Union Leaders Salaries Revealed

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh look, they are.





http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0130/pay.html

IBEC members are paying increases to their own members while calling for the public sector to be screwed.

Surprise that.

If you're old enough you'll know why the ESB isn't fighting the unions there over the increments.

dresden8

nesf wrote: »

If you're old enough you'll know why the ESB isn't fighting the unions there over the increments.

Indeed. Government minister agree that some of their troublesome employees should get their agreed pay increases, while some of their more agreeable employees get hit with levies.

What do you think that does to their agreeable employees?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0207/1233867925315.html

This issue is coming down to power.

Why are you surprised when some employees try to express their power?

Dyr

At least it will highlight that yer man begg is a director of the central bank..running with the hounds and sleeping with the foxes.

nesf

Bambi wrote: »

At least it will highlight that yer man begg is a director of the central bank..running with the hounds and sleeping with the foxes.

The Impact director was on the Fás board... Which wins I think.

Fulton Crown

Sizzler wrote: »

Have a look at their profiles on the SIPTU website and the stellar CV's they have in the world of commerce -

Joe O'Flynn

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JoeOFlynn/

Been in SIPTU since he was 22. A mechanic before that.

Brendan Hayes

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/BrendanHayes/

Has been involved in unions all his life.

Jack O'Connor

http://www.siptu.ie/PressRoom/Profiles/JackOConnor/

Employed in agriculture, local council and construction before going full time into unions.

If SIPTU went belly up next week where else would these lads get a €125k salary

The glaring deficiency of any of these men working outside the cushy bosom of the unions is stark in the extreme. How they feel confident to speak on behalf of their members conditions is beyond me when not one of them appears to have actually drank from the same cup.

Look my friend ..time to get real.

Did you expect the Union Brass to be all well qualified acedemics with a balanced view on issues and the ability to see the "Bigger Picture".

The fact of the matter is that Union "Officials" are picked for their obdurate attitudes, thick brass necks and their ability to see only one side of the picture.

I have heard them described as "just one step up the evolution chain from the Rock Apes of Gibralter."

While I would not entirely agree with that..in fairness to the Rock Apes.

No hesitation ..any of them ..in imposing severe hardship on the most vilnerable sections of our community and like that sap Scargill over in the mainland destroying a complete industry.

Don't forget crocodile tears McLoone was the guy in Fas when the lads had the snouts and forequarters burried in the trough.

FTA69

I remember when I was working in a prominent unionised hotel in Cork City where about half the staff were members of SIPTU. One evening SIPTU had some sort of dinner for local union organisers and staff etc, throughout the whole dinner (five course) they ordered countless bottles of the most expensive wine on the menu plus a bottle of whiskey afterward to finish it off. Here were we, union members, trying to encourage the rest of the staff to affiliate to the union in the face of a management trying to cut pay and conditions, and there was the union brass p*ssing away our dues on slap up banquets for themselves. The hotel staff were absolutely disgusted, and it completely undermined the shop steward and those of us trying to encourage unionisation. The leadership of SIPTU and a number of the other unions have simply become complacent and spoilt, often forgetting the purpose of a trade union to begin with.

However, a similar accusation could be leveled at the Labour Party, whose TDs get in excess of €100,000 a year; how could they possibly relate to their purported constituancy? Say what you like about the likes of Joe Higgins, but at least he isn't a complete bloody hypocrite.

BennyLava

Allot of people lost their heads during the "Celtic Tiger" years, it was just a big gravy train for those who got their snouts in

politicians, union management, bankers, developers etc

Think about it who negotiated benchmarking, they all benefited a hell of allot more that any of the ordinary workers, they are meant to be representing, funny that.

What gets allot of people now is that they weren't on the inside, its us ordinary workers who are having to pay for them creaming it in over the last 10 years

Sizzler

BroomBurner wrote: »

Thanks for posting those Sizzler, I will email my union rep on Monday and ask for the salaries of those at the top, as they were one of the groups not to disclose such information.

