Unions

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
If you sack your entire workforce for striking, apart from the labour courts having a word with you,
Unless they take a day off and make an appointment to see me, they will have a hard time having a word with me.

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.
There are no high financial penalties for me. I run my business well, and owe no creditors. Therefore, if production ceased, I would easily be able to survive long enough to decide whether to replace the fired workers, or just call it a day.

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,
firstly, there are other people who are qualified to do the work that can be hired. Secondly, new people can be trained in.

all the while fighting off legal problems from the labour courts.
I wouldn't have any legal problems. If you don't do the work you were hire to do to my satisfaction, you are fired, simple as that.

I'm pretty sure you can't fire an employee who has a legitimate grievance. I know no union would let you do so.
The union wouldn't get a say in the matter. If it was a legitimate grievance the courts would support them. Not being happy about your employer getting in new machines is not a legitimate grievance.

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.
Well, no employees, past or present, would seem to agree with you.

From what it sounds like, you're not running it very well.
I'm making profits, and have employees who can do the work and are happy doing it. I would call that running the business well.

That's illegal, you know.
No it's not, and I defy you to show me any legislation that says otherwise.

Last time I looked, unions were made up of employees.
You didn't look very hard. Union members are employees, but the unions are not run by them.

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.
And as an employee of mine, I'd listen. However, I wouldn't let him/her speak for everyone else if it were something that effected everyone else.

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?
I have one degree, along with professional qualifications. I have several years experience in my field, and I have served my time as an apprentice in the specific trade that my company is engaged in. The only person who could claim better qualifications is my father, but his experience is exclusive to the trade in question. One of the employees is better at operating a couple of the machines than me, and a few others are faster than me with other aspects. However, I know what has to be done, and how it has to be done. If I seen a new machine that was better than the existing ones, I'd get it and my employees would use it. If they refuse because they weren't consulted, they know just to stay at home.

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.
Which would be your lose. It is quite a laid back environment. As long as the work gets done everything is quite flexible.

Except that it is, if you do so unilaterally and without consultation with those who know what they're doing!
I know what I'm doing, so I don't need to consult anyone else. As does my father. He recently bought a new machine, and the only consulting he did was with me regarding if we could afford it. It is a machine that does something we couldn't previously do. They employees didn't complain, they just learned how to use it, and they use it now whenever they are told to.

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.
Well, people with that attitude I generally find to be jealous of the success of others. It is especially true in accounting, people like to think that the boss didn't earn anything, and conveniently forget that the boss has already served his time.

I get the distinct impression that this company is a small business, family run, with maybe four to five employees,
My own company, yes. However I also work full time elsewhere in accounting, in a much larger company.

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.
No, my employees are very skilled. I know from experience that unskilled people cannot do the work, unless they are very motivated and are willing to learn. Once they do that they gain the skills.

What I have learnt of unions has been from what has happened within Eircom - which is a wee bit bigger than that.
They don't seem to have achieved much in the longer term.

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.
You brought up dangerous equipment, which is not the issue arising from the An Post example I origianally referenced.

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.
You can legally ignore a union, they cannot sue you for it. The constitution allows people join unions, it doesn't force employers to deal with those unions.

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

Sparks, we're talking about their jobs. They were told to use machinery related to the jobs they were hired for. They refused. They're employed in a business, which is run by the owners/managers, its not a democracy. They're paid to obey orders.

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.

they're deciding what jobs they want to do. They were Hired by An Post. You agree with that? Surely you see that they are employees and as such have no say in the running of the company, or what jobs people do.

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.

Sparks, might i ask if you have a job, and what type of work you perform? Because, as far as i can see, you wouldn't last very long in a job with that attitude.

Cause i can tell you as someone who has been both a manager and a general employee, if anyone approached work with that attitude they'd be warned in an instant. And two written & one verbal warnings later, they'd be gone. And another person who wants a job, and is willing to work would be hired. Its as simple as that. I work for a business not a charity .

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.

Sparks, its his company. If you want to decide what work to do, or how to do it, go out and start a business. Otherwise, do the job you were hired to do.

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

Sparks are you sure abt this legal standpoint that you're offering as fact? cause as far as i'm aware, a union cannot be prevented from having a presence or members in a company, but the management does not have to deal with them.

ixoy

Most workers will have signed a contract of some sort, correct? This contract will generally state the grounds for employment, with some leeway for changes in working practices. To what degree are these contracts legally binding? If an An Post worker signs the contract that details their duty, but not necessarily the precise manner in which they have to carry them out, does the employee have a right then to argue the particulars of how the job is done as long as the equipment is provided to allow them to complete their dutes as per their contract? Recently they changed the tool I use to work with, meaning I have to adapt to some new working practices. Should I strike over it, given I received no prior consultation?

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
Unless they take a day off and make an appointment to see me, they will have a hard time having a word with me.

You can be as belligerent as you wish, but the legal system will continue to act the same and you'll either comply or be penalised.
That's not, by the way, a "so there!" comment, it's just pragmatism.

There are no high financial penalties for me. I run my business well, and owe no creditors. Therefore, if production ceased, I would easily be able to survive long enough to decide whether to replace the fired workers, or just call it a day.

Then you must be running a small, and rather remarkable business. My congradulations - but it doesn't work that way for medium to large businesses.

firstly, there are other people who are qualified to do the work that can be hired. Secondly, new people can be trained in.

