EYE cinema strike

GalwayEd45

actually, no I'm neither an employer or disgruntled, but your inference has proved that an employer could be burned by unions butting their noses into companie's business.

I'm just a regular hardworking guy and my employers very clearly recognise this. If the people involved in this strike were equally hardworking, then they would be rewarded. But their obviously just a bunch of lazy asses looking for a free raise without having to put in their fair share of graft like the vast majority of workers do.
I have nothing against unions, I just don't like the way they operate, forcing people to join by creating a us v's them situation and that's cowardly.

Listen its a free country, but its always the customer that looses out. so don't buy into their propaganda.

craziemom

"your inference has proved that an employer could be burned by unions butting their noses into companie's business."

By this statement you're saying that employers have the right to do whatever they so wish within their company/business. so the government legislations and legal rights encouraged by the unions are just their front to ruin the lives of people who choose to run a business?

you're obviously a very lucky person to work for a decent employer and i hope you never have to fight for anything but not every employee is as lucky as you. can you honestly believe that every employee in the eye cinema is a lazy ass who hasn't worked hard enough to deserve minimum wage, bank holiday entitlements and health and safety training?

Obviously the customers of the eye cinema are not loosing out as most people have had no idea of the difficulties the employees have faced. up to now that is when industrial action is being taken after 2 and a half years!!!!

GalwayEd45

With respect, That's just a load of commie rant.

If you have so much respect, why don't you just move to China, it's obvious your biased in fact i wouldnt be suprised if you were ione of the ringleaders in this sting.

of course the customers are going to lose out, where do you think the increased overhead is going to come from?
Business owners already consume so many expenditure, just think of insurance, employers prsi (that's going towards u the worker), they can't do anything but pass on the increases to the customer and it will be your fault when the public turns against you. They don't care about your trivial attempts to save face, they want to sit down and enjoy films in a beautiful biulding provided by the owner.
Whose generous? Whose greedy? You decide.

the_syco

GalwayEd45 wrote:

This country would be much better off if employees realised how lucky they are to have a secure wage. Its' not like they are digging trenches or building roads or have dangerous jobs to begin with i seriously doubt anyone could injure thenselves shovilling popcorn.

It's not secure. Only public jobs are secure, and most cinemas will have a fairly high turn-over rate.

Also, without proper eye cover (luckily I had glasses), you can get severly injured. None of the staff were ever given safety goggles when working at the popcorn machine, but 3 people got hot seeds spit at them, into their eyes, from the popper. This resulted in them having to goto hostipal, at their own expense, on their own time off.

GalwayEd45 wrote:

If the people involved in this strike were equally hardworking, then they would be rewarded.

You're having a f**king laugh, aren't you? A raise is not your right. You can be paid minimum wage for as long as the company wants.

=-=

Oh, and whilst I was working in the cinema (not EYE), the prices went up twice. We still brought in the most people, made the most profit, and we still stayed on the minimum wage (€8.64 at the time).

the raven

i really don't think we should waste any more brain power or typing space on an intelligent response to some incredibly ignorant "ranting".

craziemom

GalwayEd45, you're right in saying that the money for increased wages has to come from somewhere but how is it that your employer can afford to pay your prsi, holiday entitlements, insurance and pay rises without passing those increases on to the customer? the truth is they cant and it's the same for every businessman alive but most manage to do just fine and still keep their customers happy and well cared while doing the same for their staff!

Take yourself for example, you're obviously happy in your job therfore making you want to stay in your position. if you weren't recieving pay rises and holiday pay would you be half as quick to defend your employer and batter the people of the eye cinema trying to gain what you have already so easily recieved?

GalwayEd45

fare play to u raven,

keep preaching to the converted.

Go on and stay in the cult of SIPTU keep recruiting more members like a little pyramid scheme keep making money for them i feel sorry for you cos youre playing into their game thats niave and u deserve to get fired for that alone.

case closed.

as for syco, im sorry that u got injured in work, but u cant blame management for being careless now can u.

U were obviously given training how about putting it to good use. Who do u expect to pay for your medical expenses?? The cinema? Come on, they have to cover u being a man down, more hassle for them because of your incompetense.

