National Pay Talks

Darragh29

I wanted to get this off my chest as I think it is one of the most unjust things happening in our country this year. The National Pay Talks have now concluded with the social partners agreeing a few framework agreement that will take us into the next ten years. The two main parties to this agreement are IBEC representing the business community and the ICTU/unions representing workers.

This is the part that I'm having difficulty with: IBEC are essentially controlled by several huge US Multinationals currently operating in Ireland. US multinationals who are quite open about being anti-union, are having a substantial input into the National Pay Talks. These companies have huge weight and are putting their own particular flavour on government policy and legislative change through both their participation in IBEC and also the Irish American Chamber of Commerce.

Through IBEC, these multinationals gladly approach the pay talks with their shopping list and dominate the agenda of IBEC at these talks.

On the other hand, the employees of these multinationals have no representation whatsoever because their employers operate a "zero tolerance" polict towards unions. These employers also refuse to allow any type of collective "in house" discussion in relation to workers rights, terms & conditions, etc. Their manta is always the same, "we choose to deal with employees directly". This means that important issues that employees might have collectively, never get heard.

If these companies do not recognise their employees collectively and do not recognise unions, then they have no place at the National Pay Talks. The outcome is that there is an eneven playing field. These huge companies run the show at the pay talks through IBEC and just turn up to get their shopping list attended to and then their employees are excluded from the whole process by virtue of the refusal of their employers to listen collectively to their employees.

I think this is a travesty in Ireland, that so many workers have no voice whatsoever in relation to their collective working terms & conditions in 2006.

kluivert

Am not a big believer in Unions to be honest. I think they upset the economic competitiveness of a country take GM in the states for example, paying to come to work while there is no work for them, how cna that be right at all.

Level of wages in this country has killed our competitiveness as a nationa for a simple reason - to build a house.

I do agree with the minimum though and this should be done from an economic point of view, not two sides where each side is pulling in the opposite direction from the other.

Everyone is giving out about the cost of living in this country, no one is to blame for that than ourselves who borrowed heavily and demanded ever higher wages to afford the repayments.

You cant look just inside the box but the big picture as a whole. I love this country but its a shame that its one of the worlds best rich/poor country you can find at the moment. People are only ricj because they borrow and they are poor from the borrowing.

Those who believe that there wealth lie in their houses with there €1m e mortgage maybe sitting pretty dont the demand for such houses means higher wage levels and thus a reduction in industry for the country as companies move aboard.

Talk about harvesting while the weather is good and then hang fire till the storm blows over.

shoegirl

The trade unions and the government are partially to blame for this.

The Irish government has consistently blocked, resisted or dragged its heels on EC directives including those for temporary workers and consultation which would give workers greater rights. Yet the unions are happy to work with them despite this. At the same time unions have made little or no effort to redress the lack of representation in the private sector. On the Eirestat website its suggests that representation in Ireland is only 50% of what it would be if compulsory recognition mechanisms exist. (Even the UK have had this since 2000). The reality is that a company can resist consultation even if 100% of employees are union members and that is an injustice that both the government and unions collude with.

As a result I object to this being called a "national" agreement. It is a selective agreement for the elite of the worker body and employers.

Also I'm astounded that IBEC has agreed for social welfare rates to be tied to "average industrial earnings." In an economy where median wages are not recorded and the industrial average is likely to be skewed by a small propertion of very higher earners this effectively means that tying anything to this figure is likely to be a dangerous move.

What should have happened is that welfare should be tied to the minimum wage as this is clearly assessible. Instead we have tied the welfare rates to the highest paid workers whilst leaving out not only lower paid workers, but the hundreds of thousands who will gain nothing from this agreement because they are denied union representation - most of these workers will be driven into social welfare by need, leaving a huger need for migrant labour and thus increasing hardship at a time when it should be falling rapidly. This will rapidly drive up social welfare costs whilst starving the exchequer of income tax, eventually leading to major financial crisis as the exchequer can no longer fund it. Unsurprisingly, employers have agreed to this, as ultimately, they don't need to pay a single cent extra to fund this. The real losers are whatever government gets into power at the next election, as they will be faced with soaring welfare levels at escalating costs. This will surely only hand power straight back to the "most devious of them all" on the next round who can then bleat more nonsense about "how we saved the economy" when in fact they engineered it to fail - but not in their time.

