ESB Dispute

gurramok

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Every time someone drags out an example of excessive income I ask the same questions: "Are you opposed to disgracefully high salaries? If so, what should be a maximum salary?" 92K is a great deal less than the 450K+ paid to the Head of the HSE. Lunatic salaries are common in the private sector too.

Yes i'm opposed to disgraceful high salaries especially when the consumer has to pay for a proportion of them and get screwed for it.

Head of the HSE is one person at the top, these guys in the ESB are numerous individuals under management, the few thousand of them are not at the top like the HSE bloke.

Try comparing salaries to that superpower called the US who operate nuclear power stations
http://www.worldsalaries.org/gaselectricitywater.shtml

Unless i'm mistaken, the average wage in the ESB is the highest in the world, just look at what other energy workers in other industrialised countries get!

Its bloody rotten i tell ya!

leninbenjamin

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I find it strange that the example you give of crazy trade unionism involves a union official acting to stop the craziness. Surely you would make more sense if you joined a union in support of the official's action. I can dredge up better examples of bad union behaviour but they are the exception rather than the rule.

but with the power that the unions have in that incident a sizeable amount of earnings would be lost, deadlines may be missed, future investment in the company may be affected. Even where the union officials disagree with it no one ever faced any sanctions or reprimands over it? why should nothing have happened when the dust settled? should measures not have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again? can you not see why that is also very wrong?

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

I find it strange that the example you give of crazy trade unionism involves a union official acting to stop the craziness. Surely you would make more sense if you joined a union in support of the official's action.

If the official had stood aside and allowed the company to fire the original offender, and replaced the shop steward, I might have felt differently. As it was, the whole episode - and others - left a bad taste in my mouth. There was a permanent expectation that I, as a non-union member, would toe the union line. Anytime I followed my conscience and refused to co-operate with a lunatic action like the one I cited, I was treated as a lowlife and scab for weeks afterwards.

I also had issues with the "closed shop" philosophy. Unions fight hard for an employee's right to be represented by a union, but utterly reject the reciprocal right not to be represented. Don't get me wrong: I understand why closed shops exist. I just think they reek of hypocrisy, and are yet another symptom of all that is wrong with the overall attitude of trade unions in this country.

Jackie laughlin

Oscar,
Did the company want to fire the person involved and did the OFFICIAL prevent it? In most cases where a company wants to fire someone and cannot, it is because they have failed to keep any record of behaviour and warnings or because they have failed completely ever to confront the miscreant before the behaviour became a firing matter, and then find that - in the absence of a shred of evidence - no adjudicator would back them. In short, shoddy, lazy management! It is very easy and simple to fire someone who repeatedly behaves badly and, faced with evidence, the union and an adjudicator will see the sense and the justice.

You don't really expect a membership-based organisation to argue strongly for the right NOT to become a member. All unions recognise this right. Frequently a union - and the members who pay dues - put a great deal of work into a process which results in a pay increase for a group of workers. It is maddening when the non-members freeload and get the increase too.

What goes on in the workplace is not under the management of the union. The union functions in two ways within the business. Firstly, it acts in its members interests. That usually means in a market driven economy trying to find ways to increase the cost of labour. (Optimise members income.) Secondly, it organises the members so that management can operate collective bargaining.


The above is way off topic. The issue of trying to make an employer responsible for workers who are effectively in continuous employment is important as more and more businesses try to evade this responsibility by "out-sourcing".

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Lunatic salaries are common in the private sector too.

Particularly from the top down. Where unions are present the divide is usually not so drastic

sovtek

gurramok wrote: »

Now, its us the public who has to fork out these overpriced wages in our huge bills and anything to bring down the bill per se is welcome to me

And the worst thing about it us that its the public who suffer in the end who these guys are not happy in their jobs through unjustified power cuts

The public would not suffer if unions were more active in the private sector in general. That would probably mean "overpriced" wages for most and would raise everyone's boat. Then you have the resulting economic growth and consumer confidence.
It beats the race to the bottom that I never understand people arguing FOR!!!????!!!! (ie. "...that would never happen in the private sector..etc.etc)

leninbenjamin

sovtek wrote: »

Then you have the resulting economic growth and consumer confidence.

it could just as easily cause spiralling inflation and all the crap that comes with it. and the growth would be an illusion. nominally people would be better off, but in reality there would be no production increase or innovation, it'd hardly be economic growth especially when we price our own exported goods out of other foreign markets...

sovtek

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it could just as easily cause spiralling inflation and all the crap that comes with it. and the growth would be an illusion. nominally people would be better off, but in reality there would be no production increase or innovation, it'd hardly be economic growth especially when we price our own exported goods out of other foreign markets...

Where it's been tried before (namely France or Germany) that isn't the reality. As far as exports... the mentioned countries do quite well exporting besides having a strong union presence. They also have high production and innovation.
Inflation comes from business taking advantage of workers wages, not the other way around.

leninbenjamin

sovtek wrote: »

Where it's been tried before (namely France or Germany) that isn't the reality.

source? France and Germany haven't exactly the healthiest of economies now either...

Jackie laughlin

OK, I don't go to visit their slums but each time I go to either France or Germany I am struck by the quality of life enjoyed by the citizen; the level of public provision is remarkably greater than here or indeed Britain. Then I listen to the news reports telling me how France and Germany are in bad economic shape. They have lower growth rates than here, that's for sure but ...

If a society really, really wants an inflationary wages spiral, one good way to motivate it is to flaunt outrageous salaries in the faces of people who earn a fraction of that but who have been taught that individuals must fend for themselves and maximise their income.

To return to topic: I think that it is vital that out-sourcing companies be held responsible for the pay and conditions of the people whom they effectively employ.

leninbenjamin

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

If a society really, really wants an inflationary wages spiral, one good way to motivate it is to flaunt outrageous salaries in the faces of people who earn a fraction of that but who have been taught that individuals must fend for themselves and maximise their income.

inflation doesn't discriminate between who gets the wage rise.

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

To return to topic: I think that is vital that out-sourcing companies be held responsible for the pay and conditions of the people whom they effectively employ.

if i'm reading what you're saying then correctly: then in this case the ESB shouldn't as they weren't the ones to have hired this company!? it should be Lentjes.

Jackie laughlin

leninB,
I realise fully that "inflation doesn't discriminate between who gets the wages" but I never said or implied that it did. I said that gross inequality and individualism MOTIVATES wage claims.

Earlier in the thread I said that the ESB was not an appropriate field for this battle but not for the reason you suggest. It is inappropriate because contracting for projects is a normal part of industry/business. What is unacceptable is a company evading its responsibilities to its employess by "outsourcing". If I were working week in, week out for years "making" something for the ESB or any other organisation, the ESB (or other) would be my effective employer, no matter how many intervening employers there were.