Again, you're having to hire across picket lines and you're losing time and money in retraining.

I wouldn't have any legal problems. If you don't do the work you were hire to do to my satisfaction, you are fired, simple as that.

And if you can prove that that's the cause of the dismissal, then you're correct - but then again, can you? And can you afford the legal costs and time lost? Business, don't forget, is generally amorally pragmatic rather than ideological and most unions know this and use it, as they're meant to.

The union wouldn't get a say in the matter. If it was a legitimate grievance the courts would support them. Not being happy about your employer getting in new machines is not a legitimate grievance.

No, unless you can support the argument that those machines are a cause for a legitimate grievance, and again, that means legal costs and time lost in the labour courts...

Well, no employees, past or present, would seem to agree with you.

How many people is that, in total?

I'm making profits, and have employees who can do the work and are happy doing it. I would call that running the business well.

And as I said, it sounds like the profile of a small business.

You didn't look very hard. Union members are employees, but the unions are not run by them.

Incorrect - that only applies to a very few, very large unions, and usually those are actually comprised of several unions from several different areas who come together to increase their bargaining ability.

And as an employee of mine, I'd listen. However, I wouldn't let him/her speak for everyone else if it were something that effected everyone else.

So you'd talk to all of them individually? Now I know it's a small business. Companies like Eircom have thousands of employees - you couldn't talk to them without a representative. And you can't just fire them all if you want. And that is the difference between your level of business and the level at which the large unions you read about in the papers operate.

Except that it is, if you do so unilaterally and without consultation with those who know what they're doing!
I know what I'm doing, so I don't need to consult anyone else.

The joys of the sole trader, that. Try that attitude in a large company and you'll have serious problems out your ears in a day or three.
Try it in a semi-state company or similar and you'll have them within hours.

Well, people with that attitude I generally find to be jealous of the success of others.

*lol*
And it's not possibly because of experience? You're not the only qualified professional with years of experience you know...

I get the distinct impression that this company is a small business, family run, with maybe four to five employees,
My own company, yes. However I also work full time elsewhere in accounting, in a much larger company.

Again, what kind of size are we talking? Are we talking about companies on the order of Eircom/An Post/ESB or are we talking more like a few dozen people?

No, my employees are very skilled. I know from experience that unskilled people cannot do the work, unless they are very motivated and are willing to learn. Once they do that they gain the skills.

So it's the second scenario then.

They don't seem to have achieved much in the longer term.

Yes, they have. Just because you don't happen to know about it, doesn't mean they haven't achieved a great deal from their perspective.

You can legally ignore a union, they cannot sue you for it.

Yes, my error. However, from a purely pragmatic point of view, you can't ignore a union in a large business, you stand to lose too much if you do so. As a result, large unions are rarely ignored, which is an excellent thing for their members.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Sparks, we're talking about their jobs. They were told to use machinery related to the jobs they were hired for. They refused. They're employed in a business, which is run by the owners/managers, its not a democracy.

No, it's not. Which means that if the workers decide to all quit, the management has no way to stop them. Which is why negotiation with unions tends to be an excercise in amoral pragmatism.

They're paid to obey orders.

Actually, they're not - soldiers are paid to obey orders, not civilians...

they're deciding what jobs they want to do. They were Hired by An Post. You agree with that? Surely you see that they are employees and as such have no say in the running of the company, or what jobs people do.

As I've been trying to point out, negotiation with unions isn't about what you think is right or wrong. It's about what they can get for their members and they don't give a rat's behind what you lose in the process - and that's their job. It's an adversarial system, not a love-in.

Sparks, might i ask if you have a job, and what type of work you perform? Because, as far as i can see, you wouldn't last very long in a job with that attitude.

I do, I'm a researcher in college at the moment. I've no idea what that does for your suggestion, since the facts of life in regard to unions are not of my invention...

Cause i can tell you as someone who has been both a manager and a general employee, if anyone approached work with that attitude they'd be warned in an instant. And two written & one verbal warnings later, they'd be gone. And another person who wants a job, and is willing to work would be hired. Its as simple as that. I work for a business not a charity .

And as I've said, you wouldn't last ten minutes in a negotiation with a union in a large company like Eircom or the ESB with that approach.

Sparks, its his company. If you want to decide what work to do, or how to do it, go out and start a business. Otherwise, do the job you were hired to do.

That works when it's his company. Don't forget, in places like eircom, employees aren't just union members - they're shareholders as well. In eircom, for example, the union members hold over 30% of the shares...
As I said, the facts of life at this level are different than at Johnmb's level.

Sparks are you sure abt this legal standpoint that you're offering as fact?

No, an error on my part regarding the legality of ignoring unions, as I said.
However, the fact is - you can't ignore a large union and remain unaffected. That's just the way it is, and it's a good thing from the perspective of the workers.

bonkey

Originally posted by seedot
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.

Thats not really true, though, is it.

The unions were asked to sign up to these various "growth pacts" which would cap their limits, etc. etc. etc. to do all sorts of good. Whether or not they could have held out for more might seem important, but consider the flip-side....

Job-markets which were non-unionised became an employees market. IT, in particular, had salaries that were rising at least as quickly as Dublin house-prices. It became a bidding war to see who got to hire anyone who might have been halfways decent.

