Unions v real world

Fratton Fred

DadaKopf wrote: »

Did you know: two-thirds of union members are from the private sector?

I would hazard a guess and say a big chunk of those work for Aer Lingus, Eircom, ESb or Bord Gais.

All fine examples of Management and unions working in harmony:rolleyes:

Colonel Sanders

looking at private sector union demands, one I find startling is the demand to maintain DB pensions for new employees. This is none of a union's business IMO. What it boils down to is that Private sector employers want to change terms of conditions in contracts that they will offer prospective employees in the future. Any applicant is then free to either accept or reject these revised terms and conditions. How the unions feel it is up to them to protest and even strike over this is a mystery to me.

I moved jobs last February. i was offered a contarct of employment by my new employer (which didn't include a DB pension, it changed on the 31st of December). If I wasn't happy with this part of my contract nobody held a gun to my head to take the job, I was free to say thanks but no thanks. What I, or nobody else had the right to do was ask a union to cause disruption over it.

Carawaystick

jahalpin wrote: »

The drivers are getting 45 minutes paid travel time to get between town and the depot at the start and end of their shifts, which should be more than enough time.

Do you know where Harristown depot is? It is close to the runway10/28 in Dublin Airport.
Have you been in Dublin lately? do you know how long it might take to travel from the city centre to Harristown?
including waiting for a bus to arrive that's serving the depot.

Secondly, more importantly. Do you think a driver will always be able to get from Harristown to the city centre in less than 45 minutes, under all reasonable conditions? If this is not possible, should the passengers on the bus suffer DB's poor planning?

how many people who start and finish their working day in the same place would gladly allow their employer to change their working conditions to make them start or finish on foot several km from their normal place of work (one of these places in the country with no footpath or streetlights to get there and one in the centre of a large urban area) bearing in mind you will be starting or finishing work outside the normal public transport hours in this country.

Harristown IS different precisely cos it is in the sticks.

Do people think there would be no strikes if there were private companies running swathes of Dublin's bus services?
If the bus market was broken up into say 6 private operators, an industrial dispute in one of them would result in all the routes from that operator not running, but the other operators would probably still run....
just like last week.



Look at New York - private sector unions striking over broadway conditions. I doubt the theatres there are state or city owned.
Look in California - guilds there striking, again not a public sector issue.


Fred, ESB and Bord Gais are semi-state's.

Jackie laughlin

Carawaystick,
Well said. A dose of common sense.

Unions at a basic level are about individuals coming together to maintain or increase the cost of their labour. In a market that's what everyone does. If there is competition in an industry, the hand of the union in an individual company can be strengthened as the company fears losing out to a competitor. If the competition is bogus, the workers will obviously talk to each other and act right across the industry.

It saddens me when I hear people rejoice at the imposition of poorer working conditions on workers who have known better days.

It is fairly easy to sack an incompetent, lazy or bizarrely behaved worker but it does require that managers do some work so that a tribunal will find in favour. Yes, it is right that these things be adjudicated upon as it is an employee's defence against being treated unjustly but it will not give shelter to documented wrongdoing where a manager can show that effort went into making corrections. This applies in both private and public sectors.

Personal experience means little in this argument as working at different levels offers quite different experiences. One would have to compare, say, engineers with engineers or labourers with labourers in public and private employment. For what it's worth I found the private sector better in very many respects. Pay is better. The entire pension contribution rather than a part is paid. A car is provided though it is not needed for the job. There are bonusses. VHI is paid by the company. The occasional day off doesn't come out of holidays. There is less close supervision/management. The office conditions are better. Having said all this, general workers are treated like **** and live in fear of outsourcing, while vey senior managers are paid dizzying salaries.

sovtek

Carawaystick wrote: »

Do you know where Harristown depot is? It is close to the runway10/28 in Dublin Airport.
Have you been in Dublin lately? do you know how long it might take to travel from the city centre to Harristown?
including waiting for a bus to arrive that's serving the depot.

I think the estimated time on the bus schedule is 70 minutes.

