Are unions the cause of the mess we are in???

Darragh29

Here's an interesting little story for you...

I've a mate who is unemployed for around 6 months. This week, I was calling into visit another mate in work who runs his own business. These two mates have never met before. My mate who is unemployed, lets call him Ricky, has always worked in a unionised workplace, and when he came up with me to visit this other mate I have who runs a large logistics company, let's call him Dave, Ricky was taken aback at the fact that he happened to see one of Dave's employees driving a forklift one minute and then hopping out of it and picking up a brush and sweeping the warehouse floor the next minute.

He mentioned to me that what he had just seen, would never be allowed happen in any of the unionised places where he worked previously. His attitude was that if he was say for instance a forklift driver, then any request to sweep the floor would have been met with a "fup off, that's someone else's job" type response... Now my mate Dave has a really good loyal team of folks working for him, he doesn't have to ask someone to sweep the floor or to unload pallets from a lorry when one turns up, the folks he has employed, they look out for each other and just get stuck in and stay on top of the job.

The notion of them arguing about who's job it is to sweep the floor and who's job it is to unload a truck and who's job it is to lock up in the evening, all this is completely alien to him.

But to Ricky, as he views this, one guy is employed to do security and open up and lock up, another person is employed to sweep the floor, another guy is employed to load and unload the truck (actually he said ONE guy is responsible for unloading trucks and ANOTHER guy is responsible for loading trucks and they cannot cover each others responsibilities!).

I had a good long think about this and it occured to me that some of the big job losses in the private sector with Dell being the obvious exception, but some of the bigger businesses that have decided to shut up shop here, SR Technics and Waterford Crystal for example, have been highly unionised workplaces that in all reality, have been having ongoing and regular industrial relations and funding issues all through the Celtic Tiger!

I have to say I had my eyes opened this week when Ricky met Dave and this big demarcation issue emerged before me. I know Dave simply wouldn't pay 4-5 people full time to do the work that currently 2 people can do, so what I'm asking is, should we really be all that surprised now when it would appear that this extremely inefficient business mindset seems to be bedded in within unionised workplaces in Ireland, and these businesses are closing down due to being unable to run efficient business operations???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

On the flip side, non-unionised employees in a private company could have there work increased to breaking point, and then beyond.

Firetrap

Unions aren't perfect by any means but they're not the cause of the current mess. Personally, I prefer to point the finger at all the people who were responsible for whipping up the property bubble.

Darragh29

Manach wrote: »

On the flip side, non-unionised employees in a private company could have there work increased to breaking point, and then beyond.

I don't really see this argument to be honest. A business that has to pay one person to open and lock the door and another person to sweep the floor and another person to make the tea and another person to load the truck, I would argue is doomed to fail. I think in the current climate, this mentality has to be dealt with very robustly.

Here's another simple example I experienced lately...

I went into the General Registrar's Office (where you go to do genealogical research, look up birth, marriage and death records, etc), in the Irish Life Mall in Dublin City a few weeks ago...

I walk into the building, there is one security person stationed on the ground floor. I have to sign in there, where the security person is reading the Daily Star. Then I get into the lift and go up to the floor that the General Registrar's Office is situated on... In I go and there is another security person sitting there at a desk reading the Daily Mirror...

Now it's the taxpayer who is paying for two people to do the exact same job, and this is just in one government office. You simply could not afford to run a business like this in the private sector.

Darragh29

Firetrap wrote: »

Unions aren't perfect by any means but they're not the cause of the current mess. Personally, I prefer to point the finger at all the people who were responsible for whipping up the property bubble.

They might not be the cause of the current mess but they could well be the cause of it getting a lot worse. If we have employers under serious financial pressure and this mentality of, "sorry, that's not my job", is what they are getting, it gets easy to see why many of them are getting out of the country.

On Questions & Answers last week, it was clear that nobody actually knows why SR Technics have decided to pull out of Ireland. I am getting the feeling that they were sick to their back teeth of being told how to run their business by a union.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

population

Darragh29 wrote: »

I went into the General Registrar's Office (where you go to do genealogical research, look up birth, marriage and death records, etc), in the Irish Life Mall in Dublin City a few weeks ago...

I walk into the building, there is one security person stationed on the ground floor. I have to sign in there, where the security person is reading the Daily Star. Then I get into the lift and go up to the floor that the General Registrar's Office is situated on... In I go and there is another security person sitting there at a desk reading the Daily Mirror...

