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

Electricians Strike

Options
  • 03-07-2009 3:03pm
    #1
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭


    Going ahead on monday regardless, where have these people being living for the past year?

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0703/electricians.html

    How I hate unions, when most people are happy just to keep their job and avoid joining the dole queue!


«134567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Jip
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,418 ✭✭✭Jip


    There's a thread in after hours about it, the general consensus echoing your point.


  • Options
    #3
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    Apologies... Mod, you know what to do!


  • Options
    #4
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    The unions never fail to shock. :o


  • Options
    #5
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    You mean an organisation founded to protect it's members interests is protesting against pay cuts despite not having recieved a court mandated increase?

    Shocker:eek:


  • Options
    #6
    KerranJast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭KerranJast


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    You mean an organisation founded to protect it's members interests is protesting against pay cuts despite not having recieved a court mandated increase?

    Shocker:eek:
    Yeah risking it's members livelihood by trying to damage their employers via a strike is a really good way of looking out for them. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    KerranJast wrote: »
    Yeah risking it's members livelihood by trying to damage their employers via a strike is a really good way of looking out for them. :rolleyes:

    Grand so; let's say not only did you not recieve your pay increase but the management are now trying to give you a pay cut. You offer to trade off the pay increase for the pay cut but no dice.
    YOur solution would be....?

    I don't think you understand how strikes work; the members have to vote on it. (This isn't the union risking it's members livlihood)
    Union leaders aren't strike happy either (as they have to pay out strike pay); striking is the last resort


  • Options
    #8
    KerranJast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭KerranJast


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Grand so; let's say not only did you not recieve your pay increase but the management are now trying to give you a pay cut. You offer to trade off the pay increase for the pay cut but no dice.
    YOur solution would be....?

    I don't think you understand how strikes work; the members have to vote on it. (This isn't the union risking it's members livelihood)
    Unions aren't strike happy either (as they have to pay strike pay)
    I don't care what they are entitled to. At this stage it's all about what their employers can afford. I hope the Union members were informed enough before voting to realise it was a choice between most of them keeping their jobs and but not receiving their pay increases, and most of them getting their increase followed by a lot of them joining the ever increasing Dole queue.


  • Options
    #9
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    KerranJast wrote: »
    I don't care what they are entitled to...

    That makes the rest of what you say worthless.


  • Options
    #10
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    KerranJast wrote: »
    I don't care what they are entitled to.
    You should; seeing as could take this point up on in court and win.
    But they aren't; they are offering a middle ground.
    KerranJast wrote: »
    At this stage it's all about what their employers can afford.
    Ok; show me the stats that show that all the employers affected are being affected by the recession to such a degree that they can not afford the increase or the wages staying the same.

    Saying "There's a recession on" doesn't cut it.

    KerranJast wrote: »
    I hope the Union members were informed enough before voting to realise it was a choice between most of them keeping their jobs and but not receiving their pay increases, and most of them getting their increase followed by a lot of them joining the ever increasing Dole queue.
    YOu're not following the story at all are you?
    They said they'd forego the pay increases they were mandated in exchange for no pay cuts. (not demanding pay increases as you are claiming)
    A perfectly reasonable compromise.

    Can you prove that they will be fired due to budget constraints?
    For example; Guinness (one of the employers who will be affected by the strike) is seeing a sales increase during the recession.
    Or is this just a case of "There's a recession on!" (used to write off any employee contentions)


  • Options
    #11
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Saying "There's a recession on" doesn't cut it.

    The union were more than happy to use the "theres a boom on" card in times past.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Saying "There's a recession on" doesn't cut it.
    turgon wrote: »
    The union were more than happy to use the "theres a boom on" card in times past.

    That, ladies and gentlemen, is how it is done.


  • Options
    #13
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    they are paid 21 euro an hour, according to the rte news...i mean surely they can afford to cut their wages by 10%...there's a recession on, everyone's loosing jobs and these people are going on strike because they can't get an increase...i mean come on...


  • Options
    #14
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Saying "There's a recession on" doesn't cut it.

    Ha there were members of the union on the radio today saying they would gladly take a paycut if it mean't they could keep their job.

