Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Unions don't want to freeze Public Pay
Options
Comments
-
5.)Unions in general in this country have it all wrong at the moment(public and private) If they want to help get us back on track they really should be moving ppl out to the lower wage countries and pressing workers rights there.instead they are here asking for more and more money.The more expensive we get the bigger our problems will be.
That's not the union's role. The union's job is to get as much money as possible for their members.
The problem is not Benchmarking it is Relativites.
[1] Politicians want a pay raise
[2] Their pay is linked to civil service grades
[3] So raise the pay of those civil servants
[4] That raises the pay of the grades below
[5] The public sector wage bill goes up
[6] Politicians are given their raise
That's the main thing. Sure if your daddy dies and you take over his seat and never accomplish anything you are entitled to be the best paid prime minister in Europe.0 -
You might, or you might have one administrator employed to do the work for all three drivers. You might have anything.in the public service , you might have a 2nd person employed to handle the paper work for the driver , not because they were needed but to satisfy union demands or the latest employment figures
maximising capital is not a priority in the public service like it is in the private sector
You might in the private sector have to work with your boss's idiot son or his mistress.
You have an interesting style of argument anyway. Argument by imaginary anecdote.0 -
I sincerely apologise if I have insulted you. I am used to the cut and thrust of business life and can be blunt and unsophisticated. Let us agree that though we disagree about the road to take we both want what is best for Ireland.were you born obnoxious or have you just worked hard on it over the years , if its the latter , the post above shows you have perfected it to a fine art
MM0 -
mountainyman wrote: »I sincerely apologise if I have insulted you. I am used to the cut and thrust of business life and can be blunt and unsophisticated. Let us agree that though we disagree about the road to take we both want what is best for Ireland.
MM
i dont accept insincere appologies , besides i wasnt looking for an appology , especially from an appologist for our pittiful public service0 -
The Civil servants and Unions are about to launch Ireland into a political, financial and constitutional crisis. Ireland is in difficulty not seen since 1983 and we have the potential to either become a basket case where things can spiral all the ways to Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or else become a shining beacon of success......Minimum Government = Equals Maximum economy = thus jobs and success.
Socialism & Unions = Famine and backwardness, Socialism is a failure the wall is gone, shave the beards fellas.
This post is a trumpet of pure signal in a sea of noise...What a great idea...lets lower the minimum wage so people have LESS money to spend in a era of price gouging and inflation.
The govt sometimes needs to spend its way out of recessions [ and cut out silly season spending ], but the spending needs to be properly targeted. Simply putting more cash in Joe Bloggs pocket so he can buy tickets to Old Trafford and buy DVDs from the US may not really help the Irish economy as opposed to the UK and US economies...You know a good builder, I know a bad one.
I got rid of Cable simply because of the atrocious customer service.
You've had bad public sector customer experiences. I've had great experiences with Revenue over the past couple of years with regard to swift, easy repayments. I've recently had a great service with regard to getting my Passport renewed. It's never been easier & quicker to tax my car.
It's the sweeping generalisations that people make about the "public sector" when times get a little tough that I find ridiculous & ill thought out.
And you can take your trade from the bad builder to the good builder, punishing the guy with lousy service. Competition rewarding better customer service.
You dont have that option with the public sector. Well, apart from emigrating which is fairly drastic...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
fly_agaric wrote: »Yer filter must be out of whack.
Surely it's bombastic & exaggerated bollox which it was a waste of time to write down and even more of a waste of time to read?
speak for yourself , id hedge a bet that the view you refer to would be widely held by the non union , working majority0 -
And you can take your trade from the bad builder to the good builder, punishing the guy with lousy service. Competition rewarding better customer service.
You dont have that option with the public sector. Well, apart from emigrating which is fairly drastic...
Which is why we no longer have bad builders in this country .... oh wait :rolleyes:
The idea that competition creates better service is largely a myth, because true competition and truth choice is also a myth.
It is not easy to operate a business, and the successful ones are not necessarily the ones with the best service but the ones with the most money or influence or position of power.
There are hardly any companies that I regularly deal with in my normal life and which have competition (Eircom, NTL, ESB, Ryanair, Aer Lingus) etc that I can simply drop and go to a competitor who offers a much better service.