I really do object to the fact that even the unemployed are going to get something out of this without even opening their mouths, while I, as an employee in a non-union company get nothing, have no representation, but end up footing the bill.

Kinetic^

I bloody well hate unions, they're destroying our economy.

If you don't want a sh!t job, get an education, it's as simple as that.


I'm sorry for the anger but it just makes my blood boil!!!!!!

hawker

Keyser Soze 5 wrote:

I bloody well hate unions, they're destroying our economy.

If you don't want a sh!t job, get an education, it's as simple as that.


I'm sorry for the anger but it just makes my blood boil!!!!!!

And you're statment makes my blood boil.

There are plenty of people of this country with no education earning more than people with education. Who do you think you are like? BTW I do have an education but I detest people who think they are better than others because of their education qualifications!!

shoegirl

hawker wrote:

There are plenty of people of this country with no education earning more than people with education. Who do you think you are like? BTW I do have an education but I detest people who think they are better than others because of their education qualifications!!

There are lots of guys walking around building sites who left school at 13, barely able to read or write, but who earn as much as a management accountant and sometimes more!! Its an unfortunate reality with which we have to live, though unlikely to stay around in the long term.

Kinetic^

hawker wrote:

And you're statment makes my blood boil.

There are plenty of people of this country with no education earning more than people with education. Who do you think you are like? BTW I do have an education but I detest people who think they are better than others because of their education qualifications!!

When you start a job, you have to realise where you see yourself in your career in X amount of years and what sort of career porspects it has. So if you end up in say the Gardai, you know that you've got several options to advance. But if you don't and you start crying Blue flu, just to get more cash because you're incompetent, then I think they're taking advantage of having Unions.

I agree with you on the snobbery of education, maybe I put my point across incorrectly.

What I meant by an education was a qualification in their field of expertise, ie. FAS training for electrician, etc.

utopian

shoegirl wrote:

There are lots of guys walking around building sites who left school at 13, barely able to read or write, but who earn as much as a management accountant and sometimes more!! Its an unfortunate reality with which we have to live, though unlikely to stay around in the long term.

Why unfortunate?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pork99

shoegirl wrote:

I really do object to the fact that even the unemployed are going to get something out of this without even opening their mouths, while I, as an employee in a non-union company get nothing, have no representation, but end up footing the bill.

The whole process has created first and second class workers; the non-productive privileged elite being those "working" in the state and semi-state sector (benchmarked pay rises and guaranteed occupational pensions) being carried by the the second class citizen workers who are self-employed or who are PAYE workers in the very much non-unionised and productive private sector.

There's nothing wrong in principle in paying civil servants and other public sector workers a premium - if for that you get greater efficiency and productivity. If it worked that way then in the long run benchmarking could actually be saving us money by leading to more effectiveness from fewer staff. However alongside the run-away pay increases in the public sector has gone a runaway expansion in numbers (is it 20% of the labour force in the state/semi-state sector?) where it looks like it's a means of absorping people who would otherwise be swelling the numbers on the live register.

ronbyrne2005

much more than 20% in state/semi state sure the health service alone has 5% of total workers.

Darragh29

Keyser Soze 5 wrote:

I bloody well hate unions, they're destroying our economy.

If you don't want a sh!t job, get an education, it's as simple as that.


I'm sorry for the anger but it just makes my blood boil!!!!!!

Keyser I used to feel exactly like this until I found myself in an employment situation where we were worked hard but were treated like sh*t, we had no rights, rampant corruption in the workplace was the norm with respect to stuff like promotions & training, if you happened to be sick for even a minimal amount of time you were basically bullied out of your job. Contrary to what you might think, I'm very well educated. I have a university degree in engineering and a number of diplomas. There was nothing wrong with my qualifications that caused a problem and there was nothing wrong with me, there was however something serious wrong with where I worked, and there is no doubt that we needed a union to sort out the problems. I accept that in certain industries, unions have a reputation for protecting the lazy, but equally let me assure you that there are workplaces out there where the employees badly need to protection that a union can offer and help with bringing about what you might call "industrial normality" in the workplace.

In case you think my experience occured in some dodgy back street business operation, the company I worked for is listed in the "100 Best Workplaces in Ireland", and the problems there were not just confined to me and a small bunch of dissatisfied employees, the problem was widespread but the way people dealt with it was to leave their job.