In a boom-time, unions hold their employees back. Always have, always will. The reason that this is not a problem is because when the bust comes, the union will try and prevent its employees from getting shafted by salaries falling more rapidly than they rose.

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.

I dunno. I know what johnmb is driving at, and to a large part I can agree.

For example, if - as an IT employer - I were to ask an employee to go and learn a new skill (lets say C#) because I had a need for it, then I would expect them to go and learn it. If they refused on the grounds of "I don't like Microsoft", or "I refuse to work with C#", then I would quite probably fire them for being incapable of doing their job.

Sure, as Sparks rightly points out, if an employer asks you to do something unreasonable, then they would be wrong in firing you.....but what qualifies as unreasonable? Here's an example :

When I worked in a large Irish bank, there was a daily "ritual" carried out by the porters. The morning papers were all delivered to one location, at which point it was one specific person's job to split the bundles for delivery to the various areas. If that person was missing, it was considered - by the union - unreasonable to ask another porter to do the splitting. Also, there were a number of porters who's first job in the morning was to deliver the papers after they'd been split into the right bundles. It was unreasonable to ask them to do any other part of their daily work until this job was complete.

So, if the "paper-spliiter" was out, then everyone sat around until the shop steward came down, officially assigned someone to split the papers, after which they could be delivered, and after which the porters could do the rest of their daily jobs.

So lets not get carried away with "fringe examples" to try and show that managers/unions are good or bad.

jc

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
You can be as belligerent as you wish, but the legal system will continue to act the same and you'll either comply or be penalised.
That's not, by the way, a "so there!" comment, it's just pragmatism.
I'm not being belligerent, I'm stating a fact. Unless a law has been broken, the Labour court has no bearing on me. It doesn't matter if they like what I have done or not.

Then you must be running a small, and rather remarkable business. My congradulations - but it doesn't work that way for medium to large businesses.
Nothing remarkable about it, I just made sure I didn't go into debt to start it, and I have kept my own job. As it expands, nothing else will change, I still won't go into debt, and therefore no union will be able to hold me hostage.

Again, you're having to hire across picket lines and you're losing time and money in retraining.
I might not be earning as much money, but that doesn't mean that I'd be losing any money. there is a difference.

And if you can prove that that's the cause of the dismissal, then you're correct - but then again, can you?
I don't have to. I just have to state that it is the cause of the dismissal. It is up to the dismissed employee to prove that there were other grounds.

And can you afford the legal costs and time lost?
I would simply apply for costs. A judge doesn't need me there to decide if a disgruntled employees claims are bogus, and if he insists on going to court, the judge can require that a deposit to cover my costs is paid first.

Business, don't forget, is generally amorally pragmatic rather than ideological and most unions know this and use it, as they're meant to.
And as long as big businesses are afraid to take on the unions (who only look out for themselves, not the employees), that won't change.

No, unless you can support the argument that those machines are a cause for a legitimate grievance, and again, that means legal costs and time lost in the labour courts...
Only for the former employee. He is the one who has to show he has a grievance. Claiming that he doesn't like the colour of the new machine, or that it causes him to get his work done earlier so I don't have to pay overtime is not a legitimate grievance (the latter is most likely the reason for getting the new machine in the first place).

How many people is that, in total?
Including formaer employees of my father, probably a one or two hundred people over the years.

And as I said, it sounds like the profile of a small business.
It's a profile of a business model that works. Unions should not be allowed to run roughshot over employers, or their employees.

Incorrect - that only applies to a very few, very large unions, and usually those are actually comprised of several unions from several different areas who come together to increase their bargaining ability.
And given that this started with a reference to the An Post situation, that is exactly what we are talking about (plus the fact that my personal experience is with SIPTU, as an employee BTW).

So you'd talk to all of them individually? Now I know it's a small business. Companies like Eircom have thousands of employees - you couldn't talk to them without a representative.
It doesn't take much to gage the opinions of them without having to go through a union.

And you can't just fire them all if you want. And that is the difference between your level of business and the level at which the large unions you read about in the papers operate.
If I were the management of the likes of An Post, it would have been made clear to all the unions that this B/S will no longer be tolerated. The unions would be put in their place pretty quick, as the people who hired me would have been aware as to what would happen from the start, so the unions would not be able to force my resignation.

The joys of the sole trader, that. Try that attitude in a large company and you'll have serious problems out your ears in a day or three.
Try it in a semi-state company or similar and you'll have them within hours.
I've done it in what is practically a civil service job. I have put the union in their place, as an employee. While my managers may be afraid of the union, I am not, and that wouldn't change if I were to become a manager.

And it's not possibly because of experience? You're not the only qualified professional with years of experience you know...[/]
It is my experience. When I was serving my time in practice, the amount of audit seniors who thought that they were better than the managers or partners was a joke. They conveniently forgot that the managers and partners were already qualified, and could easily do our jobs. The reason they didn't is because that's what they hired us for, but we had to do things their way.

Again, what kind of size are we talking? Are we talking about companies on the order of Eircom/An Post/ESB or are we talking more like a few dozen people?
In my full time job, there are several hundred people. In my specific section, about 200 (70ish permanent).

