Electricians Strike

Darragh29

Here's another point I want to make. If you are a qualified electrician and a member of the TEEU or any other union and you happen to work for a US multinational in this country and you try going into a meeting and tell them that you want to be paid the recognised union rate of 21.49 Euro, or you want to enjoy the benefits due to you under a Registered Employment Agreement, you would be laughed out the door.

I worked with lads who were electricians in one US multinational and there was a 2 year pay freeze due to "business conditions" and that was the end of that. It didn't get into the media, no Labour Court or LRC or fighting talk about strikes, just that's the situation, if you don't like it, well you know where the door is...

dvpower

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.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that's gone now.

From the REA

Registered Employment Agreement wrote:

All foremen, chargehands, and electricians employed by the ECA and the AECI hereafter called the employer bodies shall be or become members of the TEEU hereafter called the Union and must hold current union cards. The Union will not unreasonably refuse membership subject to their own rules and regulations.

Darragh29

Another beligerant term of the REA is that those signed up by it are not allowed do any work in their spare time for reward. As far as I'm concerned, what you do in your own time is your own fu*king business.

wexford202

Darragh29 wrote: »

Another beligerant term of the REA is that those signed up by it are not allowed do any work in their spare time for reward. As far as I'm concerned, what you do in your own time is your own fu*king business.

That is something that will never change though. It is against the law to do work and not declare it to the tax man whether you are a hairdresser or an electrician.

It is something that employers do not want to know about and is something that an employer throws a blind eye to.

It has other issues including Tax and insurance. Nixers are always going to be done that is life.

Many people are saying now that the nixers are running out that the electrician is not used to having a disposable income.

Darragh29

wexford202 wrote: »

That is something that will never change though. It is against the law to do work and not declare it to the tax man whether you are a hairdresser or an electrician.

It is something that employers do not want to know about and is something that an employer throws a blind eye to.

It has other issues including Tax and insurance. Nixers are always going to be done that is life.

Many people are saying now that the nixers are running out that the electrician is not used to having a disposable income.

The taxation of income is something different altogether. If I want to earn additional income from my trade or profession in my own time, that is nobody's business but my own. With regard to the taxation of that income, that is a matter for revenue and myself.

wexford202

Darragh29 wrote: »

The taxation of income is something different altogether. If I want to earn additional income from my trade or profession in my own time, that is nobody's business but my own. With regard to the taxation of that income, that is a matter for revenue and myself.

Yes I do agree with you but I am only pointing out that unless you are registered for VAT you have no legal right to work for anyone other than your employer. That's the law of this country for every industry not just electrical.

If you work as a subcontractor to your employer you can do whatever you like and be completly within your right to do so as you are registered for VAT and are yor own person.

The REA is really just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't be an employee on a rate of pay that comes in under a registered empolyment agreement and then on the other hand be a contractor doing works for payment for other people. You are either a subbie or an employee. You cannot be the two.

You cannot certify works you do and therefore would not be covered by insurance.

I am not telling you that you are not to do nixers but it is against every law. If it is between you and the taxman? the taxman will tell you straight out that you cannot be both a contractor and an employee.

Nixers are fine but only if kept on the QT

hey_hey

Darragh29 wrote: »

Here's another point I want to make. If you are a qualified electrician and a member of the TEEU or any other union and you happen to work for a US multinational in this country and you try going into a meeting and tell them that you want to be paid the recognised union rate of 21.49 Euro, or you want to enjoy the benefits due to you under a Registered Employment Agreement, you would be laughed out the door.

I worked with lads who were electricians in one US multinational and there was a 2 year pay freeze due to "business conditions" and that was the end of that. It didn't get into the media, no Labour Court or LRC or fighting talk about strikes, just that's the situation, if you don't like it, well you know where the door is...

This is nothing to do with the company being a US multinational company. The electricians you work with were maintenance electricians and work under different conditions to electricians that work for contractors.

Darragh29

wexford202 wrote: »

Yes I do agree with you but I am only pointing out that unless you are registered for VAT you have no legal right to work for anyone other than your employer. That's the law of this country for every industry not just electrical.

If you work as a subcontractor to your employer you can do whatever you like and be completly within your right to do so as you are registered for VAT and are yor own person.

