Unions

Moriarty

It's intresting to note that the most pro-union people on this thread are the same people that have no problems in questioning others abilitys and seem to have no qualms in slagging them off.

Sparks

Originally posted by Moriarty
It's intresting to note that the most pro-union people on this thread are the same people that have no problems in questioning others abilitys and seem to have no qualms in slagging them off.

That's just plain incorrect.

Originally posted by Johnmb
Competent staff would not refuse to use new machinery that was more effective and could help secure their jobs in the longer term.

That's not the An Post scenario though, is it?

Either way, at least the management have put forward something that could help save the company, the unions have not.

And this is the point where I get fustrated, because I've been saying this for several posts now and it doesn't seem to be sinking in - it is not the job of the union to worry about the company. The union's primary concern is the immediate and short-term interests of it's members. Longer-term interests take a very distant second place, because sacrificing the short-term interests for the long-term:
1) Usually only affects the workers - few CEOs accept pay cuts for the sake of the company;
2) Are not always needed anyway - quite often situations that appear dire resolve well without needing to drop workers left, right and centre;
3) Don't put food on tables today or roofs over heads tonight.

Everything else is not the union's concern. Not management worries, not environmental concerns, not marketplace theories, nothing.
That's how it's meant to be, that's what the union exists for.
So don't go saying "oh well, at least management looks out for the company" as if the unions should be doing so as well - you've been quite adamant that the company is yours and not your employees, so there is absolutely no reason on earth for them to worry about your company's profit margins. Their one sole responsibility is to get their pay packet every week so their families can be supported. Don't expect them to take it in the shorts so your company can go on when they have nothing invested in it.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sparks

The union's primary concern is the immediate and short-term interests of it's members. Longer-term interests take a very distant second place, because sacrificing the short-term interests for the long-term:

If I and my co workers went on strike in the morning on the advice of a union and stayed out, I'm full sure the company would fold.
How is my short term or long term interest served by that?

I'd end up with no pay for a while as I would be picketing rather than working there or elsewhere and then I would eventually have to look for another job.
I'm full sure that I'd get one as there is plenty of work going around for all... indeed so much so that there are tens of thousands of foreigners working here.

This leads me to the conclusion that my union's actions would have only a negative effect on the business I'm in, and harming competition in the process as there would be one less of those business's which in turn is bad for the consumer.
Follows from that, that it's bad for the union member.
Coupled with the badness of the time and money lost in striking and changing jobs.

Of course, it's cosy to strike in a government owned monopoly like the post office, shur the tax payer will pick up the tab-the third bad.

Having said that the management in an post have shown themselves up as being woefull in not talking enough and allowing this situation to arise in the first place.
That doesn't take from the unions fault though in that they seem to want things to go on as they are and continue the loss making, despite the fact that those who take voluntary redundancy could get another job if they are worth their salt.
They seem to think they are entitled to manna from heaven or something and f_eck the consequences.

ArphaRima

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).

Still I find your attitude worrying.
Because a group of employees (a union) are standing up for their pay and working conditions you call them incompetent at their jobs? (neither is it bitching and moaning btw)

If their management wants them to take a pay cut, and operate to new practices that will get rid of half of their colleagues, then surely they have a vested interest in ensuring some renumeration in future.

And if you dont believe that staff should be fairly renumerated for increased workload or new practices etc. maybe you should opt out of capitalism. There is another system that works quite well at the expense of the individual worker. It's called Communism.

it is not the job of the union to worry about the company

Absolutely true. To a point.
Some US companies were bought out by their staff a few years ago. Their salaries became world class. The company suffered. Now all those staff are on voluntary 1/3 salary to keep the company afloat.

If I and my co workers went on strike in the morning on the advice of a union and stayed out, I'm full sure the company would fold.

A unions job is not to strike. It is to negotiate, and strike is not its only weapon. Industrial action in a whole multitude of forms, like no overtime, limited work flexibility, taking all annual leave, etc. All of these can hurt a company without shutting them down because if they were run correctly they should be able to run with all of these measures in force. However, you'll find that many companies cannot function with their staff taking all their annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, bank holidays, and working strictly to their contract.

Sparks

Originally posted by Rock Climber
If I and my co workers went on strike in the morning on the advice of a union and stayed out, I'm full sure the company would fold.

Why do you think that the unions first and only measure is a strike?

And they're not looking for manna from heaven, but you have to remember here that they're not serfs, they're workers whose objective is to earn money - whether the company becomes world-class or dies a death means nothing to them, so long as they get paid. And frankly, so long as food costs money, noone can say that that's the wrong attitude to take.

Originally posted by Sparks
whether the company becomes world-class or dies a death means nothing to them, so long as they get paid.

Well one things sure, they won't get paid for long if the company goes bust.
I'm not so sure its that easy for every employee to go and get another job, it might take a while and for some due to age factors etc it mightn't happen at all.

Surely, a union would be irresponsible not to take a firms financial or difficult market into consideration when negotiating.
The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few etc ie if the only solution is to modernise work practices to keep most of the employee's in secure jobs then so be it.

Negotiate a good deal for those that have to go and let that be that.

Johnmb

Originally posted by fluffer
Because a group of employees (a union) are standing up for their pay and working conditions you call them incompetent at their jobs? (neither is it bitching and moaning btw)
They aren't standing up for their pay and working conditions, they are refusing to use machinery because they weren't consulted. That is BS, and wouldn't be tolerated in any non-public service company.

If their management wants them to take a pay cut, and operate to new practices that will get rid of half of their colleagues, then surely they have a vested interest in ensuring some renumeration in future.
Management haven't asked them to take a pay cut. Overtime is not part of basic pay, nor are bonuses. If they were not happy with the basic pay, they shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. The overtime will have to be stopped with or without the new machines. If they don't use the new ones, then they will have to work a lot harder to get their job done during normal hours. One would think that they'd be thankful for getting new machine that will make that job easier.

And if you dont believe that staff should be fairly renumerated for increased workload or new practices etc. maybe you should opt out of capitalism.
The work load is not being increased. The new technology allows them to get more done for the same effort. As for new work practices, why should they get paid more for that? It's the same job, and requires no extra time or effort.

Originally posted by Sparks
The union's primary concern is the immediate and short-term interests of it's members.
Says who? You? It was always my impression that the unions job was to look after the members, generally, not just over the short term. It is a completely pathetic, and useless, union that would only think in the short term. Getting a member a huge payrise this week is not much use if it means that the member is unemployed next week, and probably for a long time.

Sparks

Originally posted by Johnmb
They aren't standing up for their pay and working conditions, they are refusing to use machinery because they weren't consulted. That is BS, and wouldn't be tolerated in any non-public service company.

Actually, from what I understand of the matter, that is not the case. The new machinery was to be introduced so that the workers could be reduced from full-time employment with overtime to part-time employment. The company saves money - the workers lose a significant amount of money. Hence the dispute. And please, if you're going to go and say "well, that's just their tough luck", also say how they're to put food on the table, and detail the hardships faced by those in management who earn bonuses for improving the company's financial status...

Management haven't asked them to take a pay cut. Overtime is not part of basic pay, nor are bonuses.

True, technically. In the real world, however, that money pays for food, rent, morgages, loans, college expenses, and other pretty vital things from the worker's perspective. So to expect them to just accept the loss is simply unrealistic, if not outright dickensian in its indifference.

The union's primary concern is the immediate and short-term interests of it's members.
Says who? You?

I think you're labouring under the misunderstanding here that I have some form of need to prove you incorrect - I don't. I'm just trying to explain the way that things are. I didn't set things up this way - that's just how they are.

It was always my impression that the unions job was to look after the members, generally, not just over the short term.

On paper, yes. And few unions would order a strike if it would shut the company down permanently in a week. But to say that unions take the long view and consider the health of the company to be a priority is a denial of the reality of the situation. As far as workers are concerned, food has to be paid for now, not "over the long term".

It is a completely pathetic, and useless, union that would only think in the short term. Getting a member a huge payrise this week is not much use if it means that the member is unemployed next week, and probably for a long time.