Yes, my error. However, from a purely pragmatic point of view, you can't ignore a union in a large business, you stand to lose too much if you do so. As a result, large unions are rarely ignored, which is an excellent thing for their members.
No, it's an excellent thing for them, and a select few members who run things. It is not excellent for all there members.

ixoy

Thanks for that example bonkey - you've got a perfect example of why I often detest the practices of unions. It's obviously perfectly reasonable - from a logical point of view - to get someone else to cut the papers. What that would appear to be is a pointless, time consuming (and possibly expensive in trying to implement it) display of power - don't tell us what to do, etc. Being a reasonable person, I despise that sort of petty power feud as it's a microscopic example of the larger problem that prompted this thread - principally a union's use of power to pig-headedly obstruct progress for others in order to assuage its members that it is in control as much as the more (to my mind) authorative force of management.

I'm very much with kaids and johnmb in this debate. I am, incidentally, in the IT sector and - contrary to what motivated the public service demand for fair wages - I am not a highly paid private sector member nor have I access to unions to back me on my demands. I think the corporate environment breeds a mindset, generally, of an "honest day's work for an honest day's pay", and an acceptance of the trends of the market. Massive corporations, particurlarly those founded in the public service, seem to have a mindset of "us against them" aggravated by unions lobbying for power. And I think that it's very hard for me, and others, to see a different point of view on some matters. I may understand the mandate of unions, but I can't morally agree with their practices.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Johnmb
I don't have to. I just have to state that it is the cause of the dismissal. It is up to the dismissed employee to prove that there were other grounds.

I'm open to correction here, but isn't this the only area of Irish law where jurisprudence works the other way: it's up the the employer to prove that the employee was fairly dismissed?

Johnmb

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm open to correction here, but isn't this the only area of Irish law where jurisprudence works the other way: it's up the the employer to prove that the employee was fairly dismissed?

Given the specific example, I fired the employee for failing to do his job. It would be up to the employee to prove that the new machine he was refusing to use was dangerous. Refusing to use it just because I didn't consult him would not be adequate.

oscarBravo

I remember a "team building" exercise once, many years ago. The object of the exercise was to improve negotiation skills.

The participants were divided into two teams, and given entirely arbitrary perspectives to argue - they had nothing personally to gain or lose in the negotiations. The union types on each team quickly gravitated to the lead negotiation positions, and quickly dragged the process into deadlock.

At each break in the negotiations, each team would regroup to discuss progress. I can remember the union lads encouraging each other with "they're on the ropes, one more push and we'll have them." I suggested, once, that a proposed compromise might moved things forward - I got a pitying look, and the deadlock continued.

Nothing was resolved. The deadlock continued until the time allotted for the exercise expired. That has always been my experience of our adversarial IR climate: no-one wins. In the unlikely event that unions and employers in this country ever figure that out, we may begin to make some progress.

ArphaRima

Unions are invaluable.
I have had my job threatened 4 times in the last 2 years. On the first count I would have been out on my ass. And 3 months later a contract worker would have taken my place. Why? They would have had to pay him a lot more. But he would have little or no leave, no pension contributions , and wouldnt rise on a pay scale. The company was making record profits, growing unprecidently, and still is. They are still vying for my job.

My union is keeping it.

Not only that but it secured 3 pay increases and managed to stave off countless managerial fishing exercises on working conditions to get us to work illegal hours.

My union has striked twice in the last 45 years.
No doubt the union is needed in society. However from appearances the likes of the an post CWU is tarring many, with its blocking tactics. (still dont know much about the bus driver dispute)

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Johnmb
Given the specific example, I fired the employee for failing to do his job. It would be up to the employee to prove that the new machine he was refusing to use was dangerous. Refusing to use it just because I didn't consult him would not be adequate.

That's fair enough. My point was, however, that if he took an unfair dismissal claim against you, the onus - in law - is on you to prove that the dismissal was fair. Again, I'm open to correction.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by fluffer
They are still vying for my job.

My union is keeping it.

Doesn't much sound like a job I'd want to keep, tbh.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
Business, don't forget, is generally amorally pragmatic rather than ideological and most unions know this and use it, as they're meant to.
And as long as big businesses are afraid to take on the unions (who only look out for themselves, not the employees), that won't change.

You see, you're just ignoring the point. It's not about fear or what you feel is right or wrong, it's about cost/benefit analysis and pragmatism.

And as I said, it sounds like the profile of a small business.
It's a profile of a business model that works. Unions should not be allowed to run roughshot over employers, or their employees.

One point has nothing to do with the other - and the latter point is correct only in the extent that it acknowleges that labour relations operate on an adversarial model. Ideally, neither side should dominate - and in fact, in practise, that's how it works. But large industrial actions like those in the news, get lots of mindshare and so lots of people have a very unbalanced view of union activities. The simple fact is that they generally don't need to go that far - management tends to negotiate long before it gets that bad.

So you'd talk to all of them individually? Now I know it's a small business. Companies like Eircom have thousands of employees - you couldn't talk to them without a representative.
It doesn't take much to gage the opinions of them without having to go through a union.

Pardon me, but you're just plain wrong there.
How exactly do you get the opinions of somewhere north of ten thousand employees scattered from kerry to donegal to manchester, who spend their days not only in offices and depots but on the road, and working in the field?