Its time workers owed up to there own responsibilities. Theres no such thing as a feree ride if you stayed on minimum wage then thats what u deserve dont go getting unions as muscle grow a backbone and work hard anyone who cant get promoted doesnt deserve to.

Where the hell is everyone am i the only person who feels this way or am i on a coference call to siptu here??

mark.leonard

Having known quite a few Eye workers I have a pretty good idea of the work they do and the working conditions. The management have a variety of deficiencies, but such is working in minimum wage jobs, if you want better managers you'd need to move to a better job, but lets face it managers can be your main source of aggravation no matter where you work. Victimisation of employees by managers is clearly wrong and everything should be done to ensure this doesn't continue; that being said it always has done and will continue to happen in minimum wage jobs the world over.

My stance on the strike however is very certainly pro: The Eye is not meeting pay criteria for the industry and thereby breaking labor law, I am amazed that this has been allowed to continue, surely you could raise that with the appropriate bodies and get some action taken against the eye? (or maybe I am being naiive here also)

Naiive on that front I may be, but two workers systematically ousted when they attempted to set up unionisation, whatever your stance on the union itself might be, this is plainly another breach of Law

Freedom of Association and Labour Law wrote:

RIGHT TO FORM AND JOIN UNIONS

Ireland’s Constitution, Article 40.6.1(iii), guarantees the “right of citizens to form” unions and associations. Irish law does not limit with the number, form, or the type of possible unions; unions have a right to control their internal affairs without government interference. Ireland’s employment laws apply equally to both nationals and legally resident non-nationals. Thus, there are no bars for legal residents to participate in any aspect of union affairs.

and I am NOT so naiive to believe this to be a coincidence.

skelliser

GalwayEd45 wrote:

Go on and stay in the cult of SIPTU keep recruiting more members like a little pyramid scheme keep making money for them i feel sorry for you cos youre playing into their game thats niave and u deserve to get fired for that

cult of SIPTU?? ,pyramid scheme!!, MAKING MONEY FOR THEM??
what is this nonsense!!!

GalwayEd45 what kind of work are you in?


from reading this thread it seems that the eye cinema are breaking some labour laws, END OF STORY, the staff have the legal right to challenge this.

firing someone for being a member or trying to set up a union is a very serious offence, not being paid for bank holidays or sundays, bullying and other things mentioned build up a bad image, although i cant prove any of these

in my opinion its greed on the owners part more then anything

the raven

GalwayEd45 wrote:

fare play to u raven,

keep preaching to the converted.

Go on and stay in the cult of SIPTU keep recruiting more members like a little pyramid scheme keep making money for them i feel sorry for you cos youre playing into their game thats niave and u deserve to get fired for that alone.

case closed.

i'm unemployed, and i've never been a part of a union. doesn't mean i don't think people shouldn't stand up for their goddamn rights.
for all we know you're probably one of the management from the eye trying to feed misinformation and discolour the argument of the employees, you are venom, infecting intelligent and rational thought. but get this, your own typical and obvious ignorance is the anti-venom in itself. nuff' said.

SimpleSam06

mark.leonard wrote:

The Eye is not meeting pay criteria for the industry and thereby breaking labor law

The Eye can pay anything it wants, right down to minimum wage, and be perfectly legal in doing so. You can pay professional programmers minimum if you like, same for doctors and accountants. Its another story whether or not they will get workers at those rates. Industry standard doesn't mean legally binding.

For unskilled work like in cinemas, you could be replaced by a half dozen Polish workers who will be delighted to step up and take your jobs. Hell, manangement could keep them permanently in "training" and pay less than minimum. Thats what a lot of hotels already do. All above board and legal.

mark.leonard wrote:

the truth is they cant and it's the same for every businessman alive but most manage to do just fine and still keep their customers happy and well cared while doing the same for their staff!

Here you're making the mistake of assuming all businesses are the same. They are not. Some businesses are closer to the edge than others, and raising prices may not be an option for them. I already mentioned that I have great difficulty seeing how the Eye could even cover rent in a place like that, never mind everything else, power, public liability insurance, supplies, rates, etc.

Now while it won't bankrupt the parent company, or shouldn't anyway, thats no reason why they can't close down a non performing branch of their operations. Probably as it stands the only reason why its open is its less of a liability to be taking in some money rather than paying off debts with no money coming in.