And I think you're misunderstanding how the union works. It may reduce operating profits to zero or less to maintain current work practises in An Post, for instance - but to change work practises would result in hundreds of people who have paid the union dues for years suddenly being unable to pay their morgages because the union didn't protest on their behalf.
I'm sure you must get the obvious point here - if you pay for something, you expect to get it, no? Union members pay for protection of their interests and for the union not to pursue that goal would be a breach of that agreement.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
True, technically. In the real world, however, that money pays for food, rent, morgages, loans, college expenses, and other pretty vital things from the worker's perspective. So to expect them to just accept the loss is simply unrealistic, if not outright dickensian in its indifference.
Well then, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I would consider anyone who does this to be an idiot. The only money you are guaranteed when you get a job is the basic, nothing else. If you then go and put yourself into debt which will be relying on overtime and bonuses, which you are not guaranteed, then you deserve the hardship you get if they don't give you overtime and bonuses. This is something I have seen many people do, and I have absolutely no sympathy for them. I recall one such person paying a deposit on a house based on a bonus that he never got. What made this particular person even more stupid than the average was that he was my supervisor, and if I knew from the results that the bonuses would be nowhere near previous levels, he really should have known because he was the one who actually had to pull together all the various elements to prepares monthly accounts.

Sparks

I think you're missing the point John - you're putting in a "right/wrong" argument - unions function on a different basis. Your point might well be correct in an academic setting - but in the real world, it's wholly irrelevant. These workers did not choose to get in over their heads in a single decision - over time, they were required to work more and more overtime and no measures were being brought in to fix this, which meant that rather than the situation being a temporary fix, it became the standard. Are you saying that after years of a set income level, they shouldn't spend the money on important things like better houses for their families and better education for their children and so on?

I get the feeling Johnmb, that you've never been poor in your life...

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sparks
I think you're missing the point John - you're putting in a "right/wrong" argument - unions function on a different basis. You point might well be correct in an academic setting - but in the real world, it's wholly irrelevant. These workers did not choose to get in over their heads in a single decision - over time, they were required to work more and more overtime and no measures were being brought in to fix this, which meant that rather than the situation being a temporary fix, it became the standard. Are you saying that after years of a set income level, they shouldn't spend the money on important things like better houses for their families and better education for their children and so on?
I'm saying that they should exercise common sense and not put themselves in debt if they are relying on non-guaranteed income to repay the debt. If the union was doing what it should be doing it would either have forced An Post to hire more staff so that overtime wouldn't have to be worked, or it would have gotten that overtime put in as part of the basic salary. (e.g. instead of basic of €X for 39hrs, with average overtime of 6hrs for €Y, the union should have gotten the basic increased to €X+Y for 45 hrs per week).

I get the feeling Johnmb, that you've never been poor in your life...
Well, when I was means tested for my college grant, I got it, so the CDVEC didn't exactly class me as rich. Also, even now, while I am by no means poor, I have enough, you will not find me on many top 10 rich lists. However, whenever I have put in for loans for anything, I have worked out whether or not I can afford them based on my basic salary. The bonuses I get are just that, bonuses. If I don't get them I won't go broke, I just won't be able to have quite as fancy a holiday next year.

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

Sparks, think abt this carefully. Esat was an Irish company. At the height of its business it had abt 800 employees. I know, i worked for them. Then BT took over. The largest telecommunications company in Britain. Combined, EsatBT are as large as Eircom, especially when you take into account that BT have businesses across Europe.

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.

Victor, all the managing Directors i know are aggressive. Thats what generally creates profits. The no-bull**** attitude he has is likely what keeps his business profitable. But then he's been managing employees for years, so who knows, hew probably has the best practical expierence here.

These workers did not choose to get in over their heads in a single decision - over time, they were required to work more and more overtime and no measures were being brought in to fix this, which meant that rather than the situation being a temporary fix, it became the standard.

Overtime is an option that employers can offer to employees if they wish to meet targets, gain market leading etc. It is not something that someone can be ordered into. When you get a job, you sign a contract. On that contract, it will contain basic working hours, and a wage agreement. That is what you're required to do. Whats in that contract. Npthing else. Overtime is the employee's choice, if it is available.

I get the feeling Johnmb, that you've never been poor in your life...

Define poor. I've lived the student life, and i've lead the low wages life. Is that poor? Not by my books. The people in An Post received wages and overtime that put them on par, with alot of skilled, management positions. I know a person in Athlone sorting office, that as an unskilled employee earned in the region to 400 euros for week day work & a some overtime. Lovely that.

True, technically. In the real world, however, that money pays for food, rent, morgages, loans, college expenses, and other pretty vital things from the worker's perspective. So to expect them to just accept the loss is simply unrealistic, if not outright dickensian in its indifference.

Overtime has never been a right. No employer can afford to offer overtime all the time. Even government backed companies.

If the expect to receive overtime, then they're being just plain stupid. Live on your basic wages, anything after that is a bonus.

On paper, yes. And few unions would order a strike if it would shut the company down permanently in a week. But to say that unions take the long view and consider the health of the company to be a priority is a denial of the reality of the situation. As far as workers are concerned, food has to be paid for now, not "over the long term".

and

And this is the point where I get fustrated, because I've been saying this for several posts now and it doesn't seem to be sinking in - it is not the job of the union to worry about the company. The union's primary concern is the immediate and short-term interests of it's members. Longer-term interests take a very distant second place, because sacrificing the short-term interests for the long-term:

Sparks, this is exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to point out to you. Unions look after short term gains. They don't care abt external results or if their members will have a job in 6 months time. My thing when starting this thread is that Unions are a threat to everyone. This is not some paranoid fantasy. If union strikes on a necessary service. That affects everyone, not just their members & the company in question.

The An Post issue, is affecting businesses all across the country in a bad way. Just when Ireland needs to gain more success, this happens to screw us up. I'd be curious to know the feelings of the employees of other companies, who might lose their jobs, since their jobs are dust. <Shakes Head>

The unions need their powers restricted so their actions don't hurt other people. I don't care abt An Post workers, or An Post itself. I care abt the affect this dispute and others like it, affect my life and my job.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Sparks, think abt this carefully. Esat was an Irish company. At the height of its business it had abt 800 employees. I know, i worked for them. Then BT took over. The largest telecommunications company in Britain. Combined, EsatBT are as large as Eircom, especially when you take into account that BT have businesses across Europe.

So what you're saying is that EsatBT employ 800-odd people, and their parent company employ's thousands more. Which is what I said.

Victor, all the managing Directors i know are aggressive. Thats what generally creates profits.

Exactly - which is why unions have to exist. An adversarial system where only one side is aggressive is usually called some rather unpleasant names....

Overtime is an option that employers can offer to employees

And if An Post employees had refused the overtime (a highly unrealistic assumption given their stated motives), then An Post couldn't have achieved it's goals. Which is one of the weapons in the Unions' arsenal - working to rule.
And I fail to see how management can be innocent of blame when the company requires overtime to function...

Define poor.

Family life in working class.

Sparks, this is exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to point out to you. Unions look after short term gains. They don't care abt external results or if their members will have a job in 6 months time.[/qutoe]
Yes they do - but they care about it in the "save their paycheques now and we'll worry about six months hence in six months time".
And frankly, I'll think that's wrong the day I see management paid the same as labour.

The An Post issue, is affecting businesses all across the country in a bad way.

Yes it is - but to blame only one side for the problem is living in denial.

The unions need their powers restricted so their actions don't hurt other people.

Says who, management?
Perhaps we need to have legislation which requires management to consult with labour - that would solve the problem equally well.

I don't care abt An Post workers, or An Post itself. I care abt the affect this dispute and others like it, affect my life and my job.

And they don't care about you, they care about feeding their families and putting their kids through school and so on. And I can't see a right-wrong axis in there anywhere, but I can see this - if you were to try to ban strikes, or outlaw unions, you'd see protests and all-out strikes by every union in the country within a very short space of time.
Pragmatically speaking, that's too expensive to risk. And morally speaking for the first time, you're talking about restricting the rights of a majority (labour) for the sake of a minority's convienence (management). And I find it really hard to sympathise with a guy who drives a Mercedes S-class to work when he's putting a few hundred guys into serious financial trouble and getting a bonus for it....

