To Strike or Not to Strike

nesf

BroomBurner wrote: »

I would agree Ioxy that certain things should not be allowed out to strike, such as Gardaí, some other services; but overall, striking cannot be made illegal. We're not living in a military dictatorship, we live in a democracy.

I think everyone would agree. I'd like to see certain public servants not being allowed to strike (Teachers would probably be the most controversial one, the rest would be transport workers and similar) but many would disagree with me I'm sure.

maggy_thatcher

nesf wrote: »

I think everyone would agree. I'd like to see certain public servants not being allowed to strike (Teachers would probably be the most controversial one, the rest would be transport workers and similar) but many would disagree with me I'm sure.

I think strikes have their place...however they need to be the last possible option. It's the equivalent of the atomic bomb. Every other option should be used first until eventually a strike is formed. I also believe it should only be permitted if you have a direct grievance with your employer, as they're the only ones who can possibly correct the issue. If it's a complaint about anybody else, striking isn't going to do any good at all. This includes ruling out sympathy strikes.

ckristo2

You're absolutely right and in the case of the public sector workers the employer is the government so this strike is set to directly upset them. I agree that some kind of work to rule should have been tried first and a strike is the last option. But the government entered into negotiations with the employers and the unions. it listened only to the employers and decided to hammer the workers because it was the easy option.
1. They could have looked at the borrowing option to stimulate the economy.
2. They could have looked at some of the generous Tax loopholes/havens they helped
to set up during the good times.
3. They could look at increasing tax for the better off. In this unprecedented crisis isn't it the patriotic duty of every citizen to get us out of this mess.
Instead the government took the easy way out and clobbered the modest and least well off and now they (and us) are reaping the reward.

ixoy

1. They could have looked at the borrowing option to stimulate the economy.

Borrow even more?! We're already breaching EU guidelines with regards to borrowing and having to pay exhorbant rate for it.

2. They could have looked at some of the generous Tax loopholes/havens they helped to set up during the good times.

Most likely they are and it's something that has to be done in addition to the levy.

3. They could look at increasing tax for the better off. In this unprecedented crisis isn't it the patriotic duty of every citizen to get us out of this mess.

It's not enough. People have to stop this notion that all we have to do is "make the fat cats pay". There will also quite likely be a third tax band so that should sort some of those complaints out.

Instead the government took the easy way out and clobbered the modest and least well off and now they (and us) are reaping the reward.

Many people are being clobbered at all levels in all sectors. It's crap but that's really how it's going to have to be until we get the finances in check.

maggy_thatcher

ckristo2 wrote: »

You're absolutely right and in the case of the public sector workers the employer is the government so this strike is set to directly upset them. I agree that some kind of work to rule should have been tried first and a strike is the last option. But the government entered into negotiations with the employers and the unions. it listened only to the employers and decided to hammer the workers because it was the easy option.

If the government listened only to the employers, and the government is the employer, it only listened to itself?

Also, we keep being told that it's not just the Public Service workers that are striking next week, but that some Private Sector workers are too...why are they striking?

I think we need to change the law to make striking as cumbersome as possible...something like

1 - Must provide a minimum of 3 months notice.
2 - Must provide a certificate from the LRC indicating talks have stalled
3 - Must provide proof that other industrial action methods (e.g. work-to-rule) have been attempted for a minimum of 2 months *prior* to the 3 months notice.
4 - Must be in relation to a complaint with your direct employer only.

Also, if the strike still ends up happening:

1 - Where possible, the employer should offer contract positions to non-strikers (so that other businesses are unaffected). The unions may not hamper these people from going to work.
2 - If the service can still not be provided, permit 3rd-party organisations (e.g. the airlines in an airport forced to close due to industrial action) to claim back damages from the closed service to recoup losses.

This way, people can strike, but it will minimise the effect on external innocent parties.

oscarBravo

ckristo2 wrote: »

It is as I feared fighting between the private and public workers and the original question I asked about why those who can afford to pay are...well being totally let off the hook both in the country and in this thread.