It is so obvious that the government is letting these multinationals run the show at the pay talks. The same multinationals refuse to accept industrial normality in Ireland and then sit down with the "social partners" and dictate what the rest of us will be paid for the next ten years, while their own employees are not even represented at the pay talks!?!?!

The unions should not even come near the table to talk while those that they are speaking with refuse to allow their own employees representation at the pay talks. This is how you would expect unions to react, however unions in this country are not run anymore by the bottom up but rather by top down well paid execs who are in cahoots with Bertie and Co. There is obviously a cosy arrangement in place between the unions and the government, along the lines of, "look lads, we'll consult you guys on everything from the railways to the airports, but you'll have to leave the multinationals alone, that's just the way it is..."

It is a disgrace that these companies are allowed do this, I blame the unions who are supposed to be looking out for the workers, for allowing this situation to develop...

kluivert

Darragh

I believe every employee should have reputation in the workplace, for example as i am an ACCA affiliate and I do not like the treatment from my place of work I report this to the ACCA to whom the employer is registered with the their mis-treatment may lead to their practice certs being revoked.

However the ACCA have no influence on wage levels and do not get involved with wage talks. However they publish annual salary surveys based on ACCA members for different regions of the country.

Your OP discussed the wage talks and your next post discuss the right of presentation in the work place.

I dont agree with unions getting involved in wage talks but however do agree they should intervene in situation that you described in your last post.

If people are unhappy with their wage levels use the feet and move to a job which pays properly. My gf's father has done this and in the last five years has worked his may successful from 35k a year to 60k. So you tell me who getting the better deal.

shoegirl

Darragh29 wrote:

In case you think my experience occured in some dodgy back street business operation, the company I worked for is listed in the "100 Best Workplaces in Ireland", and the problems there were not just confined to me and a small bunch of dissatisfied employees, the problem was widespread but the way people dealt with it was to leave their job.

It is so obvious that the government is letting these multinationals run the show at the pay talks. The same multinationals refuse to accept industrial normality in Ireland and then sit down with the "social partners" and dictate what the rest of us will be paid for the next ten years, while their own employees are not even represented at the pay talks!?!?!

The unions should not even come near the table to talk while those that they are speaking with refuse to allow their own employees representation at the pay talks. This is how you would expect unions to react, however unions in this country are not run anymore by the bottom up but rather by top down well paid execs who are in cahoots with Bertie and Co. There is obviously a cosy arrangement in place between the unions and the government, along the lines of, "look lads, we'll consult you guys on everything from the railways to the airports, but you'll have to leave the multinationals alone, that's just the way it is..."

It is a disgrace that these companies are allowed do this, I blame the unions who are supposed to be looking out for the workers, for allowing this situation to develop...

Some excellent points there. It is collusion between the government, trade unions and the companies themselves. The real blame needs to be placed on the unions and government who allow this to continue (i.e. allowing a group to represent itself on the talks while refusing their employees permission to do so).

I spent over a year on the European Works Council for a large multinational with a small Irish presence and was enlightened by the fact that in almost every single EU country with the exception of the UK and Ireland, union recongition is automatic (in fact it is in the UK since 2000 subject to certain requirements) and ALL of these US multinationals happily accept the law and recognise unions there, but deliberately move operations to the UK and especially Ireland where the law allows them to circumvent union recognition.
This has caused a serious problem where effectively Ireland has been a dumping ground for high-productivity and often low-waged operations as a means of preventing collective bargaining from increasing the costs, while happily accepting them in other countries. In effect the government and TUs have enabled this situation to occur and ignored the problem.

What is now happening is that market forces are taking over and are likely to lead to the shutdown of many of these facilities where practicable as cheaper options become more favourable in the far East and India. Also the end of regional funding and the end of funding of particular types of operation (such as call centres outside of Dublin) is likely to end the relocation of new operations to Ireland. As these companies are largely non-union there is no resistance and the companies simply quietly closed down and go away.

Darragh29

kluivert wrote:

Darragh

I believe every employee should have reputation in the workplace, for example as i am an ACCA affiliate and I do not like the treatment from my place of work I report this to the ACCA to whom the employer is registered with the their mis-treatment may lead to their practice certs being revoked.

However the ACCA have no influence on wage levels and do not get involved with wage talks. However they publish annual salary surveys based on ACCA members for different regions of the country.

Your OP discussed the wage talks and your next post discuss the right of presentation in the work place.

