Electricians Strike

Jip

Darragh29 wrote: »

The same law that today said workers cannot picket outside their place of work after following notice procedure as prescribed in legislation for the purposes of going on an official strike???

Diageo just happened to be the site they were working on at the time, although they did finish up the day before so weren't actually working there at the time. And also the dispute is with the electrical contractors and not Diageo so Diageo, and any other site imo are fully within their rights to get injunctions.

It's akin to the Shell to Sea protestors picketing car manufacturers because the cars they make use petrol or diesel produced by Shell.


Just heard Devoy on Pat Kenny, that man is seriously not well in the head, he basically shouted at Parlon

We've closed all your sites and they will not open again until we say they will

.

djpbarry

brianthebard wrote: »

No its been covered pretty thoroughly in this thread at this stage that that's what they did.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it has been assumed by a number of posters – I’ve yet to see any evidence supporting the claim.

brianthebard wrote: »

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

The workers pretty much are the economy (or at least, a substantial part of it).

Darragh29 wrote: »

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...

So the strikers were disrupting the operation of the business? The judgement seems reasonable in that case, no?

Would have thought that one message coming out of this loud and clear is think twice before contracting electricians that are members of unions.

irish_bob

Deleted User wrote: »

Would have thought that one message coming out of this loud and clear is think twice before contracting electricians that are members of unions.

i for one would never employ and tradesman who was a member of any union

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

i for one would never employ and tradesman who was a member of any union

So you would disregard our constitutional right to freedom of association?

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you would disregard our constitutional right to freedom of association?

So you would disregard the consumer's right to choose and to associate with non union contractors?

Of course I wouldn't dare suggest I wouldn't employ someone because of union membership. I would employ someone else who was more competitive, or would expose me to less risk of work stoppages for union disputes, or any one of the hundred other ways of getting around it...

techdiver

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you would disregard our constitutional right to freedom of association?

No, his is exercising his right to get a job done without any moaning and bitching.

Union members are too risky to employ! Non union members get on with their job or find somewhere else to work.

Spudmonkey

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you would disregard our constitutional right to freedom of association?

Surely it's his constitutional right to choose whoever he wants? Why would he want the hassle? For example what if he was in urgent need of electrical work at the moment?

Just after hearing on the news that many electricians are feared to lose their jobs, I hope its not those who voted against industrial action. They are the ones I feel sorry for.

boom-boom-boom, like a red rag to a bull....

is_that_so

Having heard two of the protagonists "going at it" on radio there is really little hope of resolution at present. It is regrettably a throwback to the 1970s. I was also much put out by the photo of picketers in the sun in today's Indo.

I've always been of the view that strikes are the ultimate failure and very rarely are what they seem, because like war the truth gets lost pretty quickly. Even post-mortems rarely reveal anything useful as both sides jockey to save face and claim victory.
While I found stillwaterman's comments instructive I would really question the usefulness of the model of social partnership we've had to date. I see little benefit of continuing with the vested interests approach that has defined it over the last ten years. I for one would not mourn its demise.

Riskymove

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Why would he want the hassle? For example what if he was in urgent need of electrical work at the moment?

why does union membership affect this

if i need an electrician I ring one, they give me price,if I am happy they do work otherwise i ring someone else and so on

union membership is immaterial

Riskymove

is_that_so wrote: »

I would really question the usefulness of the model of social partnership we've had to date. I

but that just means we would have more of this carry on

most disputes are resolved by both sides being involved in the process, be it partnership, LRC , Labour court etc

unfortunately this case has dragged on a number of years and is obviously very bitter on both sides.

Spudmonkey

Riskymove wrote: »

why does union membership affect this

if i need an electrician I ring one, they give me price,if I am happy they do work otherwise i ring someone else and so on

union membership is immaterial

I was under the impression that a member of the union could not work during a strike for fear of being titled a blackleg or scab?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

is_that_so

techdiver wrote: »

No, his is exercising his right to get a job done without any moaning and bitching.

Union members are too risky to employ! Non union members get on with their job or find somewhere else to work.

Unions and union members on occasions can be loud on dogma and blind to anything that counters their perception. It does make me cringe to hear the wourkers and management spouted every time there is a dispute. Many years ago I had a Fas instructor who had worked in manufacturing in the 70s and 80s. At that time local collective bargaining was the norm and usually involved the local shop steward and MD spending a few hours shooting the bull once they'd worked out how much was affordable and agreed how it should be relayed.