MrPudding

Originally posted by Sparks

And this is the point where I get fustrated, because I've been saying this for several posts now and it doesn't seem to be sinking in - it is not the job of the union to worry about the company. The union's primary concern is the immediate and short-term interests of it's members. Longer-term interests take a very distant second place, because sacrificing the short-term interests for the long-term:

This is what I find funny. Take a example from the not so distant past. The Irsish Bottle Plant (or whaterver it was)

Management- Guys, thingd aren't great. We are going to have to lay off 100 people. Hopefully we can do it on a volentry basis.

Union- No. Never.

Management- No seriously the company is in the s**t, I we don't get the redundancies we won't be able to keep the company going.

Union- No Never.

Management- OK so. The company closes on monday. Do you want to tell the 500 people you "represent" that they don't have a job anymore or will we?

Way to look after your employees any term interests.

Now I know that there were other condisderation in this dispute. For example the redundancy package was not great. But the fact remains, looking after the short term interest of some of the employees cost all of the employees their jobs.This is what happens when you use the "Ian Paisley" method of negotiation, which is hat the unions seem to do.

The postal dispute is a pain in the ass. And I appreciate that for some it is a lot more. Jobs are on the line and that concerns me, not AnPost jobs by the way. If they lose their jobs they will have their union to thank for that.

I appreciate what you are saying sparks, I understand that the unions job is only to look after the short term interests of it's members. But. By ignoring the fact that the company is losing millions of euros every month and needs to cut costs they are doing their members a disservice. It is stupid in the extreme to say that this small fact is not important, it is stupid in the extreme to say it has nothing to do with anything. It is the only thing that matters. It is the thing that the entire dispute hinges on.

As a by the by. Like those before me, I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who have bought house and taken out loan on the basis of a never ending supply of overtime. Don't blame the management here for trying to stop the company from losing money. Did they not see the gravy train coming off the rails? Did they not see the companies losses last year and in previous years? Is it unreasonable to think that if your company is losing millions of euros a year that they might want to cut costs? Could they not have seen this coming or, did the union tell them "Don't worry. We will make sure you still get your overtime. Even if it means running the company into the ground so the taxpayers have to pay to keep you in the lifestyle you are accustomed to. Don’t worry we’ve done it before.”

Oh and by the way. In case there is any doubt, I think the unions should have their powers reduced.

MrP

So what you're saying is that EsatBT employ 800-odd people, and their parent company employ's thousands more. Which is what I said.

Which is exactly the same thing. BT totally own Esat. Which makes them the same company, with the same managers, same working policies, etc. They're the same company.

Exactly - which is why unions have to exist. An adversarial system where only one side is aggressive is usually called some rather unpleasant names

No. Unions should exist, for employees to provide a speech platform for when things go wrong. i.e. racism within workplace, sexual harrassment, etc. Unfortuently, they seem to want to do something when nothing is wrong. As for aggressive managers, it doesn't mean that employees are treated badly. It doesn't mean that managers don't listen to what employees say to them. It means that they can take a company and make it profitable.

And if An Post employees had refused the overtime (a highly unrealistic assumption given their stated motives), then An Post couldn't have achieved it's goals. Which is one of the weapons in the Unions' arsenal - working to rule.

Sparks, please understand this. no company can afford to provide Overtime all the time Its not profitable. And its is never the right of the employee to receive it. It is up to the employer to offer it, and the employee to accept if they so choose. But it's never meant to be available all the time to all members of the workforce.

But then again, i suppose An Post are having problems reaching their targets to become profitable with the majority of their workforce pissing off.

And I fail to see how management can be innocent of blame when the company requires overtime to function...

Sparks, again see above. As for the management, they're not innocent. They shopuld have fired those employees for breaking their contracts, and hired in new people.

Define poor.

Family life in working class

No. Thats life. Thats not being poor, because if you have any intelligence you'll budget around having a family. You see most people when considering familes, will see if they can afford to have one. The people that have children as a result of accidents, should have more sense than to expect to pernemently receive monies from a temporary work detail.

My definetion of poor seems alot different than yours.

Yes it is - but to blame only one side for the problem is living in denial

Omg, Sparks. If the Union had walked because the An Post had proposed the whole workforce walk around in school uniforms, then maybe i might agree with you. But, in this case, we're talking abt a company in financial difficulties, trying to become profitable, by bringing in more efficent machines, and by reducing an overtime bill.

You're telling me that the unions are looking out for either the best interests of their members or the business? I know, I know. You kdon't believe Unions should consider the state of the business at the end.

Thats the major difference between us, Sparks. I do. Unions have too much power within a business, to makle their decisions without any real concern for the extended outcomes. I'd rather these people had less power, and then they can go ape**** that there's dodgy toilet-paper for all i care.

And they don't care about you, they care about feeding their families and putting their kids through school and so on. And I can't see a right-wrong axis in there anywhere, but I can see this - if you were to try to ban strikes, or outlaw unions, you'd see protests and all-out strikes by every union in the country within a very short space of time.

No you don't ban them completely. Nor would it be right to do so. However, you would make Union Members financially resposible for their actions. An Independent commission with powers to determine and fine either side should exist to prevent these flippent strikes.

And Sparks, I don't care about you. I do on the other hand care about my life. Just like they do. However, I care about the Unions ****ing up the economy just becuase the decide to do so. No independent organisation should have that muich power.

And morally speaking for the first time, you're talking about restricting the rights of a majority (labour) for the sake of a minority's convienence (management). And I find it really hard to sympathise with a guy who drives a Mercedes S-class to work when he's putting a few hundred guys into serious financial trouble and getting a bonus for it....

No. I'm talking abt restricting the minority (The Businesses Employees) to protect the Majority (The rest of the people in Ireland).

You're talking abt me, or managers in general? Sparks, grow up.

Managers work damn hard, in fact alot harder than general employees. Hence the reason why they are managers. People choose to spend their wages where they like. I spend mine on books, you might spend them on beer. He spends his on buying an expensive car. The freedom of choosing to spend what you have earned.

As for putting a few hundred guys in financial risk? crap. They put themselves in financial risk. Anytone who doesn't watch their own money is an idiot, and they put themselves at risk. Its not the managers fault that they spend beyond their means. Its their choice at the end.

he works hard, saves his money, and buys the car he wants. Its what people do.

Sparks

Originally posted by MrPudding
This is what I find funny. Take a example from the not so distant past. The Irsish Bottle Plant (or whaterver it was)
<snip>
Way to look after your employees any term interests.

So basicly, the company got into trouble because of management and then management turned to labour and said "sorry guys, but 20% of you have to be fired. And we know that while we can get jobs nearly anywhere else, you're lumbered with a smaller skillset, and we know that that'll mean serious hardship for you, but, well, we can't think of anything else to do. I mean, we can't fire managers, now can we?"

Yeah, I can see how the union were being sooooo unreasonable there...
:rolleyes:

The postal dispute is a pain in the ass. And I appreciate that for some it is a lot more. Jobs are on the line and that concerns me, not AnPost jobs by the way.

And I keep saying, that's not the union's job to worry about.

If they lose their jobs they will have their union to thank for that.

As I understand it, had the union not done what it's doing, they'd all have lost the jobs they have by now and would be down to half-time work and about a third or less of their previous income level.
While managers would have received bonuses and better CVs in return.
So frankly, the union is justified in doing what it's doing, given its mandate.

I appreciate what you are saying sparks, I understand that the unions job is only to look after the short term interests of it's members. But. By ignoring the fact that the company is losing millions of euros every month and needs to cut costs they are doing their members a disservice.

Are they? If the company needs to cut costs, the union's job is to ensure it does this without damaging its members' interests. Otherwise, it's too easy to just lay off people without trying other options.

It is stupid in the extreme to say that this small fact is not important, it is stupid in the extreme to say it has nothing to do with anything. It is the only thing that matters. It is the thing that the entire dispute hinges on.