Unions served a vital purpose at the start and middle of the last century, when workers were abused by employers in every way conceivable, but we have seen many unfortunate incidents recently where they went far beyond what they were supposed to.

An example would be teachers and nurses unions riding the public finances straight off a cliff. You hear quotes from nurses on the radio like "why would anyone not buy a beemer" and similar nonsense. We'll be dealing with the fallout from those deals for the next twenty years.

So while we wouldn't be where we are today without unions (the recognition that workers are part of a business, not property of a business), they can be responsible for more damage than their employers ever were, economically speaking.

Mitch Connor

3greenrizla's wrote:

lol, I am going to rob that:D

like altered said... I am all for workers rights and all that, but the cinema is surly casual enough work, we have all done sh*t jobs, but, like altered121 said now we can just leave.

oh, & you shouldn't have posted saying it was nothing to do with you.


as for crossing the picket line, sure, ya cant be doing that....



& that is outside the cinema aswell

only one thing springs to mind..........A THEMED PROTEST:D

Heh - that cinema closed down a few weeks ago

mark.leonard

SimpleSam06 wrote:

The Eye can pay anything it wants, right down to minimum wage, and be perfectly legal in doing so. You can pay professional programmers minimum if you like, same for doctors and accountants. Its another story whether or not they will get workers at those rates. Industry standard doesn't mean legally binding.

They can and they do, reading my post again you will see that I am not complaining about them paying minimum wage, although I mention it a couple times, the issue is with other basic pay criteria which they are not meeting in breach of labor law.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

For unskilled work like in cinemas, you could be replaced by a half dozen Polish workers who will be delighted to step up and take your jobs. Hell, manangement could keep them permanently in "training" and pay less than minimum. Thats what a lot of hotels already do. All above board and legal.

Again not the issue, employ any folk you like, nobody is complaining about that the issue is as I stated above. I look forward to your rebuttal on the actual issue and not your perception of it.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Here you're making the mistake of assuming all businesses are the same. They are not. Some businesses are closer to the edge than others, and raising prices may not be an option for them. I already mentioned that I have great difficulty seeing how the Eye could even cover rent in a place like that, never mind everything else, power, public liability insurance, supplies, rates, etc.

Now while it won't bankrupt the parent company, or shouldn't anyway, thats no reason why they can't close down a non performing branch of their operations. Probably as it stands the only reason why its open is its less of a liability to be taking in some money rather than paying off debts with no money coming in.

You make a fair point about businesses and the varying profit margins, that is all well and good, but as far as I am aware there is no mention on labor law of allowing firms not making a large enough profit to abuse their workers, I am sure this is not what you are alluding to, though at times it does sound like it.

Granted if the Eye is as strapped as you believe then it may have to close down if the workers are granted their basic salaries, but again that is not the point, they are open now and breaching labor law and this can not be continued, the Eye workers are within their rights and well entitled to protest this and from where I sit that is worthy of support, not of scathing comments on how they should be lucky to be so abused.

SimpleSam06

mark.leonard wrote:

Again not the issue, employ any folk you like, nobody is complaining about that the issue is as I stated above. I look forward to your rebuttal on the actual issue and not your perception of it.

Oho, right so, why don't you clarify for us what "basic pay criteria" are not being met. If they are not paying overtime when its due, unsociable hours etc., then they are in breach of the law, and there are well established channels to deal with companies like that. Is that what you are talking about?

mark.leonard wrote:

but as far as I am aware there is no mention on labor law of allowing firms not making a large enough profit to abuse their workers

As far as I can see the main issue here is crap management. Also who said they are making any profit? Keeping the place open, as I pointed out, may simply make it less of a liability in the short to mid term.

mark.leonard wrote:

Granted if the Eye is as strapped as you believe then it may have to close down if the workers are granted their basic salaries,

Hold on there just a minute. Is the Eye paying less than minimum wage or something? Because thats the only wage anyone is obligated to give anyone, regardless of industry.

mark.leonard wrote:

but again that is not the point, they are open now and breaching labor law and this can not be continued,

Can you specifically tell us exactly what your complaints are, because I'm having a hard time pinning most of them down.

mark.leonard wrote:

the Eye workers are within their rights and well entitled to protest this and from where I sit that is worthy of support, not of scathing comments on how they should be lucky to be so abused.