Riskymove

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I was under the impression that a member of the union could not work during a strike for fear of being titled a blackleg or scab?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

irish bob is talking about never employing a union member

you actually seem to be talking about a situation where you needed someone while the strike is on, in that case I see what you mean

I was talking more generally, as I cannot see what union membership would mean; i hire people based on value or previous work rather than if they are in a union

is_that_so

Riskymove wrote: »

but that just means we would have more of this carry on

most disputes are resolved by both sides being involved in the process, be it partnership, LRC , Labour court etc

unfortunately this case has dragged on a number of years and is obviously very bitter on both sides.

Not necessarily and tbh its recent conclusions on public pay has done us no favours at all. Current circumstances means a realignment of expectations which in my view means changing how it works. It should also mean a clear message to the present partners that the government is in charge and message to the government that it should do what's it supposed to do and not hide behind figleaves.

Spudmonkey

Riskymove wrote: »

irish bob is talking about never employing a union member

you actually seem to be talking about a situation where you needed someone while the strike is on, in that case I see what you mean

I was talking more generally, as I cannot see what union membership would mean; i hire people based on value or previous work rather than if they are in a union

From vote to industrial action didn't seem to take too long. I can imagine if you had lined someone up last week to do work for you this week, that pretty much disrupts your plans. If they can organise a strike so quickly I'm not sure if I'd run the risk either, especially if the work needed was to last a week or two.

I mean you don't want to get caught in no man's land. It's nothing personal against the workers.

Jip

Cadbury also have been granted a restraining order on pickets. That's now themselves and Diageo, I expect more to follow.

Darragh29

stillwaterman wrote: »

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.

Thanks for that thread Stillwaterman... I think though that a major problem here that hasn't been referred to is the ability to pay this increase, AT THIS TIME. I was listening to a man on Pat Kenny ysterday morning who runs an electricial contracting business with 40-50 sparks on his payroll. This guy had a 100K overdraft that the banks had clawed completely back off him at a rate of 5K a month. He used to be allowed rely on uncleared lodgement cheques to write his own cheques, now he has to wait 5 days after lodging a cheque before he can pay out against it.

He sounded like a salt of the earth character who just wanted to try to ride out the current calamity and keep lads in jobs. He had to tell some of his staff to not lodge the cheque for their wages because he knew that the banks might return them unpaid.

This according to himself is the reality on the ground FOR THOSE IN THE INDUSTRY THAT ARE STILL IN BUSINESS!!!

Now I know this pay increase should have been paid but it wasn't and I don't think that given all that has happened in the last 6 months, that it should be paid now. A man who is telling his sparks to hang on to their wages cheques for a day or two and not lodge them for fear they will bounce, is in no position to pay a 11% pay increase.

It's simple as this, you can't get blood from a stone and after hearing that lad yesterday on the radio, it's clear to me that many businesses are absolutely struggling to survive and just don't have the money to meet this demand at the current time.

Interestingly, has Jack O' Connor taken a pay cut?

Again the question has to be asked why on earth we are recapitalising the banks when they are not in turn supporting SME's in ireland and it is becoming clearer every single day that they are causing businesses to fail in this country.

Darragh29

Jip wrote: »

Cadbury also have been granted a restraining order on pickets. That's now themselves and Diageo, I expect more to follow.

Regardless of how I feel about the current dispute, I do respect people's right to strike, I'm surprised that these injunctions are being granted. It's not the pickets that are causing the businesses to suffer, it is people refusing to pass them. Surely the granting of these injunctions cannot be reconciled with the constitutional right pursuant to article 40 of the constitution to free peaceful assembly??? As I said before, the ghost of William Martin Murphy must be floating around the Four Courts this week, next thing we'll be seeing is a lockout.

Jip

But the issue is with the electrical contractor, not Diageo or Cadburys. Why not picket the offices/branches of the large electrical contractors rather than those who use them ?

