Electricians Strike

hey_hey

mikemac wrote: »

That solution is so blindingly obvious why has it not been reached already?
Are the parties afraid to comprimise and appear weak?

I know! i have being scratching my head all day at this!! I dont know the "in's and outs" of the meeting at the LRC over the weekend but im sure this was one of the options that the LRC brought up, and im gathering either the union or employers (or both) refused this. I would have thought this would be an ideal agreement and cant understand that it wasnt agreed.

Oh yeah mrgaa1 i should apologise for calling you ignorant earlier.. i meant you were ignorant towards the job of an electrician, not ignorant in general, sorry

ixoy

For those supporting the strike -

What about how it will affect millions for Guinness and the way Cadbury's have put workers on protective notice due to the actions? Do you really think it's fat cat posturing? Are the TEEU willing, and others, willing to take that gamble on behalf of people who have no involvement but are being dragged in anyway? All for an unreasonable sweeping demand?

brianthebard

One could just as easily say that electricans (or any group of workers) had no involvement in the creation of a bubble and subsequent poor management of the economy, but have been dragged in anyways? Why do you say the demand is unreasonable?

SkepticOne

The thing that is different in this dispute is that the construction, a large employer of electricians industry really has taken a hit. I think someone pointed out earlier that it is very different to the public sector where the dumb tax payer can always be forced to cough up the readies. There's a strange quality to Tom Parlon's voice today. It is as if he means what he says. I think there really needs to be a showdown with this one.

ixoy

brianthebard wrote: »

Why do you say the demand is unreasonable?

Yes, some companies are making profits and probably using it as an excuse to cut down costs but that doesn't mean all can afford a blanket increase when thousands are being laid off due to unaffordable operating costs (a principal part of which is labour). Sure it was awarded but in different circumstances - is there no clause for inability to pay in there as there is in the NPA?

Do you also not think that this sort of action would detract corporations from investing here if they see such actions? There's already knock-on side effects with the jobs of people in jeopardy who have nothing to do with the dispute.

brianthebard

ixoy wrote: »

Yes, some companies are making profits and probably using it as an excuse to cut down costs but that doesn't mean all can afford a blanket increase when thousands are being laid off due to unaffordable operating costs (a principal part of which is labour). Sure it was awarded but in different circumstances - is there no clause for inability to pay in there as there is in the NPA?

Do you also not think that this sort of action would detract corporations from investing here if they see such actions? There's already knock-on side effects with the jobs of people in jeopardy who have nothing to do with the dispute.

Its not only the fact that a preagreed increase has been withheld, but that the employers want to make a 10% cut as well- a 21% cut in all in what they should be paid as previously agreed.

Spudmonkey

brianthebard wrote: »

One could just as easily say that electricans (or any group of workers) had no involvement in the creation of a bubble and subsequent poor management of the economy, but have been dragged in anyways? Why do you say the demand is unreasonable?

Please enough with this "they didn't cause it" waffle.

As if one of those electricians didn't take out a huge mortgage, so I'm sure some of them played their part.

brianthebard

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Please enough with this "they didn't cause it" waffle.

As if one of those electricians didn't take out a huge mortgage, so I'm sure some of them played their part.

:rolleyes: Its the workers fault for wanting to be paid for working, its the workers fault for wanting to live in a house....

If anyone is interested this is the Union's position;

teeu wrote:

TEEU General Secretary Designate Eamon Devoy said today, “We have tried on no less than four separate occasions to negotiate with the employers on the basis of terms of reference proposed by the Labour Court and we are not prepared to defer any longer. Our members have shown extreme patience in waiting for a pay increase agreed by the main employer bodies in April 2008 and have not received a single penny, although clients of those same companies were being billed on the basis of that increase being applied.

“We have a tried and tested analogue process for setting rates for the industry using rates in comparable employments across a wide range of companies and sectors. Far from putting our members’ wage rates ahead of other sectors, as the employers suggest, this system means our members’ increases constantly run behind rates elsewhere. That is why their current rates reflect the earnings of comparable workers three years ago.

from http://www.teeu.ie/news/showtest.asp?id=276

Bold my emphasis.

alphamale 1

I really think that getting paid nearly € 22/hour is far too excessive in this day in age considering all the people who have gone to college for over six/seven years who are losing their jobs on a daily basis and those of us who are lucky enough and gone to college for years also are hardly getting € 22. Am i being unfair?

ixoy

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not only the fact that a preagreed increase has been withheld, but that the employers want to make a 10% cut as well- a 21% cut in all in what they should be paid as previously agreed.