Actually, it's not what the dispute hangs on. Both sides would probably agree that the company needs to cut costs - but both sides differ on how to do that. Management would choose to lay off staff and use new technology to let the remaining staff work fewer hours and receive less pay. Labour strongly disagree that they should be the sacrificial part of the arrangement. That is the crux of the matter.

As a by the by. Like those before me, I don't really have a lot of sympathy for people who have bought house and taken out loan on the basis of a never ending supply of overtime.

Sympathy is not required - reality is. You will not get a few hundred people to accept a two-thirds pay cut without problems, and expecting them to stop complaining because it inconvienences you is outright silliness.

Don't blame the management here for trying to stop the company from losing money.

You jest, surely. Management's only job is to look after the company, but they shouldn't be blamed when the company suffers problems caused by mismanagement?
:rolleyes:

Did they not see the gravy train coming off the rails? Did they not see the companies losses last year and in previous years? Is it unreasonable to think that if your company is losing millions of euros a year that they might want to cut costs?

All of which are questions to be asked of management - as JohnMP has already pointed out, management owns the company - it's "theirs" and not labour's - so labour getting worried about the direction the company goes in is a waste of their time, because they don't get to make the decisions, and their input is rarely welcomed in companys like An Post.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
No. Unions should exist, for employees to provide a speech platform for when things go wrong.

No, that's only a part of it. As I've said, the union acts as an advocate for labour in labour relations. Which is an adversarial system.

Sparks, please understand this. no company can afford to provide Overtime all the time Its not profitable.

I understand this. The An Post workers understand this. So why didn't management understand this? Do you think that the workers in An Post just decided to start getting overtime? Do you think that management never signed off on it? And as I recall, right up until the recent change in top-level An Post management, An Post was being touted by management as being financially solid, in the black, and a model to all semi-states. So the notion that the current problems all stem back to the An Post workers is just plain daft!

And its is never the right of the employee to receive it. It is up to the employer to offer it, and the employee to accept if they so choose. But it's never meant to be available all the time to all members of the workforce.

Indeed. So why did management let it get to the point where they were so understaffed (thanks to management's "productivity deals" in the early-to-mid nineties) that they were obliged to rely on overtime to get the job done? Why didn't they hire more people? The problem's been there for a decade.

No. Thats life. Thats not being poor, because if you have any intelligence you'll budget around having a family.

Wow. Even I'm not so arrogant as to say that a working class family shouldn't depend on nearly 30% of their main breadwinner's income! What were they meant to do? Accept that at a future point that money would be phased out, and accept that they'd have to tighten the belt within a month or so before the money vanished? Yes? So why would they be pissed off when told that instead of just the overtime vanishing, the overtime and half their pay would vanish, all with absolutely no warning time?

My definetion of poor seems alot different than yours.

Probably because I've lived it and you haven't, I suspect.

Omg, Sparks. If the Union had walked because the An Post had proposed the whole workforce walk around in school uniforms, then maybe i might agree with you. But, in this case, we're talking abt a company in financial difficulties, trying to become profitable, by bringing in more efficent machines, and by reducing an overtime bill.

No, we're talking about a mismanaged company that is trying to save cash by taking away overtime and half the worker's working hours and pay, because management made a royal set of mistakes over a long period of time.

You're telling me that the unions are looking out for either the best interests of their members or the business? I know, I know. You kdon't believe Unions should consider the state of the business at the end.

It's not about what I believe. The fact is that Unions look out for labour's interests, prioritising the short-term because that's in labour's best interests, and nothing more. That's just the way it is. My beliefs are not a factor in that.

Thats the major difference between us, Sparks. I do. Unions have too much power within a business, to makle their decisions without any real concern for the extended outcomes.

So when management decides, as in this case, to cause serious economic hardships for hundreds of families, without any form of checks on their decision, this isn't too much power?

No. I'm talking abt restricting the minority (The Businesses Employees) to protect the Majority (The rest of the people in Ireland).

I think you may have a rather distorted view of the country you live in if you think that the majority of the population would count as management or the the family of management, instead of as labour or the families of labour...

You're talking abt me, or managers in general?

Managers in general.

Managers work damn hard, in fact alot harder than general employees. Hence the reason why they are managers. People choose to spend their wages where they like. I spend mine on books, you might spend them on beer. He spends his on buying an expensive car. The freedom of choosing to spend what you have earned.

Managers can spend their wages buying expensive cars because they're paid more. And they don't work harder, they work differently. They are better qualified and have more education (usually), or different education than labour. They're not in some way super-productive genius-level ascetics.
They do, however, have the luxury (and that's what it is) of being able to find work in different areas more easily than unskilled labour. So if they're laid off, it's much less difficult to deal with.

he works hard, saves his money, and buys the car he wants. Its what people do.

That's an uninformed opinion, I believe. It certainly doesn't mesh with the reality I've lived in.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
So the notion that the current problems all stem back to the An Post workers is just plain daft!

No, but the notion that the workers aren't part of the problem is equally daft.

Indeed. So why did management let it get to the point where they were so understaffed (thanks to management's "productivity deals" in the early-to-mid nineties)

You'll probably find its becaused they came to an agreement with the unions in the mid-nineties, when the unions wanted a payrise and the company wanted more staff. An agreement was most likely reached to say "we will provide overtime at such-and-such a rate, and you don't hire new staff". Maybe I'm wrong, but thats generally how any semi-state company I've seen with a problem with overtime got into that position. Overtime was the great "back door" around not being able to give pay increases.

Such an agreement - having been the best short term solution for the employees in the nineties - is exactly whar your logic says the unions should have fought for back then, but you seem to be saying that its only the management who are to blame for a) having agreed to it in the first place, and b) having decided that its finally got to stop???

In otherwords you seem to be saying that the unions are right to refuse to co-operate with the management, because the management were wrong to agree with the unions in the first place back in the mid-nineties???

So what management should have done was never given this overtime in the first place, but hired new people at the time. But your logic would say that the unions would have been wrong at the time to accept anything less than an overtime settlement, as it was in their best short-term interests!!!

Even I'm not so arrogant as to say that a working class family shouldn't depend on nearly 30% of their main breadwinner's income!

They may be dependant on it, Sparks, but they shouldn't depend on it being there.

Simple comparison : Lets say I'm really lucky at winning at the bookies. Every week I manage to make about 50 quid. My family is absolutely living in poverty, but every week I manage to turn a fiver into fifty quid.

Is my family going to need that money? Of course - they will be dependant on it we being so poor and all. Should they depend on it? No, of course not, because there is no guarantee it will be there every week.

Overtime is the exact same. There is no gurarantee that it will be there. Hell, once you're in a position to guarantee that, it no longer is overtime really.

So no - regardless of how dependant the workers may have been on this money, they should never have depended on it....

...and the reason many of them probably did depend on it is because it was part of a previously negotiated deal.

So its a case of the "short-term best interest" view coming back to bite them in the ass....but its still all the managements fault apparently!

No, we're talking about a mismanaged company that is trying to save cash by taking away overtime and half the worker's working hours and pay, because management made a royal set of mistakes over a long period of time.

Are we? Or is that the union's version of what we're discussing?

I recall some of the negotiations my dad got into with unions over the years. I found media accounts - from both the unions' perspectives and my dad's employer's perspective - to be laugably different from the reality. Far too often, what was involved was the employer insisting that a union give up some "under-the-table guarantee" (such as a guaranteed minimum overtime per employee per week) because they were no longer willing or able to justify the cost to the company of the solution....typically due to those things you say are not the unions concern...you know...state of the company, economic viability, all that sort of rubbish.

Anyway, one of these ended up with a union going out on strike because they were offered more money for fewer hours. No, thats not a typo. No clever wording. Work fewer hours per week and take home a larger paypacket - that is what they were offered. They went out on strike in protest. Their argument for the strike was that such largesse could only be a pre-cursor to being asked to do unreasonable amounts of work. What was actually happening was that they were being offered this as an incentive to do the work they were supposed to be contracted to do already, rather than the lesser amounts that had been previously agreed as "unmentioned" productivity.