That would be like the Dublin bus drivers turning up at my house a few months ago to picket it as I use the buses organised by their management.

is_that_so

Darragh29 wrote: »

Regardless of how I feel about the current dispute, I do respect people's right to strike, I'm surprised that these injunctions are being granted. It's not the pickets that are causing the businesses to suffer, it is people refusing to pass them. Surely the granting of these injunctions cannot be reconciled with the constitutional right pursuant to article 40 of the constitution to free peaceful assembly??? As I said before, the ghost of William Martin Murphy must be floating around the Four Courts this week, next thing we'll be seeing is a lockout.

As is the right not to join a union. Pickets at best are inflammatory and emotive and some may choose not to pass them. This type of action is secondary picketing which I do believe is not covered under the aforementioned article and can be challenged in court.

Darragh29

is_that_so wrote: »

As is the right not to join a union. Pickets at best are inflammatory and emotive and some may choose not to pass them. This type of action is secondary picketing which I do believe is not covered under the aforementioned article and can be challenged in court.

Well article 40.6 of the constitution states:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

None of the clear qualifications stated above seem to be citable with regard to the current dispute and Diageo being given an injunction.

Pickets are fundamentally a peaceful protest or a peaceful assembly. Whether people choose to pass them or not is entirely a matter for their own consideration.

Jip

Darragh29 wrote: »

or nuisance to the general public

You mean to tell us that a months downtime of Guinness production is not a nuisance to the general public ?!? :eek:

bonzos

Tommy T wrote: »

Great to see the wonderful support the lads and lassies of the TEEU got today up and down the country. Here's hoping ICTU pull their finger out and give them the backing they deserve... To all members of the TEEU, we in the CPSU salute you...

of course your right tommy!most teeu members are striking because there is a gun to their head....just look at how your mates in dublin bus treated their fellow workers who didnt want to strike,they threw stones and bottles at them.these are the same sort of thugs that enforce the unions rules on sites

is_that_so

Darragh29 wrote: »

Well article 40.6 of the constitution states:

The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

None of the clear qualifications stated above seem to be citable with regard to the current dispute and Diageo being given an injunction.

Pickets are fundamentally a peaceful protest or a peaceful assembly. Whether people choose to pass them or not is entirely a matter for their own consideration.

If a company is not in dispute then there is a nuisance factor. Secondary picketing is illegal AFAIK and is covered under The Industrial Relations Act 1990 Section 12. In this case neither Diageo nor Cadbury's are their employer. I am guessing you have never experienced the "peaceful" nature of pickets. The reality is that there is a degree of implied emotional blackmail in a line of people attempting to block access to a place of work. While this has never bothered me in the slightest there are many others who will not pass them.

oscarBravo

is_that_so wrote: »

As is the right not to join a union.

That is, at best, a conditional right. Many workplaces are "closed shops", where union membership is a condition of employment. That's a practice I consider discriminatory and unfair.

Darragh29

is_that_so wrote: »

If a company is not in dispute then there is a nuisance factor. Secondary picketing is illegal AFAIK and is covered under The Industrial Relations Act 1990 Section 12. In this case neither Diageo nor Cadbury's are their employer. I am guessing you have never experienced the "peaceful" nature of pickets. The reality is that there is a degree of implied emotional blackmail in a line of people attempting to block access to a place of work. While this has never bothered me in the slightest there are many others who will not pass them.

I'm inclined to take your point there...

is_that_so

oscarBravo wrote: »

That is, at best, a conditional right. Many workplaces are "closed shops", where union membership is a condition of employment. That's a practice I consider discriminatory and unfair.

Absolutely but one that is commonly overlooked in the often blind defence of a union and its activities.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

That is, at best, a conditional right. Many workplaces are "closed shops", where union membership is a condition of employment. That's a practice I consider discriminatory and unfair.

I think that's gone now.

wexford202

A couple of points are:

- although the rate is 21.49 per hour there are also a number of other item being received by the electrician

A weekly payment of 168.26 (Tax Free) subsistence which they all get when they travel more than 11 miles to work. That equals a further 8,749.52 per year.

A weekly pension contribution fom the employer of 30.00 which equals 1500.00 per year contributed by the employer.

If you take account of he increase that the electricians are looking for a single person on normal tax credits will only come out about 30-40 euros better off after tax.

This increase of a what may look like a small amount is actually causing huge tax bills for the employer.

Not all electricians do agree with the union. Many are not in a union as they choose not to be.

Many are not striking and I am glad to see that alot of people do not support this strike as it is in Tom Parlons words lunacy.