought this militant Waterford story. If Waterford had such a problem with unions there would be strikes every other month. If companies believed this why did Genzyme, Nypro, Hasbro and all the others set up operations here. It sounds like the usual it’s not our fault it’s yours line you get from the government. Every city has it’s die-hard union heads that’s nothing particular to Waterford. When was the last time there was a strike in a Waterford based company? Sure Burton was rambling on about “structural issues” in Waterford lately. Companies don’t think about investing €1 billion in cities with structural issues. If it goes ahead he’ll be down say how fantastic Waterford is. These are just things said to suit agendas at a moment in time.
Wanderer2010 wrote: » As i said, Genzyme is thriving but has no union. Hasbro is here a very long time and I imagine it has a union if even half of the stories I hear are true. Im qualified to say that Waterford is particularly militant, having worked in Cork and Galway for a number of years. Yes, every place has its work shy union heads but I have never seen it as bad as Waterford. As for strike, you are joking surely. Waterford Crystal is the most famous example. There are a sizeable group of Waterfordians who think the union is their God and any even hint of change in working conditions result in anarchy. Then again, with Bausch and Lomb having accepted the cuts recently, the winds may be changing and maybe the real lack of power of unions might be shining through.
BBM77 wrote: » Prove it then. You should be easily able to demonstrate that Waterford loses more days a year due to strikes or something.
Harry Palmr wrote: » They ain't the biggest name by a long chalk (only about a billion USD turnover and 6500 employees) but clearly better than a kick in the knacks.
The_Shotz wrote: » He we go with this "union militant" bullsh1t again. Waterford is no more militant than any other county in the country. You mentioned Waterford Crystal as a prime example, which a poster pointed out was in 1990. If waterford was so "unionised" we would be striking quiet a lot, therefore could you name all the other strikes you are talking about, sure give us five since 1990? If you were to research properly you would see that other areas of the country have a higher strike rate, but waterford is ever the only one branded as "unionised" By the way I do not think this issue has anything to do with this thread, most likely the company like gemzyme would not have a union as it's how US companies are ran these days. So the issue of Waterford being "militant" wouldn't even come into for them.
kuang1 wrote: » Some of you are missing the point and putting words in people's mouths. .. I think most people know (both in waterford and outside of waterford) that the waterford of today is not 'militant' or over unionised etc. However there is a PERCEPTION out there, particularly internationally, that this IS the case. And I know for a fact that it is discouraging large investment firms/companies from diverting resources to waterford. (Was speaking to a corporate banker recently who confirmed this) So no, it's not true that we are a militant, 'we-love-to-have-strikes-for-no-good-reason' city. Unfortunately, truth doesn't kill off reputation.
O Riain wrote: » No Irish person I have ever met has ever mentioned this 'militancy' to me or even asked me about it. You are saying 'internationally' we are considered militant. Jesus, where do you think we are living? London? N.Y.C? Beijing? This is Waterford boy and I can bet you most people would never have heard about this place before speaking to the IDA. So unless the IDA are telling them that we are militant it is complete and utter crap.
Deise67 wrote: » strike in Waterford crystal was 1990 ! maybe time to let that one go. ?
kuang1 wrote: » Oh dear...you're a bit of an ostrich aren't you? Have you ever left this emerald isle of ours? Ever even had a conversation with anybody not from Waterford/Ireland? I'm not gonna engage with you too much but where do you think the weight/finance behind any investment into waterford is gonna come from? Waterford GAA clubs gonna pool their resources? Already existing businesses in waterford? The council/government? I have to say I love the 'This is Waterford boy' part of your post...you're passionate at least. And of course you're right, this IS waterford boy! And I love calling it home. But it could well be the likes of London, N.Y.C. or indeed Beijing that could be the source of our very own local recovery, and who we end up thanking in twenty years for bringing their riches over here. That corporate banker I mentioned, he met with 4 dutch (that's people from the Nederlands...it's a place in Europe...they're not from Ireland...) investors. He told me that any one of these guys could open a factory anywhere at the drop of a hat. When asked about Ireland and investing, they discussed all cities. Dublin was all they were interested in. They had various reasons for ruling out all other locations. And their reason for shying away from Waterford? "Too unionised." Again, not the reality, but the reputation.
kuang1 wrote: » That corporate banker I mentioned, he met with 4 dutch (that's people from the Nederlands...it's a place in Europe...they're not from Ireland...) investors. He told me that any one of these guys could open a factory anywhere at the drop of a hat. When asked about Ireland and investing, they discussed all cities. Dublin was all they were interested in. They had various reasons for ruling out all other locations. And their reason for shying away from Waterford? "Too unionised." Again, not the reality, but the reputation.
O Riain wrote: » Are you actually kidding me? Have I ever left the Island - yes I have as a matter of fact - I've lived all over the world and am currently living in London, Where do you live ya clown? If you have traveled even half as much as I have you would realise that nobody has ever heard of Waterford. People in the UK have never heard of it, nor have the Canadians, The Yanks, The Germans, The Aussies or the South Americans. They may come to know the place when considering Ireland but at the start they will know nothing. That mean's that any word of unions is coming from Government Agencies (which I sincerely hope it is not). Your story smacks of the usual 'I know a guy who knows a guy' crap that's spouted all over the place in Ireland. The thing to realise about that crap that you are spouting is that very little of it deals in facts. What I am saying is Waterford has no reputation at all, very few people I have ever spoken to have even heard of it, never mind say been here or know of its apparent reputation. The place is so insignificant even in terms of Ireland that for it to have an international reputation - good or bad - is absolutely ludicrous. Dope.
longshanks wrote: » You'd believe everything a banker told you?
kuang1 wrote: » And with your final word, I'm out. Namaste.
fuzzy dunlop wrote: » Frankly I find that hard to believe. The ideas that industrilaists would come to a conclusion like that when it is quite easily proven wrong. Union membership is not higher in Waterford. Days lost due to industrial action is not higher. So the idea that an investor would reaearch thouraghly everything else like infrastructure, Labour availability etc. and then rely on "perception" is just stretching credulity to the limit. Even when these "perceived" problems existed they existed just as bad in other cities especially Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Limerick and Cork had major difficulties in particular companies like Ferenka and Ford. Especially when Ferenka had the an absotely horrendous historyhttp://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/ferenka-closure-to-be-recalled-1-2181541 But most of all why I disbelieve it is because I know from working in the Netherlands that they in particular have no problem engaging with unions every step of the way with regard to investment. Quite the opposite to the union phobia you see in American companies.
O Riain wrote: » It's funny that you'd choose to make assumptions about me and try to insult me but then back out when you get a little thrown back at you. Also didn't help that you're little story was seen as the absolute nonsense that it actually is. Either your 'Corporate Banker' friend is telling fibs or you are. Either way, as I said, you're a dope. Dope.