The REA is really just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't be an employee on a rate of pay that comes in under a registered empolyment agreement and then on the other hand be a contractor doing works for payment for other people. You are either a subbie or an employee. You cannot be the two.

You cannot certify works you do and therefore would not be covered by insurance.

I am not telling you that you are not to do nixers but it is against every law. If it is between you and the taxman? the taxman will tell you straight out that you cannot be both a contractor and an employee.

Nixers are fine but only if kept on the QT

You don't need a VAT number to be an employer. You can be self employed as a sole trader and you don't need a VAT number, say for example if you don't reach the minimum turnover necessary for VAT registration, all you have to do is complete a separate tax return for the end of the year.

If your a qualfied electrician, then you should be able to sign off on your own work. I'm a qualified mechanic, I'm responsible for completing mechanical tasks myself, I can't have people trapsing after me sign a sheet of paper to "sign off" on work that I might have done...

Darragh29

hey_hey wrote: »

This is nothing to do with the company being a US multinational company. The electricians you work with were maintenance electricians and work under different conditions to electricians that work for contractors.

It has everything to do with the employer being a US multinational. Firstly, the electricians I worked with were installing equipment, this was all they did, bring electricial facilities down to tools and wiring them up. There was no talk of REA's or minimum rates or any of that, you agreed your salary when you started and you had to push for your pay increase every year. If there was no budget for pay increases then you got nothing. If you had an issue with that, you were shown the door. No Labour Courts or ballots or anything like that.

Now I'm not saying that this was right, I'm just making the point that you have people who are protected by the inherent unfairness that is the partnership process and strongly unionised workplaces, as is the case here, and then on the other hand you have a whole mass of people who are completely exposed to market realities. This is hugely unfair I think and is the cause of the majority of workers in this country being exposed to job losses and redundancies, while a minority of workers are living under this umbrella of protection that is being held over them by a so called partnership process and powerful unions, looking for improved terms, conditions and pay when the rest of the country is being laid off...

hey_hey

Darragh29 wrote: »

Not true, the electricians I worked with where installing equipment.

I would bet my last penny on it! Maintenance electricians can install equipment as well. I would guarantee you the multinational company hired them directly rather than using contractors.... making them maintenance sparks and making them work under different terms and conditions, These electricians you work with were not contractors and ill eat my hat if you can prove otherwise

oscarBravo

wexford202 wrote: »

...unless you are registered for VAT you have no legal right to work for anyone other than your employer.

Not quite true: VAT registration is optional until your annual turnover reaches a certain threshold. It may also be difficult to deal with certain larger companies who require their contractors to be VAT-registered.

Of course, income tax has to be paid on all income.

2011

VAT registration is optional until your annual turnover reaches a certain threshold. It may also be difficult to deal with certain larger companies who require their contractors to be VAT-registered.

This is correct.

Maintenance electricians can install equipment as well

Correct

If I want to earn additional income from my trade or profession in my own time, that is nobody's business but my own.

When an electrician signs a contract with an employer it often states that you will only work for them i.e. no nixers and no working for anyone else.

There was no talk of REA's or minimum rates or any of that, you agreed your salary when you started and you had to push for your pay increase every year.

This can be the case. It depends on the company. It happens with irish electrical contractors too!

All foremen, chargehands, and electricians employed by the ECA and the AECI hereafter called the employer bodies shall be or become members of the TEEU hereafter called the Union and must hold current union cards.

This is normal for all large projects in Ireland and has been for many years. At interviews electricinas are often told by my new employers that they could only be taken on when if they show a vaild union card from the TEEU. They often make this request in writing.


The work for electricians is often tough, frequently dangerous and sometimes very boring. It can demand a high level of skill and training (more so on the industrial end).

zootroid

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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?

I actually said I'm probably repeating what others have said. I don't have the time to read through the whole thread. And what I'm saying isn't "more important" than what others have said, I'm just expressing my opinion.

nesf

2011 wrote: »

This is normal for all large projects in Ireland and has been for many years. At interviews I have been told by my new employers that I could only be taken on when I show a vaild union card from the TEEU. They often make this request in writing.