Now it's the taxpayer who is paying for two people to do the exact same job, and this is just in one government office. You simply could not afford to run a business like this in the private sector.

At least they are keeping the newspaper industry afloat:D

garbanzo

The trade union movement is partly to blame but there are very few sectors of society that did not in someway contribute to the current mess.

It's funny but for once we can't blame the bloody Church about it . . . aint that a turn up for the books !

jimmmy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree. Our average public servant is paid 966 per week , plus perks, according to George Lee. Supporting 300,000 plus people ( as well as the pensioners on 50% related + gratuity pensions ) is unsustainable for our relatively small economy / population ( the same size as greater Manchester ).

A Primal Nut

Hmm, I've never been member of a union so I didn't exactly know this. I remember when I worked in a supermarket part of the contract was that you may be required to do work outside of the scope of what had been listed. There were two many different tasks to list them all. I would have thought this would be part of most contracts (except for professionals, highly qualified people, etc) regardless of whether there is a union involved.

Having said that I now work as an engineer (still non-unionised) and it would be kind of odd if i was asked to brush the floor (they hire cleaners for that) but I have had to do small bits of Graphic Design and another little bits here and there during quieter time.

Darragh29

jimmmy wrote: »

I agree. Our average public servant is paid 966 per week , plus perks, according to George Lee. Supporting 300,000 plus people ( as well as the pensioners on 50% related + gratuity pensions ) is unsustainable for our relatively small economy / population ( the same size as greater Manchester ).

Jasus Christ, 966 a week!?! No wonder the country is in a state of chassis!

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

I agree. Our average public servant is paid 966 per week , plus perks, according to George Lee. Supporting 300,000 plus people ( as well as the pensioners on 50% related + gratuity pensions ) is unsustainable for our relatively small economy / population ( the same size as greater Manchester ).

Jimmmy, we know, you spam this all over the forum. Again and again. And again. And again. And again.

jf852003

I don't think Unions or organised labour in general are to blame for our current malaise. We are in the unfortunate situation of having a bursting property bubble during a global economic depression. This coupled with a government that reacts too slow (All large organisations do) and can't change quick enough to the new circumstances has led us here. This is not helped by a large, unwieldy, inefficient and dare I say, expensive public service.

If unions are guilty of anything, it is fighting over the carcass. However, that has always been true of any economic downturn. The less there is, the more unions fight over it, all trying to retain their little patch. Something they can point out to their members who are losing jobs and say, "Hey, we managed to save that". They have to justify their existence as much as anyone else.

JonathanAnon

Yeah Darragh, I've always thought this too. I worked in unionised and non unionised environments and can see both sides. I think it manifests itself in the types of employees that you end up with.

In generally small, private companies, there has to be a sort of "It may not be my job, but I will do it for the common good" mentality. This sort of employee is flexible and will generally try to help out if they can. I dont mean re-wiring the place with optical fibre now, just any menial task that anybody could do.

With larger companies (both public and private it has to be said), where everyone has union membership there tends to be a "not in my brief" mentality. And if anybody attempts to do someone elses job (say if the person was out on lunch and something needed to be done quickly) they are frowned on is as they are trying to get that person fired. Because most of the public sector is unionised, this sort of attitude is prevalent. For example I did a job as an IT contractor in a public hospital, where they were having problems with the connecting devices to their remotes offices. When I arrived on site the problem turned out to be viruses on a number of the workstations. They had six IT staff on-site, all of whom were too high up to tackle such a menial task. Ridiculous.

That's what bugs me about all these strikes. It is not 1913, every employee has basic conditions and pay as a right in this state. If these rights are not being met you can take them to the labour courts. There is no need for unions. If you dont like your job because of pay / conditions / etc etc, then get a different job. Like the teachers at the moment - if you are unhappy with the (very good) conditions at present, then get a job as a private teacher. But remember you wont have security, as good a pension, might not be paid for sick days ....

And I think the ironic thing is that the unions are shown to be soooo ineffective in the last few months. They could do nothing about Waterford Glass, Dell and many other companies who left. The government got sick of pandering to them for once and just went ahead with the intial levy on the Public Sector. I think they only called them back into government buildings to tell them to support what the government was doing in the budget.

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Donegalfella, i had you down as a bit of a right wing nutjob but the above is true. Public service will have to give, that's given.

But FF and IBEC aimed a gun at the public sector about 10 months ago and the whole country has fallen for it.

What should be an arguement about how the PAYE sector has been screwed twice in six months while we have the await the result of the report to hit the rich once, is sickening.