Although some posters might have been harshly critical of unions in general, I am merely trying to get to the bottom of it.

If you didn't want it debated, you shouldn't have posted on the internet, now, should you?

galvianlord

to the two individuals who are at the heart of the dispute: for what reason exactly were you fired/suspended, for surely that is at the crux of the matter!?

It can hardly have been purely for membership of a union, as the EYE's owners have union members in their employ elsewhere, myself being one! However both yourselves and SIPTU have portrayed it as the reason for your dismissal in this forum and in the media in general! For my own part I doubt very much that that is the reason, and ask again why exactly were you fired/suspended?

Could SIPTU possibly have any other issues with this employer, outside of a number of members in the EYE, for it and its members to conduct this campaign in such a public manner? One wonders, if it is missing certain subscriptions!?

I also note their positive contribution to the disabled community in the 02 Awards it has won; however this now seems to be sneered at or twisted to suit their ends in the press statement by SIPTU, for shame!

mark.leonard

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Oho, right so, why don't you clarify for us what "basic pay criteria" are not being met. If they are not paying overtime when its due, unsociable hours etc., then they are in breach of the law, and there are well established channels to deal with companies like that. Is that what you are talking about?

In short, yes. I thought my points were clear, apologies if that was not the case. The Eye are not paying for unsociable hours and a few other basic wage requirements of Irish Labor Law.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

As far as I can see the main issue here is crap management. Also who said they are making any profit? Keeping the place open, as I pointed out, may simply make it less of a liability in the short to mid term.

The crap management as far as I can see is distracting the younger workers there who haven't the experience to know that such is life.
I stated they may have to close it down, simply so you could see that I wasn't arguing from the point of view of all the millions I think they are making, that was not my point.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Hold on there just a minute. Is the Eye paying less than minimum wage or something? Because thats the only wage anyone is obligated to give anyone, regardless of industry.

yes, see at the start of this post.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Can you specifically tell us exactly what your complaints are, because I'm having a hard time pinning most of them down.

Done!

SimpleSam06 wrote:

If you didn't want it debated, you shouldn't have posted on the internet, now, should you?

No problem with being debated, simply mis understood, hopefully this post has cleared it up.

SimpleSam06

mark.leonard wrote:

In short, yes. I thought my points were clear, apologies if that was not the case. The Eye are not paying for unsociable hours and a few other basic wage requirements of Irish Labor Law.

Okay well that makes a lot more sense, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't it be better to go to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment rather than a union, however? It will have to go through them anyway, in the end...

kamakiman

Well Im afraid I cant go into much detail due to legal reasons but at the end of these proceedings it will become quite evident that they created a trumped up charge to get rid of myself as I had started to unionise the Eye.

The main thrust of the quote regarding the o2 awards was to outline how the "wonderfull staff" of the eye are treated by the employer and was not an attempt to "sneer" at the o2 award itself.If they say we are that wonderful then how about some bonuses or a wage scale, or how about abiding by Labour Law in this instance pay on Sundays and unsociable hours as outlined in the Organisation of the Working Time Act 1997?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0020/index.html

Wompa1

Are you actually entitled to over time on Sundays and after 11pm?, if so how much cus I'm owed some god damn back pay if you are!...Galway seems pretty dire for retail and part time work..I've worked in a few places and they've all been terrible, I've had friends work in alot of other places and only one actually like his place of work..Clinch your fists and resists brother!

galvianlord

i really do think it is too easy to hide behind "legal reasons"!

What's with everyone taking things at face value, you were both sacked or suspended, does anyone else not think there may be a bit of disgruntled past employee about all of this!? I challenge u to say categorically that it was because of union membership!!! besides that, there are only a small number of employees involved in this dispute, is it not true to say that the rest (a family member of mine included) who are embarrassed by your actions? 'trumped up charges', indeed, it sounds to me like you were fired for perfectly valid reasons!