It's quite common in many factories too. I remember a case where electrical insulation matting (for the non-sparks it's a mat that's put in front of switchboards and other industrial electrical gear that need work done on them by electricians to give an electrician a good chance of survival if they happen to get hit with a few thousand volts) was being put down in a factory in Cork. It was two days work, requiring no skilled tradespeople and for all intents and purposes anyone with an ounce of common sense could put it down, yet it was a requirement for anyone doing it to carry union cards. External workers, doing non-skilled labour for a once off job that would only need repeating every ten years or so, yet still mandatory cards involved. The unions have some places locked down tighter than a duck's ****.

mrgaa1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0706/electricians.html

the talks would need to do something quickly

wexford202

mrgaa1 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0706/electricians.html

the talks would need to do something quickly

The union will not agree to anything other than the increase so I wouldn't be hopeful.

sovtek

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0706/electricians.html

SIPTU's Jack O'Connor said in a statement that the electricians must be supported by workers, because the employers' objective of cutting pay reflected the aim of the wealthy to protect their assets and privileged positions."

Pretty much sums up the matter right there.

wexford202

sovtek wrote: »

Pretty much sums up the matter right there.

Oh yeah sorry I forgot that Jack O Connor was god. How silly of me.

Yes employers should make profit that is why there in business. I think every electrician should be made set up their own business and then see what the real world is like.

Before you do you had better ask Jack what he thinks though.

techdiver

sovtek wrote: »

Pretty much sums up the matter right there.

I wouldn't listen to a thing that gobs***e "communist" would say. I suppose he earns a paupers pay packet? If things went his way there would be no jobs in the country because his thinking would stifle entrepreneurism. The lure of wealth is a good thing, and is the lifeblood that keeps jobs in the economy! This typical immature line of "the rich are evil", doesn't hold water.

oscarBravo

Jack O'Connor wrote:

...the employers' objective of cutting pay reflected the aim of the wealthy to protect their assets...

Here's something Jack O'Connor may not be aware of: an employer without assets is a bankrupt employer, and has no employees.

As a company director, I have a legally binding duty of care to protect my company's assets by whatever legal means are available to me. I guess that makes me an evil bastard capitalist fat-cat caricature in the eyes of the unions.

Darragh29

wexford202 wrote: »

Oh yeah sorry I forgot that Jack O Connor was god. How silly of me.

Yes employers should make profit that is why there in business. I think every electrician should be made set up their own business and then see what the real world is like.

Before you do you had better ask Jack what he thinks though.

Excellent post. These unions have no understanding whatsoever as to how hard it is to start up a SUCCESSFUL business and how businesses are struggling at the moment.

As for Jack O' Connor, I don't know how he gets away with such sweeping generalisations about employers, how goes he know that all employers in relation to this dispute are "fat cats" and are on a crusade to slash workers terms and conditions??? From what I can see, most employers are going through some serious personal sacrifice to keep lads in jobs right now.

As an employer, you "should", if you ran your business in accordance with the law, let people go once they cannot be afforded, but I see employers up and down the country actually risking their businesses by trying to keep people in jobs, people that they know have got wives, kids and mortgages to support, and they want to try to ride this out for the next 12 months. Technically speaking, some of these business are actually insolvent, but what do you do, prosecute the employer for doing the right thing by his workers and the country???

Jack O' Connor needs a reality check...

Villain

I haven't read all the posts here and I'm not that well versed on the sistuation, is it the case that Electrician contractors signed up to an increase agreement but one new contracting group challenged the agreement because they weren't invovled in the deal and by the time all this came to Court the economy had nose-dived and all the contractors backed out the agreement?

Now is it also true that that while this legal challenge was ongoing the contractors who made the deal were charging at the new increased prices even though they weren't paying them to the electricians?

If that is correct, then surely the easiest way out is back pay them the increase that they charged for and then re-negotiate a new pay deal based on the current climate?

wexford202

Villain wrote: »

I haven't read all the posts here and I'm not that well versed on the sistuation, is it the case that Electrician contractors signed up to an increase agreement but even though one new contracting group challenged the agreement because they weren't invovled in the deal and by the time all this came to Court the economy had nose-dived and the contractors backed out the agreement?

Now is it also true that that while this legal challenge was ongoing the contractors who made the deal were charging at the new increased prices even though they weren't paying them to the electricians?