The competitors either simply aren't there or simple offer the same lousy service at the original company. Or they charge much more for better service.
An example I recently was annoyed with is SMS text messaging. SMS message costs the mobile phone company nothing, absolutely nothing. It pigbacks on the dialing channel, that is cheap for the company and has to be in place anyway for people to make calls. Originally when SMS was introduced no one paid for it, until the phone companies realised they could make money out of this.
So in this wonderful efficient, private sector utopia, I should surely simply vote with my feet and leave my current mobile provider and go to the competition that offers free text messaging. Except there isn't one, because the phone companies are interested in making money, not providing me with the best most cost effective service. None of the phone companies are going to give up the massive revenue from SMS (which provides something like 90% of revenue from the under 21s), simply to attract my business. Competition only works if what you offer the company in terms of your custom is more attractive to them than simply sticking with what their competitors are doing. So you get the phone companies fighting by dropping SMS by one or two cent each.
Contrast this with the public service. If a a public service department was charging a ridiculous amount of money for a service they could provide totally free (say Dublin Bus charged you for baggage for no particular reason other than to make money) there would be up roar and the company would have to justify why it was doing this. And "Because we want to screw the customer for more money" isn't a good enough reason.0 -
-
Sack a few of them, and then see how they'll listen.
Ooops.
They don't get sacked, that's private sector I'm thinking of.
Ah, sure, they'll have no wages if people don't give them money.
Ooops.
Wrong again. They're spending my tax, which will keep going to them, unlike my job, which may go if people don't give my employer money...
Maybe not a total pay-freeze, but certainly a freeze on the automatic pay rise we private sector always hear the public sector getting?
what a load of bulls*it. im a civil servant so i am. why should some of us be sacked. i come to work everyday and do a very efficient job. I joined the civil service 7 years ago and since then all i have been listening to my friends who work on the buildings and in the private sector is lauph at me because about how much more money they were making than me. Now that the arse is falling out of everything their all up in arms because i have a guaranteed wage coming in. You just cant win so you can't. Are a lot of civil servants to blame because the had the hindsight to apply and get themselves into the public sector jobs for the securtiy of it! i think not!0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a number of things then:what a load of bulls*it. im a civil servant so i am. why should some of us be sacked. i come to work everyday and do a very efficient job.... ETC ETC
Firstly, there may have been discrepancies in public/private pay seven years ago but these have been addressed and most recent reports show that public pay is now at least on a par with private pay. And yet...
There's a lot of jobs in the public sector that just don't need to exist. Much administrative work isn't required - HSE is is the obvious example but it exists everywhere. These jobs could easily be curbed and the government's pay bill reduced but the unions won't let them - in the private sector it is generally far easier to make job cuts to improve effeciency (or, at the very least, to make job cuts).
Now people pay taxes and fund this and they can see how their money is being wasted. With a private company they're more likely to have a choice to go elsewhere if they disagree with this spending. It can be infuriating to see civil servants complaining when it seems they've little to complain about - good pay (according to independent bodies) plus lots of other perks that they don't often recognise (pensions, relatively short working week, great holidays, the likes of "bank time", etc).
Or to summarise: people are paying lots of taxes to seemingly employ lots of people to do what may quite a well-paid easy job that may not even need doing. It doesn't endear much sympathy, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate this perception is.0 -
what a load of bulls*it. im a civil servant so i am. why should some of us be sacked. i come to work everyday and do a very efficient job. I joined the civil service 7 years ago and since then all i have been listening to my friends who work on the buildings and in the private sector is lauph at me because about how much more money they were making than me. Now that the arse is falling out of everything their all up in arms because i have a guaranteed wage coming in. You just cant win so you can't. Are a lot of civil servants to blame because the had the hindsight to apply and get themselves into the public sector jobs for the securtiy of it! i think not!
the above post epitomises the kind of ingrained sense of entitlement that public servants have
there attitude is , i go to my post day in day out , selflessly for mother ireland0 -
Sooooo,
What jobs exactly need to be cut then? Seeing as you all seem to be such experts.. People seem to be all bluster about this, and it really seems that they're going on what their mate told them in the pub about "Dem civil servants wha/loike.." etc
And reduce the minimum wage? lol. to just over 200 quid a week (assuming you dont think people should need to work 14 hour days to house and feed themselves)? Why not just go on the Dole so? Get a nice council house maybe.0 -
I simply do not understand the guff about the HSE.
