SIPTU ask all to boycott Coke after treatment of staff

brianthebard

segaBOY wrote: »

The point still stands. There was a building collapse predicted in 2005 (which would have lead to a slow down in the larger economy) but it never materialised. The idea that companies should have been able to predict this downturn is a bit ludicrous and no union would have accepted it.

No the pont doesn't still stand, its obvious that employers like coke want to make it seem like it was a different era.

Honestly your research work will be pretty biased considering your strong views which have come out here so you can spare yourself the effort-but well done you on doing some research, I didn't receive a grant either.

Thank you for the unbiased report, I can assume this means you support the workers situation that have been picketted.

jape

Boycott coke?

F**K that.

segaBOY

brianthebard wrote: »

No the pont doesn't still stand, its obvious that employers like coke want to make it seem like it was a different era.


Thank you for the unbiased report, I can assume this means you support the workers situation that have been picketted.

Yes, yes it does. AFAIK average redundancies of €125,000 per employee are far too high for any job. I don't see the big problem with statutory.

I was only giving my experience. But if you would like a sample of the research I did in my postgrad feel free to go looking for it in the college library. Woopdedooo, check out the big brains doing research. :rolleyes:

brianthebard

segaBOY wrote: »

Yes, yes it does. AFAIK average redundancies of €125,000 per employee are far too high for any job. I don't see the big problem with statutory.

I was only giving my experience. But if you would like a sample of the research I did in my postgrad feel free to go looking for it in the college library. Woopdedooo, check out the big brains doing research. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Yeah I'm the only one who suggests you're doing home research. Go on then, prove it. I' don't care.

Mr Benevolent

Unions are anti-work, anti-profit and anti-change. They're based on a need long extinct, i.e the need to have employment law. There's no need because we already have comprehensive employment laws. Unions have done untold damage to Ireland and the UK, and because of that there time is long past. I could tell you many stories about union practices that would have AHers burning down SIPTU HQ tomorrow morning. Sadly, I can't discuss it in a public forum.

brianthebard

Sadly. Maybe because most of it is made up Confab?

Mr Benevolent

brianthebard wrote: »

Sadly. Maybe because most of it is made up Confab?

Yeah you got me, it's all made up. Of course it is. I love the unions really :rolleyes:

BTW Brian Cowen is incompetent and reactionary*

*I made that up too

stepbar

Confab wrote: »

I could tell you many stories about union practices that would have AHers burning down SIPTU HQ tomorrow morning. Sadly, I can't discuss it in a public forum.

I think you should and leave out the specifics. People need to know.

brianthebard

Confab wrote: »

Yeah you got me, it's all made up. Of course it is. I love the unions really :rolleyes:

Yeah unless it is confirmed by real world experience I believe it to be made up. Go on mysterio, prove me wrong. grrr.

Kinetic^

Unions are nothing more then terrorists on our economy. GTFO and never come back.

Ronan|Raven

I feel bad now for buying 4 litres of it earlier.. oh wait I don't.

Mr Benevolent

brianthebard wrote: »

Yeah unless it is confirmed by real world experience I believe it to be made up. Go on mysterio, prove me wrong. grrr.

Fair enough. You all know we can't name names on Boards due to libel law.

Within the last three years a certain heavily unionised company wanted to significantly change its work practices to dramatically improve productivity. The union was approached and refused to endorse the change even though it would mean significant benefits for the company and long term stability for the workers. The company scratched their heads for a while and went back to the union unofficially. They were told that there was no way the union would officially endorse such measures as it would reduce confidence in the union. Instead, the union had a proposal of its own.

The union told the company executives that if they introduced voluntary redundancy at six weeks per year and hired the workers back several months later on the new, more productive contract terms then the union would back the plan quietly. Naturally the executives went ballistic. The cost of the redundancies would cancel out any productivity gain for years to come. The union told them to think about it, and within a week it had been very reluctantly agreed. The unions also stipulated that the workers could take up to a year off work on reduced salary immediately after being rehired following their redundancy.

