Unions

optocynic

amacca wrote: »

Are you saying that unions are jealous of wages of successful people in the private sector?

Yes...Union leaders do spout this nonsense.
Do you remember David Beggs 'Brats' snaffu?
What about O'Connor's rants on his socialist ideals..

I will slowly spell out my honest ideas on this.
I do not want to see anyone loose their jobs, but since the country cannot afford tpo keep paying the PS what they are, we need pay cuts in most areas (Welfare cuts too).

If the unions keep up their stubborn position, it will only result in job losses in the PS.

Do any of us want that?

anonymous_joe

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Britain had car industries; ever hear of Jaguars and Landrovers?
Rovers were made fairly near my old house anyway.

Note the past tense, dude.

Jaguar is now Indian. Can't remember who owns Land Rover, think it's BMW or someone like that.

Their problem was that while high quality cars existed, there were not enough affordable/reliable models to compete with the flood of cheap models from the far east.

No. The problem was that the likes of Rover, Austin, etc, the marques run by British Leyland became appalling under the union dominated conditions of the 70s.

Completely untrue.
The Walloons were the Belgian aristocracy whereas the Flemish tended to be peasant farmers; French was the language of the leaders, businessmen, church officials etc. Flemish was the language of factory workers, farmers and so on who came to work in Walloon industry. A shocking cause of Belgian soldier deaths in world wars was that orders were given in French (as that's where the moneyed officers came from) so many Flemish soldiers were unable to understand, misunderstood orders and walked into massacres.
This is one of the reasons that many Flemish are still so antiWalloon; the memory of Walloon dominance and their ill treatment of their Flemish workers is very recent.

WW1 examples are a tad out of date.

The Flemings are much wealthier now, hence right wing Vlemyng (or however the fúck you spell it in Dutch) parties want to be independant of Wallonia which they feel drags them down. Similar to the Italian thing with North and France.

The "trade war" was between the Free State and Britain, Ireland quickly realised that it needed British trade and the trade war was ended after a few years.
A free trade agreement was signed into force under Lemass as well.

I know that. It still damaged us badly.

Source please.

Source!? It's common knowledge. Britain was on a three day week during the 70s, striking was a weekly occurence, and standards of work were astonishingly low.

Quick google of British Leyland turned this up, make of it what you will;

The company became an infamous monument to the industrial turmoil that plagued Britain in the 1970s. At its peak, BLMC owned nearly 40 different manufacturing plants across the country. Even before the merger BMH had included theoretically competing marques which were in fact selling substantially similar "badge engineered" cars. To this was added the competition from yet more, previously LMC marques. Rover competed with Jaguar at the expensive end of the market, and Triumph with its family cars and sports cars against Austin, Morris and MG. The result was a product range which was incoherent and full of duplication. In addition, in consequent attempts to establish British Leyland as a brand in consumers' minds in and outside the UK, print ads and spots were produced, causing confusion rather than attraction for buyers. This, combined with serious industrial relations problems (principally, the company's relations with trade unions; the 1973 oil crisis; the three-day week; high inflation; and ineffectual management meant that BL became an unmanageable and financially crippled behemoth whose bankruptcy in 1975 was assured.

Then stop talking about "the unions".
Work out which unions you are complaining about and then post away.

Why? People use generalisations. No not all Unions are full of fcuktards, but plenty are. The likes of the ASTI when I was in school were definitely from teh more greedy and fcuktarded way of thinking. Attempting to squeeze more money out of the state by playing on people's fears for their children.

optocynic

bobgob wrote: »

I am, no im not ,I would have been insenced by your comments but I can only assume your from a very privilaged backround and a complete arsehole,

I grew up in an end terrace house in Finglas until I was 10, then I moved to glamourous Celbridge. My family was middle class at best.

bobgob wrote: »

it seems to me you have never worked a day in your very upper-class life and you dont give a **** how anyone thinks of you, bar your fecking friends, both of them and some underling female who is trying to get into your well aired boxers, you ablosute prick

Since the moderators here think it is OK for you to disrespect my wife like that, I will make the assumption that your missus is a Juniour cert failing, velur tracksuit and hoopie earing wearing, peroxide blonde 'Jaysus-How-eee-yee'. She probably already had 4 kids before she turned 20, from 4 different fellas. The kids names are probably Brooklyn, Shakira-Brittney, Tyler-David, and the youngest Beyonce-Alisha-LadytGaGa.

