Electricians Strike

sovtek

irish_bob wrote: »

sparkys are ten a penny right now and will soon be ten a penny on the dole , reality obviously has not set in with a sizeable number of the population yet , the good times are over , all bets are off now

So too are CEO's.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

It does if you don't realize that your most important asset and source of wealth is your labour force.

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

So too are CEO's.

I haven't seen too many CEOs striking lately.

It begs the question, though: if electricians are convinced that there's so much money in contracting, why are they working for contractors on an hourly rate? Why don't they go after the contracts themselves, and charge the big bucks they feel the contractors are hoarding?

oscarBravo

sovtek wrote: »

It does if you don't realize that your most important asset and source of wealth is your labour force.

I can't give my labour force to my suppliers in lieu of payment.

Don't get me wrong: I value my employees, and so far I've managed not to lay anyone off or reduce wages - but if it comes to it, my legal duty is to my shareholders.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

... Don't get me wrong: I value my employees, and so far I've managed not to lay anyone off or reduce wages - but if it comes to it, my legal duty is to my shareholders.

It's not as simple as that. In business, you have legal obligations all over the place.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't seen too many CEOs striking lately.

Probably because they aint' gonna be struggling to pay their mortgage and having to buy the new low range items at Tesco anytime soon.

LoLth

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't seen too many CEOs striking lately.

It begs the question, though: if electricians are convinced that there's so much money in contracting, why are they working for contractors on an hourly rate? Why don't they go after the contracts themselves, and charge the big bucks they feel the contractors are hoarding?

At a guess (and not out of any first hand knowledge), its because Large contracting companies like Sisk or Hegarty hold the contract after the tendering process, they then farm it out to smaller contract companies who provide their services based on an agreed figure with the larger company.

these mid-contract companies have their own staff hired and are less likely to take on external workers (insurance etc), or they fill their quota on a project to project basis from a pool of staff on their books.

so: new courthouse
hegarty win the tender process
hegarty advertise for tenders from sub-contractors: pick out an electrical company, a bricky company, a plant hire - unless they have their own - etc.

electrical contractor company see that they need 50 leccies for 5 months and tender a bill for their services. if accepted they assign 50 of their electricians to the contract for a 5 month period

I doubt many freelance electricians would get to work on many projects without going through the sub-contractors books and thus being subject to the terms and conditions set down by that company.

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't give my labour force to my suppliers in lieu of payment.

Don't get me wrong: I value my employees, and so far I've managed not to lay anyone off or reduce wages - but if it comes to it, my legal duty is to my shareholders.

You can pay your suppliers with the wealth they create though.

Thats good to hear whilst many squeeze and cut their labour force as much as possible. Unfortunately in business circles thats usually considered a good thing.

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. In business, you have legal obligations all over the place.

Correct, but as a company director my duty of care to my shareholders is such that I have to put their welfare ahead of my own - that's pretty much paramount.

sovtek wrote: »

Probably because they aint' gonna be struggling to pay their mortgage and having to buy the new low range items at Tesco anytime soon.

Why is that? If they're two a penny, market pressures should be driving their wages down, right?

LoLth wrote: »

I doubt many freelance electricians would get to work on many projects without going through the sub-contractors books and thus being subject to the terms and conditions set down by that company.

So why don't a bunch of freelancers get together, form an electrical contracting co-op, bid for these subcontracts and split the proceeds?

It should be a no-brainer. Because they're cutting out the fat-cat contractor who is clearly pocketing roomfuls of cash, they can underbid and still make more money.

Right?

sovtek wrote: »

You can pay your suppliers with the wealth they create though.

The company creates wealth (and not nearly as much as I'd like). The employees provide me with a service, and I provide them with money.

If it were as simple as the employees generating wealth, why aren't they doing what my company does, only more cheaply and making more money for themselves, in exactly the same way as the electrical contracting co-op I described above?

sovtek

oscarBravo wrote: »

The company creates wealth (and not nearly as much as I'd like). The employees provide me with a service, and I provide them with money.

No the company amasses wealth that labour creates.

LoLth

oscarBravo wrote: »

So why don't a bunch of freelancers get together, form an electrical contracting co-op, bid for these subcontracts and split the proceeds?

It should be a no-brainer. Because they're cutting out the fat-cat contractor who is clearly pocketing roomfuls of cash, they can underbid and still make more money.

Right?