Believe it or not.

jumpguy

Unions are needed in the country, to ensure fair employee rights. At this stage though, the unions have gotten incredibly, incredibly greedy. They have no intention of trying to collect together to get us out of this recession at all, and don't care if they prevent the government from stopping this country running into the ground.
Then again, it's based on workers too, they could easily say that they don't want this, they WANT a paycut, but who's gonna say that? It's the workers also, don't forget that's who the unions represent, after all.

Mr Benevolent

jumpguy wrote: »

Unions are needed in the country, to ensure fair employee rights. At this stage though, the unions have gotten incredibly, incredibly greedy. They have no intention of trying to collect together to get us out of this recession at all, and don't care if they prevent the government from stopping this country running into the ground.
Then again, it's based on workers too, they could easily say that they don't want this, they WANT a paycut, but who's gonna say that? It's the workers also, don't forget that's who the unions represent, after all.

But they're not needed. We have employment rights. I avoided being fired in a certain situation by researching the law and explaining my rights to my employer. I didn't need a union to do it for me.

jumpguy

Confab wrote: »

But they're not needed. We have employment rights. I avoided being fired in a certain situation by researching the law and explaining my rights to my employer. I didn't need a union to do it for me.

That's nice if you have a pair of balls on ya. But what about the poor fellow, working on a factory floor for a few years, no self-confidence, begins getting pushed about by his employers? Who does he go to? That's why we need unions, besides, they're meant to represent the workers. Technically, all strikes imposed by the unions must be balloted, hence it's the workers choice.

hopalong85

Odysseus wrote: »

I would have to research the first part to answer you correctky I not going to give you some af response.

segaboy I noticed you thanked this poster and add +1 how does the second part of it fit in with your previous remarks? It does seem to fit?

You're not even making sense. Didn't want to skip through the rest of the thread before I pointed this out, but seriously you can't structure sentences and I have no idea what the above post meant. Jesus man.

staker

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Unions are nothing more then terrorists on our economy. GTFO and never come back.

Well said

syklops

jumpguy wrote: »

That's nice if you have a pair of balls on ya. But what about the poor fellow, working on a factory floor for a few years, no self-confidence, begins getting pushed about by his employers? Who does he go to? That's why we need unions, besides, they're meant to represent the workers. Technically, all strikes imposed by the unions must be balloted, hence it's the workers choice.

Who does the poor fellow with no self confidence go to? Google. Or if he is not computer literate, he goes to his niece or nephew who then goes to Google. And it wont remove 5% from his wage either.

Odysseus

hopalong85 wrote: »

You're not even making sense. Didn't want to skip through the rest of the thread before I pointed this out, but seriously you can't structure sentences and I have no idea what the above post meant. Jesus man.

I suggest another reading then

msg11

Unions are a load of bollox. Ye lose yer job, and pay them to make things worse, I am fighting in my job to have me union dropped from me pay packet. If you know the law well , you can do without them. Bunch of money hungry ****s.

brianthebard

Confab wrote: »

But they're not needed. We have employment rights. I avoided being fired in a certain situation by researching the law and explaining my rights to my employer. I didn't need a union to do it for me.

Nonsense, union employment kept you there.

Confab wrote: »

Fair enough. You all know we can't name names on Boards due to libel law.

Within the last three years a certain heavily unionised company wanted to significantly change its work practices to dramatically improve productivity. The union was approached and refused to endorse the change even though it would mean significant benefits for the company and long term stability for the workers. The company scratched their heads for a while and went back to the union unofficially. They were told that there was no way the union would officially endorse such measures as it would reduce confidence in the union. Instead, the union had a proposal of its own.
a

clearly you don't even know what unions have done for you.

melekalikimaka

lads lads lads i think one thing we can all agree on is...

if coca cola was a government dept, their jobs would be safe and there'd be 3 of them doing the one job

Mr Benevolent

Nonsense, union employment kept you there.

There was no union in that company.

clearly you don't even know what unions have done for you.

Christ. So you'd support that sort of greedy, totalitarian ripoff practice, would you? If I was a CEO I'd rather the company leave Ireland than tolerate such ridiculous practices.

if coca cola was a government dept, their jobs would be safe and there'd be 3 of them doing the one job

No doubt!