All of this is ridiculous crap of course. I know nothing about you, except you have no respect for people who have achieved in this country. How very Irish of you.

See what assuming did... You pissed in the bed, and assumed you were only sweating.

bobgob wrote: »

The ****ing cheek of you, you wouldnt know work if it hit you in the face, now go and tell daddy what I said, but dont bother mama shes busy ****ing the tennis coach..........

So, to recap, I have worked VERY hard, and paid attention in school, regardless of how crap some of my teachers were. I constantly work 14 hour days when in the country... and travel at least once a week. Meaning I am constantly away from my baby daughter.

I don't see how the moderators turned a blind eye to calling my mother a cheating slut either.

I can alway rely on the socialist twits to prove my point!

Lockstep

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Note the past tense, dude.
Jaguar is now Indian. Can't remember who owns Land Rover, think it's BMW or someone like that.

And Guinness is owned by Diageo.
What's your point?

anonymous_joe wrote: »

No. The problem was that the likes of Rover, Austin, etc, the marques run by British Leyland became appalling under the union dominated conditions of the 70s.

It would've been impossible for the British car industry to seriously compete with the Far east; they had quality cars but these were unaffordable to the general public.
YOu're blanket response to everything so far seems to be "it was the unions fault"
Do you really think that even if Britain had no unions, Britain would have competititve manafacturers nowadays?

anonymous_joe wrote: »

WW1 examples are a tad out of date.

And yet you just claimed that Wallonia has always been much poorer.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The Flemings are much wealthier now, hence right wing Vlemyng (or however the fúck you spell it in Dutch) parties want to be independant of Wallonia which they feel drags them down. Similar to the Italian thing with North and France.

Pretty surprised you think it all comes down to economies; how much popular support is there for Northern Italy to seccede for example?
A lot of the gripes have to do with history; the Walloons treated the Flemish extremely badly (Dutch was only approved for use in Flemish courts, schools and government in 1913, when factories were finally being examined by officials, the workers were unable to tell the inspectors how badly treated they were as the inspectors never bothered learning Flemish etc), a key reason that Hitler got so much support from the Flemish (including a Flemish SS) was they hoped that they would get an independant Flanders. And this was well before the decline of industry.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I know that. It still damaged us badly.

Dude, it was 5 years. THe situation was quickly rectified. DUnno why you brought that up as a reason for us having no native industry.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Source!? It's common knowledge. Britain was on a three day week during the 70s, striking was a weekly occurence, and standards of work were astonishingly low.

Quick google of British Leyland turned this up, make of it what you will;

I honestly don't know why you posted that as it undercuts your case; it lists out a myriad of problems to British industry (poor management, the oil crisis, rapid inflation) of which the trade unions are only one factor.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Why? People use generalisations. No not all Unions are full of fcuktards, but plenty are. The likes of the ASTI when I was in school were definitely from teh more greedy and fcuktarded way of thinking. Attempting to squeeze more money out of the state by playing on people's fears for their children.

BEcause you consider some unions to be full of "fcuktards" is not a reason to apply it to them all. It seems you've got a bad opinion of a couple of unions and are using it to apply to unions across the board.
Would you be as opposed to IBEC for example?

irish_bob

optocynic wrote: »

Yes...Union leaders do spout this nonsense.
Do you remember David Beggs 'Brats' snaffu?
What about O'Connor's rants on his socialist ideals..

I will slowly spell out my honest ideas on this.
I do not want to see anyone loose their jobs, but since the country cannot afford tpo keep paying the PS what they are, we need pay cuts in most areas (Welfare cuts too).

If the unions keep up their stubborn position, it will only result in job losses in the PS.

Do any of us want that?

i need to correct you there cynic , it was paul sweeney ( union economist ) who made the brats comment , guy with a white beard who looks a bit like lennin

optocynic

irish_bob wrote: »

i need to correct you there cynic , it was paul sweeney ( union economist ) who made the brats comment , guy with a white beard who looks a bit like lennin

Ahhh yes, you are right! My bad. Thanks for the correction. But you know what I mean!