And the economy is probably down by that percentage and the construction sector even further. We can't point to '08 data and use it as a bargaining point in the current climate. I'd also trust the TEEU's website for impartiality as much as I would the Indo for an honest assessment of the government.

Spudmonkey

brianthebard wrote: »

:rolleyes: Its the workers fault for wanting to be paid for working, its the workers fault for wanting to live in a house...

Its not the being paid for work, its looking for an increase. When everyone else seems to be trying to reduce costs? Its ludicrous. If they wanted an increase, they are three years too late looking for it, why were they so slow off the mark?

No but of course everyone in the country wanted a house, we can see the price now we have to pay for everyone owning their own house. They, like so many others, cannot pawn off the blame.

brianthebard

ixoy wrote: »

And the economy is probably down by that percentage and the construction sector even further. We can't point to '08 data and use it as a bargaining point in the current climate. I'd also trust the TEEU's website for impartiality as much as I would the Indo for an honest assessment of the government.

Why were they not given the raise in 2008? Then the cut would be a return the pre-April 2008 rates, not lower. The employers have already billed their customers on the assumption the electricans would be paid the extra, which they were not. I didn't mention anything about impartiality, I just thought it worthwhile to put up their position since people don't seem to know what it is. However I do think its fairly representative and that the Union would have nothing to gain by lying. So which part of the article do you think is wrong/untrue?

Hillel

hey_hey wrote: »

your quite an ignorant person, You think its just live,neutral and earth and how to hold a screwdriver.... Im not saying its rocket science but there is a lot more to it than that.

The OP and you agree - it's not rocket science. This is one thing we can all agree on. Yes, it's a good trade and, fully qualified, skilled, electricians deserve to be properly paid. (and yes, there are fully qualified electricians who are not very skilled!)

hey_hey wrote: »

If its that easy then next time your housing estate loses power go get your phase tester and get out and fix it......didnt think so!!!

Poor example, really. It won't be the "run of the mill" sparky, with/without his Phase Tester, who'll fix it either.

hey_hey wrote: »

Do you mind me asking what you work as, because i guarantee you i could get a polish worker twice as good as you at half the price.

Be careful what you wish for, that holds across all trades, including electricians. I know, I know, their qualifications are not recognised here. But, can't an Irish contractor sign off on their (excellent) work?

Bottom line, this isn't the time to go on strike for more pay. Yes, you do appear to have been done badly by. But, tough and all as that must be, it simply isn't the best time to pick a fight. If you have a job, count yourself lucky, many electricians do not. (Other poster also have a fair point. There are graduates, with MSc's and doctorates, who would be very happy to have an electricians wage, after a 10% pay cut, right now.)

P. Breathnach

alphamale 1 wrote: »

I really think that getting paid nearly € 22/hour is far too excessive in this day in age considering all the people who have gone to college for over six/seven years who are losing their jobs on a daily basis and those of us who are lucky enough and gone to college for years also are hardly getting € 22. Am i being unfair?

I think so, and I refer solely to your comparison of pay for graduates with that for electricians. I do not see why people who have had the privilege of a college education should necessarily earn more than those who have not. Furthermore, most graduates can progress to higher-paid positions whereas the career advancement opportunities for electricians are less good.

djpbarry

Darragh29 wrote: »

The same law that today said workers cannot picket outside their place of work...

What was the reason for the injunction?

djpbarry

brianthebard wrote: »

One could just as easily say that electricans (or any group of workers) had no involvement in the creation of a bubble...

One could, but it would of course be complete nonsense.

brianthebard wrote: »

:rolleyes: Its the workers fault for wanting to be paid for working, its the workers fault for wanting to live in a house....

It’s the employers’ fault for wanting to run a successful business...

brianthebard

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s the employers’ fault for wanting to run a successful business...

...by charging customers for pay increases that they never gave the workers.

tippspur

Fair play to the electricions,it's about time someone stood up and said enough is enough..

djpbarry

brianthebard wrote: »

...by charging customers for pay increases that they never gave the workers.

Jumping to conclusions there, aren't you?