I dont agree with unions getting involved in wage talks but however do agree they should intervene in situation that you described in your last post.

If people are unhappy with their wage levels use the feet and move to a job which pays properly. My gf's father has done this and in the last five years has worked his may successful from 35k a year to 60k. So you tell me who getting the better deal.

Klu, it's not just wages that are thrashed out at the pay talks, everything from social justice to affordable housing, union recognition (of all things!), employment legislation, labour inspectors, etc. I did discuss the pay aspect of the talks in my OP, but I've a problem with these companies and their representative body being given any air-time at the pay talks while they refuse to accept industrial normality and allow their employees a normal consulative role in the workplace couled with union recognition.

I can't agree that people should just move if they are unhappy with wages OR terms & conditions, this just leads to constantly diluted and worsening employment terms.

kluivert

I really dont take note of pay talks to be honest although however I should if I am going to post my opinions on the situation I should however know the facts first.

However just based on wage levels alone, I cant complain to anyone about the crap wages I am on at the moment, but I can move to a job which is better paid.

Like I said already I agree with there being some organisation to look after the welfare of all employees in the work environment but not when it comes to wages.

Can you explain to me why in some state in Amercia in a General Motors factory is there hunderds of staff turning up to work while there is no work for them and getting paid for it, because of a trade union agreement thrashed out in the 80's when car sales where starting to take off.They sit around playing cards, reading the newspaper.

GM are losing money due to a lack of sales and this extra cost of employing non working staff, inwhich they have to lay off other people who are actually "working" in other operational plants such as the Vauxhall plant in England, where they are reducing production of the Astra Model while Toyota which have different employment laws cant produce their cars quick enough.

Darragh29

kluivert wrote:

I really dont take note of pay talks to be honest although however I should if I am going to post my opinions on the situation I should however know the facts first.

However just based on wage levels alone, I cant complain to anyone about the crap wages I am on at the moment, but I can move to a job which is better paid.

Like I said already I agree with there being some organisation to look after the welfare of all employees in the work environment but not when it comes to wages.

Can you explain to me why in some state in Amercia in a General Motors factory is there hunderds of staff turning up to work while there is no work for them and getting paid for it, because of a trade union agreement thrashed out in the 80's when car sales where starting to take off.They sit around playing cards, reading the newspaper.

GM are losing money due to a lack of sales and this extra cost of employing non working staff, inwhich they have to lay off other people who are actually "working" in other operational plants such as the Vauxhall plant in England, where they are reducing production of the Astra Model while Toyota which have different employment laws cant produce their cars quick enough.

That's the other side of the argument and I don't disagree with it, it clearly is a joke. There is a "theory x and a theory y", when it comes to discussing the value of having a union in a workplace. I suppose you could say that theory x says unions protect the lazy and employees are naturaly going to avoid productive work and theory y says a union must exist in a workplace because employers will naturally tend to take advantage of their staff. The best working model is probably somewhere in the middle. I agree that there is unionised workplaces out there where you can't fart but the shop steward is called in and I wouldn't like to work in one of those places. I have to say though that in that context, the fact that staff are basically staging a "sit in", is probably part of a wider dispite that with some comon sense, could be fixed. Why are they not accepting a redundancy??? Is there an employment problem in their area??? I don't know the facts of the ford factory, so I won't pretend to, but I accept your point through, but I think this is the exception more than the norm or is a more extreme example of relations going sour.

shnaek

pork99 wrote:

The whole process has created first and second class workers; the non-productive privileged elite being those "working" in the state and semi-state sector (benchmarked pay rises and guaranteed occupational pensions) being carried by the the second class citizen workers who are self-employed or who are PAYE workers in the very much non-unionised and productive private sector.

There's nothing wrong in principle in paying civil servants and other public sector workers a premium - if for that you get greater efficiency and productivity. If it worked that way then in the long run benchmarking could actually be saving us money by leading to more effectiveness from fewer staff. However alongside the run-away pay increases in the public sector has gone a runaway expansion in numbers (is it 20% of the labour force in the state/semi-state sector?) where it looks like it's a means of absorping people who would otherwise be swelling the numbers on the live register.

Well said. My sentiments exactly. Many incompetant workers hide behind the unions thus depriving the public service in particular of good morale. They should take responsibility, but they won't. They have France and Germany ruined, and they will ruin this country too by the end of this round of benchmarking.

