Is it time to ban unions?

cdebru

airlines will go where the people are
shannon can not compete with dublin
because nobody will drive from dublin to shannon to catch a flight because it is cheaper
and chances are that shannon will not be able to stay open on its own
and we are saddling dublin airport with a massive debt which they will have to finance by raising charges another hair brain scheme brought to us by seamus brennan and his pd friends
talk sense
why is a monoply ok in the rail sector
because you cant defend the mess that britain made of its rail
well guess what they also made a mess of their bus market
california made a mess of deregulating its electricity market
and our goverment has lost any control it had over a vital piece of our infrastructure
by selling our telecommunications network to private companies
some things are public services and profit should not be a consideration

Raskolnikov

Workers should be offered a pay increase inline with inflation, and/or according to the current market demands for the particular position. If they decide not to accept then maybe they should consider finding a job that can meet their wage demands.

Originally posted by DadaKopf

And anyway, Irish unions militant? As militant as in France or Italy? Hardly.

The strength of the union movement and the inflexibility of working conditions in countries such as the ones you mentioned above are one of the primary reasons for the stagnation of those European economies. If the demands of the union workers are met then it'll mean either an increased tax burden (public owned companies), price increases or unemployment.

As for the ESB workers, it seems to me that they're making a ridiculous claim just so when they get to the bargaining table they'll settle on a portion of what they originally demanded in the hope of appearing reasonable.

billy the squid

I know of one particular large employer in my locality that will not allow unionisation whatsoever. What I would like to know is it legal for companies to forbid union members from working for them.

cdebru

you have a right to join a union as we live in a free country
however this right is not protected in law
so if you lose your job because you joined a union your employer would not have broken the law
your only redress would be an unfair dismissal case
or a rights comissioner
but as far as i know that is not binding on employers
so basically they have you over a barrel
which is why most irish people dont chose not to join a union they are afraid to join

arcadegame2004

Well BillytheSquid, it is sometimes the case that US companies in Ireland offer high salaries in return for such bans. Seems reasonable to me.

cdebru

Well BillytheSquid, it is sometimes the case that US companies in Ireland offer high salaries in return for such bans. Seems reasonable to me

but then your not a very reasonable person

Earthhorse

Employers constnatly bring up the issue of inflation when making price increases i.e. rising wages force them to increase prices to protect the "real" value of their margins.

It seems ironic then that they contribute to inflation by raising prices and thus, the cost of living for employees. By protecting their beloved margins, they ensure that prices would be much higher than otherwise would be the case.

cdebru

inflation is just a fact of life
prices go up wages go up

Raskolnikov

<snip>

Wrong thread.

bobbyjoe

It is more democratic to allow the people the right to choose.

And Unions are fairly democratic organisations aren't the leaders voted in by the membership. Members have a vote wether to strike or not. If more than half of the members vote to strike does that not mean that there is something seriously wrong?

MogwaiFearSatan

"Has the union had it's day? At this stage I'm begininning to think so and that an all-out-ban on unions might be a good idea. I can't remember the last time a union did something positive. "


This is singularly the most stupid, ill-informed statement I’ve read on these boards. if you don't feel that the unions of this county haven't contributed to your current standard of living then I would suggest that you ....

cdebru

This is singularly the most stupid, ill-informed statement I’ve read on these boards. if you don't feel that the unions of this county haven't contributed to your current standard of living then I would suggest that you ....

you hit the nail on the head
it s one of those that you dont want dignify with a response but should not go unchallenged at the same time

The Corinthian

The role of unions is as a counterbalance to management, or more correctly the owners. For example, HR departments represent the best interest of the company, not it’s employees. Principally, HR managers are largely there to facilitate the hiring and firing of employees in an economical and legal manner. Thus without proper representation employees end up being represented by HR managers who will not inform them of anything other than the bare minimum necessary to cover the company legally. This is where unions can and often are very effective, in that they can represent the employee.

The problem with unions however is that many are now bloated and outdated organisations, representing little more than the egos of the union apparatchiks. However, banning worker representation would not be the answer, union reform and modernisation would.

