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
Are SIPTU doing more damage than good to the Irish economy?
Options
Comments
-
I think most people are aware of that. Nevertheless, the average worker has not been sitting at the negotiating table and is dependent on union officials to get an understanding of what is going on.Joey the lips wrote: »Unions generally dont threaten action without a members ballot so I imagine you have never been in the position to realise this.
But my larger point was the one-size-fits-all problem. How are the interests of workers who might accept a significant pay cut to be reconciled with those who won't. The fairest would be to tailer a solution for each of the workers, but this is not always the way unions want it. Their strength is the ability to call for collective action but this means creating a culture of vilification of those to disagree, the 'scabs'.
But if a union is involved in public sector negotiations at the same time as discussions with a private company, will they even consider recommending a pay cut to their private sector workers? I would fear it would be easier for them to let the company go under or relocate rather than have their members 'exploited'. Yet this may not be in my interests as a worker.
Again these are only my personal feelings on the matter. I respect the right of others to organise in the workforce and collectively withdraw their labour if they feel their interests are best served in so doing.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »I think most people are aware of that. Nevertheless, the average worker has not been sitting at the negotiating table and is dependent on union officials to get an understanding of what is going on.
But my larger point was the one-size-fits-all problem. How are the interests of workers who might accept a significant pay cut to be reconciled with those who won't. The fairest would be to tailer a solution for each of the workers, but this is not always the way unions want it. Their strength is the ability to call for collective action but this means creating a culture of vilification of those to disagree, the 'scabs'.
But if a union is involved in public sector negotiations at the same time as discussions with a private company, will they even consider recommending a pay cut to their private sector workers? I would fear it would be easier for them to let the company go under or relocate rather than have their members 'exploited'. Yet this may not be in my interests as a worker.
Again these are only my personal feelings on the matter. I respect the right of others to organise in the workforce and collectively withdraw their labour if they feel their interests are best served in so doing.
Your being a bit daft dont you think. This is NEVER going to happen. Why would one worker accept a pay cut that another worker is not getting. One size has to fit all, its in the name union, meaning united not you have a fiver i will take 7. Tailor solution dont and wont work.
But I will make it simpler if your working you go in tomorrow and pay the workers levy beside you cause I bet he does not want to and if your on the dole you pay your neighbours loss in december
With the greatest respect towards you dont be daft in this. One condom fits all [EMAIL="d@#ks"]d@#ks[/EMAIL] One union fit all workers. Think of it that way! its in the name!0 -
I think, with respect, you are stuck in a certain mindset and can't see the point I'm making. We both agree that unions always go for a one size fits all solution. What I am saying is that this is not always the best solution. Sometimes individuals are better able to look after their interests when they are free to act indivually.Joey the lips wrote: »Your being a bit daft dont you think. This is NEVER going to happen. Why would one worker accept a pay cut that another worker is not getting. One size has to fit all, its in the name union, meaning united not you have a fiver i will take 7. Tailor solution dont and wont work.
But I will make it simpler if your working you go in tomorrow and pay the workers levy beside you cause I bet he does not want to and if your on the dole you pay your neighbours loss in december
With the greatest respect towards you dont be daft in this. One condom fits all d@#ks One union fit all workers. Think of it that way! its in the name!
I am fully aware that this undermines what unions stand for in their current form but that does not mean they and their philosophy should not be questioned.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »I think, with respect, you are stuck in a certain mindset and can't see the point I'm making. We both agree that unions always go for a one size fits all solution. What I am saying is that this is not always the best solution. Sometimes individuals are better able to look after their interests when they are free to act indivually.
I am fully aware that this undermines what unions stand for in their current form but that does not mean they and their philosophy should not be questioned.
My apologies I think I get you what your saying is really we should all be free to negiotiate freely but to know we have the power of the unions behind us to back us up.... Yes!0 -
Joey the lips wrote: »Your being a bit daft dont you think. This is NEVER going to happen. Why would one worker accept a pay cut that another worker is not getting. One size has to fit all, its in the name union, meaning united not you have a fiver i will take 7. Tailor solution dont and wont work.
The point is really why would someone who is very good at their job be happy to work for the same money as the guy who isn't? Why would someone who has gone to the trouble of getting a PhD be happy starting off on the same salary as graduates with just an undergrad when their qualification is relevant to their job?