In the past the unions did a fine job protecting workers rights. Now they protect their own interests to the detriment of the majority of hard working Irish people.

As for IBEC having a say - they are equally useless. Their only concern is the short term. The multinationals will up and leave as soon as it becomes uneconomical for them to stay, leaving the rest of us in the private sector to pick up the tab for the nonsense that is social 'partnership'. Who represents the interests of small Irish indigenous employers? Or do we have any of those left?

I have friends who work hard in the public service and they are sick about the way things work. They see others getting equally rewarded for sitting on their asses and doing nothing. It is bad for morale. We are going to be in the same shambolic state until the unions grow up and start working for the benefit of those who work hard. If they cared about the country they would be fighting for the rights of hard working people and not mollycoddling those who sit there and count the days until their next pay cheque.

Pity our government is a lapdog to the mobilised minority instead of the hard working majority.

Darragh29

shnaek wrote:

Well said. My sentiments exactly. Many incompetant workers hide behind the unions thus depriving the public service in particular of good morale. They should take responsibility, but they won't. They have France and Germany ruined, and they will ruin this country too by the end of this round of benchmarking.

In the past the unions did a fine job protecting workers rights. Now they protect their own interests to the detriment of the majority of hard working Irish people.

As for IBEC having a say - they are equally useless. Their only concern is the short term. The multinationals will up and leave as soon as it becomes uneconomical for them to stay, leaving the rest of us in the private sector to pick up the tab for the nonsense that is social 'partnership'. Who represents the interests of small Irish indigenous employers? Or do we have any of those left?

I have friends who work hard in the public service and they are sick about the way things work. They see others getting equally rewarded for sitting on their asses and doing nothing. It is bad for morale. We are going to be in the same shambolic state until the unions grow up and start working for the benefit of those who work hard. If they cared about the country they would be fighting for the rights of hard working people and not mollycoddling those who sit there and count the days until their next pay cheque.

Pity our government is a lapdog to the mobilised minority instead of the hard working majority.

There is defo a probem with the unions in this country. When I approached one and said I wanted to join but was in a workplace that was a US multinational and non-unionised, they just laughed at me. Eventually I got to join but got no help or suport whatsoever in setting up the infrastructure we needed to get others taken into membership, there was in fact no purpose to my membership to I left. And the same union cries out that it is losing memers left right and centre.

I personally blame David Begg of the ICTU, he was in fighting form the other day on his way into the pay talks saying "employers will just have to pay up, we know they have never had it so good". Then he sits at a table with a body who's controlling members refuse to recognise him!?!?! As far as Irish unions go, this guy is at the top of the tree and it falls to him to make sure he is not making a muppet out of himself by talking sh*te about "reforms" and "10% pay increases" and there are a huge bulk of workers out there who are paying for all this but have no representation whatsoever!?!?!

shoegirl

Its an unfortunate reality with which we have to live....

Why unfortunate?

Its unfortunate if you are somebody who worked and studied to get into an industry which is no longer high paid (e.g. manufacturing and IT) while watching those who took formerly low paid or semi-skilled roles which have now become high demand (e.g. building trade and some professions).

On the other hand many of these industries both weak and strong and cyclical and the tides may turn in all cases.

There is defo a probem with the unions in this country. When I approached one and said I wanted to join but was in a workplace that was a US multinational and non-unionised, they just laughed at me. Eventually I got to join but got no help or suport whatsoever in setting up the infrastructure we needed to get others taken into membership, there was in fact no purpose to my membership to I left. And the same union cries out that it is losing memers left right and centre.

I personally blame David Begg of the ICTU, he was in fighting form the other day on his way into the pay talks saying "employers will just have to pay up, we know they have never had it so good". Then he sits at a table with a body who's controlling members refuse to recognise him!?!?! As far as Irish unions go, this guy is at the top of the tree and it falls to him to make sure he is not making a muppet out of himself by talking sh*te about "reforms" and "10% pay increases" and there are a huge bulk of workers out there who are paying for all this but have no representation whatsoever!?!?!

Agreed not only have they no representation, but they will not receive a single penny of the 10%. Many will have to fight for rises of even half of that. I've worked in companies where the highest performers only got rises to match inflation. Weaker performers and those not in political favour or less good at asserting themselves had to be content with pathetic rises (and in most cases starting from salaries as little as 21k).

They [the unions] have France and Germany ruined, and they will ruin this country too by the end of this round of benchmarking.