The point is that it is rather disingenuous to absolve "the workers" of all blame - they had their part to play in inflating the bubble.

djpbarry

tippspur wrote: »

Fair play to the electricions,it's about time someone stood up and said enough is enough..

What's enough?

brianthebard

djpbarry wrote: »

Jumping to conclusions there, aren't you?

No its been covered pretty thoroughly in this thread at this stage that that's what they did. If you have information to the contrary please post the link.

The point is that it is rather disingenuous to absolve "the workers" of all blame - they had their part to play in inflating the bubble.

Not really, "the workers" didn't control the economy in the way other groups did.

zootroid

I haven't read through the entire thread, so not doubt I'll just be repeating what someone else has written. But what planet are they on? People losing their jobs by the thousands each month, and they go on strike looking for more pay? And 50k a year is far too much for an electrician to earn (assuming they get their 25 euro an hour and do 40 hours a week).

A poll at the start of the thread would have been good, just to see how many people support the electricians.

P. Breathnach

zootroid wrote: »

I haven't read through the entire thread, so not doubt I'll just be repeating what someone else has written. But what planet are they on? ...

You are right about one thing: you are repeating what has already been said.

Why is it more important that you say something than you read what others have said?

stillwaterman

Hi, long time reader of boards.ie and first time poster. Normally wouldn't venture into the realms of the politics boards however.

However I would have a rather strong interest in the current electricians strike, not a spark myself, but an involvment in the greater industry.

Being honest I must say that this thread has shown up some absolute uninformed opinions on both sides of the typical unions v's employers cliche. To be frank, not a single poster on this topic has a grasp on the issue which is being disputed.

I think it would be fair to assume from the calibre of some of the posts (typical left wing V right wing mud slinging on both sides, without any grasp of the facts at hand bar the typical workers rights V free trade shouts) that the following could be held true.

1) That bar a small number of people posting, (apologies as I do not know how to quote people's posts ) that the vast majority of posters have no standing within the electrical industry or related industry? Saying that I am aware that a small number of electricians have posted.

2) Out of anyone that has posted, not a single person has read the Labour Courts judgement given in January/Febuary regarding two applications, one headed by the TEEU seeking an increase of 11% in wages, as opposed by most employers groups. The second been headed by a new employers group the NECI - National Electrical Contractors of Ireland, and an unaligned group of electrical contractors, which sought for the nullification of the REA (Registered Employment Agreement), which would have entitled the employers to pay less than the "minimum wage" for electricians as set out by the REA of 21.50Euro approx plus associated overheads?

If you could bear with me as I revert back to point one.

A lot of posters have claimed that not all contractors are affected by the downturn in the economy. One poster stated that surely electricians are not affected by the downturn in housing starts when compared to bricklayers. Whilst certainly true, the matter of fact is that at the peak of our construction boom we turned out circa 90,000 housing units per annunm. According to the Times today, again apologies do not know how to insert a url properly, we may be lucky to see 10,000 housing units started next year.

Whatever way you want to read into that, or try swing it by saying maybe we have X amount that whatever, maybe the slack will be picked up in Renewable Energy Installations or whatever, a drop in output by almost 90% is pretty damn frightening regardless of where you stand in this debate.

Also a number of posters have pointed out that larger firms, working on major contracts have allowed for the increase in wages, by what they charge clients for tenders, yet have not passed on the difference. May I state here that in the majority of cases, this is absolute nonsense, and nothing short of outdated rhetoric. This is an industry which is massively competitive, margins varying from 1% to 6% in most cases. It would be a an odd case whereby a contractor could charge 24 an hour, and still win the contract versus a contractor charging 21.50 an hour. Or in other cases, which I'l address later even less.

In fact on this point, most tenders are submitted at less than what would be seen as "cost" by the average QS, again apologies for the lack of links, source Bruce Shaw Handbook.

Moving onto the second point I made....2) above earlier in the post.

This is the point which has been overlooked by the majority of posters, and the point which may bear huge significance to the future of any social partnership agreements on a whole in the state. Also the reason why SIPTU and ICTU have rowed in so strongly on behalf of the TEEU in this case. Again if you could bear with me whilst I explain, gets a little messy. Again can all be understood if one is to read the Labour Court decision made earlier in the year in relation to this case.