Workers aren't homogeneously talented, skilled and able, which is the problem with one-size-fits-all wage deals. The people who benefit most from them are the laziest and least talented workers who are carried by the other people who actually put in a hard day's work.0 -
Advertisement
-
Given that the Labour court seems to do more to protect workers rights than the unions, I cannot see the point of having them these days. Unions are also responsible for how we cannot get rid of crap teachers for example.0
-
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »Given that the Labour court seems to do more to protect workers rights than the unions, I cannot see the point of having them these days. Unions are also responsible for how we cannot get rid of crap teachers for example.
With the greatest respect Jimmy the teacher situation is different, see the problem with teachers it goes back to supply and demand - bear with me
If you reduce supply (in the teachers case there is only one supply ie the goverment is the supplier of teacher labour) you increase demand ( You end up with too many teachers competing.) So what the teachers have done is have only one supply - the goverment and one demand - the unions there for canceling out the possibility of teachers being exploited. Think about it! Nobody would spend years in college for an adverage industrial wage - Sorry thats the facts
But the problem then lies in this cause with only one supply and one demand if one refuses to co operate there is no alternative but to strike.
Does this make sense. - Its rational behaviour for teachers and its a case where unions work very well, This problem would also occur in the Guarda only state security prevents the gards going on strike0 -
The point is really why would someone who is very good at their job be happy to work for the same money as the guy who isn't? Why would someone who has gone to the trouble of getting a PhD be happy starting off on the same salary as graduates with just an undergrad when their qualification is relevant to their job?
Workers aren't homogeneously talented, skilled and able, which is the problem with one-size-fits-all wage deals. The people who benefit most from them are the laziest and least talented workers who are carried by the other people who actually put in a hard day's work.
You have taken my comments out of context sorry... I am refering to people in simular positions and jobs and in your comments what usually happens is if workers get professionally trained in college they are generally moved up to management which is a different wage structure
I have never seen a shelf stacker in tesco been asked by management to do a degree in business management and been left stacking shelves. But I have seen people with degrees in business management accepting to be employed as shelf stackers. Its a difference in what your offered and what you accept.
No relievence when it comes to unions IMO0 -
-
But they might stick around for the chance of getting twice that, which is what the average teacher's wage is closer to. And the perks that have been mentioned in other threads.Think about it! Nobody would spend years in college for an adverage industrial wage - Sorry thats the facts
There's a number of demands - pay, jobs, conditions in classrooms, etc.But the problem then lies in this cause with only one supply and one demand if one refuses to co operate there is no alternative but to strike.
You're also missing the point here - the unions are protecting teachers who are, in a word, crap. They're not being exploited - if anyone is being exploited it's the poor kids who have to suffer under their so-called tutelage. There's plenty of teachers on contract who could be excellent and great replacements for these guys but the unions have arranged things in such a manner that it's not possible. The supply is there (contracting teacher), the demand is there (the pupils) but the mechanisms enforced by unions is stopping it.
I think it's a good example of how unions can inhibit better work practices and environments for all.0 -
Advertisement
-
But they might stick around for the chance of getting twice that, which is what the average teacher's wage is closer to. And the perks that have been mentioned in other threads.
There's a number of demands - pay, jobs, conditions in classrooms, etc.
You're also missing the point here - the unions are protecting teachers who are, in a word, crap. They're not being exploited - if anyone is being exploited it's the poor kids who have to suffer under their so-called tutelage. There's plenty of teachers on contract who could be excellent and great replacements for these guys but the unions have arranged things in such a manner that it's not possible. The supply is there (contracting teacher), the demand is there (the pupils) but the mechanisms enforced by unions is stopping it.
I think it's a good example of how unions can inhibit better work practices and environments for all.
Your just being daft and I am not getting into a boyish rant! Your attitude stinks. If you were an employer you would be boycotted by the unions for unfair treatment! When I talk supply and demand I refer to worker and employer you bring in emotions to an arguement
The way I see it is if the goverment did what they said the teachers would not be argueing. Its amazing how we can look at the nurses and agree this point. Why!
Cause we perceve the teachers to have a cushy job and that is not fair debate. I am not taking part in a foolish debate have your final say and bring it back to siptu!0 -
The point is really why would someone who is very good at their job be happy to work for the same money as the guy who isn't? Why would someone who has gone to the trouble of getting a PhD be happy starting off on the same salary as graduates with just an undergrad when their qualification is relevant to their job?
