Unions

This is an area i know very little about, so please bear with me if i ramble a bit.

In this age of the welfare state is there any real need for unions, especially in Government run agencies? Employees are protected under law for working conditions, wages, holiday stats, firing practices etc. I understand and applaud the need and achievements of unions in the far distant past, but nowadays in this workers utopia, should they wield that much power? Is there really a need for unions? I don't think so. They've served their purpose and are just destroying everything they've worked for.

This is leading into a bit of a rant, due to the current postal dispute. I work for a small-medium sized business, and since the majority of payments come by post, this dispute is affecting us in quite a considerable way. We haven't received a cheque from Dublin in three days, despite assurances from clients that they've been sent (grand, some are lying, but some i trust have apparently posted them). We're not that bad off due to CC (and post from other areas) transactions, however what abt smaller businesses in and around the Dublin Area that are frozen by this dispute?

basically, i'd like to know your views on this actual dispute, and Unions in General. Should the law restrict Unions, or abolish them completely in certain areas?

Oh, btw, my view is the restriction of Union Powers, or the ability for Employers to prohit the allowance of unions within their business.

(This thread in the Business section has some info abt the dispute: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148513 )

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Should the law restrict Unions, or abolish them completely in certain areas?

No.

They're about the only organisation in the country that can actually stand up to government policy. And the inconvienence they cause others is a byproduct of their primary function - to look out for their members. It may be personal bias from seeing how Eircom is now treating it's employees, but frankly I don't see anything that says that that's an unnecessary function.

Should their actions bring financial risk to other businesses when other methods may have worked? Seems to me that they went too far in this dispute.

Victor

But they already have restrictions on them. While some parts of some unions are either abusing or misusing their rights, they are rights that have been necessary.

they are rights that have been necessary

They were necessary, but are they necessary now? The Law protects employees now. What purpose do unions serve?

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sparks
No.

They're about the only organisation in the country that can actually stand up to government policy. And the inconvienence they cause others is a byproduct of their primary function - to look out for their members. It may be personal bias from seeing how Eircom is now treating it's employees, but frankly I don't see anything that says that that's an unnecessary function.

most union leaders have been in bed with the government for the last few years through the partnership agreements, look how miffed the bus drivers were when the union leaders pulled the rug on the strike on the 18th.

Current union leaders are in the main ineffective IMHO.

laoisfan

my own opinion is get rid of unions - thank god the company i work for does not have them.

not only the possible postal-strike but look at CIE!!

there should be some sort of cover in place in the event of a strike which could possibly cripple this country.

they cannot hold this country to ransom!!!

--laoisfan

spanner

i am in principle pro union however they are becoming more and more useless. the people who are in the strongest unions are mainly in the public sector like teachers etc. and these are the people who dont really need a union. really the public sector are well paid and looked after.
in the private sector unions are nearly obslete and the ones that are around are really there for show. workers realise that if they strike for better pay the company can up and leave to cheaper workforce. so the employer holds the power of the workers. because the communist ideal of the "workers untied" will never happen.

in my opinion, and it pains me to say it the government are looking after the lower paid workers better than the unions. with the introduction of minium pay and the many different labour laws.

Part of the problem that i have is how these actions affect the rest of the country. The transport strikes have affected me at times (Waiting three hrs for a city bus because the drivers took an unannounced 3 hr strike) , but for the most part i could shrug them off. The Postal dispute on the other hand threatens many businesses that just cannot afford to have a delay in at least three days cheque post.

Hairy Homer

How well up on the law are you? How competent are you to argue a legal case? When are you aware that your rights are being infringed? Where is it legally permissible for example, to draw the line between a boss demanding a fair level of commitment and indulging in bullying harrassment?

When does making somebody's life a misery reach the point of justifying a constructive dismissal suit?

If you know the answers to all these, if you are able to represent yourself in any dispute arising from the likes of this and are able to run rings around the professional lawyer that the employer will have paid to represent their side of the case, then you don't need a union. If you can't, then it's useful to have a body of people with negotiating expertise to keep employers honest.

In America, they don't have unions. Instead they have lawyers, and Human Resources executives whose justification for existence is that they minimise the risk of a company being sued by its own employees.