And you can't just fire them all if you want. And that is the difference between your level of business and the level at which the large unions you read about in the papers operate.
If I were the management of the likes of An Post, it would have been made clear to all the unions that this B/S will no longer be tolerated. The unions would be put in their place pretty quick, as the people who hired me would have been aware as to what would happen from the start, so the unions would not be able to force my resignation.

Which is why you would never have been hired. And had you ever gotten to the table to try that line, we'd have seen threats of industrial action in so short a time as to qualify you for an entry in the guinness book of records

I've done it in what is practically a civil service job. I have put the union in their place, as an employee. While my managers may be afraid of the union, I am not, and that wouldn't change if I were to become a manager.

When you say you "put the union in it's place", what exactly do you mean? Because frankly, I find it hard to believe that you managed to have the union back off on a negotiation by sheer arrogance and aggression and the level of ideology you're exhibiting here...

They conveniently forgot that the managers and partners were already qualified, and could easily do our jobs. The reason they didn't is because that's what they hired us for, but we had to do things their way.

That's not how it works in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, even in research fields.
Hate to tell you, bt there is no santa clause, virginia

In my full time job, there are several hundred people. In my specific section, about 200 (70ish permanent).

A medium-sized business, in other words. Have you any first or second-hand knowlege of how this works in large businesses?

No, it's an excellent thing for them, and a select few members who run things. It is not excellent for all there members.

Tell that to the average eircom employee, who now enjoys tenure, a controlling interest in the running of the company, a decent pay level, and protection from the "lets sack everyone" approach that the company is taking. Tell it to CIE workers who were looking at huge losses in earnings if the company was restructured as management had wanted. Tell it to Aer Rianta workers, who faced the same thing. Tell it to everyone who's flown with Aer Lingus for the last two years, because they'd have been flying under the care of jetlagged, overworked, fatigued pilots had their union not gone on strike over management's attempts to get around JAR regulations on the matter. And the list goes on...

Johnmb

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That's fair enough. My point was, however, that if he took an unfair dismissal claim against you, the onus - in law - is on you to prove that the dismissal was fair. Again, I'm open to correction.

No, IIRC I would just have to prove that I had fairs grounds for the dismissal (such as the employee wasn't doing his job). I wouldn't have to prove that I didn't fire him because I wanted to give the job to someone else. It would be up to the employee to show that he was doing the job, and that the real reason I fired him was because I wanted a better looking, female, assistant.

No, it's not. Which means that if the workers decide to all quit, the management has no way to stop them. Which is why negotiation with unions tends to be an excercise in amoral pragmatism.

If all the workers decided to quit, their contracts would come into force, depending on what was agreed at the point of employment. More than likely every one of those employees would be forced by law to serve out a two week period. Again depends on the contract.

Actually, they're not - soldiers are paid to obey orders, not civilians...

If i have a job, i'm paid to obey the wishes of my employers i.e. do the job i was employed for. If i don't, i'm likely to be fired. All very logical and above board. If my boss tells me to do something that falls within the role of my job, i'm obliged to do so, or my contract is likely to be in breach. If my boss tells me strip naked and run around like a chicken, then i have the right to say no.

As I've been trying to point out, negotiation with unions isn't about what you think is right or wrong. It's about what they can get for their members and they don't give a rat's behind what you lose in the process - and that's their job. It's an adversarial system, not a love-in.

And i've been trying to point out that Unions need to be restricted in what they do to achieve this. For the most part Union leaders are employees and in some cases not even directly related to the industry concerned, which means they're rank amatuers when it comes to determining what is good for the company. What they're deciding is whats good for the employees, but unfortuenly they don't realise or don't want to realise that their actions may lead to worse conditions in the future.

I'm not concerned whether its right or wrong. I'm concerned that Unions decisions badly affect other people outside their own employees.

I do, I'm a researcher in college at the moment. I've no idea what that does for your suggestion, since the facts of life in regard to unions are not of my invention...

You're a researcher at the moment. Funded by the State? And i assume that you have had jobs in the private sector, run by companies that wish to make active profits? just curious where you're drawing all this expierence abt unions, and the culture within general employment. Sorry, Large companies.

And as I've said, you wouldn't last ten minutes in a negotiation with a union in a large company like Eircom or the ESB with that approach.

True. But then I wouldn't be negotiating. My solicitor(s) would provide the facts of the case against the employees, point out where they broke their contracts, and then point out that I have a company to run, and if their other members wish to have jobs, it might be best for them to stop trying to make my business unprofitable.

You see, i have worked in large companies, EsatBT for example, and i've been in companies that have had unions. And know what? I had no interest in Union Politics. I did my job, got paid, and was happy to be receiving my wages. If i had a problem i mentioned it to my manager, and the problem was mor often than not resolved.

You keep on making this braod sweeping impression that everyone joins the unions. They don't. Within Eircom, theres many employees that don't join the Union because they don't trust their motives, and rightly so.

That works when it's his company. Don't forget, in places like eircom, employees aren't just union members - they're shareholders as well. In eircom, for example, the union members hold over 30% of the shares...

Ahh but thats different. You're taking about Shareholders, not Unions in general. But at the end of the despite the size of the companies, the only difference is that Eircom, has always had problems with its employees, whereas he doesn't. Eircom has had problems with profitability, and quality of services whereas he doesn't. Anyone see where i'm leading here?

As I said, the facts of life at this level are different than at Johnmb's level.