More front line staff / less administrators bleat the sheep people. Who then should do the administration?0 -
mountainyman wrote: »I simply do not understand the guff about the HSE.
More front line staff / less administrators bleat the sheep people. Who then should do the administration?
So much of the administration work could be automated using new fangled things called computers.
So much paper work that doesn't need to exist.
My sister works in IT in the health service and says that any suggestion is made by the you can't change it, its worked like this for years attitude. Public sector isn't open to change, private sector forces change. Thats really the key difference as I see it.Depends on how you define efficient. The main measure of success in the private sector is money, how much the company makes, something the public service isn't measure by. While the private sector may be efficent at making money, to really see a comparison you would have to ask the private sector to have the same priority as the public sector. And there have been a fair share of disasters in terms of private sector industry attempting to provide a public service, since again a private companies focus is on profit, not providing a service.
Who fooking privatised eircom! Who is fooking failing to regulate eircom and the broadband industry in general? Who can't even manage to introduce fooking post codes?
The private industry has already introduced post codes for Ireland!0 -
the above post epitomises the kind of ingrained sense of entitlement that public servants have
there attitude is , i go to my post day in day out , selflessly for mother ireland
sorry, but were you smoking crack before you wrote that post? what do you mean by ingrained sense of entitlement. I make €470 a week, thats a crap wages by todays standard considering what bills come out of it. and by the way i do a damn good job everyday. but at the end of it, i dont mind making my €470, when i consider how secure my job is right now, which is exactly why i jiones the civil service.
if you ask me, your post just seems bitter. i feel sorry for you.0 -
sorry, but were you smoking crack before you wrote that post? what do you mean by ingrained sense of entitlement. I make €470 a week, thats a crap wages by todays standard considering what bills come out of it. and by the way i do a damn good job everyday. but at the end of it, i dont mind making my €470, when i consider how secure my job is right now, which is exactly why i jiones the civil service.
if you ask me, your post just seems bitter. i feel sorry for you.
i feel sorry for me too , after reading your post , i feel even more downbeat about the public service and more certain of my views on it too0 -
-
Before this thread spirals into a predictable morass of public -vs- private sector resentment, everybody calm down.
I've seen two viewpoints regularly expressed on this subject: one is that all public servants are lazy feckers, and the other is that all public servants are overworked martyrs. Both are untrue.
What is true is that a percentage of the public service carry another percentage on their backs. Many public servants work hard, put in long hours without overtime, and generally care about doing a good job. Many more are clock-watchers who do the bare minimum to justify their existence.
This is true of the private sector also, but to a lesser extent. What's also sadly true is that unions in both sectors seem to believe that they should offer equal protection to both classes of workers.0 -
I have worked as an external consultant with the 'health service' and they do use computers quite effectively. They also track work done effectively and use much more effective internal audit processes than anywhere I have encounteredin the private sector.So much of the administration work could be automated using new fangled things called computers.My sister works in IT in the health service and says that any suggestion is made by the you can't change it, its worked like this for years attitude.
Your sister is the problem. Why isn't she driving change and enabling new synergies? Actually I agree with you here. It is a huge organisation. That's why we need sacking in the Civil Service.
I have thought as regards the health service 'Why not bring the victims out to talk to the recalcitrants'
That's an assertion, not an argument. Have you ever worked in the private sector?Public sector isn't open to change, private sector forces change. Thats really the key difference as I see it.
What does that have to do with the civil service? It was a political decision.Who fooking privatised eircom! Who is fooking failing to regulate eircom and the broadband industry in general?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Who fooking privatised eircom! Who is fooking failing to regulate eircom and the broadband industry in general? Who can't even manage to introduce fooking post codes?
A government who believed all the same nonsense being put forward here about how a private company, free from "interference" from big government, will be efficient and more productive than a public company and provide the public a better service than a public company.
the idiots0 -
A government who believed all the same nonsense being put forward here about how a private company, free from "interference" from big government, will be efficient and more productive than a public company and provide the public a better service than a public company.
the idiots
The whole reason state owned companies are as efficient as private companies with monopolies is because they don't have to compete.