If that is correct, then surely the easiest way out is back pay them the increase that they charged for and then re-negotiate a new pay deal based on the current climate?

There is no part in any teder that gives a place for you to put in an increase of wages.

Not even in the government form of tender. Most contracts have been started and finished and if the employer went back to the client now looking for money they would be laughed out the door. They can't even get paid the retention on these jobs.

sovtek

Darragh29 wrote: »

As for Jack O' Connor, I don't know how he gets away with such sweeping generalisations about employers, how goes he know that all employers in relation to this dispute are "fat cats" and are on a crusade to slash workers terms and conditions??? From what I can see, most employers are going through some serious personal sacrifice to keep lads in jobs right now.

You mean those poor employers who agree to an increase, take the money from their customers and then don't pay it to their employees...those kinda personal sacrifices. Then turn around and demand further cuts before any negotiations. Poor poor little employers.

Villain

wexford202 wrote: »

There is no part in any teder that gives a place for you to put in an increase of wages.

Not even in the government form of tender. Most contracts have been started and finished and if the employer went back to the client now looking for money they would be laughed out the door. They can't even get paid the retention on these jobs.

My understanding is that the contractors had tendered at the increased rates i.e. charged them but not passed on the increase to the employee's?

sovtek

wexford202 wrote: »

There is no part in any teder that gives a place for you to put in an increase of wages.

Are you seriously going to hunt that dog? A contractor doesn't factor in AGREED pay increase to a tender over the life of it! Come on! Value plus ring a bell?

ixoy

Companies don't invest to increase the cause of socialism - they're looking for a profit. They seek to make that profit by finally tuning, as best they can, their outgoing costs with their incoming revenue stream.

What this strike seems to be about is reducing the profit margin - a perceived imbalance between profits and what the worker gets. Of course there's going to be a difference - who in their right mind would invest for a marginal profit? It's too risky.
By demanding higher wages, the TEEU are sending out signals to potential investors: Deal with these guys, and they could readily down tools on you whenever they're not happy.

Regardless of any deeper complexities, investors would be wary of working with such a group because their profit margins could be wiped out. Want to build a plant? Well be careful because the unions working there are risky and expensive.

If companies are not making a profit, they're making a loss and they can't do that. If they're making a loss, they need to fix things - and that could be letting go of workers. So why take that risk? Why not just get someone else, or far worse for the Irish economy, go to a different country where there's less risk/hassle. We've been losing such work for years thanks to inflating prices and we need to recognise that yeah we actually need those horrible fat cats or else we'll have even less money to spend at all.

sovtek

ixoy wrote: »

If companies are not making a profit, they're making a loss and they can't do that. If they're making a loss, they need to fix things - and that could be letting go of workers. So why take that risk? Why not just get someone else, or far worse for the Irish economy, go to a different country where there's less risk/hassle. We've been losing such work for years thanks to inflating prices and we need to recognise that yeah we actually need those horrible fat cats or else we'll have even less money to spend at all.

Ask yourself who inflates prices.
Thats the race to the bottom, third world type of economics that leave us where we are today.

wexford202

Villain wrote: »

My understanding is that the contractors had tendered at the increased rates i.e. charged them but not passed on the increase to the employee's?

No I can say that I have never priced at the increased rates. Reason why is it was not passed in the labour court and the labour court said it would not grant the increase of electricians rates.

Therefore I would be blown out of the water by other contractors if I had of put something in my price which was not passed in law.

When pricing something you look at he REA for the rates. The REA rates on all union sites is still 21.49 per hour. That is the prices contractors went with

P. Breathnach

Those who dislike unions are not doing a good job of interpreting the messages from people in the ICTU. Do you think they would have any chance of working constructively with the electricians if they abused them as a shower of self-serving troublemakers? They have to keep the lines of communication open, and maintain good relationships with TEEU.

While much of the discussion focuses on the demand for an increase of 11% which, apparently, is due under an agreement already made, somewhat less attention is being paid to the demand of employers that pay be cut by 10% or the intemperate remarks of Tom Parlon.

I'm fairly sure that the final outcome will be that there will be no significant increase or reduction in pay. I suspect that ICTU have the same expectation, but it is bad negotiation to alienate your own people or give away your final position before the other side is prepared to make any move.