So I'm wondering - who's version of what is being asked for and given are you basing your argument on, because if its either An Post's or the respective union's official stated stance, odds are its not entirely accurate to the reality of whats going on at all, at all.

The fact is that Unions look out for labour's interests, prioritising the short-term because that's in labour's best interests, and nothing more.

And when looking to short-term interests generates long-term problems, its the mangement's fault for agreeing, and not the union's for being so consistently short-sighted?

And when management wish to remove those short-term focussed solutions because they have dragged into the long-term and are no longer viable, it is their fault not only for being stupid enough to agree to it with the Unions in the first place, it is also their fault for taking it away when they figure out they can no longer support the solution!!!

Come on Sparks....you're being a bit too one-sided, don't you think? Bear in mind that while you may say that what I'm referring to is not the case in the An Post story, it is still a direct application of what you are saying is right/wrong with the unions/management interaction.

jc

So the notion that the current problems all stem back to the An Post workers is just plain daft!

Sparks, i agree. The problems with An Post being unprofitable do indeed stem to the management. Their decisions towards wages, overtime, and the technology used to operate their business were badly come about. And when they try to get the company back on track, towards no longer being a drain on the country's economy, we get a strike.

Indeed. So why did management let it get to the point where they were so understaffed (thanks to management's "productivity deals" in the early-to-mid nineties) that they were obliged to rely on overtime to get the job done? Why didn't they hire more people? The problem's been there for a decade.

As above. Management tried to fix it. <Shrugs> its called living. Bad decisions are made, and you have to try fix them later.

Wow. Even I'm not so arrogant as to say that a working class family shouldn't depend on nearly 30% of their main breadwinner's income!

Really. Cause at times you do come across in exactly that light, when refering to how everyone lives. And the overtime is the 30% thats added to the 100%. Overtime counts as 130% of your income. I know it does with mine. Or do you expect overtime from your work, and come to depend on it?

My definetion of poor seems alot different than yours.

Probably because I've lived it and you haven't, I suspect

Really Sparks? cause i'll let you know what my version of poor is. Not being able to afford accomadation, food, heating, medication. Have you really lived like that? And you're now a researcher in a State run organisation? Well Done! You've obviously come far in life.

I agree i haven't been poor. At least by my definition of being poor. You definition of poor seems that you're poor if you don't have a Mercedes.

I really hope you're not serious.

No, we're talking about a mismanaged company that is trying to save cash by taking away overtime and half the worker's working hours and pay, because management made a royal set of mistakes over a long period of time.

No you're talking abt a company like that. What i'm talking about has a slight difference. There was Union involvement.

It's not about what I believe. The fact is that Unions look out for labour's interests, prioritising the short-term because that's in labour's best interests, and nothing more. That's just the way it is. My beliefs are not a factor in that.

Ahh but it is what you believe. You've been stating things as fact. When they're not.

unions are essentially self-destructive to employees. By focusing on the short-term they ignore the future, therby creating more problems for their members. I'd prefer a job for the next 30 years at 40k a year, than a job earning 60k a year, for 6 months, with no guarantee of a job afterwards. Do the math, and you'll understand my reasonings on this.

So when management decides, as in this case, to cause serious economic hardships for hundreds of families, without any form of checks on their decision, this isn't too much power?

Come On, Sparks. You know that overtime was never something to depend on. The management have that power because they run the company. If the unions and the employees want that power they should start up some competition. They joined An Post to be employees, not to run the company.

I think you may have a rather distorted view of the country you live in if you think that the majority of the population would count as management or the the family of management, instead of as labour or the families of labour...

Are you really this dense on purpose? When did this become a conversation abt managers Vs labour? I really can't believe that after the last 3 pages of posts, that you still don't understand the source of this thread....

Lets try this, and read slowly:

Union calls a strike. An Post closes or grinds to almost a halt. All post in and out of Dublin (the Capital) stops. International mail stops also. So here we are when 70-80% of all payments for invoices are sent by post. Income for 3-4 days is halted almost completely. A major damaging circumstance for small to medium sized businesses. (which make up the majority of business in ireland).

Still with me. Perhaps now you understand what we were talking about? Unions can cause too much damage to other companies outside of their sphere of influence. Their actions bring other businesses, and other peoples jobs into risk. That needs to be restricted, and the damage they can do diminished.

Managers can spend their wages buying expensive cars because they're paid more. And they don't work harder, they work differently. They are better qualified and have more education (usually), or different education than labour. They're not in some way super-productive genius-level ascetics.

Wow. I thought you had seen the light and were ready to join the real world, but then you dashed my hope by saying the next part below......

They do, however, have the luxury (and that's what it is) of being able to find work in different areas more easily than unskilled labour. So if they're laid off, it's much less difficult to deal with.

Sparks, there is a wonderful thing called being over qualified for a position. Generally, if a person has worked in a specific job for a long period of time, their experience is almost totally related to that area of business. This tends to happen to managers more so than most other professions in business. This can be a problem in getting jobs later, especially when you've invested your time in the hopes of retiring after all the work done.

Unskilled labour on the other hand is fairly easy to find a job afterwards.

Is your job skilled or unskilled? If you lost your job tomorrow, would you as a researcher (I'm assuming theres a requirement of some expierence and education) find it difficult to get a job in your area of expertise?

That's an uninformed opinion, I believe. It certainly doesn't mesh with the reality I've lived in.

Sparks, are you a republician? cause you might have some things in common with them as far as recognising & living in reality.

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
No, but the notion that the workers aren't part of the problem is equally daft.

Never said otherwise bonkey, though I don't think that they bear the majority of the blame in this case.

You'll probably find its becaused they came to an agreement with the unions in the mid-nineties, when the unions wanted a payrise and the company wanted more staff. An agreement was most likely reached to say "we will provide overtime at such-and-such a rate, and you don't hire new staff". Maybe I'm wrong, but thats generally how any semi-state company I've seen with a problem with overtime got into that position. Overtime was the great "back door" around not being able to give pay increases.

I'm fairly sure that that's not how it happened Bonkey - the productivity deal didn't work that way. From an Irish Times letter in last friday's paper:

"...15 years ago there were 65 road delivery postmen in the Blackrock area of Dublin. As part of a productivity deal in 1993, this number was reduced to 31 with the others work being absorbed by that number. As you are aware the economy has since boomed and the number of businesses and private dwellings in the area has greatly increased. Add to this the amount of trash mail in circulation and one arrives at a situation where postmen must use their own vehicles, at no reward, to deliver around ten times the amount of mail as in 1990.
What then, was the benefit to the postmen? It was a 3 per cent increas and a lump sum of £500."
-- Eugene Tannam.

In otherwords you seem to be saying that the unions are right to refuse to co-operate with the management, because the management were wrong to agree with the unions in the first place back in the mid-nineties???

A logical conclusion bonkey, but based on a flawed premise relating to the nature of the productivity deals.

So what management should have done was never given this overtime in the first place, but hired new people at the time. But your logic would say that the unions would have been wrong at the time to accept anything less than an overtime settlement, as it was in their best short-term interests!!!

That's just not logical - more workers means a union with more negotiating power. Besides which, the deals were to reduce workers (through redundancy packages) and they were negotiated with the unions - whereas the current demands are nothing like that.

They may be dependant on it, Sparks, but they shouldn't depend on it being there.

Ideally, yes - but unions, as I keep saying, do not deal in ideals. That's not their mandate.

Overtime is the exact same. There is no gurarantee that it will be there. Hell, once you're in a position to guarantee that, it no longer is overtime really.
So no - regardless of how dependant the workers may have been on this money, they should never have depended on it....

Again, that's idealistically correct (and you should know that I have no problem with idealism ) but idealism is not the unions mandate - and it's incorrect here anyway because the demands put forward by An Post do not just eliminate overtime, but eliminate 50% or so of basic pay as well.

So its a case of the "short-term best interest" view coming back to bite them in the ass....but its still all the managements fault apparently!