Scofflaw

bobgob wrote: »

I am, no im not ,I would have been insenced by your comments but I can only assume your from a very privilaged backround and a complete arsehole, it seems to me you have never worked a day in your very upper-class life and you dont give a **** how anyone thinks of you, bar your fecking friends, both of them and some underling female who is trying to get into your well aired boxers, you ablosute prick.

The ****ing cheek of you, you wouldnt know work if it hit you in the face, now go and tell daddy what I said, but dont bother mama shes busy ****ing the tennis coach..........

Week's ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Sand

re we living in the real world here, so all the bail outs, all the problems, all the greed came from the unions, health service or lack of it down to the unions are you for real, the social partnership broke down when the aurgrument between the goverment and the unions was broke, by who not the unions. When the bankers shouted they had no more money, the goverment jumped, and the bankers said how fecking high>>>>

Thats a little confused: Im not going to try rescue the analogy, but Im pretty sure it wasnt the bankers who asked how fecking high.

Get off your high horse and be at one with the downturn and who caused it, all the posts on here will not give the clowns who got us into this absloution.

Well the ones who caused it is complicated - many hands at work. But lets face it our government is supposed to guide the economy, regulate it, work fiscal policy around it. And who was one of the main government factions....yes, thats right the social partners/unions.

Its because trade unions are totally self interested - pure greed. No national interest whatsoever. Bertie and Fianna Fail made the mistake that given the way they had given the unions everything they wanted for a decade that the unions would feel indebted to them when the bad times came. They were wrong. The unions are consumed with greed, like any banker.

By the way, unions are only the people sticking together and is what this country was built on......... Power to the people who get off their arse and fight for what we know is right and for what we belive in. If the weak had any future in our country, I think they know its gone now, we will not be lead by clowns or clons.

The unions are only interested in themselves, and when I say themselves, I theoretically mean their entire membership but being realistic I would tend to mean the union as an organisation. Everytime you cheer along David Begg denouncing the bankers, remember that he sat and still sits on the board of the Central Bank. He is a banker.

This country was built on ****ing over other people whilst wrapping the green flag around you. The unions have no national mandate, I dont doubt they would claim to have one though.

Hasschu

Who caused the economic downturn, the government of the day. It is the governments resposibility to macro manage the economy, our gov't god bless their little cotton socks were happily accepting political donations from bankers, developers, contractors and others. The tent at Galway races was only the tip of the ice berg. Long after it was obvious to the ECB, OECD, George Lee, Karl Whelan and many other economists the gov't was still priming the pump as if there was no tomorrow and no cliffs surrounding Ireland. Mid 2007 the building industry went over the cliff taking the banks and tens of thousands of workers with it.
Managements job is to manage, the unions job is to represent the workers, nobody sticks a gun in anybody's face so the workers get paid what they are worth and produce what they are paid to produce at a level of quality determined by management. Only in Ireland and the US do people blame unions for being overpaid, unproductive or producing shoddy goods. Management are paid to manage not whine and complain and cave in to demands they should not countenance. Wake up for chrissake and face the facts. Do the Germans or the Japanese have problems with their unionized workers ? They do not because they know how to manage. Both the Germans and the Japanese have plants in the US which are highly profitable and producing defect free products, something which the domestic companies seem incapable of doing. The Canadians have auto plants (Lexus, Acura, Toyota, Honda) that match the Japanese in build quality, the Canadians know how to manage.

kippy

Hasschu wrote: »

Who caused the economic downturn, the government of the day. It is the governments resposibility to macro manage the economy, our gov't god bless their little cotton socks were happily accepting political donations from bankers, developers, contractors and others. The tent at Galway races was only the tip of the ice berg. Long after it was obvious to the ECB, OECD, George Lee, Karl Whelan and many other economists the gov't was still priming the pump as if there was no tomorrow and no cliffs surrounding Ireland. Mid 2007 the building industry went over the cliff taking the banks and tens of thousands of workers with it.
Managements job is to manage, the unions job is to represent the workers, nobody sticks a gun in anybody's face so the workers get paid what they are worth and produce what they are paid to produce at a level of quality determined by management. Only in Ireland and the US do people blame unions for being overpaid, unproductive or producing shoddy goods. Management are paid to manage not whine and complain and cave in to demands they should not countenance. Wake up for chrissake and face the facts. Do the Germans or the Japanese have problems with their unionized workers ? They do not because they know how to manage. Both the Germans and the Japanese have plants in the US which are highly profitable and producing defect free products, something which the domestic companies seem incapable of doing. The Canadians have auto plants (Lexus, Acura, Toyota, Honda) that match the Japanese in build quality, the Canadians know how to manage.