Stercus Accidit

Well if coke cans stick it to the (legalised)mafia count me in.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

SIPTU can lick the sour grease from the underside of my sweaty ballsack.

That's about all I have to say.

eh... why do you have sour grease under your balls???

johnnyskeleton

sunnyjim wrote: »

My family heard about this, and we won't be buying any Coca Cola products on the shopping. Most of the extended family are doing the same, that's 7 families.

The country needs to stick together, or this kind of crap will hit everywhere.

What would happen though if we all stuck together and boycotted anything that displeased one of our number?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ok hi, so my name is boxxy

Agent Smith

Hi boxxy!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it would ruin the mystique you guys

Joey the lips

Nahh why the hell should I give a dam about the coca cola workers. In fact I could not care less if everyone looses there job, I have mine and thats all that matters.

As for the unions i think it would be far easier to put my union subs into a college fund to give myself a better education making sure instead of working for these companies I will have everyone working for me.

Lastly I dont belive all the articles written in amnestly about coca cola and its world wide human rights abuses. I got 2 bottles for 2 euro in tesco last friday and I am happy.

mikemac

Stark wrote: »

I didn't like Coke before but all of a sudden it is going to start tasting delicious.

Maybe, but the coke in my local store isn't bottled in Ireland.
At least I seriously doubt it is as it has arabic writing on it

I'm thinking the shop owner is buying in the cheapest coke he can find and then selling it at the same price as everyone else.
I doubt this is the only shop in Ireland who don't get their coke from Drogheda and the other bottling plants.

mikemac

stepbar wrote: »

It is that simple, the private sector pays for your wages. Simple as. Unions seem to ignore this basic fact.

Odysseus wrote: »

That strange so the taxes from the private sector go to pay our wages rather than the state coffers? Where do my taxes go then? it must be so simple that I can't see it. Will you cop on to yourself, do you think I don't pay taxes and that they don't go to the upkeep of the state. Would you like to work for free maybe? Or better still how about I pay to supply my service, would that make you happy?

How did yet another thread descend into a public versus private sector debate.
The public sector have nothing to do with this

Mr Benevolent

mikemac wrote: »

How did yet another thread descend into a public versus private sector debate.
The public sector have nothing to do with this

Oh but they do. They're the most heavily unionised group of employees in the country.

artielange

Confab wrote: »

Oh but they do. They're the most heavily unionised group of employees in the country.

And it would suck to have one of those jobs:rolleyes:

I think that says a lot for the power and benefits of a Union.

tallaght01

To be honest, it's just bastard Vs bastard.

The private sector have a romantic view of their productivity and streamlined efficiency. But that's a smokescreen, because they don't like to admit that their private sector employers treat them like crap.

So, because huge portions of private sector employers don't give a mickey about their workers, there has to be mental unions, which the union heads mostly have a romantic view of.

I've done some crappy jobs in my time. Even worked as a teenager for 2 pounds an hour at one point lol. Would love to have had a union then. Only place I ever had a union was when I was doing a security job, where my employer was very good to me, even before we were unionised.

At the end of the day, unions thrive because the private sector are shytes to their staff, and unions become more bastard the more the private sector tries to squeeze out of it's employees.

Sofiztikated

Brian, this is why I dislike getting into arguments over unions. Pro Union people never see any other side of the argument.

The Unions stamp their feet, ask for money, and cry when they don't get their way. I know if a child did that, they'd get a slap.

brianthebard

segaBOY wrote: »

As a non-union employee they certainly treated me a lot differently when I had to pass the contract electricians picket. If I didn't I would have been fired for breaking my agreement with the company-the union members didn't understand that however-a bit ignorant imo.

Can't believe I didn't pick up on this last night (suppose it was cause I was drunk). You provided scab labour so as to damage a union's strike, and yet you don't seem to understand why the workers on strike didn't take kindly to your being there? Incredible.

Sof, instead of silly metaphors why don't you talk about unions in real terms?