In a perfectly equitable market I would agree with you. Unfortunately I do have first hand knowledge of how the market is not fair. larger companies make deals with smaller companies to use them and one or two others as their tendering pool. Its extremely difficult for any newer competitors to get a look in. Bullying tactics and other underhanded means are used to keep the newcomer out in the cold. I remember something a few years ago about several top ranked building contractors having a tendering ring between themselves where they would rig their tenders so they could take turns buying up contracts and keeping the newer companies out of the market (i'll see if i can dig it up). My mother's company had a terrible start up: from clients refusing to accept tenders because if they did then X supplier would not deal with them anymore in a related area - turns out X was a sister company to my mother's competitors Y (I'm not saying the area because its a small enough field and I havent asked if its ok to give out details, also there's boards to consider with allegations etc). When she sourced materials abroad in the middle east she lost half her other product lines because her original supplier (at 5 times the price) from spain was a supply partner of the manufacturer of the product line she replaced. also she had a terrible time gettign suppliers to deliver to ireland because there were deals with outlets and providers for each region already. - this isnt to do with electricians but if its happening in one area you can be sure as bad, if not worse , is happening elsewhere.

Karlos_Sparky

Just to clear a few things up,

I don't want people to think that the trade of electrician automatically entitles one to cannonisation ! There are brutal sparks & apprentices out there. The bad sparks are usually pushed to the fringes of the industry and the bad apprentices are weeded out by the DIT exam system - but this is not universally true - there are exceptions.

djpbarry wrote: »

I have been “in training” in my area of expertise for close to 8 years now and I don’t earn anywhere near that kind of money (and I won’t any time soon either).

You made your career choice and I've made mine - perhaps you might be interested in an apprenticeship ?

wexford202 wrote: »

I do not think that the electrician is 'very much deserving of a wage higher than those earning the average industrial wage'.

It is the company who has to stand over the work. It is the company that has to take the fall for any unsafe work carried ou by electricians' and it is the company that is responsible for ensuring each home or apartment owner is safe in their dwelling and free from the risk of fires etc.

The electrician can always walk away.

But yet we are educated to an extremely high level and take risks every day in our work. We take pride in our work and it's the cowboys who walk away and they should held to account for it. And the contractors are handsomely rewarded for ensuring quality and finish control so let's not feel too sorry for them.

irish_bob

sovtek wrote: »

So too are CEO's.

i live in rural ireland , i can think of ten electricians who i went to school with and several others who i am familiar with the surrounding area , i dont know a single CEO , never met one , never went to school with anyone who became one where as every second young fella who left school in my area in the past ten years became a sparky

sovtek

irish_bob wrote: »

i live in rural ireland , i can think of ten electricians who i went to school with and several others who i am familiar with the surrounding area , i dont know a single CEO , never met one , never went to school with anyone who became one where as every second young fella who left school in my area in the past ten years became a sparky

I dont think you understood my point.

djpbarry

Karlos_Sparky wrote: »

You made your career choice and I've made mine…

Indeed I have and I’m quite happy with that choice. Alls I’m saying is that, in the grand scheme of things, €21.49 per hour is a pretty decent rate of pay, even after 9 years of toil.

dbready

Karlos_Sparky wrote: »

There are brutal sparks & apprentices out there. The bad sparks are usually pushed to the fringes of the industry

I don't understand why Unions insist that all electricians (union members) must be paid the same rate, all this does is stifle initiative because everyone is paid the same regardless of how much effort they put in.

How come employees not in a union can negotiate their own terms of employment to a point without the bully boy tactics of self serving union leaders who have done nothing but sign agreements regarding unsustainable pay rises for the last 10 years?

Now the very same union leaders are using the electricians a spawns to protect their own €150k+ jobs. After all the union dues collected over the past 10 years with no strikes would it not be more sensible to reduce the dues to compensate for any pay cuts, instead of paying €120 per week in strike pay? - but that would be constructive, and dent the well lined pockets of the so called leaders who are there to protect workers rights.

Time for people to wise up to these gangsters, or lunatics which was the only point David Begg could pick up on during the week!!!

Karlos_Sparky

dbready wrote: »

How come employees not in a union can negotiate their own terms of employment to a point without the bully boy tactics of self serving union leaders

And what about the bully boy tactics of the employers - not paying us moneys OWED !!!

Unions are there to serve thier members - employers serve themselves.

brianthebard

I doubt many will agree with the article or source, but here's an interesting take on the strike and the reasons why an increase should be given rather than a cut;

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/07/07/economic-shunning-july-6th-recession-diaries/#more-1574

On the fiscal level, a pay increase is of more value to the Exchequer than that same money retained by an enterprise. For each extra €100 in pay results in an increase in Exchequer / Social Insurance Fund revenue €40.75 at the standard rate and €61.75 at the top rate (this combines income and PRSI from employees and employers). That’s quite a kick. You would think, therefore, that the Government would be quite anxious to see pay increases in the private sector where affordable. Multiply that €100 and extend it to a few hundred thousand workers, and the money will be flowing in – and all that without unpopular tax increases.