Not Facts merely perceptions. You see this is not set in stone. Not all unions function the way you see them or the way i see them. Just as his business has alot more similiarities with large companies like Eircom, than you do as a past employee of one.

However, the fact is - you can't ignore a large union and remain unaffected. That's just the way it is, and it's a good thing from the perspective of the workers.

Can you provide a few links to show this "fact"? I cringe whenever people use the word fact in this forum. Its an opinion. Its not set in stone.

ArphaRima

Doesn't much sound like a job I'd want to keep, tbh.

Trust me, it's worth it.

Can you provide a few links to show this "fact"? I cringe whenever people use the word fact in this forum. Its an opinion. Its not set in stone.

http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/index.php3?ca=9&si=52981

http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=strike

Fact.
No-brainer really. If most of the employees do not go to WORK. The WORK does not get done.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
You see, you're just ignoring the point. It's not about fear or what you feel is right or wrong, it's about cost/benefit analysis and pragmatism.
I'm thinking long term. It may hurt in the short term, but the unions only have to be sorted once.

Pardon me, but you're just plain wrong there.
How exactly do you get the opinions of somewhere north of ten thousand employees scattered from kerry to donegal to manchester, who spend their days not only in offices and depots but on the road, and working in the field?
By asking. If the company is that big, it will have a dedicated HR department. How do you think the unions manage? There is nothing stoping large companies from doing the same thing, and many do.

Which is why you would never have been hired. And had you ever gotten to the table to try that line, we'd have seen threats of industrial action in so short a time as to qualify you for an entry in the guinness book of records [/i]
As I would have said in the interview, it will hurt at first, but in the long run the company (including its competent employees) and customers will benefit.

When you say you "put the union in it's place", what exactly do you mean? Because frankly, I find it hard to believe that you managed to have the union back off on a negotiation by sheer arrogance and aggression and the level of ideology you're exhibiting here...
Two separate incidents. First their failed attempt to force me to join. Secondly their negotiated adjustments to working time and pay. It suited a few of the more senior members, but not the rest of the employees. But they didn't get a choice. I am still on the old hours and pay, because it suited me to stay there, and I made it clear to the union that I would take legal action against them if they made any attempt to force me to comply with their agreement. My manager has also made it clear to them that he will not get caught in the middle of our arguement. They backed down on both occassions.

That's not how it works in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, even in research fields.
Hate to tell you, bt there is no santa clause, virginia
That is how it works in most businesses. the manager is there because he/she know what needs to be done and how to do it. If the employee was truely as gifted as many seem to think they are, they would have no problem getting a job somewhere else. the reason they can't is because they are often not as gifted as they think they are. Most top managers can easily get a job elsewhere, that is because they are more gifted than many employees would like to give them credit for.

A medium-sized business, in other words. Have you any first or second-hand knowlege of how this works in large businesses?
It fails under the legal definition of a large business. If my specific section were to be taken out, then my specific section would be a medium enterprise.

Tell that to the average eircom employee, who now enjoys tenure, a controlling interest in the running of the company, a decent pay level, and protection from the "lets sack everyone" approach that the company is taking. Tell it to CIE workers who were looking at huge losses in earnings if the company was restructured as management had wanted. Tell it to Aer Rianta workers, who faced the same thing. Tell it to everyone who's flown with Aer Lingus for the last two years, because they'd have been flying under the care of jetlagged, overworked, fatigued pilots had their union not gone on strike over management's attempts to get around JAR regulations on the matter. And the list goes on...
I'll tell it to those people as soon as the government removes the monopolies and companies can compete. Then, when most of those people lose their jobs, I will tell them that it was there own fault. Where it not for the unions trying to stop every new idea, the company would have been in a much stronger position to compete when the monopoly was lost.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats not really true, though, is it.

The unions were asked to sign up to these various "growth pacts" which would cap their limits, etc. etc. etc. to do all sorts of good. Whether or not they could have held out for more might seem important, but consider the flip-side....

Job-markets which were non-unionised became an employees market. IT, in particular, had salaries that were rising at least as quickly as Dublin house-prices. It became a bidding war to see who got to hire anyone who might have been halfways decent.

In a boom-time, unions hold their employees back. Always have, always will. The reason that this is not a problem is because when the bust comes, the union will try and prevent its employees from getting shafted by salaries falling more rapidly than they rose.
Even during the last few years of recession the average CEO salary increased 6% whilst they laid of millions of employees and are sending jobs overseas.

I know you are talking about Ireland, and I can't really speak about that because I wasn't around nor have I read up on it.
I can speak about the situation in America that is an example of what happens when unions are weak,
While everyone has the right to join a union in America, it's often undermined by the company and the government doesn't really enforce that right.
It might be the reason that real wages have declined in America as opposed to CEO salaries increasing dramatically (sorry I've read this from various sources a while back, so no links).
Now the boom in the '90's did increase salaries, but not in real terms. As well we saw the lovely effects of outsourcing, in terms of lower real wages and lost benefits.
At the same time salaries for CEO's were out of this world.

http://www.unison.ie/breakingnews/i...3?ca=9&si=52981

okies. It describes the lack of progress in negotiations. How does that relate to

Can you provide a few links to show this "fact"? I cringe whenever people use the word fact in this forum. Its an opinion. Its not set in stone.