If Bono doesn't want to pay taxes in Ireland grand, get a dutch passport. If Denis O'Brien wants to be a tax exile, off you pop, become West Indian or whatever your tax home is this week.

FF, the developers, the banks and the greedy rich still have a price to pay but, of course, it seems likely they aren't going to snitch on each other because they've buried a lot of bodies together.

ParkRunner

I would say it was a lack of leadership from the government, a lack of responsibility both personal and commercial and a failure to develop our export economy in non-manufacturing areas.

Yes the unions pushed for high wages, partly to keep up with inflation and the cost of living and those wages and the numbers getting those wages are both coming down.

Are the unions the cause of the mess we are in? Partly yes, but the blame game has been exhausted at this stage in my opinion. The only influnce the unions have at present is in negotiating redundancy packages. Time to look to the future and not the past.

Exile 1798

So to answer the title of the thread, no, Unions are not the cause of the mess we're in.

JonathanAnon

sorry one more point to add to my previous rant ;-)

The unions wanted benchmarking when times were good, and Bertie let them have whatever they wanted to avoid strikes. I dont hear anybody wanting them to be benchmarked back down now that times are bad. Does nobody realise that people in the real world have to earn the money to pay for all of their benefits. Like Bertie's 160k pension which he is getting even though he is a TD still, thought I think this is ended in the last budget.

Nothing will be achieved without reform, and unions make reform impossible.

Darragh29

JonathanAnon wrote: »

sorry one more point to add to my previous rant ;-)

The unions wanted benchmarking when times were good, and Bertie let them have whatever they wanted to avoid strikes. I dont hear anybody wanting them to be benchmarked back down now that times are bad. Does nobody realise that people in the real world have to earn the money to pay for all of their benefits. Like Bertie's 160k pension which he is getting even though he is a TD still, thought I think this is ended in the last budget.

Nothing will be achieved without reform, and unions make reform impossible.

It's the same codding that has been going on with "upward only rent reviews". BULLSH*T!

jimmmy

Darragh29 wrote: »

Jasus Christ, 966 a week!?! No wonder the country is in a state of chassis!

So George Lee said on RTE. And do not forget the perks on top of that ( security , still subsidised pension etc ). The C.S.O. have the same statistics. Some posters on this boards do not realise that.....and I am glad I pointed it out, as otherwise you would not have known it. The likes of dresden8 would like that fact hushed up.

anonymous_joe

Unions exist to protect workers right - that's a fairly obvious statement.

The basic assumption is that at some level, an employer is evil and wants to exploit his/her workers. You have no need for a union unless you have that mindset.

One of the better examples of Unions having a negative effect would be the Times in England before Murdoch, and the sacking of the Printworkers Union (don't know what it was called) whose members had a job so strangely protected by their unions they were in the top 5 percentile of incomes in the UK at the time.

The problem isn't necessarily with unions, however, but with the mindset that often comes with them. The over protection of jobs is another - a friend of mine's parents are both doctors, he's a student, he got a job working in a hospital for the summer doing basic admin work. He found out that when the clock in their office stopped working, he wasn't allowed climb up and replace it, a specific union had their workers do that job, and no-one else was allowed do it.

Again, Unions aren't the problem, but they're one of many factors that reduce efficiency, and that's a huge problem.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

So George Lee said on RTE. And do not forget the perks on top of that ( security , still subsidised pension etc ). The C.S.O. have the same statistics. Some posters on this boards do not realise that.....and I am glad I pointed it out, as otherwise you would not have known it. The likes of dresden8 would like that fact hushed up.

Hushed up? I read it ten times a day.

Of course, if you do need open heart surgery I'm sure you'll be happy to have it done by a minimum wage Polish waitress, just to cut down the pay bill of course.

silverharp

jimmmy wrote: »

So George Lee said on RTE. And do not forget the perks on top of that ( security , still subsidised pension etc ). The C.S.O. have the same statistics. Some posters on this boards do not realise that.....and I am glad I pointed it out, as otherwise you would not have known it. The likes of dresden8 would like that fact hushed up.

At least its not just Ireland , from the Canadian press

National Post editorial board: Boom time for the public service
Posted: April 02, 2009, 8:00 AM by NP Editor


Canada’s private sector is racked with job losses — nearly 300,000 between November, 2008, and February, 2009, alone, with projections of as many as 600,000 in total between September, 2008 and June of this year. Gross domestic product could shrink over 5% during the first half of the year, before making a small rebound in the second. Homes are in danger of foreclosure, consumer confidence is stumbling and businesses are shuttering. At present, Canada is on pace for a 22% rise in personal bankruptcies this year. Real wages are stagnant or even falling.