The REA was made a number of years ago (date escapes me at the moment) which was signed by the Union TEEU and two (if im right, havent the exact case off hand) employers groups. Long story short is that the unions as far as I know do not represent every worker. The employer groups certainly do not represent all the employers.

In fact the employers groups that signed the agreement represent a fraction of the number of employers in the country (those that signed the agreements represent numerically approx 5% of the employers, and employ approx 5,000 sparks, essentially these employers are the big boys)

Later on another organisation was set up to enforce this agreement as it became apparent that not all employers were adhering to this REA, a lot because they were not aware of this agreement extending to them, ie "I didnt sign anything, how could I be bound by it"

This organisation, was to put it mildily a bit too keen on enforcing the letter of the agreement rather than the spirit, pushing for rights which the employees would normally have waived in order to keep themselves in a job, i.e. if a spark travels more than 11 miles to work in his week he's entitled to "Country Money" payment of approx 180euro per week as an allowance, regardless if his employer provides a van or transport. All grand until you realise what happens if your wiring a house in Cahirciveen or Bundoran, when your based 12 miles away or even Portlaoise to Tullamore. Affected alot of rural electricians needlessly, the employers couldnt afford this, the employees were generally satisified with either mileage, or transport and a solid job. Epace pushed for both and the employers couldnt afford it.

Hence a number of these employers have formed the NECI and sought the nullification of the REA.

The NECI has stated that they would look to have a 10% paycut in order to sustain jobs. This isn't a "kicking the worker whilst he is down scenario". The vast majority of sparks in small-medium sized firms have already taken a voluntary paycut, simply in order to survive. The amount of ancedotal evidence of people cutting back on work their getting done is shocking. Whether it is the Hotel/Shopping Centre not relamping their "bulbs" this year, or using their own handiman, to Mrs. Murphy deciding that the price of 3,500 to rewire her house is far too high, and it doesnt matter that there a reputable firm, paying union rates. After all it is a recession, the lad who is self-employed, or simply not paying union rates can charge 20% less, and yeah she might have voted Labour, and her husband might have been the shop steward, but 700 euros is better to her than someone else.

Essentially the NECI is seeking parity with those who are not charging union rates. Put simply if one reads the REA, it discusses the case of a firm who charged union rates after an inspection by Epace, when charging union rates they won approx 10% of tenders. Prior to their inspection by Epace they did not charge union rates. They won 75% of tenders. And by not charging union rates, Im not implying he had a guard from Guatanemo bay installed as a chargehand, simply 15% less than union rates. He had continious work. His employees were happy to have reliable work, and not having two weeks off every couple of months because work was slack.

And its not just those "Snakes" who are dodging Epace doing work at less than union rates. A big aspect is Northern firms tendering on work, and winning it. Was in a town in Munster the other day, rather large commercial installation job being carried out. Contractor from the North.

Its just the opposite of Cross Border Shopping. Simple as!

However the case is angling up to be hugely influencing upon the Nation as a whole, IF tough decisions are made.

Should the employers win, it may be goodnight Vienna for social partnerships cause well not every employer signed up for them. Rather interesting case. Amazed no-one has picked up on the intriacies of this slightly more complex than average cae.

Darragh29

This matter was discussed tonight omn Vincent Brownes Tonight Show and he made the point correctly that businesses charged their customers for an increase in labour rates at the time, the customer paid the bill so the truth is that the employers simply kept the employees money.

As for a load of people sitting down in a room drawing up agreements on what an electrician should have in his toolbox, wtf is that all about??? You buy your own tools I would have thought...

Darragh29

djpbarry wrote: »

What was the reason for the injunction?

Diageo were granted an interlocutory injunction by the High Court today until 11:00AM on Wednesday prohibiting pickets outside their premises, on the grounds argued by Diageo that yeasts on the site for processing beer would be unusable if the pickets interfered with yeast being delivered to the site or something along these lines and could impact on the production of Guinness...

dvpower

The electricitians are shooting themselves in the foot here.

In the current downturn, striking for a pay rise isn't going to get much support form the general public. Now, I understand that this dispute is more complex than that, but most people will just see the headline (a claim for an 11% increase).

If other workers in the wider economy start getting laid off through this strike (Diagio, Cadburys, ...), the electricians run the risk of getting blamed. I don't think the public appetite is out there.