As for describing the owners as 'corporate monsters' as one of the earlier posts did, rubbish! thats more applicabale to Ward Anderson adn the omniplex, who once held a near monopoly on cinemas in ireland, that is until the eye and others took them on! the eye as a galway owned and operated cinema is a great resource to the city and contributes much to its cultural life as Michael D acknowledged on GBFM this afternoon!

so when all this dies away and the eye is still there and operating, will you come back and then let us know the reason as to why you were dismissed?

ToxicNomad

GalwayEd45 wrote:

they should count themselves lucky to have a job in the first place. The owner did them a favour at great personal financial risk to offer them a place of work to begin with.

A cinema needs a certain amount of staff to run efficiently.That amount of staff should roughly be the same every week therefore the wages should work out roughly the same every week.So i dont see how hiring new staff when the wage output Should be the same every week could contirbute to "a great personal finacial risk" for the owner.

GalwayED45 wrote:

Its' not like they are digging trenches or building roads or have dangerous jobs to begin with i seriously doubt anyone could injure thenselves shovilling popcorn.

Eulrin wrote:

manual handling training was arranged only when a member of staff severely damaged their back

35mm reels when packaged with 4-5 reels p/box can weigh up to 20KGs and are awkward to carry! So for someone who wouldnt work out thats pretty god damn heavy!!
Not to mention when dealing with popcorn you have alot more to worry about than shovelling. e.g water and oil past boiling point (thats +100 Degrees)
Intensley hot Kettles or Kerns and projectile seeds that
will burn and leave a scar or worse cause blindless.

GalwayEd45 wrote:

thats whats wrong with the celtic tiger economy, - greedy staff always looking out for themselves, not realisuing they could bankrupt a person over it.

Greed extends to the highest power so by making a statement like that leads me to assume you are a manager of sorts who also has a gluttonous taste for money and power and are in fear of losing it! And if so then you should be more concerned with that then this debacle here,unless of course you yourself are directly involved.

Galway45 wrote:

Anyone who knows anything about the history of union's know that they are nothin but a front for bullie's and gangsters unlike the diligent and hardworking people who keep the economy working.an employer could be burned by unions butting their noses into companie's business.

the majority of those diligent and hardworking people who keep the economy running are those who are paid minimum wage!
A union represents the staff of a business so if the union so go and but their noses into the companies business then the employer should be more concerned about the welfare of his staff in order to ensure better business.

An investigation handed down! why was that? it should have been handled by the person wo initially discovered this discrpency and investigated by him/her and if company policy to be done so in conjunction with the highest authoritive figure of the establishment!

A staff member getting suspended on the day he unveils himself as a shop steward........conincidence or connection??


I dont intend to single you out galwayED45 but every other poster on this thread are merely giving accounts of what may or may not have happened in the eye over the past two years and all you have done is left Condescending,Vulgar and Marxist insults for people who at the end of the day are "not" looking for a raise or trying to further their egos or bankrupt a company. They are looking for what is within irish law finacially owed to them,Justice to be brought against those who may have commited harrassement in any form i.e bullying,physical or verbal etc. and a body to represent them as a whole

GalwayED45 wrote:

If you like the eye you shouln't feel compelled to boycott it because of a few greedy upstarts trying to maipulate and bully their employers.

they should count themselves lucky to have a job in the first place. The owner did them a favour at great personal financial risk to offer them a place of work to begin with. They are putting all their colleagues job at risk now to further their egos and personal grips against the management their.

This country would be much better off if employees realised how lucky they are to have a secure wage. Its' not like they are digging trenches or building roads or have dangerous jobs to begin with i seriously doubt anyone could injure thenselves shovilling popcorn.

thats whats wrong with the celtic tiger economy, - greedy staff always looking out for themselves, not realisuing they could bankrupt a person over it.

i mean its that egotistical,patronizing magngerial attitude that represses staff morale in the workplace!

galvianlord

again we have only the past employee's view on things, employees who were sacked! we have only their word that the EYE is violating the working time act!

just to point out the EYE in their public statement of yesterday's Galway First deny this!

it's pretty obvious that alot of this is being stoked by 'one-post wonders' who must have a hidden agenda as alot of posts are anti-EYE, and in some cases defamatory (mods should take note)!

god everyone is so bolshie, so for the sake of balance here follows the relevant section:

The show will go on at the Eye Cinema in Wellpark despite staff going on strike next week. However, management staunchly deny any unfair treatment
of staff. In a statement released last Saturday the Eye Cinema management say they are “dismayed at the possibility of industrial action by a minority of staff members”.