Originally posted by Wicknight
Before you ban unions, ban ridiculus golden handshakes for leaving CEOs, ban bonuses for managment in loss making companies, ban massive downsizing in very profitiable companies, ban inept customer support, ban monopolising mergers etc etc

These are companies, not charities. CEOs often get ridiculous golden handshakes when leaving, because they founded the company at great personal financial risk and hard (and initially unpaid) work. Downsizing very profitable companies will often make them even more profitable. Not all that occurs in Capitalism is simply motivated by greed, and frankly even if it was, so what? Do you think they’re doing it out of a sense of sharing?

Paladin

Of course unions impede justified dismissal of incompetant staff.

Almost everyone has had that teacher or lecturer that is so ridiculuously incompetant that he/she significantly retards a students education in that area. They really cant be fired unless they do something illegal. Being terrible at the job is not reason enough.

This extends beyond education and the public sector. Everyone knows of incompetance in jobs, but unless you are temp staff at something like Tesco its difficult to dismiss someone. A fantastic employee can be fired before an incompetant one if they were hired after the incompetant one and the company has to lay off workers (Last in first out policy is used in most companies).

Unions have their good and their bad points I guess

lucernarian

Banning Trade Unions remins me of Fascism, or more correctly, Totalitarianism.

You cant expect Unions to examine the competence of staff but someone should do that.

Cork

What is laughable is when public service unions think workers deserve a stake in the company.

Why does the same not apply for private sector companys?

Do they see the state as a soft torch.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork

Why does the same not apply for private sector companys?

Don't Ryanair have an employee share ownership scheme?

And isn't it Google have something similar?

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
What is laughable is when public service unions think workers deserve a stake in the company.

Why does the same not apply for private sector companys?

It often does. The most progressive private sector companies often provide workers with a stake in the company via stock awards, stock options or discounted stock purchase schemes.

Originally posted by Cork
Do they see the state as a soft torch.

Never heard of a 'soft torch'. Do you mean one of the rubber ones that the Gardai carry?

Cork

Originally posted by RainyDay
It often does. The most progressive private sector companies often provide workers with a stake in the company via stock awards, stock options or discounted stock purchase schemes.

What have the public sctor workers done to deserve a stake in their company?

Why should the state be expected to hand over up to 15% of a company to the workers?

These workers have already been paid for their labour.

There is a company in te news at the minute - where the union is highlighting the shortfall in the pension fund.

Who does this union expect to pick up the tab?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork


There is a company in te news at the minute - where the union is highlighting the shortfall in the pension fund.

Who does this union expect to pick up the tab?

Enlighten us Cork. Tell us who they expect to pick up the tab. While you're at it, tell us who is responsible for the deficit, and who holds responsibility for the pension fund under the rules drawn up by the trustees of the fund. Inform us of how the ESB pension fund is administered.

Can't do that? Thought so.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bobbyjoe
And Unions are fairly democratic organisations aren't the leaders voted in by the membership. Members have a vote wether to strike or not. If more than half of the members vote to strike does that not mean that there is something seriously wrong?

The Dail has a far larger electorate voting for it than any of the trade-unions, and as far as I am concerned, the trade-union bosses' mandates are inferior to the mandate of our elected governments. Our Government is elected by trade-union and non-trade-union members.

Yes, sometimes trade-unions are wrong to strike, even when the majority of their members votes for this. It is interesting to speculate whether all these votes take place in a secret-ballot situation. Otherwise, more moderate trade-unionists will feel pressured into backing strike action.

I do not deny the need for trade-unions. However, I am fed up of those public-sector trade-unions that seem determined to block not just privatisation, but even the introduction of competition from the private-sector to compete with their companies. The need to remember that 75% of us are not members of trade-unions and that we have rights too.

Trade-unions are losing members due to the public's exasperation at their "strike first-talk later" policies. Some of the trade-unions are headed by tired old men with Arthur Scargill mentalities.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004


It is interesting to speculate whether all these votes take place in a secret-ballot situation. Otherwise, more moderate trade-unionists will feel pressured into backing strike action.

I am unaware of any trade union which does not use a secret ballot when deciding on industrial action. From [url]www.siptu.ie:[/url]

The Shop Steward does not have the power to authorise a work stoppage or any other action likely to lead to a dispute - unless he or she has first got the approval of the Branch Secretary. The Union's Rule Book lays down specific procedures for these situations. And, of course, in any event, the initial decision to take industrial action should be the subject of a secret ballot vote by the members concerned.