You seem to be labouring under the all-too-common delusion that we can solve our financial problems simply by taxing the wealthy.

So, let's see your numbers. We have a five billion euro hole to fill. How many wealthy people do you propose to tax, and by how much, in order to make up this shortfall?

maggy_thatcher

ixoy wrote: »

It's not enough. People have to stop this notion that all we have to do is "make the fat cats pay". There will also quite likely be a third tax band so that should sort some of those complaints out.

I agree. Also, the "fat cats" as people put it are generally the people who can most easily move. If you tax them too heavily, they'll leave, move to a country with better tax rates, resulting in both the loss of their income tax and the VAT that we would've gotten from the (generally more) purchases that they make.

jimmmy

Blondie86Star wrote: »

I have to say, as someone who has worked in the public (and now in Private) sector, I'm not backing the public sector in anyway. Having see first hand the laziness of civil servants, the employment of 3 people for one job, the subsidised lunches, pensions etc not to mention JOB SECURITY I'm sickened they are complaining.
Will anyone actually notice with the civil servants going on strike next week? Takes them weeks to do one thing!:mad:

hear hear, well said, and my feelings too....I know people well who work in the public sector and even they will privately agree the public sector have it way too easy / they are overpaid for the work they do.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be labouring under the all-too-common delusion that we can solve our financial problems simply by taxing the wealthy.

So, let's see your numbers. We have a five billion euro hole to fill. How many wealthy people do you propose to tax, and by how much, in order to make up this shortfall?

A 100% tax on Sean Quinns Wealth (including the nationalising of Quinn insurance/health),Sean Fitzpatricks wealth and maybe a few choice golden circle others would make a good stab at it.
I'd earmark the funds from that though for infrastructural job creating development ie roads schools and rail and keep up with the public service pay and numbers rationalisation.

This may need a constitutional ammendment naming the individuals and only them which I'm sure given the current mood would pass like the GFA...

We'd probably need to sell the bill to foreign investors as something akin to the Obama tax on the AIG bonuses as our version of that to apply justice to those that raped the international reputation of our banks and in fact raped our banks.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

A 100% tax on Sean Quinns Wealth (including the nationalising of Quinn insurance/health),Sean Fitzpatricks wealth and maybe a few choice golden circle others would make a good stab at it.

...all of which wealth would be transferred to the Cayman islands while the legislation to steal tax it was making its way through the Oireachtas.

And who do we tax to pay for the public service in 2010, and beyond?

Not to mention the fun and games we would have trying to attract inward investment afterwards. Invest in Ireland - your money's in safe hands.

maggy_thatcher

Deleted User wrote: »

We'd probably need to sell the bill to foreign investors as something akin to the Obama tax on the AIG bonuses as our version of that to apply justice to those that raped the international reputation of our banks and in fact raped our banks.

It wasn't an "Obama tax", it was passed in Congress. Obama actually said that it was unconstitutional, and probably won't sign it. Fortunately as (most of) the AIG execs are returning the money, it's not really relevant.

Anyway, as already pointed out, we can't just steal money from a few rich people who played the system and won. If what they did was illegal, then CAB could seize the assets, but it wasn't, so they can't.

ixoy

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

If what they did was illegal, then CAB could seize the assets, but it wasn't, so they can't.

Yep - unethical a lot of it may have been, but not illegal. What we need the government to do now is tighten up its financial regulation to ensure such fiascos don't happen again. Of course there's a balance to be struck - if we tighten it up too much, we'll put off financial firms doing any sort of business here.

grahamo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

If the government listened only to the employers, and the government is the employer, it only listened to itself?

Also, we keep being told that it's not just the Public Service workers that are striking next week, but that some Private Sector workers are too...why are they striking?