Workers aren't homogeneously talented, skilled and able, which is the problem with one-size-fits-all wage deals. The people who benefit most from them are the laziest and least talented workers who are carried by the other people who actually put in a hard day's work.
You don't see too many people with PhD's in the general workforce. (Where I come from you don't see many with a degree:) )
These people would rarely need union representation as they would be management and I would imagine the pay structure is completely different.
However, I think it is very important that the working man is represented by unions.
Please don't try and tell me employers aren't exploiting the current situation.
Let me give an example,As far as I can see internet shopping is booming in Ireland at the moment due to less VAT overseas, favourable exchange rate with sterling etc.
Result is the likes of DHL get loads of business (even in a recession)
DHL bosses look around and see other companies struggling and workers willing to take pay cuts etc. Of course they are going to jump on the bandwagon and say
'Take all these cost cutting measures and like it or you are losing your job!
Employers will exploit workers any chance they get!0 -
Daft? Not at all - I'm looking for a response on a particular issue - why should teachers who are performing poorly (and we've all met them) be insulated from any measures designed to reform them? Why is this reform not possible? If you're bad at your job, you should be subject to some form of reform demanded of you - there should be merit-based activity.Joey the lips wrote: »Your just being daft and I am not getting into a boyish rant! Your attitude stinks. If you were an employer you would be boycotted by the unions for unfair treatment! When I talk supply and demand I refer to worker and employer you bring in emotions to an arguement
I'm not saying everything the teacher's union stands for is bad - I'm saying that some of the stuff they do isn't conducive to good work practice. Or do you honestly believe everything unions do is for the good of all (even in the likes of Lufthansa) fighting the evil employer?
What are you on about? You brought the emotive aspect in when you claimed the poor teachers started out on an industrial wage. I responded to that.Cause we perceve the teachers to have a cushy job and that is not fair debate. I am not taking part in a foolish debate have your final say and bring it back to siptu!0 -
I think the point that is being made here is that within a particular grade there may be differences in productivity that might not be reflected in differences in renumeration. A valid point, imo.Joey the lips wrote: »I have never seen a shelf stacker in tesco been asked by management to do a degree in business management and been left stacking shelves. But I have seen people with degrees in business management accepting to be employed as shelf stackers. Its a difference in what your offered and what you accept.
No relievence when it comes to unions IMO0 -
Exactly. I think IT skills in the CS falls under this one - someone with an IT degree would start out at the same EO level as someone without, even if the role itself is an IT one (I can think of specific instances for this, which is why I used it). Apparently, it's something the unions instituted because other members felt slighted when I think it would make sense to encourage more qualified talent to try for the roles and that can be done by making it seem that the company/service acknowledges their skills.SkepticOne wrote: »I think the point that is being made here is that within a particular grade there may be differences in productivity that might not be reflected in differences in renumeration. A valid point, imo.0 -
Joey the lips wrote: »You have taken my comments out of context sorry... I am refering to people in simular positions and jobs and in your comments what usually happens is if workers get professionally trained in college they are generally moved up to management which is a different wage structure
I have never seen a shelf stacker in tesco been asked by management to do a degree in business management and been left stacking shelves. But I have seen people with degrees in business management accepting to be employed as shelf stackers. Its a difference in what your offered and what you accept.
No relievence when it comes to unions IMO
Actually if you look at the civil service it's a serious issue. There is a serious lack of PhD qualified Economists in the Department of Finance. Which is a bit of a problem given that economic forecasting is something they do quite often. The problem is that someone with a PhD will enter the civil service at the exact same spot as someone with a degree or (in times past, no degree).0 -
Essentially my point (though perhaps not very well expressed) is that there are some situations where the culture of solidarity and collective action can sometimes work against the collective good for the workers concerned, not merely the individual good. Such a situation might arise when a company is genuinely against the wall or there are really are better options for the company in other countries.Joey the lips wrote: »My apologies I think I get you what your saying is really we should all be free to negiotiate freely but to know we have the power of the unions behind us to back us up.... Yes!0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »I think, with respect, you are stuck in a certain mindset and can't see the point I'm making. We both agree that unions always go for a one size fits all solution. What I am saying is that this is not always the best solution. Sometimes individuals are better able to look after their interests when they are free to act indivually.