And the second link? The first two pages contain nothing related to union strikes, with the exception of the news headlines, which are concerned with Italy...

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
If i have a job, i'm paid to obey the wishes of my employers

The point was to show that there's a difference between "orders" and "instructions" - a small, but rather important point.

in some cases not even directly related to the industry concerned, which means they're rank amatuers when it comes to determining what is good for the company.

*sigh*
As I'm saying, they're not there to do good for the company, they're there to get the most for their employees. And that's their job. And they're not meant to worry about management's problems. You see what I'm trying to say?

What they're deciding is whats good for the employees, but unfortuenly they don't realise or don't want to realise that their actions may lead to worse conditions in the future.

No, they get that this may happen - but their job is to get the best deal for their employees now, not take a long-term managerial viewpoint. You wouldn't expect a defence barrister to sympathise with the prosecution, would you?

I'm not concerned whether its right or wrong. I'm concerned that Unions decisions badly affect other people outside their own employees.

Well, that's perfectly fine - but it's your viewpoint, not theirs - and unless you're willing to ensure that the adversarial system of labour relations in this counry is changed to one where both sides cooperate in more than just lip service, you don't have much right to wade in and change things willy-nilly, because you're playing with people's livlihoods when you do so. Eliminate the union in Eircom and I can nearly promise you that half the staff will be laid off before december. You may only see the union's adversarial nature reported in the media - I can assure you that that does not mean that the management doesn't have one.

You're a researcher at the moment. Funded by the State?

Myself actually. And I fail to see what that has to do with the way labour relations works in large companies.
My experience comes second-hand from family who have been involved in union negotiations for a little over twenty years on both sides, as well as from being on the receiving end of management who did not face a union. Not, I'll admit, the finest source available, but until someone here can say "yes, I've negotiated with or for a large union in a large company like An Post or the ESB", I think it's about the best we've seen admitted to in here so far. Please, find me a better source.

You see, i have worked in large companies, EsatBT for example,

I know EsatBT, and I wouldn't call them a large company. I'd even hesitate at calling them medium, to be honest.

and i've been in companies that have had unions. And know what? I had no interest in Union Politics.

And neither do 99.9% of union members, until they need the union.

You keep on making this braod sweeping impression that everyone joins the unions. They don't. Within Eircom, theres many employees that don't join the Union because they don't trust their motives, and rightly so.

That does not correspond with my knowlege of the company. I know many employees of Eircom are not union members - but not because they don't trust their motives, rather because engineers in Eircom cannot be in a union (they have an association instead, a workaround designed to satisfy legality).

Ahh but thats different. You're taking about Shareholders, not Unions in general. But at the end of the despite the size of the companies, the only difference is that Eircom, has always had problems with its employees, whereas he doesn't. Eircom has had problems with profitability, and quality of services whereas he doesn't. Anyone see where i'm leading here?

Into error. Eircom doesn't have a problem with profitability - look at your accounting figures. And Eircom doesn't generally have problems with it's employees - they just have to negotiate with unions and can't simply lay off people as they please. Which frankly, is a good thing. Some 24-year-old MBA student wanders in, decides to lay off workers as an attempt to save money (note - attempt, as in "it's not certain that this will work, but it might") and the next thing you know, tens of workers are out on their ear at age 50+ after thirty or forty years of service without any compensation or even a "cheers for the time lads". That's not what I'd call a good situation.

Can you provide a few links to show this "fact"? I cringe whenever people use the word fact in this forum. Its an opinion. Its not set in stone.

Sure, no problem.

An Post tried to ignore it's union and it failed. You may have read about it in the papers....

ArphaRima

First link.

It is the 7th day of the dispute with over a thousand mailboxes around Dublin sealed. Mr Mulvey has said while the dispute is a complex one, a resolution is not impossible.



you can't ignore a large union and remain unaffected.
-How does that not prove his point?

They ignored the union, there are now large sections of the country not receiving their service, and the company is losing millions.


Second Link.

Okay that fooked up.

They ignored the union, there are now large sections of the country not receiving their service, and the company is losing millions.

Not quite. An post are fighting back against the unions unreasonable demands, hence the reason why this is still going on.

As I'm saying, they're not there to do good for the company, they're there to get the most for their employees. And that's their job. And they're not meant to worry about management's problems. You see what I'm trying to say?

*Sigh*

And i'm saying is that Unions can mess up the company so much, that em[ployees have no company to come back to.

Myself actually. And I fail to see what that has to do with the way labour relations works in large companies.

Because you're talking abt how working in large companies is like, the work practices and unions. And yet, you haven't worked for any. At least i can say that i've worked for large companies.... or a company for that matter.

I know EsatBT, and I wouldn't call them a large company. I'd even hesitate at calling them medium, to be honest.

You have got to be joking right? EsatBT are as large as Eircom, the company you keep referring to. If not Bigger.

An Post tried to ignore it's union and it failed. You may have read about it in the papers....

And you may have noticed that those people who tried to ignore An Post are still suspended. The Unions have not won yet.

Sparks

And i'm saying is that Unions can mess up the company so much, that em[ployees have no company to come back to.

Which I'm saying isn't the union's job to worry about. It's not a part of their mandate.

You have got to be joking right? EsatBT are as large as Eircom, the company you keep referring to. If not Bigger.