Just as importantly, though, increases in disposable incomes can be translated into higher demand.

If the companies hold onto the money, or worse force a pay cut, it just means less money going to the exchequer, making the situation worse not better. A cut in disposable income will also clearly mean a decrease in spending on consumer goods, which is a pretty bad thing if your economy is driven by worker consumption.

techdiver

brianthebard wrote: »

I doubt many will agree with the article or source, but here's an interesting take on the strike and the reasons why an increase should be given rather than a cut;

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/07/07/economic-shunning-july-6th-recession-diaries/#more-1574



If the companies hold onto the money, or worse force a pay cut, it just means less money going to the exchequer, making the situation worse not better. A cut in disposable income will also clearly mean a decrease in spending on consumer goods, which is a pretty bad thing if your economy is driven by worker consumption.

As expected I do not agree.

While in isolation the statement has merit, but when coupled with all economic factors it doesn't hold true. If there were no possibility of knock on effects a pay rise would be acceptable, but the problem at the moment, is that salary and wage costs in Ireland are too high for business among other things and this doesn't do anything to encourage enterprise. Wage pressure will inevitably lead to job losses and will stifle investment in enterprise.

Taxipete29

brianthebard wrote: »

I doubt many will agree with the article or source, but here's an interesting take on the strike and the reasons why an increase should be given rather than a cut;

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/07/07/economic-shunning-july-6th-recession-diaries/#more-1574



If the companies hold onto the money, or worse force a pay cut, it just means less money going to the exchequer, making the situation worse not better. A cut in disposable income will also clearly mean a decrease in spending on consumer goods, which is a pretty bad thing if your economy is driven by worker consumption.

The counter argument is that by reducing the cost of manufacturing and development will lead to more investment in large projects. This will in turn create more jobs and more revenue for the state. Does this not also drive the economy??

When are people going to realise that we have lost our competitiveness on the international market. This is an expensive country to do business and we need to bring that cost down. This means cuts across the board for everyone from the top down.

Prices are down by 5% on last year. The electricians may get their pay increase or some form of it, but all thats going to happen is that some of them will lose their jobs with no hope of another one in the near future.

djpbarry

For each extra €100 in pay results in an increase in Exchequer / Social Insurance Fund revenue €40.75 at the standard rate and €61.75 at the top rate (this combines income and PRSI from employees and employers). That’s quite a kick. You would think, therefore, that the Government would be quite anxious to see pay increases in the private sector where affordable. Multiply that €100 and extend it to a few hundred thousand workers...

...and you've got wages increasing by 10's of millions of €'s. I'm wondering where all that money is going to come from?

brianthebard

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The counter argument is that by reducing the cost of manufacturing and development will lead to more investment in large projects. This will in turn create more jobs and more revenue for the state. Does this not also drive the economy??

When are these companies going to invest? How long until they set up? How long until their favourable tax free status runs out? How long before they start making money for the country? Cutting workers wages decreases exchequer income now, which is the main thrust of the article. Even keeping wages stable will be of more benefit than cutting them.

As to international competitiveness, an interesting point but not for this thread I think.

techdiver

brianthebard wrote: »

As to international competitiveness, an interesting point but not for this thread I think.

I think it is everything to do with this thread. The optics of the current situation can be seen internationally and that does not bode well for inward investment due to the fact that companies will not come to a country where the trade unions get their way regardless of the effect on business.

All strikes do economic damage from the point of view of productivity lost and potential loss of investment.

the_syco

djpbarry wrote: »

...and you've got wages increasing by 10's of millions of €'s. I'm wondering where all that money is going to come from?

The taxman.

Taxipete29

brianthebard wrote: »

When are these companies going to invest? How long until they set up? How long until their favourable tax free status runs out? How long before they start making money for the country? Cutting workers wages decreases exchequer income now, which is the main thrust of the article. Even keeping wages stable will be of more benefit than cutting them.

As to international competitiveness, an interesting point but not for this thread I think.

The cut is off the table.

Its exactly the point. If we increase wages now for electrician they will pay more tax and have more income for a few months. Then the job cuts( which are inevitable) kick in and these people all end up on welfare. How is that good for the economy. Your argument is so short sighted it doesnt even get the country to the budget.

markpb

Karlos_Sparky wrote: »

Let's be clear on this - do you really think ICTU would be rolling out behind us if the consequences of this argument don't affect everyone else ? If our REA (Registered employment agreement) is turned on it's head it will be catastrophic for hundreds of other industries/disiciplines in this state and the race to the bottom will really begin.

Can you explain to me why you think REAs are a good idea or why a race to the bottom will happen?

I work as a developer for an Irish multinational (yes, they exist!). The company could easily outsource my work to any of our other offices or they could outsource it to a consultancy company in India. Luckily for me, they choose not to. If I was a member of a union and we had negotiated an REA for all Irish developers, how many development jobs would be left in Ireland?