That's only true if you have a unique skill that no one else has, especially in the current climate. Otherwise it's you alone against a corporation with weveral HR people and lawyers. It's just take it or leave it (within the law of course). If you don't like it, there a many people standing behind you who can perform your job as good, if not even better than you can and who cost less than you do.
The only way to counter act it a little bit is if you more people standing nehind you and supporting you. That's what a Union is for, to counter balance against the weight of the employer.0 -
When the unions get too strong the companies close down or re-locate abroad. Thats why most union members now are in semi-states and public service etc. They have the country destroyed.
That's not true. Look at other countries, were the Union rights are even stronger.
In Germany for example you have to have a works council and the workers (mostly represented by Unions) have up to 50% of the seats on the boards of directors. Some decisisons by the company also need approval by the works council.
Yet the companies don't pull out of Germany in the same way they pull out of Ireland. Some due, but there are still large manufacturing companies who don't.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »Essentially my point (though perhaps not very well expressed) is that there are some situations where the culture of solidarity and collective action can sometimes work against the collective good for the workers concerned, not merely the individual good. Such a situation might arise when a company is genuinely against the wall or there are really are better options for the company in other countries.
But that's mostly because of the employers taking a 'take it or leave approach' and trying to cheat the workers out of money.
When the company takes an honest approach and tries to shoulder the burden equally on owners, company, management and employees, there is no reason, why unions wouldn't negotiate and come to an agreement. Most problems happen if you have a company demanding wage-cuts or redundancies from workers, while at the same time paying dividends to their owners or boni to their management. In these cases, I expect a Union to highlight this and fight against it.0 -
Advertisement
-
this thread highlights more than ever the need for public sector reform. Many of the practices discussed here, and in other threads, have been in place since before most of the posters on boards.ie where even born! Take priviledge or banking days as an example if you want.
You can blame the unions all you want, and indeed they have some blame to take, but various spineless governments that allowed such practices to become embedded in the average PS department have just as much blame to take.
As for private sector unions, it would be naive to say that some companies are not taking advantage of the present situation to impose cuts across the board, but in fairness I'd say this is a relatively small number, seeing as come end of year time, they would be quickly found out.
I've had extensive dealings with unions over the years, and not everyone working for them is the bright eyed idealist that many think they are. I've met many people, who really just love a good old row. That is not how best to represent the membership of any trade union. Trade Unions have to take a long hard look at themselves and decent how they want to build their future post-recession. There will never be another benchmarking, so things will have to change.
On a side note, this theory that teachers, nurse, guards can't be sacked for poor performance is simply not true. For example, afaik teachers have inspections, and if they are found to be crap, then things are done. I've seen many nurses either moved to places more suited to their skill levels or let go, because they couldn't cope.0 -
They are closing the regional depots because of the collapse of B2B deliveries in this country and worldwide & they are also pulling out of the personal, home deliveries from what I've heard.
Another MAJOR problem in this particular sector and I can only speak on this because I've a good mate in the logistics business and this is a problem for him as well, is the number of dodgy operators who don't pay tax, are not properly insured, not licenced, basically what he calls, "the man in the white van", who will move boxes and pallets for his drinking money while he's on the dole. These operators are dragging down the price of freight movement across the whole market... You could get a new customer today and next week you'll get a call from the customer trying to agree the rate again because some "man in a white van" called in and will do it for 20-30% less...0 -
Mystik Monkey wrote: »As for private sector unions, it would be naive to say that some companies are not taking advantage of the present situation to impose cuts across the board, but in fairness I'd say this is a relatively small number, seeing as come end of year time, they would be quickly found out.
From what I'm seeing on the ground, any business that is still just breaking even at the moment is extremely lucky. I don't think there are many businesses jumping on the bandwagon, the few I know well from being in and out of them on a daily basis are really under serious pressure.
There's a confidence crisis running through the country and people have stopped spending. The fear factor out there is not something I've seen before and lads a generation older than me are saying the same thing. I personally think this is down to the political leadership we have at the moment. All this filters down into the business activity going through the coffee shop on the main street, the delivery company that delivers the pallet of wine to the Chinese Restaurant, etc. It's like a disease to be honest running through the economy.0
Advertisement