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

It is fairly easy to sack an incompetent, lazy or bizarrely behaved worker but it does require that managers do some work so that a tribunal will find in favour. Yes, it is right that these things be adjudicated upon as it is an employee's defence against being treated unjustly but it will not give shelter to documented wrongdoing where a manager can show that effort went into making corrections. This applies in both private and public sectors.

I know of at least 3 people that have been fired without giving proper warnings ..following heirarchy and the reasons were a bit dodgy. Had they been people that were likely to make a case out of it I know that my company would lose.
Two people have been on minimum wage for the past 5 years. They also happen to be Romanian.
We have no union.

Jackie laughlin

Sovtec,
I hope you don't think that I was making a case for unfair dismissals, exploitation or racism. I was responding to the common myth, that no one can be sacked from state employment. My point was that true idlers and spacers can be sacked with the support of fellow workers, unions and the IR apparatuses of the state, provided that a manager does his or her job properly.

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Sovtec,
I hope you don't think that I was making a case for unfair dismissals, exploitation or racism. I was responding to the common myth, that no one can be sacked from state employment. My point was that true idlers and spacers can be sacked with the support of fellow workers, unions and the IR apparatuses of the state, provided that a manager does his or her job properly.

I was just furthering your point for the private sector.

Sleepy

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

Pay is better. The entire pension contribution rather than a part is paid. A car is provided though it is not needed for the job. There are bonusses. VHI is paid by the company. The occasional day off doesn't come out of holidays. There is less close supervision/management. The office conditions are better.

You're living in a fantasy land if you think that's true. Most recent studies I've seen reported indicate that the public sector has actually bypassed the private in terms of basic pay (nevermind factoring in the guilt edged pensions), holday entitlements are generally far superior to the private sector where 20 days is not only the legal minimum, it's the norm, company cars will cost you money if they're not needed for the job (that's why you notice so few people with them nowadays).

Less close supervision/management? Think about that one for a second: you're essentially saying either one of two things:

a) that public sector management is terrible

or

b) that private sector employees need less close supervision/magangement than their public sector counterparts.

I'd opt for secret answer number three myself - that both are true.

Jackie laughlin

Sleepy,
I've already said that it is impossible to make generalisations from personal experiences and anecdotes. I was merely giving you my experience. I assure you it is not a fantasy.

The car benefits, it is true, are to a large extent clawed back these days but certainly not gone. The rest is as I stated.

Comparing average earnings, as has been pointed out by several people on Boards, makes no sense. The average earnings in a company or sector where there are large numbers of highly educated or highly skilled workers will or course be higher than the national average and higher than a sector or company with a large number of general or lower skilled workers.

I cannot think of a professional or a technician who would not improve his or her position by leaving the public service. I frequently advise them to do so unless they are committed to public service.

I assure you that I thought about what I wrote before I wrote it and neither of your cynical interpretations is necessary. My point about "close" management was simply this. In the public service there is a tradition of having to account for everything. The consequence is tight monitoring of leave, excessive emphasis on attendance, lousy furniture etc. etc. In a profitable private company the culture is altogether different: there is flexibility which makes life more pleasant (I work hard and I can have a day off, say, for a wedding with no questions asked.) managers have the discretion to stump up for all sorts of "little" extras like travel, conferences, meals, Christmas etc. OK, it's great but I'm not arguing that p.s. managers be free to do that with taxpayers money. Indeed I'd want them fired or charged with theft if they did!

The whole public versus private employment "debate" is a disgusting diversion. I'm doing very nicely, thank you. However, there are many who are not and they are in both the private and the public sectors. Meanwhile - and again in both sectors - there is an entire class of parasites on salaries and allowances which are by any standard obscene. This should be the focus of moral outrage and not on, say, some unfortunate van driver in the Board of Works or somewhere who has very little going for him but has a pension scheme which will give him 50% of a meagre salary.