All the goverment did was turn a state owned monopoly into a privately owned monopoly.
Shall we all just agree that monopolies are bad and be done with the issue? Be it state or privately owned monopolies are inefficient because there is no catalyst for change and continual improvement.
In a privately run industry with effective competition, you have to improve to keep customers or they will go to another business who has improved and if you don't, your business won't exist for very long as nobody wants to deal with a company that doesn't improve or fix problems.
See the massive thread in broadband of customers fleeing eircom to NTL/UPC with the announcement of 20Mb broadband in areas it is available as an example of a company improving services over the competition and being rewarded for it by attracting new customers.0 -
See thats where you are mistaken. A union's role should not be to tear the arse off the business at every opportunity and hold it to ransom with the threat of closure on a whim, a union should work with management to ensure a company runs as efficiently as possible and reap the rewards from that. This adversarial attitude is of no value to anyone.mountainyman wrote: »That's not the union's role. The union's job is to get as much money as possible for their members.
We have bad builders because there was a huge raft of work out there in recent years, and every cowboy and wahoo jumped on board looking to make money. Competition in a non-saturated environment can result in a number of effects, increased spend on marketing, lower costs, increased customer service for example.Which is why we no longer have bad builders in this country .... oh wait :rolleyes:
The idea that competition creates better service is largely a myth, because true competition and truth choice is also a myth.
If the people in charge of a company don't feel that improved customer service is of much value to them in their business relative to their competition, they don't bother investing in it.
Your blanket statement above is therefore mostly untrue.
No, there weren't, but when this was discovered it was quieted up and one of the main researchers in the report quit over it.There's a number of things then:
Firstly, there may have been discrepancies in public/private pay seven years ago
No, they sold it to an Australian group who wanted to pump it up and resell it on again at a profit, like VCs on a grand scale. The government made money and the VCs got a millstone. They'll probably end up selling it back for cents on the euro. You really need to look at the details in these cases, before you start waving around wide load statements about the private versus public sector.A government who believed all the same nonsense being put forward here about how a private company, free from "interference" from big government, will be efficient and more productive than a public company and provide the public a better service than a public company.
And now, Regardless of purchasing power versus inflation, public sector pay and benefits during the course of the benchmarking agreement have scaled considerably beyond private sector, a sure sign of ill health. This damning report gives more details:
Juicy stuff. In my reckoning, theres a bit more excitement coming the way of the public sector in the near future than they are normally accustomed to.Irish Public Service 2001-2006: Salaries up 59%; Payroll up 18% - 38,000 workers and Pensions up 81.3%
By Finfacts Team
Jun 29, 2006, 08:27
Irish public service salaries have risen by 59% in the past five years and the payroll has expanded by 38,000 extra staff. The increase in the average industrial wage for a male worker in the period 2001-2005, was 19%.
The Exchequer’s annual wages and pensions bill increased sharply from €10.2 billion in 2001 to €16.2bn last year, with what has been termed "benchmarking" accounting for up to €1.32bn of the rise.
The number of public servants grew by 38,760, or 18%, since 2001 to 257,013 last January.
The education sector saw the biggest increase with pay costs rising by 65%. Health sector pay surged by 63% in the period, civil service salaries rose 48% and in the security sector they rose by 34.8%. The average weekly earnings for non-health service public sector workers stood at €848 last September, according to the CSO.
This was above the €754 for the banking and insurance sector and €579 for industrial workers.
Public sector pay rose by 8% in 2005 and pensions now account for 10% of the total pay bill, up from 8.6% in 2001. The pensions bill has increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period. The increase in the health sector has been 104%. Pensioners also received the special benchmarking increase of an average of 9%.
The core finding was that on average, public servants earned 13 per cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis in 2001. The researchers also discovered that the size of this margin (the public sector premium) in 2001 was not significantly different from what it had been in 1994, suggesting that pay increases in the public sector had kept pace with the private sector throughout the Celtic Tiger period.
Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.
A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries.
Last November, Davy Stockbrokers said that Irish public sector pay is on average around 120 percent of private sector earnings, having risen from 113 percent in the past five years, according to Davy Stockbrokers.