Who's saying that it's all management's fault? And more to the point, how does eliminating or restricting unions make the situation better? Unions deal in today's situation and protect the worker's interests - the company's interests are the responsibility of management, and the system is adversarial in nature and it works, by and large. There are occasional cases where it doesn't work, but we don't see the legal system torn to shreds whenever there's an incorrect verdict unless it's a serious example of a systemic flaw. (Yes, there are calls to reform it as with the Murphy case, but we generally don't actually do it).

I recall some of the negotiations my dad got into with unions over the years. I found media accounts - from both the unions' perspectives and my dad's employer's perspective - to be laugably different from the reality. Far too often, what was involved was the employer insisting that a union give up some "under-the-table guarantee" (such as a guaranteed minimum overtime per employee per week) because they were no longer willing or able to justify the cost to the company of the solution....typically due to those things you say are not the unions concern...you know...state of the company, economic viability, all that sort of rubbish.

Yes, I've heard similar accounts from my father's negotiations with unions.

Anyway, one of these ended up with a union going out on strike because they were offered more money for fewer hours. No, thats not a typo. No clever wording. Work fewer hours per week and take home a larger paypacket - that is what they were offered. They went out on strike in protest. Their argument for the strike was that such largesse could only be a pre-cursor to being asked to do unreasonable amounts of work. What was actually happening was that they were being offered this as an incentive to do the work they were supposed to be contracted to do already, rather than the lesser amounts that had been previously agreed as "unmentioned" productivity.

Certainly sounds like an unusual incident - but I'd need to know more specifics about the deal before calling it, I think...

So I'm wondering - who's version of what is being asked for and given are you basing your argument on, because if its either An Post's or the respective union's official stated stance, odds are its not entirely accurate to the reality of whats going on at all, at all.

Indeed - it always lies somewhere in the middle - but even the Sunday Business Post editors seem to be agreeing with me that it's a management error (or cynical tactic) and they're not known for sympathising with unions!

And when looking to short-term interests generates long-term problems, its the mangement's fault for agreeing, and not the union's for being so consistently short-sighted?

Correct. That's the nature of an adversarial system. That's why in the legal system you can appeal a decision on the basis that your advocate didn't argue competently. (Not because you're in the right, you understand, but because you didn't have an advocate that argued well enough).

And when management wish to remove those short-term focussed solutions because they have dragged into the long-term and are no longer viable, it is their fault not only for being stupid enough to agree to it with the Unions in the first place, it is also their fault for taking it away when they figure out they can no longer support the solution!!!

To be fair JC, in this case they didn't just take away overtime, they took away basic pay - and without negotiation.

Come on Sparks....you're being a bit too one-sided, don't you think?

Actually, I'm trying rather hard not to take sides - but just to appreciate the situation. Which certainly isn't easy - but I am noticing that a large number of the people in here, most of whom are well educated and would qualify more for "management" than "labour", are not appreciating that the unions do have a point and that's why I'm trying to highlight it.

Bear in mind that while you may say that what I'm referring to is not the case in the An Post story, it is still a direct application of what you are saying is right/wrong with the unions/management interaction.

I don't think that's true. For a start, I'm not saying that the system that's there is right or wrong, just that that's the system that's there and the union's actions are consistent with that system and true to their mandate. It's management that's ignored the system and caused the bulk of the problem on this occasion.

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
Sparks, i agree. The problems with An Post being unprofitable do indeed stem to the management. Their decisions towards wages, overtime, and the technology used to operate their business were badly come about. And when they try to get the company back on track, towards no longer being a drain on the country's economy, we get a strike.

Yes - but don't forget that the problem here is based on a real and valid concern with the chosen solution.

Really. Cause at times you do come across in exactly that light, when refering to how everyone lives.

Yeah, I often come across as arrogant. Such is life. It doesn't mean, after all, that I'm not right....

And the overtime is the 30% thats added to the 100%. Overtime counts as 130% of your income. I know it does with mine. Or do you expect overtime from your work, and come to depend on it?

Nope, I don't - but I also don't expect that management will eliminate both my overtime (which I don't get, being a researcher - we get paid a fixed rate and tend to work more hours than most people), and half my basic pay.

Really Sparks? cause i'll let you know what my version of poor is. Not being able to afford accomadation, food, heating, medication. Have you really lived like that?

Eliminate accomodation from that list (we had a house that had been in the family for a few generations, even if it was falling apart), and yes.

And you're now a researcher in a State run organisation? Well Done! You've obviously come far in life.

I'd love to take credit for that, but I can't. My parents get all the credit - and with the amount they had to sacrifice and the amount of work they put in, they deserve a lot more than you've given there!
So I have known what it's like to be poor and to be on the receiving end of management decisions, because after eight years of hard work and sacrifices on all my family's part to get my father's degree, during which he had been promised on many occasions that he would be assigned to work in the kerry area, a manager made a decision one afternoon that he couldn't work there. So with a total warning time of about twenty seconds, dad was told that he'd have to sell the family home and move to dublin, leaving family and friends and a home that we'd lived in for generations. That is what a management decision can cost you when you're labour. That manager had no idea of the hard work involved in getting to that point, he had no idea of how much he was demanding of my father and us, and he didn't care too much about it either, because he certainly didn't change his mind when told - he simply gave my father another three days to arrange accomodation in dublin for us. Of course, engineers didn't have a union and the association didn't act like a union, so management said go and we pretty much had no choice in the matter. (Had dad refused, he'd have been required to repay the cost of the scholarship that paid for the degree - not something we could do at the time).

I agree i haven't been poor. At least by my definition of being poor. You definition of poor seems that you're poor if you don't have a Mercedes.

No, my definition of being poor is somewhat different to that.

unions are essentially self-destructive to employees. By focusing on the short-term they ignore the future, therby creating more problems for their members. I'd prefer a job for the next 30 years at 40k a year, than a job earning 60k a year, for 6 months, with no guarantee of a job afterwards. Do the math, and you'll understand my reasonings on this.

40k a year, eh? You're right, we do have different definitons of poor.
And as I've been saying, unions look after labour's interests - management look after the company's interests. That's why we have the two sides. That's why there's an adversarial system.

Come On, Sparks. You know that overtime was never something to depend on.

No, but when you're earning 40k a year, it's a lot easier to not rely on overtime than when you're earning 15k a year. Besides which, it's perfectly sound to depend on your basic pay - and that's what was cut here as well.

The management have that power because they run the company. If the unions and the employees want that power they should start up some competition. They joined An Post to be employees, not to run the company.

Exactly. Which is why Unions look out for labour's interests and not the company's interests.

Are you really this dense on purpose? When did this become a conversation abt managers Vs labour? I really can't believe that after the last 3 pages of posts, that you still don't understand the source of this thread....
Lets try this, and read slowly:

Can you dial back on the patronisation just a wee tad when you're getting it wrong?

Union calls a strike. An Post closes or grinds to almost a halt.

But that's not what happened, is it? What happened was that An Post management decided to change work practises enormously, eliminating overtime and reducing five hundred or so workers' pay by half or so by converting them to part-time work. That is when the crap hit the fan. The workers refused to comply with this plan - but they did not strike. An Post management decided to suspend them instead. So far, there hasn't been a strike at An Post. Though there are now serious indications that the CWU will go ahead with a proposed strike which was called off last friday.

Is your job skilled or unskilled? If you lost your job tomorrow, would you as a researcher (I'm assuming theres a requirement of some expierence and education) find it difficult to get a job in your area of expertise?

In this country? Yes, but that's for a different reason. Assuming that *mutter, mutter* Minister Dempsey *mutter, mutter* stops hacking third-level education budgets to pieces, yes, I would be able to get a lectureship at pretty much any college I went to, assuming that they decided I met the bill, of course. (Research is funded in a more complicated fashion).
And a manager with qualifications has the same luxury that I enjoy in this.

Sparks, are you a republician? cause you might have some things in common with them as far as recognising & living in reality.