The dispute is highlighting the existence of REAs. These agreements seem to be anti-competitive in this day and age. For example, there is virtually no difference in pay for an electrician who has just qualified and one with many years experience. A good electrician can't negotiate a better rate than an average one. This is outdated.

The construction industry is on its knees at the moment. Electricitians are on strike at the same time that there are many electricitians are on the dole. The optics of this are terrible.

At this point in the dispute, it looks very unlikely that they will be successful. Did the TEEU overplay their hand here?

dvpower

Darragh29 wrote: »

As for a load of people sitting down in a room drawing up agreements on what an electrician should have in his toolbox, wtf is that all about??? You buy your own tools I would have thought...

They do. But there's a whole section in the REA stating exactly what tools should be in the toolbox including 11 rules covering the eventuality of a toolbox being lost.

ecom

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0707/electricians.html

The union described the strike as 'a major success', saying they had had significant support from workers in other unions.
They have sought an all-out picket from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions - although that request could take some weeks to be processed.

Regardless of who is right or wrong in this instance, the outcome is obvious.
If the strike continues, many many electricians will inevitably lose their jobs, and many workers in other sectors will also lose their jobs (see Cadbury's as a potential example).

If there is an all-out picket as they are seeking then this figure will dramatically increase.

I admit I don't know the fine details of this dispute, but what I do know is that friends of mine who are builders/brickies etc, have lost their jobs over the past year and are now working a few weeks here and there on sites for up to 40% less than they were earning during the boom. They are happy to be getting what work they can at the moment.

We all need to adjust to the environment we are in. Currently with 420,000 or so unemployed (and rising) we really aren't in a position to make unrealistic demands, particularly when these demands will result in more job losses.

All this talk of agreements and what was agreed must be applied etc etc etc.......all of this goes out the window due to the current economic situation. We need to cop ourselves on and realise that making unrealistic demands will only cause further heartache down the line.

Like I said I dont know the details or background to this dispute and the above is only my opinion, however I feel I am stating the obvious and have genuine concerns for the effects that this strike will have.

stillwaterman

stillwaterman wrote: »

This organisation, was to put it mildily a bit too keen on enforcing the letter of the agreement rather than the spirit, pushing for rights which the employees would normally have waived in order to keep themselves in a job, i.e. if a spark travels more than 11 miles to work in his week he's entitled to "Country Money" payment of approx 180euro per week as an allowance, regardless if his employer provides a van or transport. All grand until you realise what happens if your wiring a house in Cahirciveen or Bundoran, when your based 12 miles away or even Portlaoise to Tullamore. Affected alot of rural electricians needlessly, the employers couldnt afford this, the employees were generally satisified with either mileage, or transport and a solid job. Epace pushed for both and the employers couldnt afford it.

Hence a number of these employers have formed the NECI and sought the nullification of the REA.

The NECI has stated that they would look to have a 10% paycut in order to sustain jobs. This isn't a "kicking the worker whilst he is down scenario". The vast majority of sparks in small-medium sized firms have already taken a voluntary paycut, simply in order to survive. The amount of ancedotal evidence of people cutting back on work their getting done is shocking. Whether it is the Hotel/Shopping Centre not relamping their "bulbs" this year, or using their own handiman, to Mrs. Murphy deciding that the price of 3,500 to rewire her house is far too high, and it doesnt matter that there a reputable firm, paying union rates. After all it is a recession, the lad who is self-employed, or simply not paying union rates can charge 20% less, and yeah she might have voted Labour, and her husband might have been the shop steward, but 700 euros is better to her than someone else.

Essentially the NECI is seeking parity with those who are not charging union rates. Put simply if one reads the REA, it discusses the case of a firm who charged union rates after an inspection by Epace, when charging union rates they won approx 10% of tenders. Prior to their inspection by Epace they did not charge union rates. They won 75% of tenders. And by not charging union rates, Im not implying he had a guard from Guatanemo bay installed as a chargehand, simply 15% less than union rates. He had continious work. His employees were happy to have reliable work, and not having two weeks off every couple of months because work was slack.

You make a lot of interesting points.

Think the word Epace sends a shudder down the spine of lots of electricians, know of a few in that very scenario you mention, paying good wages, working flat out, employing lots who were happy to take the work, but now finding themselves broke and being nailed by Epace/Unions before a Labour Court and simply not having a cent.