In a weekly market comment, Davy said that figures from the CSO (Central Statistics Office) indicated that average earnings in the public sector are now more than €43,000 a year. This compares with €33,500 in the private sector (industrial, construction, distribution and other sectors).
"Moreover, these crude comparisons take no account of the superior pension entitlements available to the public sector," Chief Economist Robbie Kelleher said.0 -
No-one answered the principal point of a pay freeze, if it does not happen, where will the money come from to pay for the pay rises?
This issue will now come up year after year while the economy is in a slump.
Will it be year after year of borrowing as tax revenues are due to not recover for at least another 2 years?!
Something has got to give. Raise taxes or implement public sector cutbacks or a public sector pay and hiring freeze or just borrow year on year till tax revenues come back!0 -
No-one answered the principal point of a pay freeze, if it does not happen, where will the money come from to pay for the pay rises?
This issue will now come up year after year while the economy is in a slump.
Will it be year after year of borrowing as tax revenues are due to not recover for at least another 2 years?!
Something has got to give. Raise taxes or implement public sector cutbacks or a public sector pay and hiring freeze or just borrow year on year till tax revenues come back!
time will tell but seeing that the great populist party fianna fail are in power , the most likely outcome is that money will be borrowed to apease the public servants and as long as a tax hike can be avoided , it will be election time again before anyone notices
some of the transport plan is likely to be shelved
i dont believe cowan has the guts to tackle the unions , just because hes grumpy doesnt mean hes brave , he never done anything as finance minister to suggest he was a reformer0 -
The whole reason state owned companies are as efficient as private companies with monopolies is because they don't have to compete.
It is nothing to do with being efficient. As I said in an earlier post to a private company efficiency is defined as making the most money for the least amount of cost (look at the private HMO's in America).
Public companies certainly aren't efficient in this sense because their purpose isn't to make money, it is provide a universal service.All the goverment did was turn a state owned monopoly into a privately owned monopoly.
Pretty much. Wouldn't you much rather it was a state owned monopoly.
Private monopolies are bad. Public monopolies have to answer to democracy. It isn't perfect, but it is better than private monopolies which don't have to answer to anyone but their shareholders (who are probably very happy they are invested in a monopoly)Shall we all just agree that monopolies are bad and be done with the issue?
In the case of Eircom it would have been entirely impractical to privatize the phone system without giving it to a monopoly or at the very least a syndicate. What is someone going to do, have a new company every time they change phone companies rip up their phone line and put in a new one.
The infrastructure of a country should be in public hands. This goes for the roads, it goes equally for the phone lines. Again you can't use Company B's roads when you are dissatisfied with Company A's roads. There should be roads, run and managed by the state, free for all, which both Company A and B can use (say company A and B are taxi companies for example).Be it state or privately owned monopolies are inefficient because there is no catalyst for change and continual improvement.
And there can be none in a lot of industries, including the telecom infrastructure industry. Catalyst only happened when Eircom were forced to share their network. It should never have been their network in the first place, nor should any phone company have to pay Eircom to use the network. It should be in public hands, run and managed by a public company.In a privately run industry with effective competition, you have to improve to keep customers or they will go to another business who has improved and if you don't
That is an incredibly naive statement
Often "improving" is bad for business (it costs money). And if it costs money you can bet that very few people are improving.
Again look at the mobile phone industry. I would jump ship to the first phone company that gives me free SMS messaging. None of them do, despite the fact that it doesn't cost them anything to send a SMS. But they all want to take the money from that revenue stream, and that revenue from existing companies is more important than my custom.
Businesses tend to settle on an equalibrium, where all companies settle providing basically the same services. They attract customers more with gimmicks and promotions than any actual improvement in services (your razor has 4 blades, well ours has 5!!)
Again providing real improvement is often very expensive. Smart Telecom went close to bankruptcy by trying to get their own equipment into the telecom exchanges so they could offer faster internet and attract customers. That worked for a bit but then Eircom and BT simply matched the offer.
It is very risky for any company to send that much trying to improve anything. The risk verse reward often doesn't pan out.
Most companies don't improve or fix problems! Heck I should know, I work in the computer software industry!, your business won't exist for very long as nobody wants to deal with a company that doesn't improve or fix problems.