What on earth are you on about? EsatBT employ 800-odd people, Eircom employs thirteen thousand or so - about 15 times as many people! Or are you talking about BT rather than EsatBT?

And you may have noticed that those people who tried to ignore An Post are still suspended. The Unions have not won yet.

I'm actually just pointing out that they haven't managed to ignore the union...

Victor

Johnmb, you come across as someone who would cut off his own nose to spite his face. I dealt with a client like that a few years ago, who was so interested in "getting a good deal" the project was delivered 4 months late and 50% over contract. A psychologist would probably class you as aggressive and probably unsuited for a management position.

Now I can sympathise with Bonkey's position on the newspapers. Short of the rest of the porters not knowing how to count newspapers into relevant bundles their work practice is bang out of order.

With regard to An Post, I understand the dispute is over the replacement of traditional pigeon-hole manual sorting to electronic scanning (the address is scanned, a bar code is added to the envelope and a computer operator converts the handwritten address into a digital address associated with the bar code) and mechanical sorting, with the most of the workers (save loading and unloading machines) merely operating computers terminals - not their traditional manual handling of post. I think that is a substantial change that needs agreement on how it is implemented.

Separately, they are going from working full shifts with overtime to part-time fixed pay work (with overtime if needed).

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
Johnmb, you come across as someone who would cut off his own nose to spite his face. I dealt with a client like that a few years ago, who was so interested in "getting a good deal" the project was delivered 4 months late and 50% over contract. A psychologist would probably class you as aggressive and probably unsuited for a management position.
Actually, I have been classed as the Y type manager, if I remember the terms correctly. I sit back and let the employees do the job however they see fit, as long as the job gets done. That doesn't change the fact that if an employee is hired to sort post, then he either sorts that post with whatever (safe) machinery is supplied, or he gets out of the job and lets someone else to is willing to do it in. As for losing the overtime, that is not something that they are entitled to, if it was it wouldn't be overtime. The same goes for actual bonuses, it is not an entitlement, it is a bonus (unless the employer is pulling a fast one with the 13 month pay cycle). If they are not happy with their basic salary, then they should go somewhere that will pay them more, like everyone else does. The same goes for the Gardaí and their refusal to use the new computer system.

Sparks

John that post is using the altruistic and enlightened nature of An Post management as an axiom ... offhand, I don't think that that's a valid assumption to make.

ArphaRima

Johnmb I find it hard to believe that you are employed at all, let alone as a manager.

That doesn't change the fact that if an employee is hired to sort post, then he either sorts that post with whatever (safe) machinery is supplied, or he gets out of the job and lets someone else to is willing to do it in.

If you were given a management position, I believe that you would find a very dissatisfied and rebellious workgroup on your hands. ie non-productive. The turnover of staff would be massive with your take it or feckoff approach. Training costs alone would probably lose you your job.

Besides; all of your statements so far fit the X type manager. I think you are just a blinkered little man with ambition, following what you think makes successful managerial mantra in your argument. If you dont mind me asking, what field are you in?

I agree that something doesnt smell right in this An Post dispute, but then again I only have access to media reports on it. Both sides will put forward press statements. For me I think the management is more persuasive.

If anyone has any more information on the exact details of the dispute it could facilitate further discussion.

Johnmb

Originally posted by fluffer
Johnmb I find it hard to believe that you are employed at all, let alone as a manager.
Well, not only am I employeed, I have been since I left college, and I have ended up in management or supervisor positions in all my jobs, even though I never applied for those positions (that was actually the reason I left my previous job).

If you were given a management position, I believe that you would find a very dissatisfied and rebellious workgroup on your hands. ie non-productive. The turnover of staff would be massive with your take it or feckoff approach. Training costs alone would probably lose you your job.
Nobody has ever complained about me, but then again, the people I had under me we not incompetents, they got on with the work they were hire to do, with the equipment they were given (and in my first two jobs, the equipment I was given absolutely sucked, but I still got on with things).

Besides; all of your statements so far fit the X type manager.
That's because when dealing with incompetent staff who bitch and moan about everything instead of getting on with their jobs, the X type is what is needed. Luckily, in real life, neither I nor any of my employers have hired incompetent staff (at least none that where kept on past the probation period).

I think you are just a blinkered little man with ambition,
Well then you don't know me at all. If I had ambition, I wouldn't be working in my current job, I'd either be working somewhere else for twice the pay, or I'd run my company full time.

following what you think makes successful managerial mantra in your argument. If you dont mind me asking, what field are you in?
Accounting. As for my successful management mantra, it is to hire competent staff, that's why I opened by saying the An Post staff should be sacked. Competent staff would not refuse to use new machinery that was more effective and could help secure their jobs in the longer term.

I agree that something doesnt smell right in this An Post dispute, but then again I only have access to media reports on it. Both sides will put forward press statements. For me I think the management is more persuasive.
Either way, at least the management have put forward something that could help save the company, the unions have not. They seem to want to keep things as they are for as long as possible, despite the fact that the company is going bankrupt. Their whole plan seems to be "ah sure the tax payer will bail us out, they have to, it's a public service company".

If anyone has any more information on the exact details of the dispute it could facilitate further discussion.
Do the LRC publish minutes from their meetings? I think that's the only source you will find who will not be putting too much of a spin on things.