This comes as Siptu members voted in favour of the industrial action and
served formal notice to management last Friday. Industrial action is set to
continue until management sit down to discuss terms and conditions of
employment.

In response to claims of unfair dismissal and pay, management state that
as a cinema employer, we act with fairness and flexibility in our dealings with all staff, and at all times we adhere to proper and good practice as outlined in Irish Labour Law. We strongly refute any claims to the contrary.

“Eye Cinema is disappointed that an integral disciplinary matter has been dealt with in this fashion and we take this opportunity to invite the
Labour Relations Commission to effect a speedy resolution.

Current Eye staff dont post here because the management also read Boards. Long before any threat of a strike, so it is sometimes important for us not to get too involved.

The show will probably go on, and I'm not sure what the end will be, but only time will tell I suppose.

galvianlord

Well it seems that the two individuals who were quite happy to stoke the fire have not responded to any of my queries.

The minute someone introduces the notion of fair play and balance things go quiet. Perhaps it is because if people knew why they were sacked and suspended , any feeling of sympathy or empathy with their cause would immediately evaporate?!

Those confounded legal reasons are easy things to hide behind, but then againt these very same legal reasons should mean that they should also be very careful and accurate as to why they say they were dismissed. They could very easily libel their former employers and then a whole new arena is entered into!

Is it not true that the majority of staff in the EYE are disgusted by the actions of these few? their statements are groundless, and that the EYE's wage structure is far more generous than the industry average?

You are also left to wonder again what are the motivations of SIPTU in all of this! They really do seem like a dog with a bone, and are intent on picketing the EYE regardless of due process with the Labour Relations Comminssion, so again I ask why?

According to their website the four major employments in the branch are:

Great Southern Hotels
Galway City Council
Galway County Council
Medtronic Ave

Now as the first of these no longer exists, it is quite the massive drop in subscriptions for the union. Is it just coincidence that the present owners of the EYE are also the successor owners of these hotels? Is Galway No 1 Branch feeling the pinch? So out of all these 'one-post' wonders, would the real Mr Paul Gavan please stand up and tell us why he has really embarked on this course?

I for one am seriously considering dropping my membership in protest at these baseless accusations and disregard for due process.

ToxicNomad

Great southern hotels were bought out by Edward Share Holdings and since JB doesnt awknowledge unions its no wonder they have fallen off the list. i Know employees in both great southern hotels who are part of siptu and when ownership changed difficulties ensued concerning both parties and since EYE is under the same ownership i am not suprised as to the situation the staff have found themselves in their quest for recognition!!

Oh and the fact whether members have left over 500 posts or are merely "one post wonders" is absolutley irrelevant when it comes down to a basic discussion because thats what forums are, discussion/debate rooms hosted on server in a virtual lobby of sorts!!

kamakiman

"The minute someone introduces the notion of fair play and balance things go quiet. Perhaps it is because if people knew why they were sacked and suspended , any feeling of sympathy or empathy with their cause would immediately evaporate?."
I wholehartedly welcome the Labour Relations Court I wish they had interveened sooner as f they did I wouldn't have been subjected to the Eye Cinema's court. I would have much preferred to be on neutral ground. "Is it not true that the majority of staff in the EYE are disgusted by the actions of these few? their statements are groundless, and that the EYE's wage structure is far more generous than the industry average?"
This statement couldn't be any more inaccurate. The Eye Cinema meets minimum wage requirements only. They have no pay scale which is INDUSTRY STANDARD. They don't pay extra on Sundays, they don't pay extra after midnight for unsocial hours and they pay you holiday hours even when you don't request them.Have a look at my ling Galvian Lord for more info on the working time act.
Also the majority of the staff are members of Siptu, there are twenty Siptu members in Eye and its growing all the time.
"Now as the first of these no longer exists, it is quite the massive drop in subscriptions for the union. Is it just coincidence that the present owners of the EYE are also the successor owners of these hotels? Is Galway No 1 Branch feeling the pinch? So out of all these 'one-post' wonders, would the real Mr Paul Gavan please stand up and tell us why he has really embarked on this course?"
Siptu has had an increase in membership of about 10,000 new members in th last six months so no there not feeling any sort of pinch. No Im not Paul Gavan and yes I am a wonder;)
"I for one am seriously considering dropping my membership in protest at these baseless accusations and disregard for due process."
If these were baseless accuasations then why would we have gone this far?

eulrin

to the two individuals who are at the heart of the dispute: for what reason exactly were you fired/suspended, for surely that is at the crux of the matter!?