Agreed. Self interest at the expense of a large body of non-unionised workers who end up footing the bill will only cause increasing hostility towards unions who will not get public support when the time comes to cut back. By that stage the unions themselves will be much weaker since their membership is stalling due to lack of recognition mechanisms. This will ultimately castrate the unions and only end permanently damaging working conditions.

Klu, it's not just wages that are thrashed out at the pay talks, everything from social justice to affordable housing, union recognition (of all things!), employment legislation, labour inspectors, etc. I did discuss the pay aspect of the talks in my OP, but I've a problem with these companies and their representative body being given any air-time at the pay talks while they refuse to accept industrial normality and allow their employees a normal consulative role in the workplace couled with union recognition.

Precisely, and worse again since non-workers are being "represented" by CORI (who in reality tend to give a biased view of the situation of social welfare dependents more based on Jesuitical ideas of social justice than reality) - the most insidious and dangerous part of this agreement is tying the social welfare rate to "average industrial wages" rather than the minimum wage - which effectively guarantees social welfare recipients minimum income levels whilst leaving out a huge body of low paid workers who are increasingly likely to end up a) footing the bill or b) hugely increasing the already growing numbers on welfare who are likely to be better off than the low paid.

Guaranteeing that work doesn't pay is part of the problem that plunged Germany into high unemployment, and even there (and in progressive countries like Sweden) social welfare has been cut back to prevent a scenario developing where people can opt out of the world of work because welfare dependency is more rewarding. Yet we are creating such a scenario in Ireland!

What the "partners" are generating is a win-lose scenario where some workers and employers gain at the expense of others, which in fact is shoring up problems for the future.

TempestSabre

At a time when we have practially zero unemployment, apparently plenty of jobs and high wages, why work in a place thats doesn't allow unions or at least offers annual increments or half decent wages? Unions only represent the majority of their membership, not everyone, and if you don't join one how can you expect to get the benefits of one? Obvously if a unions objectives don't reflect your own, switch to one that does. The idea that union membership = having a crap job and being uneducated is inane. Theres obviously all types of unions at all levels. The workplace, public and private is not fair, and theres all levels of ability and competency in both.

I'm not a bit fan of unions, but you'll find where they exist, the conditions of employment are better even fairer then where they don't exist. Obvously higher wages and better conditions may impact on profits. However if we had a major problem with companies being unprofitable, and thus failing would we not see higher unemployment?

Its hard to argue against pay agreements that match inflation when theres full employment, and the country and govt is awash with money.

shoegirl

TempestSabre wrote:

At a time when we have practially zero unemployment, apparently plenty of jobs and high wages, why work in a place thats doesn't allow unions or at least offers annual increments or half decent wages?

Because only 1/3 of companies accept unions and 50% of these are in the public sector, of which very few positions are available under open competition and many are professionals only. This leaves only a tiny number of open positions, which are extremely competitive. Much of the small number of positions which are open to the public are potentially very poorly paid and in local authorities which means you have to live there or be willing to live there in order to apply.

I'm not sure of what the exact figure for the civil service is now, but last time my sister applied she was 1000th or something out of 4-5,000!

The private sector is different, but again much of the unionised jobs are in older companies with limited openings for new staff. With the current industrial meltdown this is where membership is falling most rapidly.

In a normal economy these companies would be replaced by new unionised comapnies, however the current laws allow them to be replaced by union-hostile companies and so membership is falling outside the public sector.

TempestSabre

I'm unclear as to what are you arguing for. That unions should be less involved in industry and pay agreements? Or that there should be no pay agreements? If theres no pay agreements what happens with people in these companies that don't have unions? Should employees in these companies be represented? If so if not by unions by whom?

Can companies stop you from joining a union? I didn't think they could. AFAIK They can choose not to recognise or interact with them but not stop you joining them. You might argue that if you are a minority in a dispute then the unions won't represent your best interests. Thats true. Thats the case of the civil servant unions on decentalisation vs the staff of state agencies in the same union. Its a majority vote that gets supported.

I still say that if you are unhappy with the terms and conditions of your employment you should move jobs. Doing that, apparently, has never been easier.

shoegirl

TempestSabre wrote:

Can companies stop you from joining a union? I didn't think they could. AFAIK They can choose not to recognise or interact with them but not stop you joining them. You might argue that if you are a minority in a dispute then the unions won't represent your best interests.