"Management"!!
Are you a staunch Union supporter?
Management is one of the words bandied about in Unions all the time. Not that I have a problem with the term per se, but the actual meaning of it in Union terms.

You seem to be standing up for Unions. I dont have a problem with this. As I said, if they were implemented correctly and run by clear and forward thinking individuals they would be a great asset to have in any country. Sadly, they aren't here and they do allow for the worst workers and laziest of people to remain in jobs.

In Unions, "Management" is used to describe "Them" in the "Them and Us" mentality. It can encompass, an assistant manager, a Manager, Boards, directors and ultimately the government.
A person could have been "normal" one day and "management" the next after a promotion and hence and enemy. Thats what the term is in the Unions eyes.

Management have to work with the Unions if there is to be ANY change in work practices. Be it a new piece of software for people to use, a change in work logging practices etc. Managers cannot just "manage" their people in order to get them to be a) More productive or More efficient.
The whole thing has to go through a convoluted practice of Union okay.

Now, you say that management cannot manage in this country.
Well, I have found in SOME but not ALL cases, some managers in the PS to be highly incompetent anyway, and I often wonder how they ever got a job in the first place. The reason, well they started off at the bottom, didnt really work too hard, just moved up the ranks, the did less and less, may have even caused some problems, but couldnt get fired as they were "union" members and ended up in management and proved to be just as incompetent there as well. Granted this was in the days before the practice of promoting someone on "time served" was phased out but its a common problem.


I am not blaming unions for the things you state I am, they are however a factor in why this country is the way it is today and why our public service is still in the dark ages in many respects despite huge investment.
"Management" (God to I hate that term in this context) is but term used to ensure the siege mentality of Unions continues.

irish_bob

Hasschu wrote: »

Who caused the economic downturn, the government of the day. It is the governments resposibility to macro manage the economy, our gov't god bless their little cotton socks were happily accepting political donations from bankers, developers, contractors and others. The tent at Galway races was only the tip of the ice berg. Long after it was obvious to the ECB, OECD, George Lee, Karl Whelan and many other economists the gov't was still priming the pump as if there was no tomorrow and no cliffs surrounding Ireland. Mid 2007 the building industry went over the cliff taking the banks and tens of thousands of workers with it.
Managements job is to manage, the unions job is to represent the workers, nobody sticks a gun in anybody's face so the workers get paid what they are worth and produce what they are paid to produce at a level of quality determined by management. Only in Ireland and the US do people blame unions for being overpaid, unproductive or producing shoddy goods. Management are paid to manage not whine and complain and cave in to demands they should not countenance. Wake up for chrissake and face the facts. Do the Germans or the Japanese have problems with their unionized workers ? They do not because they know how to manage. Both the Germans and the Japanese have plants in the US which are highly profitable and producing defect free products, something which the domestic companies seem incapable of doing. The Canadians have auto plants (Lexus, Acura, Toyota, Honda) that match the Japanese in build quality, the Canadians know how to manage.

toyota dont allow union membership which is one of the reasons they have destroyed GM and FORD in america

Hasschu

Irish Bob Some Toyota plants are not unionized and some are. It is not up to Toyota to decide whether their workers unionize or not, the law of the land detemines that. In the US there are many states that are anti union and have the laws to prove it. Toyota's unionized plants are as productive as their non-unionized plants. Toyota pay matches the pay of the Detroit big now little three. Legacy pension costs are what distinguishes one from the other. The Japanese know how to design, manufacture, market and service their customers. They know how to manage, yes manage it does matter. Since when did manage become a repugnant word. As for our gov't they would stoop to any level to stay in power, if that means catering to banks, unions, crooks that is what they will do.

Tipp Man

I haven't read all of this thread but can i just give a little anicdote on unions.