It can hardly have been purely for membership of a union, as the EYE's owners have union members in their employ elsewhere, myself being one! However both yourselves and SIPTU have portrayed it as the reason for your dismissal in this forum and in the media in general! For my own part I doubt very much that that is the reason, and ask again why exactly were you fired/suspended?

Hi Galvianlord, no it is not the crux of the matter here. If you were to read over everything again you would see that the people who were fired or suspended are stating that it seems a bit much of a coicindence that they were done so BECAUSE they were involved in the union. One such member being suspended the EXACT day he revealed himself to be a shop steward.

The reasons: surely you should know that we cannot reveal details of internal investegatory procedings of a company regardless of our viewpoint on the way they are handled for that would be a breach of contract with the employer and thus leaving ourselves liable to oher legal procedings.
Besides they clearly stated the were fired/suspended for charges other than the union, those charges being baseless or trumped up.

"I also note their positive contribution to the disabled community in the 02 Awards it has won; however this now seems to be sneered at or twisted to suit their ends in the press statement by SIPTU, for shame!"

The o2 ability awards were well deserved. I know i may now sound like i'm sitting on the fence. Although i am an employee there i will point out applause and praise for management when it is due and the o2 ability awards deserve as much as possible.
The reason why this was used is clearly summed up by kamakiman;

The main thrust of the quote regarding the o2 awards was to outline how the "wonderfull staff" of the eye are treated by the employer and was not an attempt to "sneer" at the o2 award itself.If they say we are that wonderful then how about some bonuses or a wage scale, or how about abiding by Labour Law in this instance pay on Sundays and unsociable hours as outlined in the Organisation of the Working Time Act 1997?

What's with everyone taking things at face value, you were both sacked or suspended, does anyone else not think there may be a bit of disgruntled past employee about all of this!? I challenge u to say categorically that it was because of union membership!!! besides that, there are only a small number of employees involved in this dispute, is it not true to say that the rest (a family member of mine included) who are embarrassed by your actions? 'trumped up charges', indeed, it sounds to me like you were fired for perfectly valid reasons!

For starters you are attempting to rattle the cage with tangental statements. Why should they that it was because of the union they were sacked. They werent! not over that! And to reiterate, thats not the point here, it's part of the point as a whole.

Also, how do you know its a small group of employees? I believe 16 was the number quoted (currently 18 now) so in order for you to know whether this was a minority number you would have to be aware of the number of employees EYE has in its employment

As for describing the owners as 'corporate monsters' as one of the earlier posts did, rubbish! thats more applicabale to Ward Anderson adn the omniplex, who once held a near monopoly on cinemas in ireland, that is until the eye and others took them on! the eye as a galway owned and operated cinema is a great resource to the city and contributes much to its cultural life as Michael D acknowledged on GBFM this afternoon!

Corporate monsters.... and ward anderson acknowledged the union and have unions in 90% of their cinema's in ireland.

Yes it contributes alot to the locality, especially with it's offering of arthouse films and such, as well alot of kiddy orientated things. It's a pity eye is offering these things to cusomers while treating it's staff with disrepect and harrassing them (giving out to staff members in full view of customers for example)

Michael D also called on the EYE management to meet with the union aswell.

it's pretty obvious that alot of this is being stoked by 'one-post wonders' who must have a hidden agenda as alot of posts are anti-EYE, and in some cases defamatory (mods should take note)!

These boards are read by the galway public and the whole point is to see their reactions and opinions on the matter. Please give examples as to how they are defamatory.

“Eye Cinema is disappointed that an integral disciplinary matter has been dealt with in this fashion"

Definition - Integral: 1. Essential or necessary for completeness; constituent: eg. The kitchen is an integral part of a house.
2. Possessing everything essential; entire.