This will be before I make any decision on the ballots that are due out soon.

Top earners in the PS are earning way too much, and that includes these lads. I'm sorry, EF, I've no sympathy for them, they've been far too quiet for too long (i.e. not earning their wage).

How did you get on?

Taxipete29

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look my friend ..time to get real.

Did you expect the Union Brass to be all well qualified acedemics with a balanced view on issues and the ability to see the "Bigger Picture".

The fact of the matter is that Union "Officials" are picked for their obdurate attitudes, thick brass necks and their ability to see only one side of the picture.

I have heard them described as "just one step up the evolution chain from the Rock Apes of Gibralter."

While I would not entirely agree with that..in fairness to the Rock Apes.

No hesitation ..any of them ..in imposing severe hardship on the most vilnerable sections of our community and like that sap Scargill over in the mainland destroying a complete industry.

Don't forget crocodile tears McLoone was the guy in Fas when the lads had the snouts and forequarters burried in the trough.

The mainland?? Are you kidding??

Spoken like a true Thatcherite.

Union leaders are overpaid. They should not be sitting on the boards of any company or institution.I have said it before I think there is a need for reform within the union movement to bring it back to its core ideals. Which is workers rights. Unions should be about equality and fairness for all workers. That is not always about preserving the status quo or seeking to increase wages. Unions should seek to insure that any cuts which do have to be made hit harder at the top than they do at the bottom. The current leadership seem to miss these points.

One thing is for sure, the over-inflated wages of those at the top of the Unions has to go. The members can deal with that. They should demand leadership in all ways from their reps. This includes drawing a salary more in line with their members as opposed to those they negotiate with.

The public also needs to demand this of all our public representatives. Politicians etc all need to wake up. I cant understand that people talk here about counter-demos to the unions but wheres the demo against politicians expenses, FAS fraud, bonuses for health cheif execs?? Thats where we all need to concentrate our efforts. If there was less blatant double standards within the public sector then maybe the PS workers would except the inevitable cuts without so much fuss.

irish_bob

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Look my friend ..time to get real.

Did you expect the Union Brass to be all well qualified acedemics with a balanced view on issues and the ability to see the "Bigger Picture".

The fact of the matter is that Union "Officials" are picked for their obdurate attitudes, thick brass necks and their ability to see only one side of the picture.

I have heard them described as "just one step up the evolution chain from the Rock Apes of Gibralter."

While I would not entirely agree with that..in fairness to the Rock Apes.

No hesitation ..any of them ..in imposing severe hardship on the most vilnerable sections of our community and like that sap Scargill over in the mainland destroying a complete industry.

Don't forget crocodile tears McLoone was the guy in Fas when the lads had the snouts and forequarters burried in the trough.

+1

union heads are baschically spin doctors , proffesional liars and propogandists , i have to say they have done a masterfull job for those they represent this past few months , goebells wouldnt have **** on any of them

Fulton Crown

The mainland?? Are you kidding??

Ok Ok ..slip o the tongue ...meant the UK !

Spoken like a true Thatcherite.

Yes ! an happy to be one pal.

Union leaders are overpaid. They should not be sitting on the boards of any company or institution.I have said it before I think there is a need for reform within the union movement to bring it back to its core ideals. Which is workers rights. Unions should be about equality and fairness for all workers. That is not always about preserving the status quo or seeking to increase wages. Unions should seek to insure that any cuts which do have to be made hit harder at the top than they do at the bottom. The current leadership seem to miss these points.

Yes they are overpaid....you also say "unions should be about equality and fairness" why then should cuts hit harder at the top Hmmm ?

Taxipete29

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Ok Ok ..slip o the tongue ...meant the UK !



Yes ! an happy to be one pal.



Yes they are overpaid....you also say "unions should be about equality and fairness" why then should cuts hit harder at the top Hmmm ?