John R

Jackie laughlin wrote: »

The whole public versus private employment "debate" is a disgusting diversion. I'm doing very nicely, thank you. However, there are many who are not and they are in both the private and the public sectors. Meanwhile - and again in both sectors - there is an entire class of parasites on salaries and allowances which are by any standard obscene. This should be the focus of moral outrage and not on, say, some unfortunate van driver in the Board of Works or somewhere who has very little going for him but has a pension scheme which will give him 50% of a meagre salary.

+1.

This whole anti-union stuff that a particular section of Irish society drags up to blame all the ills of modern life on is complete hypocricy.

Companies fire thousands of people to outsource jobs in developing nations where they can pay slave-labour wages but that's absolutely fine because they are only looking after their own interests.

The country's richest businessmen pretend to live in tax havens while pay teams of accountants and lawyers to squirrel away their huge earnings so they pay less tax than the economic refugees that they have cleaning their offices but that's fine because they are just looking after their own interests.

The elected leaders of the country spend their time lining their own pockets by exploiting their position when they should be representing the people who elected them but that's apparently fine too, afterall they keep being re-elected.

It's a completely different story where ordinary workers are concerned though. They join a union to make sure they get the best pay and conditions they can and they are selfish greedy scum that are ruining the economy.

Exactly why should this single sector of society put everyone else's needs in front of their own? Nobody else does.

And that includes all of the poor private sector people crying foul in this thread. Can any of you truthfully say that you accept the down side of non-unionised private sector employment because of altruistic motives? Are you really taking one for Team Ireland or is it that you are gambling that by accepting certain poor terms now you can suck up to your bosses and climb your way up the greasy pole so that you can have the big office, leather chair, company Lexus and fat salary in a few years.

The fact is that for most PAYE workers, private or public that is not a realistic proposition and the most prudent action is to organise themselves with their colleagues to get the best deals they can from their employers.


While we're at it let's be honest and call a spade a spade. Stop hiding your elitist snobbery behind union bashing. This has now become the acceptable code for attacking the working class. Unions are merely paid representatives for groups of employees.

The unions are simply representing their clients who pay them to do so because of their expertise in labour relations. It is the same way that lawyers represent their clients in legal matters but I suppose all you rabid anti-union folk would not think of hiring a solicitor or barrister were you taken to court either.

oscarBravo

John R wrote: »

It's a completely different story where ordinary workers are concerned though. They join a union to make sure they get the best pay and conditions they can and they are selfish greedy scum that are ruining the economy.

Why do people feel the need to unrealistically polarise debates in order to score points?

There may be people who believe that all unions members are "selfish greedy scum", in the same way that there are people who believe that every business owner is a greedy fat cat capitalist pig who drives four Rolls Royces simultaneously around his personal Caribbean island. Both are delusional.

Equally, not every union grievance is a legitimate struggle against an evil capitalist overlord determined to grind working-class serfs under his jackbooted heel. Sometimes unions campaign to maintain the status quo, in the face of dramatically changed social conditions.

The ESB unions are threatening strike action to prevent a much-needed restructuring of the entire electricity industry in this country. What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

Colonel Sanders

oscarBravo wrote: »

What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

according to Deloitte's report none.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to unrealistically polarise debates in order to score points?

There may be people who believe that all unions members are "selfish greedy scum", in the same way that there are people who believe that every business owner is a greedy fat cat capitalist pig who drives four Rolls Royces simultaneously around his personal Caribbean island. Both are delusional.

Equally, not every union grievance is a legitimate struggle against an evil capitalist overlord determined to grind working-class serfs under his jackbooted heel. Sometimes unions campaign to maintain the status quo, in the face of dramatically changed social conditions.

The ESB unions are threatening strike action to prevent a much-needed restructuring of the entire electricity industry in this country. What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

Well said.

There is a place for unions i.e. cases like Irish Ferries and the Gama employees, but nobody can claim CIE (Bus Eireann, Irish Rail, Dublin Bus) or the ESB fall into these categories.

As pointed out by previous poster private sector employees can get days off in lieu, but they have usually worked longer hours to gain that privledge.
Certain industries, such as IT industry in my experience, can often involve working non paid overtime.
Then you can get more flexible breaks and time off.