Meanwhile, over in the public sector, things could hardly be rosier. According to Statistics Canada, the ranks of Canada’s civil servants swelled by 96,000 members (2.9%) in just the final three months of 2008, and “total public sector wages and salaries rose by 4.3%” last year, almost two percentage points above private-sector compensation.

“Recession?” these government workers are saying. “What recession?”


Prior to the last big recession in 1991, there were 96.3 federal, provincial and municipal workers for every 1,000 Canadians. Then, after years of Common Sense Revolutions, Alberta Advantages and cutbacks at all levels, that figure fell to 93.3. Now there are more than 101.5 government workers per 1,000 Canadian men, women and children. Nearly one in five working Canadians is now employed directly by one of the three levels of government, or by schools, universities and colleges, hospitals, social service agencies, Crown corporations and so on. These mark the highest levels of per-capita peacetime public-sector employment in our history.


These armies of bureaucrats and other public workers are only going to bloat further, too, as nearly every government in the country adds taxpayer-funded jobs to its payroll in a bid to stimulate the economy. Whereas one year ago 18.8% of Canadian workers were public-sector workers, today almost 19.4% are — and that percentage is growing. A good example is the outrageous City of Toronto budget that adds more than 1,000 new city employees (not to mention $558-million in new spending) — a sign of an out of control government trying to spend its way out of a recession.


To make matters worse, public-sector compensation now far exceeds comparable private-sector wages and benefits. As the Ontario government revealed Monday, the number of its provincial civil servants earning more than $100,000 increased by nearly a third in 2008. Now, fully one in 10 Ontario government workers makes more than $100,000 a year, not including pensions and benefits that can add another 40% to the value of compensation. In the private sector, only a little more than 5% of workers have salaries that high.

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan attempted to justify these statistics by insisting they were nowhere near the “stratospheric” compensation paid to executives at U.S. financial institutions. Is that the best the man can do — comparing Ontario government workers to discredited financial-industry oligarchs? Surely Mr. Duncan seeks a higher standard of accountability and fairness than this.

And then, in a feat of economic jiggery-pokery that defies reason, Mr. Duncan said high civil service pay was necessary because “our restaurants, our small businesses depend on those public-sector salaries” — citing the specific example of his hometown of Windsor, Ont.

Call it trickle-down economics meets the food chain: Ontario needs to pay its public workers well so they can afford to tip their waiters. Wouldn’t it be more efficient for the government to send daily envelopes of loose change to servers directly, and cut out the middleman?

According to an economic analysis released just before Christmas by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, federal civil servants are paid 17.3% more than their counterparts in the private sector — nearly 42% more if benefits, perks and pensions are included in the calculations. Provincial and municipal bureaucrats are paid 25% and 36% more, respectively.
Judges — not lawyers, doctors or corporate executives — are now the highest paid category of income-earners in the country, and senior public-sector managers are sixth on the list. Few countries have more or better paid civil servants.


Since each public-sector job relies for its existence on taxes paid by those creating income and employment in the private sector, it is foolish to think we can lift the private sector out of its slump by adding high-paying, tax-funded jobs in government and government-run sectors. This only further drains the resources needed for recovery. The public sector is already big enough and well enough paid. Stop expanding it.
National Post

dresden8

In the interest of balance here's some figures based around Jimmmy's average of 966 per week.

Ok, some more facts that Jimmmy is so fond of. Similar to my earlier post. All are post 95'ers on the standard scale. And yes it is ignoring the lump sum.


State Contributory Pension (Which is paid for by PRSI Contributions)

Personal Rate 230.3 by 52 = 11,975.60

Adult Dependant Rate 206.3 by 52 = 10,276.60

Total State Pension 22,252.20 This is paid first and then the public service pension tops up to the amounts below.


Clerical Officer

Max Pay €38,593

Max Pension €19,296

Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = Nil.

Staff Officer

Max Pay €47,906

Max Pension €€23,853

Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = 1,300 per annum or €25 per week.

Executive Officer

Max Pay €49,809

Max Pension €24,904.50

Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = 2,652.30 per annum or €51 per week.

Higher Executive Officer

Max Pay €60,693

Max Pension €30,346

Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = €8,111.80 or €156 per week.


And take into account that a lot of civil servants will not have their 40 years done and will qualify for less, for example a guy who works with me who won't have his 40 years done and is paying €50 a week to get back €30.