If there are more cuts at the top it brings us towards a more equal society. There will always be disparity, but its the level of disparity that is the problem.

While I havent read it myself yet( its next in my pile to read) the book The Spirit level provides what I believe is some fascinating research into the inequalities in society.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

While I havent read it myself yet( its next in my pile to read) the book The Spirit level provides what I believe is some fascinating research into the inequalities in society.

Any idea what measure for inequality they use? The most common one in economics is the Gini coefficient and while it does provide a view on the issue it is beset by problems.

One of the core issues in inequality measures is this:

If you compare the top and bottom 10% of earners against each other you get a number you can use to reflect inequality in that society. The problem is that you get the same number for the following 2 countries (where income is expressed as a percentage of the average top 10% income).

Country A:

Top 10%: 100%
Middle 10%: 30%
Bottom 10%: 20%

Country B:

Top 10%: 100%
Middle 10%: 70%
Bottom 10%: 20%

Now, even at a glance it could be seen that we're looking at two very different countries yet simple measures of inequality will tend to miss this.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Any idea what measure for inequality they use?

They use the ratio between the incomes of the top 20% and the bottom 20%, except where they are comparing states within the US, where they use the Gini coefficient because it is used within the US and is readily available data.

They say that they and other researchers also used other measures, but they rarely have a significant effect on results. [all on p. 18].

I add my own comment that some people who might, because of their political views, dislike the findings could choose to dispute the methodology.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I add my own comment that some people who might, because of their political views, dislike the findings could choose to dispute the methodology.

It's contentious. Honestly, I don't find it at all surprising for there to be negative health outcomes associated with high degrees of inequality though I'd caution that such simple ratios are going to miss a lot of the subtleties going on. Far more of an issue I imagine in countries is the average level wealth. It doesn't really matter how equal a country is if the average person can't afford decent healthcare and education for their children. Equally I'd argue that inequality between the top and bottom 20% isn't as important as the actual level of wealth for the bottom 20%.

It's just back to the whole absolute versus relative poverty debate really and sides picking numbers that suit their argument best.

BroomBurner

Sizzler wrote: »

How did you get on?

Hmm. a bit fast, but slow, if you get me. They let me know what grade each full-time member of the union is paid at, and that they're linked to the public pay-scale. It would just depend then on how long they're there. Most of them are on secondment from the CS, so they are hit by the pension levy. They didn't supply any info with regards expenses, guess I would have to be more specific.

I'm still in two minds about which way to vote. On the one hand, I don't like striking, it's a pain and I don't agree with any kind of money-wasting, regardless of who it is (i.e. unions). On the other hand, I hate the fact that the private sector companies that were funded from my pension levy went on to award their wage increases with not a peep from IBEC, etc.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

It's contentious. Honestly, I don't find it at all surprising for there to be negative health outcomes associated with high degrees of inequality though I'd caution that such simple ratios are going to miss a lot of the subtleties going on. Far more of an issue I imagine in countries is the average level wealth. It doesn't really matter how equal a country is if the average person can't afford decent healthcare and education for their children. Equally I'd argue that inequality between the top and bottom 20% isn't as important as the actual level of wealth for the bottom 20%.

It's just back to the whole absolute versus relative poverty debate really and sides picking numbers that suit their argument best.

Their thesis is that income differences within a society explain variation in outcomes more significantly than does the general level of affluence. It's worth reading and considering.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Their thesis is that income differences within a society explain variation in outcomes more significantly than does the general level of affluence. It's worth reading and considering.

Yup, adding it to my must read list. Thing is, epidemiologists talking about inequality (using economics measures) is like economists talking about diseases. Both sides are prone to missing the subtleties at play due to their training.

There is an awful lot of crap written about inequality though, so it'll be interesting to see an epidemiologist's take on it.

sold

Thats why they are fighting tooth and nail against pay cuts. They know their members don't want it and they have to protect their own well paid job.