Oooooh, subtle jibes. Terribly sorry to have lived on both sides of the management/labour divide and still have the gall not to agree with you, klaz, but that's how it is.

ixoy

Just curious Sparks, how would you go about trying to accomodate a solution to this An Post problem? Given the facts we know and your point about adversial positions - whick makes sense, even if I dislike it - what way would you seek to remedy the situation? Do you believe, from the facts presented, that the union in this case should be somewhat accomodating, that there should be a "meet in the middle" approach?

Sparks

Originally posted by ixoy
Just curious Sparks, how would you go about trying to accomodate a solution to this An Post problem?

I'm not certain - I'd need more data than I have to come up with a solution.

Given the facts we know and your point about adversial positions - whick makes sense, even if I dislike it - what way would you seek to remedy the situation? Do you believe, from the facts presented, that the union in this case should be somewhat accomodating, that there should be a "meet in the middle" approach?

That much seems obvious - it was, after all, the basis of the "social partnership" model adopted some years ago.

arcadegame2004

I always find the opposition of trade unions to privatisation and increase competition ironic. Inflation is supposed to be a huge concern for the unions, as it can erode the earnings of their members. Yet by protecting the state-owned monopolies of ESB, Bord Gais, Aer Rianta, and CIE, the trade-unions are ironically contributing to further inflation.

Everyone knows (or should know) that a state-owned monopoly will always charge more than would a private-sector company competing on equal terms. This is because the tendency for state-owned companies in financial difficulties is to beg the Government of the day for yet another injection of our hard-earned cash. Because of the fact that the company is state-owned, media-attention will inevitably be greater to the problems in this company that for a similar situation in the private-sector, thereby increasing pressure on the Government to bail out the failing company.

Contrast this with a private-sector company. What does it do when in financial difficulties? It can't expect automatic bail-outs from the Government. Instead they try to sort out the problems by reducing their prices and improving the quality of their services. In order to cut prices, they will need to reduce wasteful expenditure. Thus, the reaction to financial problems by a private-sector company is far more beneficial to the public than simply throwing more money at a state-owned company (thereby rewarding failure). State-owned companies are wasteful of public-money. Their Oliver-Twistesque culture of dependency on taxpayers' money simply acts as a discouragement to perform well from an efficiency and profitability point of view. Furthermore, all too often the appointees to the boards of state-owned companies are party-hacks with no concept of how to run industry in this post-Stalinist era. Political-patronage hardly equates to appointment on the basis of merit.

On the recent strikes, I say that they are an obvious attempt by the Unions to protect the monopolies of CIE and Aer Rianta. Unions gravitate towards monoplolies because they allow them to threaten to hold the country to ransom if the Government (which unlike the Unions is elected by universal-suffrage) does not surrender to their demands. I say that for reasons mentioned above in my post, together with the democratic right for me to choose who provides me with services that I wish to avail of, that it is vital that the Government presses on with the dissolution of these monopolies and hopefully eventual privatisation of the soon to be broken-up Aer Rianta and CIE. The privatisation of Eircom led to a 17% fall in call-charges. I am not opposed to the existence of trade-unions, but the strike-weapon should only be invoked AFTER talks, and as a last resort, which is FAR from the case in this country.

40k a year, eh? You're right, we do have different definitons of poor.

I never said that a 40k a year was being poor. Read what i said. I'm earning in the region of 30k per year now. Know why? Because i started at 7k and worked my way up. I got different jobs, and gained expierence. I used my education and did the work to find jobs that would provide me with money. That is the difference between us two i think. I believe we have to work for it, you seem to expect you have a right to it.

No, but when you're earning 40k a year, it's a lot easier to not rely on overtime than when you're earning 15k a year. Besides which, it's perfectly sound to depend on your basic pay - and that's what was cut here as well.

Not quite. Its all relative. At 40k your taxes are higher, your standards of living are higher, and at the end of the day your bills are higher. If you've come to rely on overtime it won't matter if you're on 40k or 4k.

Can you dial back on the patronisation just a wee tad when you're getting it wrong?

Not really, when you seem to be so stuck on one concept.

Oooooh, subtle jibes. Terribly sorry to have lived on both sides of the management/labour divide and still have the gall not to agree with you, klaz, but that's how it is.

Oh thats your option. Just as its my option to believe that you're having problems recognising whats life in the real world, and whats life in your eyes. <Shrugs> I may be wrong. These boards are never an accurate representation of any poster.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz

Union calls a strike. An Post closes or grinds to almost a halt. All post in and out of Dublin (the Capital) stops. International mail stops also. So here we are when 70-80% of all payments for invoices are sent by post. Income for 3-4 days is halted almost completely. A major damaging circumstance for small to medium sized businesses. (which make up the majority of business in ireland).

Which reminds me, while being offtopic, why it may be considered a public service and in the public domain in some other countries.
The USPS isn't allowed to make a profit for example (last time I checked anyway).

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Never said otherwise bonkey, though I don't think that they bear the majority of the blame in this case.

I'd probably agree. The one caeat I'd say is that when management get screwed enough by unions, they end up fighting back "dirty-like". So the unions get hurt.

The problem is that the unions suddenly get re-described as "the workers" once the management fight back.

You know what I mean - unions screw management. Management screw workers.

I'm fairly sure that that's not how it happened Bonkey - the productivity deal didn't work that way. From an Irish Times letter in last friday's paper:[/b]

Thanks for that. Interestingly, that reads to me like there is almost definitely something "under the table" being dealt with here.

Firstly, if the only benefit the postmen got out of this 10-fold increase in mail was 3% and £500 quid, then where did all this overtime come from that they're losing? And more importantly, why isn't it mentioned in this context as it arose from the productivity deal. The conclusion I would reach is that the overtime was a central part of the agreement, but most likely an unofficial one that neither side really wants to highlight to the public.

A logical conclusion bonkey, but based on a flawed premise relating to the nature of the productivity deals.

I'm not sure. Like I said, that productivity deal to me - as desribed in the article you provided - positively screams of information thats not being widely disclosed about it.

Why did management want to cut numbers in teh first place. Why did management not want to increase the numbers as teh workload increased over the past decade. Why did the unions not insist management hire more people once the workload got to the levels that they are now bemoaning that they had to deal with "for only a 3% payrise and £500" (because we're not mentioning the overtime).

Besides which, the deals were to reduce workers (through redundancy packages) and they were negotiated with the unions - whereas the current demands are nothing like that.

Yes, I accept that. I'm not saying that its entirely the union's (or workers') fault. What I'm saying is that there are too many questions for me to simply agree that this is mostly a problem caused by management. I have a sneaking suspicion that there is still a degree of unions having held management over a barrel for far too long, and now that management are fighting back they are getting uppity.

I would also imagine that if this is the case, then the current offering is far below what management really want to achieve, but given that they would presumably know that fighting this issue at all with the unions would lead to strikes, the best way to get what you want is to start as far below that as possible, and then let the unions "fight back" to a point close to what you wanted.

That way you get what you want, and they feel happy having successfully fought management as much as possible.

Ideally, yes - but unions, as I keep saying, do not deal in ideals. That's not their mandate.

The point I'm making is that by not dealing in ideals, I feel the union are doing their members a disservice. Short-term-objectives are not a good model to base a life on, but thats what unions are effectively doing to their members. "Forget that you will be working for the next 30 years. Only think about this year, and get what you can now. Don't worry if this causes problems in a year or two...we'll worry about that then."

because the demands put forward by An Post do not just eliminate overtime, but eliminate 50% or so of basic pay as well.

I'm still of the opinion that An Post knew that any reasonable offer would be rejected or renegotiated up beyond what they felt was reasonable.

This still reads to me like a classic case of the company taking the only path left to it to actually get somewhere other than where the unions dictate it should go. Yes, its tough on the workers, but if their union have been screwing An Post on their behalf for quite some time, it all makes perfect sense.

And like I said...its just tough that while its unions who screw employers, its workers that get screwed when the employers fight back. Its the one area where unions cannot offer a buffer-level.

Unions deal in today's situation and protect the worker's interests - the company's interests are the responsibility of management, and the system is adversarial in nature and it works, by and large.