    No work for their employers, means no work for them, no work for them means no 24 euro an hour, not even 21 euro an hour. What it does mean them hitting the dole queue. They are 3 years too late looking for their pay increase and they are stupid looking for it now.

    Simple as..


  • Options
    #15
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    turgon wrote: »
    The union were more than happy to use the "theres a boom on" card in times past.

    Ah but there was more to it than that; they couldn't just say "there's a boom on" and sit back expecting the employers to agree; they had to state their case more. And they never recieved this pay increase.

    If the employers want to show that not only do the workers not get their entitled pay increase but to take a pay decrease as well then they need to show this is the case.

    So far, the only arguments I'm seeing from the employer defenders are "There's a recession on. They should be happy to have a job"
    Etc
    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    Ha there were members of the union on the radio today saying they would gladly take a paycut if it mean't they could keep their job.
    What is your point here; that all union members are meant to be of one mind?
    If enough of the union members were against the strike, they wouldn't be able to have one in the first place.

    Scare your employees into believing that the pay increase=unemployment and of course they'll say that.

    If my boss came into me tomorrow saying we need a paycut or we'd be fired, then if she genuinely couldn't afford the pay; grand.
    Coming in saying "You have to take a paycut. There's a recession on. Simple as." then I'd expect the case to be argued far more elaboretely before I'd be willing to accept it.
    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    No work for their employers, means no work for them, no work for them means no 24 euro an hour, not even 21 euro an hour. What it does mean them hitting the dole queue. They are 3 years too late looking for their pay increase and they are stupid looking for it now.
    So once again, the "They should be damn happy to have a job" argument is trotted out.

    As I have already written, they are not looking for a pay increase as they are willing to trade it off for no paycuts.

    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    Simple as..
    ?
    If the point you were making was "Simple as" then surely you wouldn't need to stick this on the end of your post.
    Sounds to similar to those who say
    "*my opinion* FACT!"
    Mario007 wrote: »
    they are paid 21 euro an hour, according to the rte news...i mean surely they can afford to cut their wages by 10%...there's a recession on, everyone's loosing jobs and these people are going on strike because they can't get an increase...i mean come on...
    See above. Your points have already been addressed.


  • Options
    #16
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    What is your point here; that all union members are meant to be of one mind?
    If enough of the union members were against the strike, they wouldn't be able to have one in the first place.

    Scare your employees into believing that the pay increase=unemployment and of course they'll say that.

    No I said there were members on the radio, not all members obviously. Only two of the anti-strike members rang in. Strike action was voted in favour of by 97% to 3%, so a lot of them want their pay increase.
    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    If my boss came into me tomorrow saying we need a paycut or we'd be fired, then if she genuinely couldn't afford the pay; grand.

    So what they want a pay increase in the hope of keeping the same pay? And what if their employeers were like your boss and had to enforce a paycut in order to stay in business, do they just say tough? I'm not talking it?
    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    So once again, the "They should be damn happy to have a job" argument is trotted out.

    Seen as the unemployment rate has risen to 11% or 12%, yeah I'd say those with jobs are damn lucky to have them.
    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    ?
    If the point you were making was "Simple as" then surely you wouldn't need to stick this on the end of your post.
    Sounds to similar to those who say
    "*my opinion* FACT!"

    Employeers profits drop, they have to reduce expenses. Seen as electrical contractors are most likely going to be losing work (and hence profits) due to the building sector downturn, they are most likely not going to be able to maintain current wage rates, forget about increasing them.

    So you see, it really is as "Simple as"... which in itself, does not equate to "*my opinion* FACT!"


  • Options
    #17
    Boggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Boggle


    What is your point here; that all union members are meant to be of one mind?
    If enough of the union members were against the strike, they wouldn't be able to have one in the first place.

    Scare your employees into believing that the pay increase=unemployment and of course they'll say that.

    If my boss came into me tomorrow saying we need a paycut or we'd be fired, then if she genuinely couldn't afford the pay; grand.
    Coming in saying "You have to take a paycut. There's a recession on. Simple as." then I'd expect the case to be argued far more elaboretely before I'd be willing to accept it.
    The trouble is that the negotiating is done on behalf of the big boys on the state contracts but that it automatically applies to the small boys.
    A state contract or the ESB can always have the rates priced in and that is fine (as we are the captive audience who get to pay for it), unless the client turns around to you and attacks you with a quantity surveyor! The small boys hoping to pull the wiring on granny's extension do not have that luxury as, if the price is too high Granny simply wont bother and there is no work.