I submit that our way is less confrontational in the long run.

Sparks

Originally posted by laoisfan
they cannot hold this country to ransom!!!

Well, obviously that's wrong in the capability sense. But on the "should they?" question, you're missing the point. A union exists to safeguard the interests of it's workers. No-one else. That's the whole point. It's not a union's job to restructure the company to keep it solvent, it's the union's job to ensure that said restructuring does not cost jobs or lower pay for it's members. And that's the rub. Modern management theory says that restructuring that keeps a company afloat by throwing a few tens or hundreds of workers overboard or reducing their pay; while union policy says that that's unacceptable.

The solution isn't to restrict union activities, it's to find a third solution to get around that impasse.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
They're about the only organisation in the country that can actually stand up to government policy.

I'm curious about that logic.

The government ignore mass protests at will - as you frequently bemoan (and I agree) - but mass protests by Unions are somehow effective?

Not only that, but if the major problem with government is its corruption, why are Unions no different? Why aren't the leaders of large unions as corrupt as politicans, if we posit that they assert a comparable amount of influence within their own sphere?

I'm unconvinced that unions are needed.

Some do a good job, but others seem to be out to screw the employers (whoever they may be) for as much as possible, which to me is no more laudable than employers who are out to screw employees or customers for as much as possible.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
The government ignore mass protests at will - as you frequently bemoan (and I agree) - but mass protests by Unions are somehow effective?

Well, yes - at least from the point of view of the unions. It's not so much an ideological standpoint that they take as a highly pragmatic and selfish one - but that is their mandate. Take the Eircom privatisation - because of union action, the union members benefitted enormously from the privatisation, instead of being screwed out of both benefits and their tenure.
From the point of view of the self-interest of the average Eircom employee, the unions did a great job. And the same is true of many other union actions. They may not benefit anyone else - but that's not their intended goal.

Not only that, but if the major problem with government is its corruption, why are Unions no different?

I didn't say they weren't. IMHO, they're every bit as corrupt. But they also happen to be necessary for the workers who are their members.

Some do a good job, but others seem to be out to screw the employers (whoever they may be) for as much as possible, which to me is no more laudable than employers who are out to screw employees or customers for as much as possible.

Agreed, and if you could get rid of the latter, I'd say the former weren't really needed - but you can't. So if you're going to have one side of an adversarial system, you're going to need the other for any kind of balance.

BuffyBot

At times the amount of bile spilled at unions by people I've spoken too surprises me. You would wonder how they would feel if they found themselves in a situation where being a union member would be advantageous.

I wonder how many of the people who have voted against unions in this pole have ever been in a situation where the backing of a union would have been a big help to them.

As bonkey pointed out, some unions are worse than others. Some of them do a damn good job protecting the rights, welfare and interests of the workers they represent.

ixoy

I'm working for an American-owned company. Naturally, that means the concept of "union" is alien to them. We've seen a 0% pay increase this year (meaning our wages are effectively reduced because of inflation) and, in some respects, increasing work conditions. I believe in the concept of an "honest day's work for an honest day's pay" and feel somewhat shafted but I have no forum to turn to. A union might be good in this regard. I however recognise the trend of the real-world and how markets, and the flow of capital, must by neccesity dictate policy.

However, currently the unions are trying to hold out in an untenable position. An Post needs to make cuts. There is no choice in this. The new mailing centre was unveiled as a means to the end. The offshoot of this was, as reported, a reduction in the available overtime. This was - I believe - meant to have been compensated for and it's the degree of compensation that is the point to be argued. However, I'm finding it hard to find symapathy for their plights. Real world economics demands you HAVE to make the cuts - are the people ignorant of how things operate? Do they not realise there is no choice in the matter? And, more importantly, do they really care - from a humanitarian point of view - what the effect of their actions are?

Has anyone actually got any figures on the average pay an An Post worker receives (including their golden "overtime" wrangling bone)? I'm interested in seeing, for the point of view of further argument, if I can empathise with them or if they are on a comparable level to private sector. Given that the unions are mostly representing public services, I think it's fair to compare and contrast the demands and situations of the two sectors.