Theoretically you have a constitutional right to join a union but I have heard employers mention that they took a "dim view" of union membership. In theory if you are treated less favourably its against your consitutional rights, but in reality most workers don't want to find out the hard way if they are going to get a hard time at work. In any case most of the unions (with the notable exception of IBOA and the Ryanair pilots) have no interest in fighting recognition battles.

What we need are:
1. Unions who are interested in representing ALL workers, not just a select few
2. Unions willing to engage in relationship building with new employers many of whom will be hostile to union agreements - again only IBOA has done this
3. A compulsory union recognition mechanism like that the Uk Labour party brought in in 2000, which forces employers to engage with unions if more than a certain percentage of employees join a particular union
4. Harsh and immediate actions against employers who intimidate employees into not joining unions or who persecute those who do

Then talks like last week's would be meaningful and inclusive, which they are not at present.

I don't know why you think its so easy to just walk into a new job in a union-represented environment, from what I hear its extremely difficult, even at the moment. Most of the jobs I get pestered by agencies for are paying between 60-80% of my current salary, only about 10% pay significantly more.

Darragh29

shoegirl wrote:

Theoretically you have a constitutional right to join a union but I have heard employers mention that they took a "dim view" of union membership. In theory if you are treated less favourably its against your consitutional rights, but in reality most workers don't want to find out the hard way if they are going to get a hard time at work. In any case most of the unions (with the notable exception of IBOA and the Ryanair pilots) have no interest in fighting recognition battles.

What we need are:
1. Unions who are interested in representing ALL workers, not just a select few
2. Unions willing to engage in relationship building with new employers many of whom will be hostile to union agreements - again only IBOA has done this
3. A compulsory union recognition mechanism like that the Uk Labour party brought in in 2000, which forces employers to engage with unions if more than a certain percentage of employees join a particular union
4. Harsh and immediate actions against employers who intimidate employees into not joining unions or who persecute those who do

Then talks like last week's would be meaningful and inclusive, which they are not at present.

I don't know why you think its so easy to just walk into a new job in a union-represented environment, from what I hear its extremely difficult, even at the moment. Most of the jobs I get pestered by agencies for are paying between 60-80% of my current salary, only about 10% pay significantly more.

I couldn't agree more Shoegirl. One thing about companies that are anti-union, is that they tend to be extremely closed working environments and operate as a law unto themselves. I had an experience of this in a workplace before, if you had a serious grievance, you went to the HR Rep, who was a company employee, and was basically a laundryman for the company. There was absolutely no effort made to actually sort out the problem or correct any wrong that you might have suffered, the whole emphasis was on covering up any wrong that might have occured on the part of your manager and sanitising the situation should the issue ever "go legal".

If you wanted to go to a Rights Commissioner or the LRC with an issue or to use any part of the impartial and inherently fair industrial relations machinery made available by the state, something that is perfectly normal in any unionised workplace, you would be tormented out of your job.

Instead, anti-union employers, and I single out US multinationals in this regard (because they engage with unions at the pay talks and tell us how it will be for the next 10 years in Ireland through their front organisation IBEC, while ruthlessly culling any staff who wish to join a union and benefit from representation in their workplace), see unions and also the industrial relations machinery provided by the state, as some sort of sinister threat to their operations in Ireland.

I blame unions for losing sight of what their mission is all about: representing workers who badly need representation. I would go as far to say that the unions are actually corrupted today by the management at the top, who have lost touch with those on the ground. Shoegirl is right, this will all come back to haunt us when the US multinationals decide to set up shop in India and the rest of us are left to pick up the tab...

TempestSabre

TempestSabre wrote:

At a time when we have practially zero unemployment, apparently plenty of jobs and high wages, ...

Note "apparently"...;)

So are we arguing for better unions?

shoegirl

TempestSabre wrote:

Note "apparently"...;)

So are we arguing for better unions?

In my view, more representative and effective unions.
And also more inclusive talks - or stop calling them "national agreements" as they are highly selective.

Not only is Darragh correct in pointing out the total persecution of anybody seen as "disloyal" to a company, but the refusal to allow greater controls by IBEC suggests to me that they prefer the unions themselves to "police" employment rights, which of course gives a free hand to anybody union-hostile group to totally evade employment standard compliance.

The big problem is, as Darragh rightly points out, the fact that employers are allowed onto these talks who refuse representation to their employees.