    And this is what you don't get.
    Anyway, the unions are a pain. An electrician who can barely read the instructions (I've met quite a few) can sign off a job but an engineer cannot. Its dumb - most engineers covered electrical level training in secondary level physics ffs.
    The trouble is, people don't want to hear that anybody can do their job and they are not worth the huge money cos Ireland inc has been living in fairyland for 12 years.

    Not unless they think it would be okay for all fast-food workers and shop assistants to demand whatever wage they feel like. Sure cant we all pay E20 for a big mac!!


  • Options
    #18
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,699 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I'm sure if it went to court again, the increase decision would be reversed given the circumstances.

    I'm also quite sure that a lot of companies will be happy to avoid paying wages during the strike, while the rest of the country uses nixers to get by with their electrical needs.

    The only losers here will be the striking electricians.


  • Options
    #19
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    No I said there were members on the radio, not all members obviously. Only two of the anti-strike members rang in. Strike action was voted in favour of by 97% to 3%, so a lot of them want their pay increase.
    Grand; so we agree that not all union members sing from the same hymn sheet.

    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    So what they want a pay increase in the hope of keeping the same pay?
    No, they are willing to foregoe what the court handed down (pay increase) in exchange for no cutbacks.
    This sounds a reasonable compromise and the fact they are willing to come up with something like this shows this isn't a case of the damn unions bitching because they don't want to admit there's a recession on.
    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    And what if their employeers were like your boss and had to enforce a paycut, do they just say tough? I'm not talking it?
    Yes. if the employer couldn't afford it; grand. I havn't seen this proven so I'm seeing the workers as being the more reasonable ones here.
    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    Seen as the unemployment rate has risen to 11% or 12%, yeah I'd say those with jobs are damn lucky to have them.
    Of course they are lucky. This doesn't mean that they should accept any proposed cuts purely because they have a job.
    Accepting cuts is grand, but they need to be shown why they are necessary.

    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    Employeers profits drop, they have to reduce expenses. Seen as electrical contractors are most likely going to be losing work (and hence profits) due to the building sector downturn, they are most likely not going to be able to maintain current wage rates, forget about increasing them.
    Electricians aren't as reliant on the housing boom as builders/bricklayers were.

    The employers listed on the website who will be affected;
    Lansdowne Road; are grand, sports do well in recessions.
    Guinness have seen their profits increase by 2.5% (not even decreasing)
    Dublin Airport; Owned by DAA. State agency.

    Dunno anything about Pfizer though.
    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    So you see, it really is as "Simple as"... which in itself, does not equate to "*my opinion* FACT!"
    I still havn't seen your position proven. Which would be needed before you can say "Simple as".


  • Options
    #20
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Yes. if the employer couldn't afford it; grand. I havn't seen this proven so I'm seeing the workers as being the more reasonable ones here.

    Looking for pay increases (lets be honest, you are saying they are looking for increases in the hope of maintaining their current wages, but they really are looking for pay increases) at the time when most companies are trying to reduce expenses. Thats reasonable? Why didn't they look for it three years ago when things were better? After all they did say that current wages are at 2006 levels. That would have been far more reasonable.

    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Of course they are lucky. This doesn't mean that they should accept any proposed cuts purely because they have a job.
    Accepting cuts is grand, but they need to be shown why they are necessary

    Thats fair enough that cuts have to be shown to be necessary, I find it hard to believe thought that cuts aren't necessary in their industry. With this, in order to maintain their jobs, I would think that working with their employer in order to reduce costs would more coherent thinking, not looking for increases which may potentially sink their employer.
    kickoutthejams wrote: »
    Electricians aren't as reliant on the housing boom as builders/bricklayers were.

    The employers listed on the website who will be affected;
    Lansdowne Road; are grand, sports do well in recessions.
    Guinness have seen their profits increase by 2.5% (not even decreasing)
    Dublin Airport; Owned by DAA. State agency.