Sand

Has anyone actually got any figures on the average pay an An Post worker receives (including their golden "overtime" wrangling bone)? I'm interested in seeing, for the point of view of further argument, if I can empathise with them or if they are on a comparable level to private sector. Given that the unions are mostly representing public services, I think it's fair to compare and contrast the demands and situations of the two sectors.

Ive no links,but I heard on the radio that the average pay is about 22-24k, and with overtime it can rise as high as 40k. Hence the uproar from the unions and the need on An Posts side to reduce that overtime bill.

However, I'm finding it hard to find symapathy for their plights. Real world economics demands you HAVE to make the cuts - are the people ignorant of how things operate? Do they not realise there is no choice in the matter? And, more importantly, do they really care - from a humanitarian point of view - what the effect of their actions are?

Unions currently exist to attempt to insulate their members from reality. Inside their mindset the company does not exist to make a profit, with job creation a benefit of this. Instead the company exists to provide jobs, with profit being a possibility. If the company doesnt make a profit then the government should bail it out/nationalise it or something. This is especially prevalent in state owned enterprises. CIE, Aer Rianta, An Post and so on. Unions arent entirely a good or bad thing - they shouldnt have the sort of power they currently have to grind an entire city to a halt for example. The best way to lessen the impact of unions is privatisation and competition. If an Post had competitors, then people would simply use a competitor whilst the strike was ongoing meaning that the issue would be the unions and an posts problem and no one elses.

Unfortunately, unions are amongst the strongest opponents of privatisation and competition. Youd need a Margret Thatcher to break them to be honest. And theres not a single politician around with the sort of pig headedness. Not in Ireland anyway.

I didn't say they weren't. IMHO, they're every bit as corrupt. But they also happen to be necessary for the workers who are their members.

No theyre lousy to be honest. I used to work part time in Tescos. When there was a strike I voted for it, to support the permament members. The management were quite heavy handed, making thinly veiled threats that upset some of the permaments. We did the whole picket line thing as well. At the end of the day the union which had called out the strike accepted a slight pay rise that was *below* the minimum wage that was introduced shortly afterwards - the level of which was well known even then. As such the workers didnt benefit an iota. They would have got the minimum wage anyway.

The only conclusion is that the union was benefitting more than the workers were. Unions dont protect anyone unless theyve got a vested interest in doing so.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Youd need a Margret Thatcher to break them to be honest.

And that's assuming you think it'd be a good idea in the first place - and I've seen several sources saying that the union-busting antics of the Iron Bitch have led to a poorer economic climate in the UK, so I'd tend to think not. As I said above, labour relations is an adversarial system - and the unions are the employee's side of things. If you can come up with a better system, wonderful - but if you can't, you'll have to either accept unions or serfdom.
(And since the only seriously proposed alternative in recent history has been communism, I don't forsee you advocating an alternative Sand )

The only conclusion is that the union was benefitting more than the workers were.

No, it's not. You could also conclude that your particular union wasn't very good at negotiating. There are anecdotes that support that conclusion better than your conclusion - the Eircom privatisation deal is the one I've already given, but it's the one I'm most familiar with.

As I've said, unions are essentially amoral in the wider social sense. They don't care about the company's wellbeing unless it's literally about to fall over (and with CEOs and management earning large salaries in most large companies, they feel justified in this), and they aren't meant to. If they did, they wouldn't be doing their stated job which is to look out for the interests of their members. It may be a mercenary, feck-the-other-guy-over-a-barrel sort of mindset, but it's honest in it's own way at least.

Moriarty

Originally posted by klaz
Should the law restrict Unions, or abolish them completely in certain areas?

Yes.

I'd entirely echo what sand just said ^, he got there before me and there's no point repeating it all.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
They were necessary, but are they necessary now? The Law protects employees now. What purpose do unions serve?

The law also protects murder victims. Sometimes "the law" is too late for those not able to stand up for themselves. how about we get rid of laywers and police, after all, the law will protect you.

Originally posted by bonkey
Some do a good job, but others seem to be out to screw the employers (whoever they may be) for as much as possible, which to me is no more laudable than employers who are out to screw employees or customers for as much as possible.