Any chance someone in public sector, including semi states, will do non paid overtime. In my experience come 5 or 5.30pm the work places are empty.
Now saying that some private sector businesses such as finanical institutions work the very same way.

As an example of what harm unions can do, look at what happened to British vehicle manufacturing industry. One of the few companies to survive in the UK is JCB. The productivity of JCB employees during the seventies was 3/4 times that of the British Leyland workers and look where each company and it'sworkers are today.
The biggest reason for this was they have had no unions and they have had good management that believes in looking after it's workforce.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to unrealistically polarise debates in order to score points?

There may be people who believe that all unions members are "selfish greedy scum", in the same way that there are people who believe that every business owner is a greedy fat cat capitalist pig who drives four Rolls Royces simultaneously around his personal Caribbean island. Both are delusional.

Equally, not every union grievance is a legitimate struggle against an evil capitalist overlord determined to grind working-class serfs under his jackbooted heel. Sometimes unions campaign to maintain the status quo, in the face of dramatically changed social conditions.

The ESB unions are threatening strike action to prevent a much-needed restructuring of the entire electricity industry in this country. What percentage of ESB employees would fall into the "wretched serf" pay bracket?

I don't totally disagree with you. I used to be a Teamster. My rep reminds me of Tony Soprano when I think back on that time. However if it weren't for them UPS wouldn't have had one of the best health care plans in the private sector at the time. Since then it's been gutted and many other great benefits that physically debilitating repetitive job had going for it are gone. Mainly because the corrupt leaders of the union were in bed with the bastards that run UPS. I would hardly defend SIPTU at the drop of a hat (a Taxi "union" for a bunch of independent businessmen that make loads off a poor transport system is an oxymoron).
However in the media we all hear about the unions and their employees supposedly high salaries and their frivolous complaints (which usually don't turn out to be so frivolous when you examine more closely). I'm not saying that there aren't those but usually the exception and not the rule.
What we don't often hear about is the overpaid, overpriviledged and underworked heads of companies that make far more than they deserve and want to do so at the expense of the labourer. That's hardly delusional.

sovtek

jmayo wrote: »

The biggest reason for this was they have had no unions and they have had good management that believes in looking after it's workforce.

How would you then explain some of the best cars in the world coming from mostly unionised industries in Germany and France?
I would hazard a guess that the demise of the UK auto industry had less to do with unions and more to do with making crap cars. Oh and more than a few unionized German automakers bought those UK companies and made a go of it.

jmayo

sovtek wrote: »

How would you then explain some of the best cars in the world coming from mostly unionised industries in Germany and France?
I would hazard a guess that the demise of the UK auto industry had less to do with unions and more to do with making crap cars. Oh and more than a few unionized German automakers bought those UK companies and made a go of it.

I am not going into how many man days were lost in British industry during the seventies. BL were on strike every other day.
Leyland were biggest manufacturer of trucks in world in 1950s but where are they now. The company almost sunk Daf.

How come JCB were so productive during that time. The big difference was the way the company was run and the fact workers werenot partof union as not allowed by company founder.
Yes the build quality was cr** and some of the designs were awful Austin Metro, Alegro etc.

Best cars form France?
Obviously you have never owned a Renault or Citreon
I will give you their build quality has improved a lot, but I spent fair few days/nights trying to figure out if wiring/electrics was done by 8 year old in Montpellier as his school project.
German cars are well built and designed but their workers are not on strike every other day. French, well enough said.

More than few German automakers bought them companies and made a go of them?
Let's see...
Well BMW bought Rover just to get hands on Landrover.
They got rid of it as too much trouble.
They hung onto Landrover long enough to improve quality before offloading to Ford who are trying to get rid of it.

VW Group bought Bentley who manufactured both Bently and Rolls Royce, hardly your normal car maker now, but they lost out on the Rolls Royce brand name to BMW who built brand new plant.