The levy is calculated on all payments, even those that do not give any pension entitlement for example, overtime. I wonder if this will make an interesting case in a few years.

And that's with pay parity.

Now Jimmmy must set his sights quite low if that qualifies as a gravy train.

ixoy

I have to agree with anonymous_joe - a lot of the union elite seem to thrive on the antagonistic concept that their employer is evil. I had the good fortune to sit close to one such person and he was a very combative chap - seemed to seethe with anger and resentment over his apparent unfair treatment. It's very much a "us vs. them" mentality at times, whereas many in the private sector seem to work more broadly and have more diffuse roles.
Another good example would be the DART drivers kicking up a fuss over eight carriage trains and demanding compensation whereas I find non-unionised companies have employees who just get on with it.

I'd also go with the line that they're not the problem but they are hindering the solution. The latest budget mostly involved raising taxes and cutting capital expenditure - it was noteworthy for its lack of tackling public sector reform. Indeed it even contained a 150e million sop to the public sector unions because they effectively threaten revolt rather than dig in and muck down with the country as a whole.

It's interesting to note that there's a few people here, in public sector unions, who are no fans either. Unions, as a whole, don't represent the entire voice of a sector, only the most vocal of them and that's often a different thing.

dresden8 wrote:

Clerical Officer

Max Pay €38,593

Max Pension €19,296

Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = Nil.

Umm what about the near 60k handout they'd get on retirement?

dresden8

ixoy wrote: »

Umm what about the near 60k handout they'd get on retirement?

Indeed, that's a good deal. But it's hardly the realms of "so much money in their pension that no matter how many luxury holidays they have they can't spend it" idea that Jimmmy is spreading.

Overall public sector pensions are good, that is true, and private sector pensions have turned out to be con-jobs.

Somebody needs to go to jail.

Hillel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree, in fact, I'd go further. Unions have a legitimate role to advance their memebers interests. They are an important counterweight in any capitalist system. Scapegoating them for all the problems could result in less workers rights in the future, this would be a retrograde step.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Few workers will easily forfeit what they have gained - it requires a degree of altrusism that most people would find difficult. However, the current negotiations will be the true test of the "so-called" partnership model. If it is a valid model the union leadership will step up to the mark. They will quickly agree the necessary cutbacks and lead from the front in sponsoring their rapid implementation. If they do not, "partnership" will be seen as a means of transferring wealth from the private to the public sector, regardless of the common good. Should that happen a return to a more confrontational negotiating model may be required. If that results in industrial unrest, then so be it!

ixoy wrote: »

Unions, as a whole, don't represent the entire voice of a sector, only the most vocal of them and that's often a different thing.

Absolutely, and union officals often pursue a personal agenda. At the end of the day they want to progress too and what's best for themselves/their union may not be best for their members. (Shades of Animal Farm, perhaps.)

otwb

jimmmy wrote: »

I agree. Our average public servant is paid 966 per week , plus perks, according to George Lee. Supporting 300,000 plus people ( as well as the pensioners on 50% related + gratuity pensions ) is unsustainable for our relatively small economy / population ( the same size as greater Manchester ).

Jimmmy,

The issue here is in relation to unions, not your vendetta against the PS. The original quote was in relation to social partnership who represent the public and private sector unions, construction industry, voluntary and social pillar, employers etc etc.

to OP. Fully agree that the unions have a lot to answer for. I have worked both in large american multinationals (wth no union representation) and now work in the public sector, but am not a member of a union as I strongly believe that a far better working environment exists where everyone will pull together to get a job done rather than trying to hide the fact that you are shoving a desk around your office instead of waiting six weeks for the appropriate, union approved, person.

ScouseMouse

Manach wrote: »

On the flip side, non-unionised employees in a private company could have there work increased to breaking point, and then beyond.

Good point, we should make the irish civil service non-unionised. There are so many there they can never hit breaking point, hey - it may even increase the non-existant productivity.

Darragh29

Well I'm self employed and before I met with modest business success, I failed twice, and I suffered all the inherent hardship that came with that failure.

If you want to run a business, put your money where your mouth is and take the chance on yourself and best of luck to you in your journey, but I can tell you from personal experience, it is the hardest thing you will ever do.

Until you take that decision, you are an employee and you don't have the luxury of deciding what you get paid or what your yearly pay increase will be. Your employer and the market will decide that. If that doesn't sit easy with you, please refer to the above option of self employment.