The alternative is individual employees trying to screw a well funded HR department. Do you honestly expect that to happen? One well known Irish food company was in and of of the Labour Court every 2-3 weeks about 2 years ago, losing every time, yet not adjusting their behavior to comply with the law. Are minimum wage workers meant to fund a lawsuit against a multi-national?

The law also protects murder victims. Sometimes "the law" is too late for those not able to stand up for themselves. how about we get rid of laywers and police, after all, the law will protect you.

Extreme case, but i'll follow up a bit.

The law protects your rights to be safe & secure. The Gardai and in extreme cases the army are there to protect you. Both subject to the law and appointed by the State under the consitution. By your reckoning, since murders occur, we should abolish the whole lot and let evryone fend for themselves.

Unions were a great concept. I emphasise the "were". There is no need for them now. The law protects the employee for their rights. The Employee can, if they see fit, find out whether their rights have been abused from many independent agencies, and if need be proceed towards compensation. However, Unions these days go crazy whenever anything happens. What happened to the rights of the employer to continue building their businesses without interference from rank amatuers?

What if a Union being told of law-offs decides to strike since they can't bear to let those poor employees leave. Instead of the few employees being laid-off, the whole company goes bust, and nobody receives any kind of compensation?

If you can come up with a better system, wonderful - but if you can't, you'll have to either accept unions or serfdom.

Not quite. restrict the powers that Unions can forcebly use. Keep them within a system that doesn't either threaten the existance of the business or threaten the existance of other businesses, that rely on their working.

How well up on the law are you? How competent are you to argue a legal case? When are you aware that your rights are being infringed? Where is it legally permissible for example, to draw the line between a boss demanding a fair level of commitment and indulging in bullying harrassment?

Homer, I've been working for the last 7 years. In various types of jobs, and during that time i've learnt my rights. I may not be a solicitor to know the ins and outs of the whole law system, but i have enough cop-on to head to the Internet, ask friends, or seek legal advice to find out if my rights have been compromised.

And if i feel my rights have been infringed, i'm well capable of seeking legal help either completely with my own cash or through any of the solicitors that service people on lower wages. You see, if i get beaten to an inch of my life, and i want to press a civil case, i don't have a union to go to, I go to a solicitor.

If you know the answers to all these, if you are able to represent yourself in any dispute arising from the likes of this and are able to run rings around the professional lawyer that the employer will have paid to represent their side of the case, then you don't need a union. If you can't, then it's useful to have a body of people with negotiating expertise to keep employers honest.

Yes, thats all well and good. But what about when the Union steps outside of these bounds? How do you feel when a union decides that the "rights" of the employees outweighs the viability of the company's success?

At the end of the day, your having a job does not give you the right to hold a employer at ransom, considering you wouldn't have that bloody job without their enterprising ways. A state funded organisation is slightly different but these Unions haven't realised yet that milking the cow to death is not serving their members all that well. especially since state funded businesses are becoming a thing of the past, thank god.

Naturally, that means the concept of "union" is alien to them

ioxy, unions are definetly not an alien concept to American businesses. The Majority of european' unions are based on the structures that American unions developed. Read abt the Unions and their fights with the car Industry, especially in regards to the Ford Company. American unions, and they do still exist, are just not as popular these days, since they got their rights and were satisfied with them.

Johnmb

Personally, I don't think the workers in An Post should have been suspended. If I was their employer, I wouldn't have suspended them, I would have fired them and advertised their jobs. That is exactly what I would do to any of my employees if I bought new equipment and they refused to use it. If you want to work for me, you use the equipment I tell you to use, and you do the work I tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else. If you want to work for An Post, you use the equipment they tell you to use, and you do the work they tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
If I was their employer, I wouldn't have suspended them, I would have fired them and advertised their jobs. That is exactly what I would do to any of my employees if I bought new equipment and they refused to use it. If you want to work for me, you use the equipment I tell you to use, and you do the work I tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else.

And that attitude is precisely why I say unions must continue to exist and operate in the manner in which they do, and that labour relations is an adversarial situation. Johnmb may be expressing it very directly and aggressively, but that's basicly the sentiment that has been seen by eircom employees, aer rianta workers, ASTI teachers, Aer lingus pilots, everyone.