Tipp Man

So does anyone think that Mr O Connor earned his huge 124k salary last night?

irish_bob

Tipp Man wrote: »

So does anyone think that Mr O Connor earned his huge 124k salary last night?

up untill last night when pat kenny exposed the hollowness of the union possition , the unions were more or less given a free pass by RTE , they were allowed spew thier banner headlines and soundbite rhetoric without any real scrutiny , PK showed that when challenged , thier facts and figures simply melt away

juuge

Tipp Man wrote: »

So does anyone think that Mr O Connor earned his huge 124k salary last night?

Where else would a clown like O'Conner get a job? and if he did he certainly wouldn't get €124K - the guy's a joke!

gurramok

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I'm surprised no one has criticized ,siptu's plans for a new building. It's as if they see themselves as some sort of new rule/government.

They have absolutely nothing to celebrate ,in the real world.

Oh we did on another thread but no-one in RTE did of course.

You'd swear that this new expensive building will be a monument to Lenin or something as they want to tax everyone to the hilt to pay for their generous members salaries.
Reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm 1984 with a mé féin attitude, feck everyone else except ourselves :P

yoshytoshy

gurramok wrote: »

Oh we did on another thread but no-one in RTE did of course.

You'd swear that this new expensive building will be a monument to Lenin or something as they want to tax everyone to the hilt to pay for their generous members salaries.
Reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm 1984 with a mé féin attitude, feck everyone else except ourselves :P

Sorry ,I meant to post in the frontline thread ,thats why I deleted the post:(

thebman

I would have thought they'd offer to work for the average industrial wage and not demand to be paid elite wages.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

I would have thought they'd offer to work for the average industrial wage and not demand to be paid elite wages.

Well in fairness, if you want the best people you need to be willing to pay good wages to keep them. So you can argue that trade unions are correct to pay their leaders well.

That said, after watching Jack O'Connor last night I'm at a loss as to how he's worth 125,000 Euro a year.

thebman

nesf wrote: »

Well in fairness, if you want the best people you need to be willing to pay good wages to keep them. So you can argue that trade unions are correct to pay their leaders well.

That said, after watching Jack O'Connor last night I'm at a loss as to how he's worth 125,000 Euro a year.

Its the same argument our TD's use. I've yet to see it be true in any area TBH.

For instance, this would widely be believe to be the case in F1 yet Jenson Button took a 60% pay cut in the year he won the drivers championship and Barrichello took a similar pay cut as the team was in trouble.

I've worked in many companies where the best people weren't being paid the most and could have earned more elsewhere.

There are many reasons people choose to work in certain areas, money is only one factor. Some people love what they do and some people see it as a cause. If your have to pay that much to get someone to run a trade union, I suspect something is wrong with the unions goals.

Redmen Rule OK

EF wrote: »

In fairness you would be hard pushed to find an organisation in the private sector with responsibility for at least 14,000 members where their chief earns less than 150,000!

EF can you expand on this comment. Exactly what is the responsibility to which you refer?

Until earlier this week I was a member of one of the unions referred to in this thread. During the course of that 30 year membership I had cause to contact a union rep. The discussions took place during the working week and I know for a fact that the person with whom I had the discussion was being paid by our mutual employer for that time. I would doubt very much if the General Secretary would have been bothered by the trivial matters that meant so much to me. In the end the issues were resolved by me personally and I didn't benefit from any support at all :mad:.

I continued to be a member of that union and continued to pay 18.75 a month for nothing. I finally resigned this week because of the lies and spin appearing in the media from the leader of my former union. So far as I am concerned the General Secretary is more concerned about his public profile than actually representing the views of those paying his salary. Incidentlly, its interesting to see his salary quoted on this site, I have e-mailed him 3 times in the past 3 months asking for the detail of salaries paid to Union employees and have not as yet got a response.