I think we need to change the law to make striking as cumbersome as possible...something like

1 - Must provide a minimum of 3 months notice.
2 - Must provide a certificate from the LRC indicating talks have stalled
3 - Must provide proof that other industrial action methods (e.g. work-to-rule) have been attempted for a minimum of 2 months *prior* to the 3 months notice.
4 - Must be in relation to a complaint with your direct employer only.

Also, if the strike still ends up happening:

1 - Where possible, the employer should offer contract positions to non-strikers (so that other businesses are unaffected). The unions may not hamper these people from going to work.
2 - If the service can still not be provided, permit 3rd-party organisations (e.g. the airlines in an airport forced to close due to industrial action) to claim back damages from the closed service to recoup losses.

This way, people can strike, but it will minimise the effect on external innocent parties.

If this is the thinking of younger members of the workforce then employers must be rubbing their hands with glee.
There have been no big strikes since the 1980's so the workers of the country have been doing their bit and the thanks they get is for their employers to rip up agreements knowing things are in their favour since the divide and conquer tactics worked better than they could have ever imagined.
I've only ever had to strike once, this was back in the 80's when our then boss claimed inability to pay an agreed pay rise. We knew he was just being a tightass as we had just won a couple of massive contracts. We duly went on strike, that day the employer buckled straight away and instantly agreed to our conditions. A result for the workers!:D That wouldn't happen these days as people seem to be afraid of employers and more than willing to let their bosses walk on them!!!

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

...all of which wealth would be transferred to the Cayman islands while the legislation to steal tax it was making its way through the Oireachtas.

I didn't say it would be easy.
An APB for his arrest for breaking the new law so.

And who do we tax to pay for the public service in 2010, and beyond?

I said continue the cuts,the lads contribution was for a bit of infrastructure.

Not to mention the fun and games we would have trying to attract inward investment afterwards. Invest in Ireland - your money's in safe hands.

I doubt there'd be fun and games...after all the UK government neutralised the wealth of how many reasonably well off shareholders in all the UK main banks recently with little or no hoop law.
How would this be any different ?
Fun and games don't come into it see'ing as there is so much unprecedent hapening now in the world.

Read the Obama tax as the american tax which is what I meant...

maggy_thatcher

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Anyway, as already pointed out, we can't just steal money from a few rich people who played the system and won. If what they did was illegal, then CAB could seize the assets, but it wasn't, so they can't.

Yes we Can!!

They stole it for themselves thanks to our regulators indifference.We the people have the right to take it back if we want to.

maggy_thatcher

grahamo wrote: »

[/b]
If this is the thinking of younger members of the workforce then employers must be rubbing their hands with glee.
There have been no big strikes since the 1980's so the workers of the country have been doing their bit and the thanks they get is for their employers to rip up agreements knowing things are in their favour since the divide and conquer tactics worked better than they could have ever imagined.
I've only ever had to strike once, this was back in the 80's when our then boss claimed inability to pay an agreed pay rise. We knew he was just being a tightass as we had just won a couple of massive contracts. We duly went on strike, that day the employer buckled straight away and instantly agreed to our conditions. A result for the workers!:D That wouldn't happen these days as people seem to be afraid of employers and more than willing to let their bosses walk on them!!!

It's not fear of employers -- it's consideration for other people. If you want to cry at the mistreatment you have with your boss, that's all well and good -- but why should us innocent bystanders be stuck with the collateral damage? Say for example, all public transport went on strike...how do the rest of us go and do an honest days work?

grahamo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

It's not fear of employers -- it's consideration for other people. If you want to cry at the mistreatment you have with your boss, that's all well and good -- but why should us innocent bystanders be stuck with the collateral damage? Say for example, all public transport went on strike...how do the rest of us go and do an honest days work?

Workers don't strike for the fun of it. People have families to support and can't afford to strike so any strike would be a last resort. Lets face it, if employers showed consideration for other people, there would be no strikes!

ixoy

grahamo wrote: »

Workers don't strike for the fun of it. People have families to support and can't afford to strike so any strike would be a last resort. Lets face it, if employers showed consideration for other people, there would be no strikes!