Mr Benevolent

brianthebard wrote: »

Can't believe I didn't pick up on this last night (suppose it was cause I was drunk). You provided scab labour so as to damage a union's strike, and yet you don't seem to understand why the workers on strike didn't take kindly to your being there? Incredible.

Sof, instead of silly metaphors why don't you talk about unions in real terms?

Ok. You love the unions, you don't see anything wrong with them and think the sun shines out of SIPTU's front door. I have one question:

Why is Aer Lingus failing and Ryanair thriving? We'll understand if you dodge the question, in light of your allegiance.

brianthebard

Confab wrote: »

Ok. You love the unions, you don't see anything wrong with them and think the sun shines out of SIPTU's front door.

This isn't true, I just know enough about unions and mnc's to know the present strike is justified.
Just because I don't have a hate on for SIPTU or its representatives doesn't mean I think everything they do is right.

I have one question:

Why is Aer Lingus failing and Ryanair thriving? We'll understand if you dodge the question, in light of your allegiance.

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAAHAHAHA. you want to attribute all Aer Lingus' problems to the fact that its workers are unionised? epic lolz.

Mr Benevolent

epic lolz

What a compelling argument. Well done.

sunnyjim

To be fair brian, it actually does have a lot to do with it.

tallaght01

Confab wrote: »

Why is Aer Lingus failing and Ryanair thriving? We'll understand if you dodge the question, in light of your allegiance.

Now, I can take or leave the unions to be honest.

But do you think we should, as a country, aspire to a situation whereby our workers are treated the way ryanair treats them?

I know that wasn't what you're saying. But I'm curious about where people think we should be going.

I'm an advocate for workers' rights. I think unions would be needed less if we had a strong legislative framework for workers that was strictly enforced.

I like to think we live in a society, as opposed to an economy. The economy is an important part of that, but not the only part. And I don't think Ryanair is the way to go, though I'm impressed by what they've done.

brianthebard

sunnyjim wrote: »

To be fair brian, it actually does have a lot to do with it.

Actually no its not. Its silly to compare two air lines which aren't really even in competition with each other, with very different business plans and demographics, and claim that one is failing cause of unions and the other is thriving cause they treat their workers like crap.
Confab probably knows this, which is why he created this terrible strawman in the first place.

stepbar

Odysseus wrote: »

I suggest another reading then

Yes, I think you should. Perhaps you should concentrate on spelling and a bit of punctuation here and there.

Mr Benevolent

tallaght01 wrote: »

Now, I can take or leave the unions to be honest.

But do you think we should, as a country, aspire to a situation whereby our workers are treated the way ryanair treats them?

I know that wasn't what you're saying. But I'm curious about where people think we should be going.

I'm an advocate for workers' rights. I think unions would be needed less if we had a strong legislative framework for workers that was strictly enforced.

I like to think we live in a society, as opposed to an economy. The economy is an important part of that, but not the only part. And I don't think Ryanair is the way to go, though I'm impressed by what they've done.

But we see Ryanair from the outside, the Indo's opinions, the Watchdog stuff etc. In reality Ryanair employees are paid well and have excellent conditions. The caveat, as in any efficient establishment, is that they are required to do their jobs well.

Brianthebard, I can give other examples. Ever hear of Lufthansa Airmotive? SR Technics? Coca Cola perhaps? All caused by unions, and all ended/ing badly. Frankly I'm sick of arguing with someone who can't even understand how a business is supposed to work and seem to think the workers take priority over making a profit. I'm out of here, perhaps someone with a bit more tolerance for stonewalling and ducking the question can take over.

tallaght01

Confab wrote: »

But we see Ryanair from the outside, the Indo's opinions, the Watchdog stuff etc. In reality Ryanair employees are paid well and have excellent conditions. The caveat, as in any efficient establishment, is that they are required to do their jobs well.

*anecdote alert*

I know people who work for ryanair, and think it's awful.

Now I know that proves nothing, and I have to say I wouldn't have a clue what the pay structure etc is.