For someone who is so opposed to trade unions, you've shown remarkably little knowledge of how they operate. Might I suggest you educate yourself before you continue your ani-union crusade?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The need to remember that 75% of us are not members of trade-unions and that we have rights too.

No they don't. You need to remember that unions exist to protect the pay and conditions of their members. When you start paying a weekly sub to them, then you'll have a say in how they operate.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Cork
What have the public sctor workers done to deserve a stake in their company?

Why should the state be expected to hand over up to 15% of a company to the workers?

These workers have already been paid for their labour.

You can ask exactly the same question and make exactly the same comments about the private sector workers who get stock options and/or stock awards. Same logic applies...

pork99

For me, like most people who are self-employed or work in SMEs, the idea that you get a pay rise on an improvement in working conditions by throwing a wobbly and threatening to stop working is like something from "happy fantasy land". If only it were that easy.

Most people have to sell their labour for a market price. For self-employed people you often have to work at your own expense to get work. Withdrawing your labour would be like cutting your own throat.

To see people in secure well-paid jobs (eg the ESB workers with pension schemes and other benefits many self employed person could not dream of) threatening not to do their jobs and by doing so deny you the facilities you need to make your living (less well paid, not secure, any benefits you have you pay for yourself) your blood fairly boils. It looks like blackmail and extortion, a form of parasitism.

cdebru

Most people have to sell their labour for a market price. For self-employed people you often have to work at your own expense to get work. Withdrawing your labour would be like cutting your own throat.

thats because you are self employed and can set your own wages as you see fit

if you are employed then you have to use everything in your power to make sure you are paid the market price including the threat to withdraw your labour

i have been on strike before and its not something anybody rushes into
unfortunately the first that the general public hear about an industrial dispute is when a strike is threatened the talks that went on for a couple of months or years before that dont make the news its not very interesting untill the general public is about to be affected
strikes are not something any union rushes into they are hard on employees as well
and costly in strike pay most of the time it would be the easy option to not strike and stay in work but then you will be walked all over at the end of the day the only real power that any worker has is the right to withdraw your labour

just another point if you end up on strike you dont get paid and any improvement in
pay can take a long time to make up the loss of wages during the strike
the idea that workers in the public or private sector are chomping at the bit to go out on strike is nonesense
those workers in the esb or whereever have families kids mortgages car loans the same as the rest of us

pork99

Originally posted by cdebru
thats because you are self employed and can set your own wages as you see fit

What-planet-are-you-living-on!?!

I would love to be able to go into a client and say "I want €10,000 for this job or it won't get done - ever". But I can't do that.

If I don't take the work someone down the road will. Even if I take it someone else can undercut me and get the work. It's called a competitive market.

Cork

Originally posted by RainyDay
You can ask exactly the same question and make exactly the same comments about the private sector workers who get stock options and/or stock awards. Same logic applies...

No, they don't.

Many workers in private sector companies have to pay for stock options. They simply don't sit back expecting to get 15% of the company that they work for.

Why are public sector tarde unions aganist the provision of competition and the preservation of monopolies?

These same unions got large pay increases for their members under benchmarking & we see companys like An Post loosing money hand over fist.

cdebru

These same unions got large pay increases for their members under benchmarking & we see companys like An Post loosing money hand over fist.

cork i think you will find that benchmarking did not apply to semistate companies
it was for civil servants teachers nurses etc

also afaik the main reason why an post is losing money is due to the universal service obligation
which means they have to supply service to all areas of the country
unlike private couriers who only take on the more profitable business
also anytime an post go to close down a costly rural post office all the politicians go mad
we cant have it both ways if you want the rural service and local post offices some one has to pay for it
unless you would like someone like gls delivering your post
and if you have ever recieved a parcel through them you will know what i mean

Cork

Originally posted by cdebru

we cant have it both ways if you want the rural service and local post offices some one has to pay for it
unless you would like someone like gls delivering your post

Ireland is such a small country. Yet An Post seems to hiking up the cost of postal delivery to try and cover its costs.

It is said that it costs An Post to collect RTE's licence fee.

Just as well An Post is not the postal provider in australia - How would they cope with such a vast country.

cdebru

yeah cork see you managed to avoid the point about benchmarking
could it be that you waffle with out knowing what your talking about
and your point about it costing an post to collect the tv license is????