However ICTU's action doesn't seem like a last resort as they haven't even pursued avenues like work-to-rule. In fact they also seem to be giving off confused vibes as to what it's about - the levy or the ridiculous pay rise.

As to employers showing due consideration - it's a two way street. Employees need to show due consideration to the fact that sometimes employers can't pay, not without irreperable damage either now or a future date.

blahblahblah.

Blondie86Star wrote: »

Having see first hand the laziness of civil servants, Will anyone actually notice with the civil servants going on strike next week? Takes them weeks to do one thing!:mad:

and i have seen first hand civil servants working there ass off and are extremly stressed out, weekends dont excist for them. that could be one part of the civil service but there are loads off peole who are trying to get as much as they can done but wiht nothing to show for it caus off all the red tape

grahamo

ixoy wrote: »

However ICTU's action doesn't seem like a last resort as they haven't even pursued avenues like work-to-rule. In fact they also seem to be giving off confused vibes as to what it's about - the levy or the ridiculous pay rise.

As to employers showing due consideration - it's a two way street. Employees need to show due consideration to the fact that sometimes employers can't pay, not without irreperable damage either now or a future date.

If employers genuinely couldn't afford an agreed pay rise, most workers would be fine with it. What does get up my nose is an employer claiming inability to pay when the dogs in the street know they can afford it but have decided to use the recession as a stick to beat us with. People can cry about unions all they like but Employers are just as stubborn and difficult to deal with.

maggy_thatcher

grahamo wrote: »

Workers don't strike for the fun of it. People have families to support and can't afford to strike so any strike would be a last resort. Lets face it, if employers showed consideration for other people, there would be no strikes!

And my suggestions on what to do wouldn't stop that. You could still strike, but only after you could clearly demonstrate that it was the last possible option. For the employer the additional incentive of having dependents being able to claim back damages should make a strike even more abhorrent from their point of view, increasing their willingness to settle.

I don't believe that we should ban all strikes, just that they (1) should be a last and final option, and (2) where possible should affect only the employer and the employee(s).

bobbyjoe

I don't think that the pension levy will be removed but worse is in the pipeline and kicking up a fuss now will make the Gov think twice next time. Maybe hit some of the harder targets instead of the young, the old and the public services.

10000maniacs

ckristo2 wrote: »

The proposed strike on March 30th is a protest against the pension levy which will butcher public worker's pay. A lot of the coverage of this strike is along the lines of "What are you complaining about -to the Public sector- aren't your jobs secure?" and "there is very little sympathy from the private sector for this strike." Most of it from journalists working for RTE and Independent Media News with even the Irish Times yesterday headlining with a story about disunity in Unions containing both private and public sector workers.
The point of this thread is shouldn't the government be looking for the extra money from those who can afford to pay instead of from the PAYE worker Whether they are Private or Public?

Ckristo2, you are lucky that I am not running the country.
I would have given the public sector a 10% pay cut as well as ordering every individual to write a brief essay on why their job shouldn't be cut. If there was no justification for the position, the position would be axed.
I would have also cut the public service pensions.
Regardless of what the government did, it was inevitable that you would have taken to the streets, making the situation even worse.
I think that the government should have went a lot further in their public service cuts. They bottled it because they were afraid of the impending strikes (Which were going to happen anyway).
You think that you have the sympathy of the Irish people? Dream on.

ixoy

grahamo wrote: »

If employers genuinely couldn't afford an agreed pay rise, most workers would be fine with it. What does get up my nose is an employer claiming inability to pay when the dogs in the street know they can afford it but have decided to use the recession as a stick to beat us with.