But substitute ryanair for lots of other private sector employees. That's really what my point is. The workers are at the mercy of the employer. I've worked under such horrendous conditions in both sectors. Conditions that literally should have been illegal.

Half of me thinks I wish I was in a union at the time. The other half of me thinks that they shouldn't have been allowed treat workers like that.

My thoughts are that we need stronger protection for workers, with stronger enforcement. That way we wouldn't have the ridiculous negotiations faced by some workplaces when they want to change work practices for their employees.

brianthebard

Confab wrote: »

B
Brianthebard, I can give other examples. Ever hear of Lufthansa Airmotive? SR Technics? Coca Cola perhaps? All caused by unions, and all ended/ing badly.

Coke has ended badly? Guess the strike was bigger than I thought. :rolleyes: Unions aren't the cause of bad business, and tbh i think its pitiful that you think profiteering should come before the welfare of the workers producing the profit.

FlutterinBantam

brianthebard wrote: »

Actually no its not. Its silly to compare two air lines which aren't really even in competition with each other, with very different business plans and demographics, and claim that one is failing cause of unions and the other is thriving cause they treat their workers like crap.
Confab probably knows this, which is why he created this terrible strawman in the first place.

Not in competition!! Still drunk obviously:cool:

Very different business plans!! Like what.

I didn't see anyone claiming that EI was failing strictly because of Unions and nobody said that FR treat their workers like crap.

Arthur Scargill that failed Union leader is with us this week I believe,spouting his particular brand of 18th century rhetoric which thank God went out the door in the 1970s when people like Thatcher had the metaphorical balls to tell them their day was done.
Also flogging a book I suspect.

Globalisation in business and commercial deliniation now demands the ability to quickly to respond to changing circumstances to remain a market leader and last century practices of Unions in this country is contributing in no small way to the lack of ability for some companies to respond to market opportunities.

segaBOY

brianthebard wrote: »

Can't believe I didn't pick up on this last night (suppose it was cause I was drunk). You provided scab labour so as to damage a union's strike, and yet you don't seem to understand why the workers on strike didn't take kindly to your being there? Incredible.

Sof, instead of silly metaphors why don't you talk about unions in real terms?

(This has to do with the TEEU contract electricians dispute.)

Wrong Brian. My company had over 500 employees. We actually had no workers who were contract electricians at the time-what did the TEEU do? They bused contract electricians from other companies to our site to picket. Some of the fellow TEEU workers did go out on sympathy for a couple of hours but when they found out they weren't covered under union rules since they weren't contract electricians-off they went back to work.

Myself and the other 470 workers who didn't strike were hardly scabs now where we? We weren't contract electricians? In fact no workers on our site at the time were contract electricians so we were hardly supplying scab work by doing our job.

Just because one group who doesn't even work in our company has a little dispute doesn't mean we all need to run outside and shut down the company. This is what is wrong with unions.

Now get off your high horse and come see the real world.

segaBOY

brianthebard wrote: »

This isn't true, I just know enough about unions and mnc's to know the present strike is justified.
Just because I don't have a hate on for SIPTU or its representatives doesn't mean I think everything they do is right.




HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAAHAHAHA. you want to attribute all Aer Lingus' problems to the fact that its workers are unionised? epic lolz.

If you can't disprove a point you just dismiss it. This seems to be a common trend in your posts Brian. Well done, "I just know enough" and "epic lolz" just don't cut it.

brianthebard wrote: »

Actually no its not. Its silly to compare two air lines which aren't really even in competition with each other, with very different business plans and demographics, and claim that one is failing cause of unions and the other is thriving cause they treat their workers like crap.
Confab probably knows this, which is why he created this terrible strawman in the first place.

Yes they are in competition. They fly to the same cities. They both try to have low cost business models.

http://www.aerlingus.com/cgi-bin/obel01im1/bookonline/index.jsp

As you can see Aer Lingus are trying to operate as a low fares airline.

Wages are an important part of this. Aer Lingus are operating with state style wages in the private sector while trying to compete with Ryanair and turn a profit. They can't do this for much longer. Even when they were state owned they were losing €6 million a day at one point, wages among other things have a lot to do with this.