And while I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, I know I wouldn't work for you without a union johnmb.

monument

I agree with bonkey.

They are need, but they abuse their position.

I don’t believe in the kind of security some state company employees want. In general I also don’t agree with privatisation, however because unions abuse their position so much it may be the only way for some state owned companies.

If I was their employer, I wouldn't have suspended them, I would have fired them and advertised their jobs. That is exactly what I would do to any of my employees if I bought new equipment and they refused to use it. If you want to work for me, you use the equipment I tell you to use, and you do the work I tell you to do, otherwise go somewhere else.

I agree totally. When did employees gain the right to decide what work they do within a business? The An Post workers basically decided that they had more power than their employers, and as a result, should have been kicked out of their jobs for bad work practices. Unions are there to protect the rights of the Workers, right? Well, when did unions decide that they and the employees run the company?

And while I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, I know I wouldn't work for you without a union johnmb

In his statement, not once has he mentioned any expression that he would disregard your rights to fair wages, decent work conditions etc. All he's saying is that either you do your job, or you get fired. Seems very reasonable and logical to me. If you won't do your job, surely you shouldn't be getting paid, should you?

seedot

Sparks is dead on when he talks of the adversarial nature of employer / employee relationships. The scare stories about unions and their impact on businesses are just that - scare stories. During the Celtic tiger the share of money going to profits as opposed to labour rose dramatically - in part due to the weaknesses of the unions for last 15 years.

Unions do have huge, recent, limits to their powers - look at the 1990 Industrial Relations Act which prohibits strikes for political purpose etc. Between this and social partnership the unions have been v. effectively neutered.

The idea that we have all the rights we need and just need to be aware of them is a bit silly. Where did these rights come from? And I'm not talking about 19th C struggles that are all done and dusted: the minimum wage, the increase in redundancy payments, extensions to maternity benefit - all things won in the last 15 years (I know contradicts my earlier point about social partnership but I think the problem is unions have focussed on a 'rights' based approach which was not good for workers or the general population).

The problem I see with unions is they are setting themselves up for a fall by focussing on public sector and declining manafacturing jobs and creating a split between these (generally older) people and all the new jobs. They are purely focussed on existing members - see what happened in Eircom and is about to happen on the buses - existing workers get their conditions guaranteed but new workers have no such guarantees. So of course people (correctly) view the trade unions as just another sectional interest; sort of an IFA for public sector workers, rather than a 'progressive' force or a true countervailing power in the labour market.

And johnmb - I wouldn't work for you in a fit, with or without a union. Been there, done that, had my head wrecked by crap bosses already.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
And that attitude is precisely why I say unions must continue to exist and operate in the manner in which they do, and that labour relations is an adversarial situation. Johnmb may be expressing it very directly and aggressively, but that's basicly the sentiment that has been seen by eircom employees, aer rianta workers, ASTI teachers, Aer lingus pilots, everyone.

And while I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, I know I wouldn't work for you without a union johnmb.

Whether or not you were a member of a union wouldn't change a thing. If you worked for me, you would do the work I told you to do, with the equipment I told you to use, otherwise you would be fired. The union wouldn't change a thing, they would just take some money off you.

Originally posted by seedot
And johnmb - I wouldn't work for you in a fit, with or without a union. Been there, done that, had my head wrecked by crap bosses already.

Well, none of my current, or past, employees seem to think I am a crap boss. They get paid for their time, and what I have them do during that time is up to me. They know that, and they are happy with it. Why should they care what machines I have them using?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by klaz


Homer, I've been working for the last 7 years. In various types of jobs, and during that time i've learnt my rights. I may not be a solicitor to know the ins and outs of the whole law system, but i have enough cop-on to head to the Internet, ask friends, or seek legal advice to find out if my rights have been compromised.

And if i feel my rights have been infringed, i'm well capable of seeking legal help either completely with my own cash or through any of the solicitors that service people on lower wages. You see, if i get beaten to an inch of my life, and i want to press a civil case, i don't have a union to go to, I go to a solicitor.