And the dogs in the street know the government can't pay increased wages, yet the unions are still striking even with us borrowing three times the EU limits - yet these workers don't appear fine with it. Hence the irritation of many posters.

ckristo2

We still have a lot of scope to borrow more and with more money people will spend more and the economy may begin slowly to lift. That's what the Americans are trying.
There probably will be more taxes but I remember the "Ansbacher culture" of the 1980's when we were all tightening our belts until we discovered some people were actually making a mint out of the recession then.
It might be fanciful to suggest that Tony O' Reilly or Dermot Desmond's tax returns for a year might keep a hospital ward open but I have no confidence at all that the people with the most will be asked to pay anything and if they are will the revenue seriously go after them. Equality was an aspirational virtue in the good times now it's absolutely vital.

Borrow more my aunt Sally.
That would only be used as an excuse to delay or cancel the needed pruning of the bloated public/civil service.

We are not America or Britain.
We don't have the capacity-that is to say we dont have 60 to 300 million potential taxpayers living here to pay it all back in a more measured easy on the pocket fashion than 3 or 4 million would.

Ffs what have we potentially ? circa 2 million tax payers and bad weather?
We'd have a might exodous of even those when we are back paying 60% of our salaries again and the rest of the world has recovered.

This strike is the most ridiculous pointless counter productive un-thoughtfull stunt ever concocted.

maggy_thatcher

Reading http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0324/breaking20.htm -- the list of places the pickets are going to be at includes "New Ireland Assurance, Enterprise Ireland, Glaxo Smithkline Beecham, the Health Service Executive, the National Standards Authority of Ireland and Aer Lingus"...what on Earth do New Ireland, Glaxo Smithkline Beecham and Aer Lingus have to do with this particular complaint anyway? That's just completely unfair. The only place the picket really should be is Leinster House. Anywhere else seems to be just targeting innocent bystanders.

Also, this: "Impact said today it cannot instruct its members to take industrial action, but the union said it is committed to protecting any member who refuses to cross a picket line from any sanctions by management." -- so in other words, "we won't go on strike, but don't expect us to do an honest days work cos we'll just go and stand beside the others".

ixoy

ckristo2 wrote: »

We still have a lot of scope to borrow more and with more money people will spend more and the economy may begin slowly to lift. That's what the Americans are trying.

Eh no we don't - as already stated the EU has said our deficit is 3 times higher than guidelines and the worst in Europe. Borrowing more will increase that deficit. We have until 2013 to sort things out.

Equality was an aspirational virtue in the good times now it's absolutely vital.

Correct - so don't strike and realise that we all need to take a hit when our employers (such as the government) can't hit because the consequences otherwise could be dire.

Well we could borrow more and they kick us out of the Eurozone which is at worst what they might do.
The IMF will do the rest when the country can't pay it back.

We sack half the civil servants and any unnecessary public servants.
That way they only cost us 200 a week instead of 500.

Say 10,000 of them by €300 by 52

Let me click on something here- windows start/programmes/accessories/calculator
Thats a billion and a half saved.

Next we introduce compulsary social service work for the more long term unemployed and obviously the civil servants.
4 hours a day cleaning our streets and as hospital orderlies for example so we can have tidy streets to promote tourism and we can open more hospital wards.
We'll give them all free library membership to research their position regarding further employment.

maggy_thatcher

Deleted User wrote: »

Well we could borrow more and they kick us out of the Eurozone which is at worst what they might do.
The IMF will do the rest when the country can't pay it back.

We sack half the civil servants and any unnecessary public servants.
That way they only cost us 200 a week instead of 500.

Say 10,000 of them by €300 by 52

Let me click on something here- windows start/programmes/accessories/calculator
Thats a billion and a half saved.

Next we introduce compulsary social service work for the more long term unemployed and obviously the civil servants.
4 hours a day cleaning our streets and as hospital orderlies for example so we can have tidy streets to promote tourism and we can open more hospital wards.
We'll give them all free library membership to research their position.

You're forgetting that if they kick us out of the eurozone, the newly reformed IEP would drop like a stone. We'd be following the Zimbabwe approach, not exactly a great role model!