A very close relative of mine is a nurse in Clonmel hospital, she was doing a course on something (not sure what) in Waterford Regional and used to borrow books from the library. When she was finished with a book she would give it to the ambulance drivers in Clonmel (who made anything up to 15 trips a day) to return to Waterford Regional Library which they gladly did.

Anyway the porters in the Regional got word that the ambulance drivers were doing this and went to their union demanding that the drivers stop doing this as this was a porters job, union backed them all the way. Drivers said ok we'll bring the books down you can take them to the library, everyone's happy. Porters went to the union and said they would strike (all of them) if they were made bring the books up to the library as that was not part of their job. Unions backed them.

So instead of getting the books dropped back for free they are now posted down at a huge expense.

Can anyone in their right minds condone the action of the porters and the unions in this? I honestly could not believe it when she told me, but its so very true

Unions have already broken this country with benchmarking, its about time somebody stood up to them for the sham they really are

Hootanany

Tipp Man wrote: »

I haven't read all of this thread but can i just give a little anicdote on unions.

A very close relative of mine is a nurse in Clonmel hospital, she was doing a course on something (not sure what) in Waterford Regional and used to borrow books from the library. When she was finished with a book she would give it to the ambulance drivers in Clonmel (who made anything up to 15 trips a day) to return to Waterford Regional Library which they gladly did.

Anyway the porters in the Regional got word that the ambulance drivers were doing this and went to their union demanding that the drivers stop doing this as this was a porters job, union backed them all the way. Drivers said ok we'll bring the books down you can take them to the library, everyone's happy. Porters went to the union and said they would strike (all of them) if they were made bring the books up to the library as that was not part of their job. Unions backed them.

So instead of getting the books dropped back for free they are now posted down at a huge expense.

Can anyone in their right minds condone the action of the porters and the unions in this? I honestly could not believe it when she told me, but its so very true

Unions have already broken this country with benchmarking, its about time somebody stood up to them for the sham they really are

Thats a Disgrace i will email this to the Press

Stark

That's almost as bad as Irish rail union staff complaining about being forced to cover too many shifts/awkward schedules due to lack of drivers then striking when the company tries to train up new drivers.

Tipp Man

Stark wrote: »

That's almost as bad as Irish rail union staff complaining about being forced to cover too many shifts/awkward schedules due to lack of drivers then striking when the company tries to train up new drivers.

That would have been hilarious if it wasn't the Emerald Isle

Idbatterim

look the likes of Oconnor and beggs infuriate me, they dont have a clue about the market and economics, but you cant blame them for acting in the interest of their members. yeah you would hope they could see the greater good and they are the biggest hypocrites going! But! But! it was the goverment that let them run amock! the government are elected to rule the country and not the unions! They wanted to buy every vote going! The government are calling the shots, not the unions! It is entirely 110% the governments fault! read the article today in the indo about not legally challenging the corrupt Fas director, alot of people will push for all they can get, and they need to be stood up against!

Hootanany

But the Unions are always in the shadows lurking menacingly

The Volt

Idbatterim wrote: »

look the likes of Oconnor and beggs infuriate me, they dont have a clue about the market and economics, but you cant blame them for acting in the interest of their members. yeah you would hope they could see the greater good and they are the biggest hypocrites going! But! But! it was the goverment that let them run amock! the government are elected to rule the country and not the unions! They wanted to buy every vote going! The government are calling the shots, not the unions! It is entirely 110% the governments fault! read the article today in the indo about not legally challenging the corrupt Fas director, alot of people will push for all they can get, and they need to be stood up against!

the trade union leaders infuriate you because they're protecting workers all over the country? Surely you should be infuriated at the politicians, the bankers etc. It's the government's proposed cuts in public spending that will lead to job losses and not the position of the unions. The government have to cut public spending because they made such a mess of things in the first place. Unions are an easy target but not the criminals

irish_bob

Voltwad wrote: »

the trade union leaders infuriate you because they're protecting workers all over the country? Surely you should be infuriated at the politicians, the bankers etc. It's the government's proposed cuts in public spending that will lead to job losses and not the position of the unions. The government have to cut public spending because they made such a mess of things in the first place. Unions are an easy target but not the criminals

goverment have to cut public spending because the source of revenue which allowed spending to reach the level it did has now vanished and isnt coming back , that is the long and the short of it

The Volt

But how it's cut, where it's cut and who suffers the most should be negotiated with the people who know those public services best and who work there for a living. The amount of cuts in the public service could also be lessened if the government had the courage to tax the massive profits made by speculators during the Celtic Tiger years.