[/B]

Well that was rather my point. Is shelling out for a solicitor on your own steam always the best option?

Basically you have a right in a democracy to act on your own behalf or have somebody to represent you. That somebody may be a legal advisor or it may be a trade association. The employers exercise that right. I'll bet your employer is a member of IBEC or the SFA or something like that. And boy do they have influence. I mean, one of their leading members is sleeping with Mary Harney!!!!!

I am a union member. It's my right.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
I agree totally. When did employees gain the right to decide what work they do within a business?

Don't go moving the goalposts - we're talking about how they did their job, not what job they did.

The An Post workers basically decided that they had more power than their employers, and as a result, should have been kicked out of their jobs for bad work practices. Unions are there to protect the rights of the Workers, right? Well, when did unions decide that they and the employees run the company?

Who said that they were deciding that they run the company? They're deciding that they won't do their job with a set of tools that the management ordered them to use unilaterally after management agreed to run a pilot scheme and then discuss it with the workers.

In his statement, not once has he mentioned any expression that he would disregard your rights to fair wages, decent work conditions etc.

And at no point did he say he would regard them either. And if someone is that aggressive and frankly, arrogant, about how they'd treat their employees, I won't be betting on them looking out for their employee's best interests.

All he's saying is that either you do your job, or you get fired.

No, he's not - he's saying "do it the way I tell you or you're fired". That's an important distinction - I'll explain why in a moment.

Originally posted by Johnmb
Whether or not you were a member of a union wouldn't change a thing.

But it would. That's the point. A union has more weight than one solitary worker, that's why they exist. You can fire a single employee relatively easily - but can you cope with the losses caused by your entire workforce downing tools? Usually not!

If you worked for me, you would do the work I told you to do, with the equipment I told you to use, otherwise you would be fired.

And there's where the distinction I mentioned above comes in. If you point me towards unsafe tools and tell me to do a job, there is no way on earth that I'll risk my health for your profit - and you cannot legally fire me for that. And the union would be there to remind you of that, and would have experts to confirm it and so on. Furthermore, unless I'm unskilled labour, you don't have the qualifications to tell me how to do my job, that's why you hired me in the first place. So you're micromanaging badly, and that will do the business more harm than my refusal to do the job in a manner prescribed by yet another know-nothing manager. And if you do know what you're talking about, you're a manager who's playing foreman rather than doing his own job, and again, that's more harmful to a business than I am.

So basicly Johnmb, your attitude is not correct, from either the legal viewpoint, the union's viewpoint, or the management viewpoint.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
But it would. That's the point. A union has more weight than one solitary worker, that's why they exist. You can fire a single employee relatively easily - but can you cope with the losses caused by your entire workforce downing tools? Usually not!
If my entire workforce downed tools, my entire workforce would be fired. They know the situation when they take the job, if they are not happy with it, they shouldn't have taken the job.

And there's where the distinction I mentioned above comes in. If you point me towards unsafe tools and tell me to do a job, there is no way on earth that I'll risk my health for your profit - and you cannot legally fire me for that.
No, but if I point to towards safe tools that operate differently from the old ones, and you refuse to use them, I can legally fire you for refusing to do the work I require of you. I'm not running a day care centre, I'm running a business.

And the union would be there to remind you of that, and would have experts to confirm it and so on.
The union wouldn't be reminding me of that because I don't deal with unions. They may point it out to my employees, and they may remind me.

Furthermore, unless I'm unskilled labour, you don't have the qualifications to tell me how to do my job, that's why you hired me in the first place.
I do have the qualifications to tell you how to do your job if you work for me. If you have any suggestions as to how to do things differently then I'm all ears, but if I don't like those suggestions I won't implement them and you'll have to accept that if you want to continue working for me.

So you're micromanaging badly, and that will do the business more harm than my refusal to do the job in a manner prescribed by yet another know-nothing manager.
Firstly, putting in new machinery is hardly micromanaging. Secondly, you have to learn to accept that many managers know a lot more than the people who report to them, that is why they are managers. In my company, my father runs the day to day operations. Nobody working there is more qualified than him (including me), that is why he is the manager. Do what he says, or you're fired, I won't question his decision. I run the overall business. I am also more qualified than most of the other workers (certainly for doing what I do, but also I am more qualified than some for doing what they do).