On the other hand, your job *cannot* be outsourced to India. It is protected by the virtue that anyone doing your job has to live in Ireland which is a finite number. In spite of that, you believe there will be a race to the bottom?

Faced with those two examples, the only conclusion I can see is that it's not about a race to the bottom - it's about keeping electricians wages artificially high. That's fine, that's a union's job but don't pretend it's about anything else.

brianthebard

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The cut is off the table.

Its exactly the point. If we increase wages now for electrician they will pay more tax and have more income for a few months. Then the job cuts( which are inevitable) kick in and these people all end up on welfare. How is that good for the economy. Your argument is so short sighted it doesnt even get the country to the budget.

Ireland is never going to be competitive against the third world again, there's no return to what it was in the sixties/eighties/early ninties.
If you read the article you'll see there's no suggestion of forcing every single company to pay, only those who can afford to, but that it is imperative that those who can afford to do so. Many companies are in a bad position right now, no doubt, but many are taking advantage of others by claiming to be worse off.
You should note that its not exactly my argument, simply a different argument. I think its an interesting proposition, that's all. What the article does talk about which is also my argument, is that so many people are running scared about "the economy", blaming anyone who does anything other than shut up and take the kicks, that workers are going to end up in a much worse position at the end of all this, if there is an end, than they would if they stood up for themselves as the TEEU is.

Taxipete29

brianthebard wrote: »

Ireland is never going to be competitive against the third world again, there's no return to what it was in the sixties/eighties/early ninties.
If you read the article you'll see there's no suggestion of forcing every single company to pay, only those who can afford to, but that it is imperative that those who can afford to do so. Many companies are in a bad position right now, no doubt, but many are taking advantage of others by claiming to be worse off.
You should note that its not exactly my argument, simply a different argument. I think its an interesting proposition, that's all. What the article does talk about which is also my argument, is that so many people are running scared about "the economy", blaming anyone who does anything other than shut up and take the kicks, that workers are going to end up in a much worse position at the end of all this, if there is an end, than they would if they stood up for themselves as the TEEU is.

I am all for workers rights and I do realise that there are compnies using the guise of the recession to make cuts to prop up inflated profits. The point here is the construction industry is in big trouble and restraint is needed to protect the jobs that have not already been lost.

I spoke to a bank worker the other day. She told me her union wanted to go for a pay increase. The workers rejected the proposal as it made no sense in the current climate to jeopardise employment levels. Also there would be little public support for pay increases in a sector that is partly responsible for our current predicament.

This is a responsible attitude. I have no problem with unions, having been a member of several in the past( including the TEEU). They do however tend to be self serving in alot of cases. They have been known to create situations where none existed prior to their meddling. If people are happy and have no issues their relevance is diminished.

Partnership has worked very well in the past for this country. When times were good workers were well paid and taxed very little. Now those times have gone it its time for further restraint. Its a ridiculous notion to be seeking an 11% increase when inflation is -5%. Increasing wages does not grow the economy. Investment and development grows the economy. Exports grow the economy. None of these can be acheived if the cost of doing business is too high.

Irish products are disappearing from supermarket shelves as they are too expensive relative to cheaper imports. Why??? because they are too expensive to produce. This is not just about wages. Its about all costs including electricity, rates and so forth.

Electricians and the unions need to realise that if they do get their increase many more of them and their members will be on the dole queue before the summer is over.

dan_d

There is possibly some merit in saying that companies who can afford to should pay. Mind you, that might lead to outright mutiny, because it unfair in it's own way too. There has to be an outcome that treats everyone the same unfortunately.
I have said before that I find it very hard to have sympathy with this whole thing. Electricians are highly trained, yes and it takes years - okay, but it took me 4 years of college during which I wasn't paid a penny, to get my qualification, and then I had to start from the bottom and work up.Haven't got too far up on the wage packet either!Again, this is my choice and it's the career I chose. I think where some posters are missing the point is that in the last 10 years, every second lad became an electrician or a carpenter straight out of school. Now our economy is overloaded with electricians (and civil engineers, I might add) - probably a far higher percentage than you find in most "normal" economies ( as in, where things are more balanced, without either bubbles or recessions!). Many of these have only known times when working as an electrician made you very well off. Unfortunately things are changing and that just can't be the case in future since the money just isn't there anymore. We have pretty much reached saturation point for construction workers and I don't think things are going to get much better any time soon.

astrofool

brianthebard wrote: »

Ireland is never going to be competitive against the third world again, there's no return to what it was in the sixties/eighties/early ninties.

Maybe not, but, do you think being competitive against the first world might be an idea?