NewDubliner

Voltwad wrote: »

The amount of cuts in the public service could also be lessened if the government had the courage....

...to fire people hired for political and not economic reasons.

Économiste Monétaire

Voltwad wrote: »

the trade union leaders infuriate you because they're protecting workers all over the country? Surely you should be infuriated at the politicians, the bankers etc. It's the government's proposed cuts in public spending that will lead to job losses and not the position of the unions. The government have to cut public spending because they made such a mess of things in the first place. Unions are an easy target but not the criminals

Out of the 1.9 million people in employment, how many of those are members of a union? About 25-30%. Unions don't speak for workers 'all over the country', just for their members.

The Volt

I doubt there's 1.9 million working in this country anymore. If more of the people who weren't in unions joined up they could actually influence them and give ordinary working people an even stronger voice.

Économiste Monétaire

You'll find the employment numbers contained within the latest QNHS release. Based on the last union membership survey, membership was highest in Public Administration and Defence (79.1%), Education (59.7%), and Health (47.3%). I don't really know if that reflects your "ordinary working people" vision.

irish_bob

Voltwad wrote: »

I doubt there's 1.9 million working in this country anymore. If more of the people who weren't in unions joined up they could actually influence them and give ordinary working people an even stronger voice.

union objection to reform or pay cuts result in job losses which effect the ordinary worker , unions often do workers more harm than good , especially in the private sector

optocynic

Voltwad wrote: »

I doubt there's 1.9 million working in this country anymore. If more of the people who weren't in unions joined up they could actually influence them and give ordinary working people an even stronger voice.

That is a bit of a rosey picture to paint.
If everyone was part of a union, business would suffer. Profit would be minimised. Companies would go to the wall.
The problem with the public sector, and Bertie paying them off is, they get paid too much, for too little work and productivity.
The Private Sector can't operate that way!
Money for results is the only way to get the best from a work force. Effort means reward in the private sector.
I'm sick of the bumper sticker slogan 'People before profit'... Profit because of good People' is the real world.

Stark

optocynic wrote: »

That is a bit of a rosey picture to paint.
If everyone was part of a union, business would suffer. Profit would be minimised. Companies would go to the wall.
The problem with the public sector, and Bertie paying them off is, they get paid too much, for too little work and productivity.
The Private Sector can't operate that way!
Money for results is the only way to get the best from a work force. Effort means reward in the private sector.
I'm sick of the bumper sticker slogan 'People before profit'... Profit because of good People' is the real world.

Well I wouldn't be that cynical. You have to have protection for workers so that unscrupulous companies don't exploit them. I think the various directives that have come from the EU have done a lot more good in this regard than any of the protectionist nonsense that unions have come up with though. The important thing being that the EU workers rights laws benefit all workers, not just those that are part of cozy clubs. In some unionised companies, you can't even get a job in the company unless you're approved by the union. Such a policy benefits neither the company, nor the workers of Ireland, it only benefits the club members.

gurramok

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

You'll find the employment numbers contained within the latest QNHS release. Based on the last union membership survey, membership was highest in Public Administration and Defence (79.1%), Education (59.7%), and Health (47.3%). I don't really know if that reflects your "ordinary working people" vision.

Assuming a very high % of public sector workers are unionised, any idea what % of workers in the private sector are unionised?

Long Onion

Unions are outdated and in their current form should be resigned to the scrapheap. They are still trying to bring everything back to the "evils of capitalism" debate, still entrenched in the Connolly/Larkin frame of mind not willing to see that the world has changed.

Move on lads for God's sake. How much does O'Connor earn will he forego his salary if the general strikes he is threatening are called? Does he not see that there is an immediate conflict of interest in attempting to represent the rights of the public and private sector workers at the same time in the current climate?

I'm sick of hearing all this outmoded drivel from his ilk. Drag yourselves into the 21st century and bring something meaningful to the table or shut up.