Now who else?
Well Jaguar/Daimler/Aston Martin were bought by Ford who have offloaded some of them.
TVR is now owned by some Russian dude who at least has tried to get them making cars that don't fall apart, again not your normal car manufacturer.

The only true British car is now, wait for it Morgan. A family owned and run company that builds cars based on wooden chassis/frame and builds to order.

Oh and there are now sweet FA tractor plants in the country either.
McCormick closed it's former Case/International plant recently.
Massey Ferguson are gone from Banner Lane plant in Coventry and they had strike just before closed just to reaffirm why company shouldn't bother staying.

You see you should not really have brought up cars/tractors/trucks

sovtek

jmayo wrote: »

You see you should not really have brought up cars/tractors/trucks

Why not? You haven't refuted my point.

jmayo

sovtek wrote: »

Why not? You haven't refuted my point.

I don't think you read anything bar the last line ?

Your point that some of the best cars come from France would raise a few eyebrows :rolleyes:
Fair enough Germany is unionised and German car compnaies have been very sucessful.
You alluded that some German car companies made a go of UK car manufacturers.
No they didn't apart from Bentley/Rolls Royce, where you are not talking about an ex British Leyland company which was heavily unionised.
The workers within these organisations were not as militant as BL workers.
Austin /Austin Rover/ Rover group was what materialised out of the disaster of British Leyland and where are they now?

You rightly pointed out that the demise of the British motor industry was down to bad design and bad build, but have you ever thought why the build was so bad?
Had it nothing got to do with the go-slows, stoppages, work to rules etc that the unions where forever creating?

Manic Moran

I have to say, I've avoided any unions so far, and I don't feel I'm any the worse off for it. If the company I work for changes for lousy conditions, I see no reason I shouldn't simply change companies. The joys of free markets.

We are particularly amused over on this side of the water by the Auto Worker's Union. Way back when, the union, seeing their power, set all sorts of demands on Detroit. As a result, the overhead today on an American car for union requirements such as the huge retirement packages is akin to $5K per car, vs some $800 for a Japanese car. With a price difference like that, it's little wonder the American auto industry is in trouble. About a month ago, the UAW set about each car company in sequence. First they went to GM, they didn't have an agreement on raises and job security on their imposed deadline, and staged a walkout. A few days later, it got sorted out, so they then set their sights on Ford. Same deal. Then, joy of joys, they set their sights on Chrysler.

Chrysler is doing horribly, Daimler just got rid of it, it is common knowledge that Chrysler will have to undergo some serious restructuring and closures, and the UAW are there demanding job security or they'll call a strike. Eh?!
"OK. We promise you job security. Until we file for bankruptcy, then you're on your own"

As one cynical chap I know put it, the union sets about achieving pay raises or whatnot for its members. If it's told "We can only afford pay raises if we cut out these jobs", they'll happily accept that deal. The people who are still in now have their big pay raises, and will vote the Union president into office again. Those who were laid off... well, they're not in the union any more, and can't vote against.

NTM

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have to say, I've avoided any unions so far, and I don't feel I'm any the worse off for it. If the company I work for changes for lousy conditions, I see no reason I shouldn't simply change companies. The joys of free markets.

If the object of a company is profit then every process that makes one company a bigger profit than everyone else will copy that to get in on the bounty.
Pretty soon the big boys are all doing the same thing...and almost no one has a job. The joys indeed. That, of course, assumes there is a free market where in reality none exist (kinda like those never ending job opportunities).

Fratton Fred

It is worth pointing out that three of the most reliable car brands, Nissan, Toyota and Honda all have very successful plants in the UK and the reason they came there? because of the un-unionised workforce.

The big difference between those companies and BL though, is that they are well run and have good management.

I think more BMWs and Mercs are made in South Africa than Germany now as well.

Zombrex

jahalpin wrote: »

I organised my life around working in the City Centre but was prepared to move as it was in the best interests of the company.

You believe that his move is in the best interests of Dublin Bus? Why exactly?

Dublin Bus already have a huge problem with missed buses because drivers are either off or late. I know, I take at least 2 buses a day.