How do they survive if it simply a case of going somewhere else?
Firstly given that all the others are just as bad people stick with what they know.
Secondly, marketing. People in general don't go to the best company they go to the one with the flashes ad campaign and gimmicky offer.See the massive thread in broadband of customers fleeing eircom to NTL/UPC with the announcement of 20Mb broadband in areas it is available as an example of a company improving services over the competition and being rewarded for it by attracting new customers.
You might also want to read about all the problems people have with NTL. And NTL can only offer this in the first place because they have their own infrastructure in place, and covers only a tiny amount of the population. Try getting 20 MB NTL in Laois0 -
What? This is the most backward statement I have ever seen about business. Profits are re-invested in businesses to improve and expand them in the real world, or did you think there was a fat man chortling through a haze of cigar smoke at the top of every firm? Businesses where the principals keep most of the capital are about two steps away from being devoured wholesale, in my opinion.Often "improving" is bad for business (it costs money). And if it costs money you can bet that very few people are improving.
Er again, what? The revenue from existing companies? Mobile phone groups have a very high barrier to entry in terms of cost, its almost impossible for a small startup to get into that area, so it naturally lends itself to cartel behaviour.Again look at the mobile phone industry. But they all want to take the money from that revenue stream, and that revenue from existing companies is more important than my custom.
Not to mention that the price of an SMS has nothing whatsoever to do with customer service...
What are you talking about. Every company is clawing to get an edge over every other company. A typical fortune 500 board meeting sounds like an extract from some military manual. Your example of razor blades with regard to service is way out of whack - they are providing a product, not a service - when was the last time you needed to call your razor company about something?Businesses tend to settle on an equalibrium, where all companies settle providing basically the same services. They attract customers more with gimmicks and promotions than any actual improvement in services (your razor has 4 blades, well ours has 5!!)
But if you don't someone else will. Citing large national groups with prohibitive entry costs that bear more similarity to the public sector than any productive private sector is just not applicable.Again providing real improvement is often very expensive... It is very risky for any company to send that much trying to improve anything. The risk verse reward often doesn't pan out.
Stick to the coding, I'd say.Most companies don't improve or fix problems! Heck I should know, I work in the computer software industry!0 -
Profits have to be reported every quarter. That's the reality. The fat man chortling at the top of the business is you and me through our investment and pension funds.SimpleSam06 wrote: »What? This is the most backward statement I have ever seen about business. Profits are re-invested in businesses to improve and expand them in the real world, or did you think there was a fat man chortling through a haze of cigar smoke at the top of every firm? Businesses where the principals keep most of the capital are about two steps away from being devoured wholesale, in my opinion.
I don't see the relevance tbh. Barriers to entry are common in may businesses. Oligopolies are common.SimpleSam06 wrote: »Er again, what? The revenue from existing companies? Mobile phone groups have a very high barrier to entry in terms of cost, its almost impossible for a small startup to get into that area, so it naturally lends itself to cartel behaviour.SimpleSam06 wrote: »But if you don't someone else will. Citing large national groups with prohibitive entry costs that bear more similarity to the public sector than any productive private sector is just not applicable.
Only in some cases. Oligopolies are near enough the norm measured as a percentage of the economy rather than the number of firms. What is the productive private sector? mobile phone companies are useful, energy companies are useful, large scale retailers are useful, banks are useful All are oligopolies.
What is the productive private sector does the term mean anything.
as for text messages not being a service so what. this discussion is about unions irish_bob is the one going on about customer service. wiknight is talking about competition.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wrong. This adversarial attitude is of value to the workers. That is the purpose of the union to represent the workers not to help the company.SimpleSam06 wrote: »See thats where you are mistaken. A union's role should not be to tear the arse off the business at every opportunity and hold it to ransom with the threat of closure on a whim, a union should work with management to ensure a company runs as efficiently as possible and reap the rewards from that. This adversarial attitude is of no value to anyone.
Workers as workers must do their jobs and work to build and improve their employers business. The union official should work to make as much money for the workers as possible.
The workers must mandate the union to act within limits. The minimum wage and the 40 hour week exist because of union adversarialism.
Anyway you are just strawmanning any group of workers who closed their employers business on a whim would find the business closed permanently.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement