Unions

Diarmuid

Voltwad wrote: »

ordinary working people

WTF is an "ordinary working person"? I presume it excludes the extra-ordinary ones, ie Superman, Spiderman and the Hulk.

Can we stop with the BS Jack O'Connor doublespeak?

Économiste Monétaire

gurramok wrote: »

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

Not sure, the CSO union membership survey doesn't give a simple Private/Public breakdown. It's separated by economic sector.

NACE economic sector|Yes %|No %|Not Stated %|Total %
A-B Agriculture, forestry and fishing|8.1|91.7|*|100.0
C-E Other production industries|32.5|65.0|2.5|100.0
F Construction|22.8|74.1|3.1|100.0
G Wholesale and retail trade|16.8|81.1|2.1|100.0
H Hotels and restaurants|7.8|90.5|1.7|100.0
I Transport, storage and communication|42.9|54.5|2.6|100.0
J-K Financial and other business services|19.8|77.7|2.5|100.0
L Public administration and defence|79.1|19.4|1.5|100.0
M Education|59.7|39.1|1.2|100.0
N Health|47.3|51.2|1.5|100.0
O-Q Other services|18.2|79.8|2.1|100.0

Long Onion

Just in case anyone is interested:

David Begg - salary of €136,000 p.a.
P. McLoone - €155,000
Jack O'Connor - €120,671

How can these men keep straight faces?

Diarmuid

Long Onion wrote: »

Just in case anyone is interested:

David Begg - salary of €136,000 p.a.
P. McLoone - €155,000
Jack O'Connor - €120,671

How can these men keep straight faces?

To be honest I don't care what they are earning however the fact that Begg is a director of the Central Bank since '95 during the glory years of (non)regulation and Aer Lingus - a company well on its way to bankruptcy due to mismanagement, makes his high horse attitude a bit rich

The Volt

Long Onion wrote: »

Just in case anyone is interested:

David Begg - salary of €136,000 p.a.
P. McLoone - €155,000
Jack O'Connor - €120,671

How can these men keep straight faces?

Well O'Connor and Begg's wages come from their members. Their members are the ones contributing to that and not the taxpayer.

O'Connor runs a union of approx 250,000 people. He is an elected official by the members of that organization and if you had that many people in an organization in the private sector he would be paid in millions. His employees and shareholders then wouldn't have the option of voting them in or out of office on a regular basis.

David Begg is the General Secretary of all of the unions in the country comprising of approx 850,000 on this island and if he wished tomorrow and if he wished tomorrow he could very easily pick up a job in private industry as is evidence by the fact that he is the former chief executive of Concern. I would love to see some of our ministers and some of the captains of industry dedicate their lives to the starving millions in the third world and to the working class. Isn't it amazing that we would begrudge and criticize people who put themselves up for election and who work for the people who need it most but put multi-millionaires like Michael O' Leary and Michael Smurfit on pedestals.

The Volt

Diarmuid wrote: »

WTF is an "ordinary working person"? I presume it excludes the extra-ordinary ones, ie Superman, Spiderman and the Hulk.

Can we stop with the BS Jack O'Connor doublespeak?

They don't need the union. It's people who work for a living, that excluded nobody.

The Volt

Long Onion wrote: »

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.

Public sector and private sector workers have one thing in common. Secondly, They're both workers. 850,000 trade union members where membership of trade union is entirely voluntary would seem to prove that a huge number of people in this country obviously don't agree with you.

The first sign of democracy in any developing country is always the devolopment of a free trade union movement. It in interesting to note that no free trade union movements exist in any dictatorships or any non-democratic countries. But then again, maybe that's the kind of country that you wish to live in? I'm sure they would welcome you in China.

The Volt

irish_bob wrote: »

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

The truth of the matter is that any worker can leave any union at any stage if they feel that they are not being represented properly. Even in circumstances where people have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, in almost every single case, those workers who were in unions have recieved much exit packages than workers who were not. A prime example of this was the way Dell treated it's workforce in Shannon where because there was no union, they were given the lowest possible payouts from one of the wealthiest companies in the world

Économiste Monétaire

Uhh, where are you getting this 850,000 number from?

The Volt

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Uhh, where are you getting this 850,000 number from?

650,000 apologies. If you take the whole island in it's nearer 850,000

"Our talks with Government have not produced anything. Congress therefore sees no alternative but to mobilise its membership - some 650,000 people and their families, in this jurisdiction - in a campaign of sustained opposition and in order to convince Government that fairness and social justice must be central to any proposed solution to the crisis."

Source: www.ictu.ie homepage

The Volt

People here seem to have short memories. At the height of the Celtic Tiger, people in the private sector and in particular in the construction and property sectors earned huge amounts of money. During that period there was no discussion in relation to the public service pay issue. Now that private sector greed and enept politicians have caused an economic downturn, many of those greedy people now point the finger at the public secture. You can't have it both ways.

Diarmuid

Voltwad wrote: »

A prime example of this was the way Dell treated it's workforce in Shannon where because there was no union, they were given the lowest possible payouts from one of the wealthiest companies in the world

Dell left Ireland because the cost base here was too high. How raising that cost base will make Ireland more attractive to investment, is pretty perverse logic.

eamonnm79

Long Onion wrote: »

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.

I remeber watching a report that George Lee did on RTE news 3/4 years ago.
He compared pay rates between unionised and non unionised workers who did the same work.
Unionised workers had secured better pay and conditions than non unionised workers.
Its not surprising really.
When workers are represented together they have more power than when they act alone.
Wheather you like the tactics of unions or not, proper representation results in better working conditions.
Obviously Employers dont like when the imbalance of power they hold over their workers is redressed but when People who are not in unions cry foul because they are not in unions themselves they are only acting in a self defeating way.
I am not in a union but I would like it if I was being represented when payrates and terms and conditions are being discussed by management.
If you are lucky enough to be highly skilled and in high demand you may feel you dont need a union but wheather people admit it or not, they would be on better pay if they had a union rep.

Stark

Voltwad wrote:

During that period there was no discussion in relation to the public service pay issue. Now that private sector greed and enept politicians have caused an economic downturn, many of those greedy people now point the finger at the public secture. You can't have it both ways.

What was that whole benchmarking nonsense if not a discussion on public service pay? Private sector greed? Did people in the public sector not buy overpriced houses as well?

Stark

eamonnm79 wrote: »

I remeber watching a report that George Lee did on RTE news 3/4 years ago.
He compared pay rates between unionised and non unionised workers who did the same work.
Unionised workers had secured better pay and conditions than non unionised workers.
Its not surprising really.
When workers are represented together they have more power than when they act alone.
Wheather you like the tactics of unions or not, proper representation results in better working conditions.
Obviously Employers dont like when the imbalance of power they hold over their workers is redressed but when People who are not in unions cry foul because they are not in unions themselves they are only acting in a self defeating way.
I am not in a union but I would like it if I was being represented when payrates and terms and conditions are being discussed by management.
If you are lucky enough to be highly skilled and in high demand you may feel you dont need a union but wheather people admit it or not, they would be on better pay if they had a union rep.

Until the company fails to continue making a profit and goes bust/pulls out. Union members can only claim inflated wages when someone is losing out, whether it be non-unionised employees of the same company, taxpayers in the case of state subsidized companies or consumers in the case of companies with monopolies. The only companies able to survive with mostly unionised workforces are in the latter two categories.

Hootanany

They are sucking the Life force out of us its time for it to stop,So Mass strikes are on the cards, i don't think many people are going to be sympathetic to the strikers. While Sick & Old people will suffer for the greed of the Unions.

mrgaa1

Jack O'Connor was on Matt Cooper this evening and Matt gave him plenty of time in talking and getting his point across in relation to the unions, striking etc... However when the real hard questions came in regarding FAS - most of the cronies are in unions - he couldn't answer and in tried to turn the questioning into its the governments fault. Unions are a complete waste of time - most members are too f***ing lazy, want the employer to do everything for them bar wipe their a**e's and will complain bitterly. Its nigh upon impossible to sack the f**kers and they know it. Put them into a private company and make them work. The unions are as culpurable for the way things are as much as the bankers, developers, those who falsified their mortgage applications, government officials, councillors, planners.
Why can't the unions just simply acknowledge that as all private company employees are taking huge hits on their wages that lazy, good for nothing union members should take the same. How will striking help their cause? Its like this - we ALL take the pain or the IMF will implement and when they do we will be in trouble. Smash the Unions

amacca

mrgaa1 wrote: »

. The unions are as culpurable for the way things are as much as the bankers, developers, those who falsified their mortgage applications, government officials, councillors, planners.

You forgot to include those pesky estate agents not to mention the recklessly over borrowed homeowners who didn't even have to falsify their mortgage applications to be in way over their heads when they should really have know a bit better too or are we standing over the abdication of personal responsibility in adulthood now.

I just think if were in the business of compiling a hitlist it should be a comprehensive and accurate one. I'm sure their are many more caricatures we could add in to such a list.

Diarmuid

amacca wrote: »

You forgot to include those pesky estate agents not to mention the recklessly over borrowed homeowners who didn't even have to falsify their mortgage applications to be in way over their heads when they should really have know a bit better too or are we standing over the abdication of personal responsibility in adulthood now.

no no no you've got it all wrong, They were forced into paying 350k for that sh1tbox in the middle of nowhere. Forced I tell you. It's all the bankers fault don't you know
:rolleyes:

Diarmuid

mrgaa1 wrote: »

Jack O'Connor was on Matt Cooper this evening and Matt gave him plenty of time in talking and getting his point across in relation to the unions, striking etc... However when the real hard questions came in regarding FAS - most of the cronies are in unions - he couldn't answer and in tried to turn the questioning into its the governments fault.

He stalled as well as he could but Cooper nailed him badly. It was all about the poor auld wurkers but when he was asked to criticise the incompetence of his bearded brethren at the helm of Fas he played pass-the-buck. Sickening.

amacca

Diarmuid wrote: »

no no no you've got it all wrong, They were forced into paying 350k for that sh1tbox in the middle of nowhere. Forced I tell you. It's all the bankers fault don't you know
:rolleyes:

Now now, a pet is for life not just for Christmas and a sh1tbox is only a sh1tbox when you have to sell it.....until then its an unrealized loss making vehicle of dubious virtue which may or may not be in negative equity and may or may not contain the afore mentioned sh1t.

optocynic

Voltwad wrote: »

People here seem to have short memories. At the height of the Celtic Tiger, people in the private sector and in particular in the construction and property sectors earned huge amounts of money. During that period there was no discussion in relation to the public service pay issue. Now that private sector greed and enept politicians have caused an economic downturn, many of those greedy people now point the finger at the public secture. You can't have it both ways.

I always thought benchmarking was a Bertie election stunt... but you and yours embraced the huge increases (like the immoral capitalists in the private sector would!)... If it was fair for you then... why is it not fair for you now?

gurramok

Voltwad wrote: »

Public sector and private sector workers have one thing in common. Secondly, They're both workers. 850,000 trade union members where membership of trade union is entirely voluntary would seem to prove that a huge number of people in this country obviously don't agree with you.

If you think the private sector trade union membership will strike in support for their grossly overpaid public sector colleagues, dream on.

techdiver

Voltwad wrote: »

People here seem to have short memories. At the height of the Celtic Tiger, people in the private sector and in particular in the construction and property sectors earned huge amounts of money. During that period there was no discussion in relation to the public service pay issue. Now that private sector greed and enept politicians have caused an economic downturn, many of those greedy people now point the finger at the public secture. You can't have it both ways.

It seems you have a somewhat one sided view of the private sector. Let me point out some fact for you.

1. Not every person working in the private sector is an investment banker earning 6 figure sums.
2. Many people in the private sector earn the minimum wage.
3. The private sector has been hit in a massive way with job losses, the public sector has not. (Don't give examples of short term contracts not being renewed).
4. Many in the private sector have taken massive reductions in their salaries already.

This spin about the private sector rolling in it in the good years is bull. The public sectors pay increased by a hell of a lot more during the "boom" years, so much so that they now earn 25% more then their private sector counterparts.

So lets dispense with the myth and start living in reality.

Riskymove

techdiver wrote: »

So lets dispense with the myth and start living in reality.

fine if both sides will

1. Not every person working in the public sector is on a high salary with unvouched expenses
2. a majority of the public service earn €30-€60k
3. while there may be a lot less of it, the non-renewal of contract workers is none-the-less hitting people and families, i dont see how you think they should be discounted
4. all public sector workers have seen their take-home pay reduced.


I try to avoid words like "many" and in particular "massive"

Saab Ed

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

So organisations who represent the interests of ordinary workers and who's legitimacy is enshrined in our constitution, should be broken while we bail out the banks, developers and politicians? :rolleyes:

Eh no .... But by your thinking because the banks are being bailed out the Unions should have free run. In my perfect world being a member of a Union would be illegal with a minumum sentence of 5 years. There are also laws against alot of what happened with the banks / poloticians / developers, they're just not being enforced.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

fine if both sides will

1. Not every person working in the public sector is on a high salary with unvouched expenses
2. a majority of the public service earn €30-€60k
3. while there may be a lot less of it, the non-renewal of contract workers is none-the-less hitting people and families, i dont see how you think they should be discounted
4. all public sector workers have seen their take-home pay reduced.

I try to avoid words like "many" and in particular "massive"

30k+ is a decent salary to live on. Just imagine if the overpaid full-timers took a paycut, those contract workers could of been kept on.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

30k+ is a decent salary to live on.

I agree

Just imagine if the overpaid full-timers took a paycut, those contract workers could of been kept on.

I disagree, another myth

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

I disagree, another myth

Nope, look at the primary school teachers. Average pay 60k. Yes its an average, some above it and some below it.

A rake of temps have been let go recently in schools. Now if those full-time teachers took a modest paycut, at least some of their contract comrades could of been kept on but oh no, its a i'm alright jack attitude among them with strikes been threatened.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

. Now if those full-time teachers took a modest paycut, at least some of their contract comrades could of been kept on but oh no, its a i'm alright jack attitude among them with strikes been threatened.

no they wouldnt be kept on

there would be a pay cut AND the people let go

there is a crisis here that needs handling

in your scenario, any pay cut would be cancelled out by keeping on the contract staff and therefore no overall decrease in the paybill