But my point is that the well-being of the company is in the worker's interest, within certain limits.

There are occasional cases where it doesn't work,

Yes indeed. And its as often the fault of the union (in my experience) as of management. Normally, its both in roughly equal quantities.

Indeed - it always lies somewhere in the middle - but even the Sunday Business Post editors seem to be agreeing with me that it's a management error (or cynical tactic) and they're not known for sympathising with unions!

I'd quite happily agree with the "cynical tactic", but my reasoning for why it was done would still be inclined to be because of what I outlined above. I think it was cynical because it was the only way to get anything reasonable as an end result.

To be fair JC, in this case they didn't just take away overtime, they took away basic pay - and without negotiation.

Yup. Thats whats telling for my hypothesis. There isn't a semi-state in the country who doesn't know that such an action will lead to a strike immediately, regardless of what the actual decision made was. If you make a decision without the unions, the unions will insist on having a renegotiation, and will strike if its refused. They are probably correct to do so, but by making the first move so draconian, the management are taking the offensive. The unions are no longer negotiating to hold on to something they have, but rather to get back something they've had taken away.

but I am noticing that a large number of the people in here, most of whom are well educated and would qualify more for "management" than "labour", are not appreciating that the unions do have a point and that's why I'm trying to highlight it.

Well, I still believe that this is a problem caused because the unions follow exactly the model you say they do, and have bee too successful at it, leaving management with no choice but to take this cynical approach to finding a more equitable solution.

the union's actions are consistent with that system and true to their mandate. It's management that's ignored the system and caused the bulk of the problem on this occasion.

I disagree. Management may not have ignored the system at all. They may understand the system properly enough to know that starting at a more reasonable point will be a waste of time.

Its an adversarial system - you admit this. You're basically saying that one side is ignoring the system because you choose to view its opening as a fait accompli. I still see it as an opening gambit, because I genuinely do not believe that anyone could even think the union wouldn't strike as a result.

Cynical? Maybe. Harsh? definitely. Ignoring the system? Definitely not - its just the first move of an adversarial conflict. It is the system.


jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
You know what I mean - unions screw management. Management screw workers.

Yes, it does get into a vicious circle rather quickly when people go from an adversarial model to an antagonistic one.

Thanks for that. Interestingly, that reads to me like there is almost definitely something "under the table" being dealt with here.
Firstly, if the only benefit the postmen got out of this 10-fold increase in mail was 3% and £500 quid, then where did all this overtime come from that they're losing? And more importantly, why isn't it mentioned in this context as it arose from the productivity deal. The conclusion I would reach is that the overtime was a central part of the agreement, but most likely an unofficial one that neither side really wants to highlight to the public.

There's a flaw in that logic JC - it requires that the management of An Post know in advance how big the economic boom was going to be. Remember, in '93 when the deal was agreed, the workload was one-tenth of what it is now, and that's why the increas in wages was so low. It was after that that the workload started to increase, and had management then brought in more people, the problem might have been avoided (though the unions would have held them to the new pay levels, it wouldn't have cost as much as the overtime).

I would also imagine that if this is the case, then the current offering is far below what management really want to achieve, but given that they would presumably know that fighting this issue at all with the unions would lead to strikes, the best way to get what you want is to start as far below that as possible, and then let the unions "fight back" to a point close to what you wanted.

Which would imply that the current postal dispute is solely a result of the management's chosen negotiation tactic and the derision being assigned to the unions in this thread would be better directed towards management for not caring about the repercussions of their chosen tactics on other companies.....

The point I'm making is that by not dealing in ideals, I feel the union are doing their members a disservice. Short-term-objectives are not a good model to base a life on, but thats what unions are effectively doing to their members. "Forget that you will be working for the next 30 years. Only think about this year, and get what you can now. Don't worry if this causes problems in a year or two...we'll worry about that then."

Which is certainly true if the employees have tenure and cannot be fired - but the whole point here is that the employees have had their basic pay halved, which means that you can't tell them to focus on the long-term view. And for employees without tenure - well, the short-term is the only logical viewpoint to take, really, isn't it? I mean, if you can be fired tomorrow, what's the point in taking the long-term view of the company's health?

But my point is that the well-being of the company is in the worker's interest, within certain limits.

But where those limits lie is a bone of contention, I think.

Yes indeed. And its as often the fault of the union (in my experience) as of management. Normally, its both in roughly equal quantities.

Agreed. That's a result of human nature, I think.

I'd quite happily agree with the "cynical tactic", but my reasoning for why it was done would still be inclined to be because of what I outlined above. I think it was cynical because it was the only way to get anything reasonable as an end result.

To quote the Post article again though:
"For a company losing €600,000 a week, such a strategy would be regarded by most business people in the private sector as comparable to the Charge of the Light Brigade."

Sean Mac Carthaigh goes on to point out though, that the problem is not so much incompetence in management, as a problem with how the social partnership model is being applied in companies which could be privatised, after the eircom experience:
"Certainly, management and staff across the public sector watched the Eircom saga unfold with open-mouthed jealousy, and have devoted enormous energy to getting a similar deal for themselves.
Civil servants got it in the benchmarking deal, the pension payments for which represent little more than theft from the next generation.

But in companies where privatisation is a possibility, the race is on.

For years, An Post's core business, delivering letters to homes and businesses, was run down. Deliveries got later, and most people knew they could not rely on the post arriving before they left their homes in the morning. This meant that, for example, Irish daily newspapers could not even think about marketing the daily delivery service, so common in other countries. The Saturday delivery was abolished, creating a backlog at sorting offices that affected the Monday mail service. Afternoon deliveries to most areas were abandoned.

Instead, management concentrated on areas likely to generate most profit in the event of a privatisation - express parcel delivery, financial services, e-business solutions, and even consultancy.

It separated itself into business units, and used every trick in the book to establish subsidies for letter deliveries. An example was the decision to deliver only to stand-alone mail boxes at the end of country driveways instead of having the postman come up to the house with the letters. An Post knew the move would be unpopular, and expected it to be over-ruled by the government, but wanted to use the issue to squeeze more of a "universal service" subsidy out of the government in a future privatised An Post.

The unions, led by the Communications Workers' Union (CWU), that had made such huge amounts for staff at Eircom, concentrated on trying to grab 15 per cent of An Post for its members.When the Minister for Communications, Dermot Ahern, refused to rush a bill through the Dáil granting the Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP), An Post workers were outraged, plastering Dublin with posters saying that he had broken his promises, and threatening to run candidates against him in future elections.

At An Post, the fury of the unions and the panic of management are caused by a shared feeling of dread that they may have missed out on the privatisation bonanza.

Management and unions at other stateowned companies, from Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta to CIE, have been less obvious in their motives, but no less vigorous in their pursuit. They want their respective companies structured in such a way that it brings them the maximum gain if they are privatised."

So there is a fair mantle of blame for management here JC, as well as some for the unions.

Its an adversarial system - you admit this. You're basically saying that one side is ignoring the system because you choose to view its opening as a fait accompli. I still see it as an opening gambit, because I genuinely do not believe that anyone could even think the union wouldn't strike as a result.

Indeed - but it'd be nice if those who're slating the unions on this thread would realise that that means that the trouble this is causing other companies is not due to the unions, but to management's chosen and deliberate negotiation tactic.

Indeed - but it'd be nice if those who're slating the unions on this thread would realise that that means that the trouble this is causing other companies is not due to the unions, but to management's chosen and deliberate negotiation tactic

Sparks, the trouble being caused to other businesses is being caused by the Unions & the management of An Post. I agree. *Shock* However, on the other hand, Unions have a history of walk-outs, strikes, etc that all contribute to damaging businesses outside of their own concerns. Surely you can agree that these actions (without any reference to any management) do cause risk for businesses that interact with the organisation affected?

The USPS isn't allowed to make a profit for example (last time I checked anyway).

I dunno, but it would stand to reason that it would be allowed to break even.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
I dunno, but it would stand to reason that it would be allowed to break even.

Yes that's the idea but it's not always possible. Still the public service it provides is necessary and requires oversight/subsidy in the public sector.