    Dunno anything about Pfizer though.

    Maybe not but lets be honest, the housing boom would have been quite a significant part of their business, one of the electricians (opposed to the strikes) on the radio said the company he worked for was in danger of closing, he was one of the few kept on, hardly sounds like an electrical contractors with reliable business?

    Employers like those listed above, who have major contracts and a steady stream of money may be ok, what about smaller contractors with one or two lads working for them. They may not be able to afford maintaining current wages. Can't treat all companies the same.


  • Options
    #21
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    Looking for pay increases (lets be honest, you are saying they are looking for increases in the hope of maintaining their current wages, but they really are looking for pay increases) at the time when most companies are trying to reduce expenses. Thats reasonable? Why didn't they look for it three years ago when things were better? After all they did say that current wages are at 2006 levels. That would have been far more reasonable.
    kotl's has repeatedly said that they're no longer looking for a pay increase, but to trade their promised increase off to prevent a pay cut. I think its more than reasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    brianthebard wrote: »
    kotl's has repeatedly said that they're no longer looking for a pay increase, but to trade their promised increase off to prevent a pay cut. I think its more than reasonable.

    Is it? In the good times they wanted pay rises but in the bad times they want pay to stay the same? Even though the economy is deflating. And the cost of living is going down.


  • Options
    #23
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    turgon wrote: »
    Is it? In the good times they wanted pay rises but in the bad times they want pay to stay the same? Even though the economy is deflating. And the cost of living is going down.

    are you suggesting there are people who want their wages to be reduced?

    I waited with interest for a thread on this topic given all the ranting on threads over the last couple of months about the public sector and "wait for the public sector strikes" etc

    now we have the private sector striking!


  • Options
    #24
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Riskymove wrote: »
    are you suggesting there are people who want their wages to be reduced?

    No, I said it was unreasonable that they wanted their pay to stay the same despite the state of the economy.


  • Options
    #25
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    unemployed electricians are ten a penny at the moment , every second young fella who left school in the last ten years in rural ireland became a sparky and whats this about them not getting a pay rise since 2006 , the economy is opperating at 2002 levels right now in terms of the amount of revenue coming in

    gammy leg or not , we need thatcher over here to take on the unions before the country goes under


  • Options
    #26
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    irish_bob wrote: »
    gammy leg or not , we need thatcher over here to take on the unions before the country goes under

    True that.

    Although tbh, I dont know would I nearly like to see the Union getting their way only to have half their electricians laid off because they are so uncompetitive. That would be a lesson in how destructive their own policies are.


  • Options
    #27
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    turgon wrote: »
    Is it? In the good times they wanted pay rises but in the bad times they want pay to stay the same? Even though the economy is deflating. And the cost of living is going down.

    Yes it is, they're already taking a cut by not being able to benefit from the increase they were promised.


  • Options
    #28
    Taxipete29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Yes it is, they're already taking a cut by not being able to benefit from the increase they were promised.

    They claim they should of had this increase between 2-3 years ago. Why are they only getting around to this now??


  • Options
    #29
    Boggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Boggle


    they agreed it years ago but it wa only due a month or two ago.

    the union bloke was lying on radio.


  • Options
    #30
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,899 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    brianthebard wrote: »
    kotl's has repeatedly said that they're no longer looking for a pay increase, but to trade their promised increase off to prevent a pay cut. I think its more than reasonable.

    How is it "reasonable" to look for a pay increase when other people are taking pay cuts? Putting pressure on employers who are already under pressure trying to keep businesses in operation. Tell me whats reasonable about that?
    Riskymove wrote: »
    are you suggesting there are people who want their wages to be reduced?

    No I don't want my wages reduced, but if given a choice between losing my job and that, I'd happily take a paycut! I would have imagined there were more people with that frame of mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Yes it is, they're already taking a cut by not being able to benefit from the increase they were promised.

    Ok. So what you suggesting is that the employers should now negotiate a 5 year pay deal that will steadily bring down workers pay due to deflation etc. Then when the "good times" come in 2 or 3 year the employers wont have to raise pay; rather them just not giving the pay decrease will be reasonable.

    Right?


Advertisement