Personally I don't care a whole lot either way about the drivers. Some DB drivers are nice and friendly, some are complete assh*les.

I support the drivers not because I think they are great but because I don't want a bus service that is even more shambolic in its schedule than Dublin Bus already is. Making it harder for drivers to actually get to work in the morning on time is going to effect me.

jahalpin

Wicknight wrote: »

You believe that his move is in the best interests of Dublin Bus? Why exactly?

Dublin Bus already have a huge problem with missed buses because drivers are either off or late. I know, I take at least 2 buses a day.

Personally I don't care a whole lot either way about the drivers. Some DB drivers are nice and friendly, some are complete assh*les.

I support the drivers not because I think they are great but because I don't want a bus service that is even more shambolic in its schedule than Dublin Bus already is. Making it harder for drivers to actually get to work in the morning on time is going to effect me.

The first buses will obviously still have to leave from the garages and the last buses will have to go back to the garage at night.

The changing in town should make the service more efficient as the bus will stay in service longer, don't forget that DB are always saying that they don't have enough buses and this will free up buses as they will no longer be used as a personal taxi service for the drivers

Zombrex

jahalpin wrote: »

The first buses will obviously still have to leave from the garages and the last buses will have to go back to the garage at night.

Yes but the drivers live near the garages. They are complaining that starting in the city centre is going to be a lot of hassle for them because they have to get into the city centre to start their shift, rather than out to the garage as they have been so far.

Have you considered how you actually get to the city centre before the buses start running?

Sleepy

I'm guessing traffic would be pretty light so it'd be a fairly short commute timewise.

Jackie laughlin

The purpose of a union is to maximise the income and working conditions of the members. SIPTU is no different in this respect to the NUJ or any professional association. Union members use whatever resource they control to protect themselves and to push up the cost of their labour.

Because their origins are in the progressive working class movements and because many socialists have worked within unions, some people seem to think that unions should confine their activities to the protection of the very poor. They can be relied upon to divert members contributions to fighting for the weak and oppressed - and members often object - but in normal circumstances they do as their members want: get as much of the cake as possible. It's just enterprise. However, workers and their unions are uniquely asked to justify their claims publicly. Professionals, senior managers etc. quietly look after one another without public debate.

emertoff

I don't know the ins and outs of the Dublin Bus dispute but as someone who has worked in the private sector for 10 years for companies that are non-unionised its more important than ever in the global economy that workers are organised.
However, I also feel that social partnership in this country and what amounts to a scandal in the form of 'benchmarking' has endangered the economy and quite frankly makes a lot of folk like me disillusioned and disenfranchised. For me and thousands others, productivity and efficiency statistics are rammed down my throat 9-5, Monday to Friday, and if I don't contiuously meet set standards, it's a chat with the boss and a P45 in my hand.
The 'public sector' to me encompasses not just the civil service - look at the health service, education etc. There is a complete lack of any service ethos and on so many occasions I see a 'take it or leave it' attitude when I access or try to access public services. Why should one half of the workforce have to continuously raise their game whilst the other bury their heads in the Victorian era with ridiculously generous pay hikes, guaranteed pensions, generally more family-friendly hours, and the smug cosiness that goes with all this. Why do we need 25,000 administrators in the health service putting ticks in boxes? I could go on and on and on. Do we want to reach a situation whereby our political masters eventually have to resort to taking drastic action in the mould of Sarkozy and Thatcher to bring this juggernaut to a halt?

moe_sizlak

to say the difference is stark between the reception you get when you enter a state department or a private business is to put it mildly , if i went into my local toyota dealership with the look of someone who might be interested in ordering a 2008 corolla , the person behind the counter would be keen to do there upmost for me in terms of service , contrast this with the reception you are met with when you go into a local county council or dept of whatever office , after you ring the bell and wait the standard 10 minutes ,you are met with a jaded , uninterested and bored official who when you state your business usually has an attitude of , dont you know that i am doing this for you , selflessly for mother ireland
this is usually followed by , the person who deals with that has moved to drogheda