I'm assuming this was supposed to read internal. First off, the disciplinary matter was only mentioned, NOTHING was dealt with, and i don't know what they mean by "in this fashion". The only people who dealt with this was EYE so in turn they are stating they were dissappointed with how they dealt with it. I don't know but i'm sure they meant to say something else but it was printed wrongly or they were misquoted.

Is it not true that the majority of staff in the EYE are disgusted by the actions of these few? their statements are groundless, and that the EYE's wage structure is far more generous than the industry average?

by stating "is it not true" you practically being rhetoric and suppositioning what you are saying as fact. How do you know everybody is disgruntled? our statements are groundless etc?

Look, do you really think we are that naive? Having worked there from before EYE opened its doors to the public i can safely say that i, along with others, have tried everything possible under the circumstances to negociate changes in there and with management? SIPTU was our last resort after everything we said fell on deaf ears?

Again i will ask a question. Do you think we wouldn't be here, do you believe siptu would have let it go this far or even taken us on board if we didnt have any grounds or evidence to back up our claims?



I'm not even going to debate with you galway ed45, i believe everything has been stated.

galvianlord

I was an employee of GSH, and am a member of SIPTU!

Why do I remain so? I am not entirely sure!

What a broad statement concerning the principal of Edward Holdings Toxicnomad. (Apt tag, as your posts are quite toxic, Mr Gavan I presume?!) Unions were at the heart of the reasons that GSH were sold, working practices and conditions of employment on behalf of long term employees had made the group as a whole unprofitable. Many were glad when so many of the old boys and girls took redundancies, because bad practice and presumption of entitlements had become the driving force and standards of service and excellence had slipped drastically. Since then, one GSH is to close in Galway, and the historic GSH on Eyre Square has been rebranded and much to my delight redecorated. A whole new ethos permeates the place, a welcome change from the me-feinism of the past. Members of SIPTU work for Edward Holdings and its hotels, so how can you generalise that its principal does not recognise unions, when he has union members in his employ!?

As for the former employee again, its your word against theirs and other members of staff! I never realised that SIPTU considered misdemeanours by staff who are disciplined by their employers in the workplace grounds for industrial action!? Go on, tell us why you were let go?

I am well aware of the Act and its provisions on the Sunday working hours or working after midnight. Each of these provisions is open to interpretation and can only be ajudicated on in the proper channels. So since the Labour Relations Commission is to be used I look forward to seeing how things go...if the picket goes ahead I look forward to crossing it to see Disturbia and even asking you face to face if disciplinary actions are grounds for industrial action!

PS SIPTU is up by 10,000 members nationally, possibly, by how many has it fallen locally?

craziemom

"if the picket goes ahead I look forward to crossing it to see Disturbia and even asking you face to face if disciplinary actions are grounds for industrial action! "

"Go on, tell us why you were let go? "

Galvianlord, these statements of yours merely exhibit your childish, ignorant behavior!!!

For one, mocking people and threatening to cross their picket line sneering in their faces is completely uncalled for. These people are simply trying to stand up for their legal rights. Do you really believe they would charge straight into industrial action without first exhausting all other possibilities?

And as for coxing the two members who were let go, are you just trying to get an angered response or are you hoping they'll fold under your playground bully tactics and jeopardise their cases against the eye?

galvianlord

he said specifically that: "it is obvious that I was let go for getting the ball rolling on unionising the Eye Cinema."

and i say that i am fully entitled to say that i think that is rubbish.

I refuse to acknowledge that my behaviour is childish. We share the same employer, and i would guess that they employ in the region of three hundred odd people in galway. Never before has there been a hint of poor management or bad practice, at least to my knowledge. they are hardly the ogres they come across to be in this thread, in fact on the contrary himself is quite nice, if quiet. So all this man the barricades, up with workers rights seems to me very melodramatic. I will cross the picket line, cause the EYE is much nicer than the omniplex and i want to see the modern reinterpretation of Rear window that is disturbia.

It just smells fishy that two employees who were dismissed from one business have been able to stoke up so much antipathy to these people and so easily. It strikes me that someone bears a grudge against there past employers. These pedantic niceties are a bit of a farce, I have seen alot of this kind of thing before, does no one else think it smacks of revenge?