And if you do know what you're talking about, you're a manager who's playing foreman rather than doing his own job, and again, that's more harmful to a business than I am.
No, the fact that I know what I'm talking about comes from the fact that I served my time learning the business before I became the Director. The fact that my father knows what he is talking about comes from the fact that he is one of the best at what he does, and he either directly, or indirectly, trained in, or with, most of the people who are in the same business and run other companies. Managers are paid to manage the workers, that is their job.

So basicly Johnmb, your attitude is not correct, from either the legal viewpoint, the union's viewpoint, or the management viewpoint.
My attitude is correct from the legal viewpoint, you just created a strawman to argue against. The union's viewpoint is irrelevant to me, as I didn't hire a union. The management viewpoint is the same as mine, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the roles of various managers.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
If my entire workforce downed tools, my entire workforce would be fired. They know the situation when they take the job, if they are not happy with it, they shouldn't have taken the job.

If you sack your entire workforce for striking, apart from the labour courts having a word with you, you'll experience severe cash flow problems at the worst. I don't know of any good managers who'd adopt such an attitude when the financial penalties are so high. Don't forget - you're firing experienced, skilled workers, and then looking to hire new workers past picket lines who don't know the job, all the while fighting off legal problems from the labour courts.

No, but if I point to towards safe tools that operate differently from the old ones, and you refuse to use them, I can legally fire you for refusing to do the work I require of you.

I'm pretty sure you can't fire an employee who has a legitimate grievance. I know no union would let you do so.
And from your attitude, I see no evidence to suggest you wouldn't put your employees health at some risk to make more profit - after all, you're not exactly treating them in a cooperative manner. You're treating them in the standard adversarial manner, but demanding that they not be allowed an equal stance.

I'm not running a day care centre, I'm running a business.

From what it sounds like, you're not running it very well.

The union wouldn't be reminding me of that because I don't deal with unions.

That's illegal, you know.

They may point it out to my employees, and they may remind me.

Last time I looked, unions were made up of employees. Some of the largest unions may hire employees to do work, but that's relatively rare. So it would be an employee of yours who'd point it out to you.

I do have the qualifications to tell you how to do your job if you work for me.

*lol*
Really? So you are qualified to run all aspects of a business and have four or five different degrees as well as several years of experience in all areas of the business, eh?

If you have any suggestions as to how to do things differently then I'm all ears, but if I don't like those suggestions I won't implement them and you'll have to accept that if you want to continue working for me.

Johnmb, that's never going to be a problem - because there's no way on this earth that I'd ever think so little of my physical or mental health to work in such an environment.

Firstly, putting in new machinery is hardly micromanaging.

Except that it is, if you do so unilaterally and without consultation with those who know what they're doing!

Secondly, you have to learn to accept that many managers know a lot more than the people who report to them, that is why they are managers.

A manager who knows more than the people he/she manages? I'll believe in that when I see it - and I think that may mean I believe in the tooth fairy first.

In my company

I get the distinct impression that this company is a small business, family run, with maybe four to five employees, probably doing something which is either unskilled, like a general shop, or highly technical, like printing, where experience determines qualification, as opposed to a large business, where it's a different kettle of fish entirely Johnmb. What I have learnt of unions has been from what has happened within Eircom - which is a wee bit bigger than that.

My attitude is correct from the legal viewpoint, you just created a strawman to argue against.

No, I provided the first example of why your philosophy of management could be outrightly illegal. If you have a better example that illustrates its weaknesses, put it forward.

The union's viewpoint is irrelevant to me, as I didn't hire a union.

Again, in a small business, that may be true - but in the medium-to-large business world, it's not. And you cannot legally ignore a union anyway - they can sue you for it.

seedot

Great post Sparks - one minor quibble. There is no right to union recognition in Ireland - unlike the US you can't vote to force an employer to recognise the union and negotiate directly or even collectively with the workers.

SIPTU in particular has become quite exercised about this lately : Oxigen workers, Ryanair etc.

But this is another right yet to be won.