Unions and their role in the economy

Mr Benevolent

Interesting debate going on in AH about the Coca Cola strike situation at the moment, but it's not really going to go anywhere as some of the posters, including me, are a little polarised in their opinions. I thought it would be better to ask a slightly more neutral group if unions are useful in a first world country with excellent employment rights? Evidence would suggest that they tend to follow their own agenda regardless of the facts, perhaps imposing ridiculous constraints of companies in order to further their member's aims, possibly at the expense of more jobs (various recent examples include Coca Cola, Lufthansa, Aer Lingus and SR Technics).

I'm aware that my thoughts on this matter are biased, but if someone could convince me otherwise I'd be glad to get constructive opinions threshed out.

gerry28

Well I work for the public sector now and am a member of impact.

But before that I worked in a non unionised private american company. This was during the boom and they didn't give any wage increases for 5 years despite glowing about how well we were doing and how happy the parent company was with us.

For every year I was there conditions got tighter and tighter and we got nothing in return, they kept increasing our targets and work load but we got nothing additional in return.

I couldn't stand what felt like exploitation and was so glad to finally get out of there.

I don't know much about the situation in Coca cola so I won't comment, only to say i'd rather work in a place with a union than not.

EU employment law doesn't always guarantee a fair deal for employees.

P. Breathnach

Confab wrote: »

... I thought it would be better to ask a slightly more neutral group if unions are useful in a first world country with excellent employment rights?...

I think you might have come to the wrong place! It looks to me as if the participants in this group are polarised on a few issues, and the usefulness or worthwhileness of trade unions is one of those issues.

mikemac

Yes, they still have a role.
There are workers in Ireland being treated badly.
Hotel industry as an example. I'm not labeling all hotels but for sure there are workers treated badly, both in terms of hours/rest periods and then not getting employment contracts or written payslips.
Many people don't know their rights and wouldn't know where to look. And being casual you might not get fired but you could see your rostered hours slashed if you speak up or are considered a troublemaker. If you're not getting hours it may force you to quit anyway

Mandate I believe are the union that aim for this sector. Maybe their officers could try to get their message across and recruit members

Taxipete29

To start it must be remembered that those employment rights were only achieved through years of union activity.Unions wil always have a place within industries, but their role must change as the economy changes.

Unions will always be needed for small disputes within companies. We have fine worker protection laws, but if an employee cannot stand up for themselves for whatever reason, thats where unions come in. Unions are there to protect workers rights. There are not however there to bully employers through threat of strike action should the company be acting within the bounds of law and agreements in place.

Strike action is a tool of a bygone era and serves no purpose in a modern economy save for extreme circumstances and as an absolute last resort. It is destructive to the economy as a whole and only serves to jeopardise employment at a time when the economy is so fragile.

We are in unchartered territory in this country with our financial situation and I think the unions need to realise that its not always about getting more or preserving what you have. Sometimes its about whats best for every worker long-term. This is a point I feel gets lost sometimes.

I have said it here before. I think unions need to look at how they run themselves. They need to stop the top officials sitting on state boards. They need to pay more modest wages. They need to stop cosying up to the people they negotiate with. They need to be about the individual worker and ensuring the quality of their working life. Some unions such as SIPTU are just far too big imo. They are faceless entities for many workers. Some believe they only care about PS workers as thats where they have their power.They need to act in the interests of all their members and be open to negotiation as opposed to the rigid, unbending attitudes many of them seem to have.

Unions are good for workers, but can also be bad for workers if they are allowed operate outside their mandate and allowed to pursue their own agenda. Its up to union members to insure that their union is serving them best and not dragging them into actions which will hurt them in the long run.

irish_bob

gerry28 wrote: »

Well I work for the public sector now and am a member of impact.

But before that I worked in a non unionised private american company. This was during the boom and they didn't give any wage increases for 5 years despite glowing about how well we were doing and how happy the parent company was with us.

For every year I was there conditions got tighter and tighter and we got nothing in return, they kept increasing our targets and work load but we got nothing additional in return.

I couldn't stand what felt like exploitation and was so glad to finally get out of there.

I don't know much about the situation in Coca cola so I won't comment, only to say i'd rather work in a place with a union than not.

EU employment law doesn't always guarantee a fair deal for employees.

i thought everyone in the private sector made out like bandits during the boom , dont tell me the ps are telling porkys :eek:

Nody

I have yet to hear of a single company or industry where unions have had a positive impact on any of the below in the last 20 years:

1) Productivity
2) Quality of Service
3) Profits
4) Workers right vs. union rights

1) Unions tend to draw everyone down to the lowest level of performance rather then work to promote the high achievers. This is done for "equality" to ensure no one is doing bad enough to fired. for not pulling their weight.

2) Unions are against changes unless their members get compensation for it. There are several examples out there such as the London subway upgrade or training more people to drive the trains. Oh and don't even talk about doing things more efficiently or cross training, that's a big sin in a unionized company to "take the job from someone else".

3) Unions have a very good way to strike back against companies in the form of strikes etc. and this includes companies where the workers don't want the union as well by calling in other industries to strike them out as well. The companies on the other hand have a hard time to equally strike back as hiring in others will have the unions bully people crossing the line. All this leads to the point where Unions have a monopoly on actions to be taken vs. the employer and uneven power.

4) We have had examples where union leaders have straight out said they rather have people fired and a salary increase then get more people working. Same goes at a partly union company where union people tend to shun/refuse to deal with non union people/people who don't want to sign up the union forcing everyone to join. Why? To give the union more power not to help the workers.

For me the times union are working/benefit the worker vs. the times they don't clearly weight in on negative side for workers. Yes, unions where needed but today they are mainly not in most sectors. People still pay them and give them power more often out of peer pressure then actual expected need for them.

Taxipete29

Nody wrote: »

4) We have had examples where union leaders have straight out said they rather have people fired and a salary increase then get more people working. Same goes at a partly union company where union people tend to shun/refuse to deal with non union people/people who don't want to sign up the union forcing everyone to join. Why? To give the union more power not to help the workers.

Can you show us these examples, links please??

Alcatel

Unions had a role to play back in the days when workers had no rights and were generally downtrodden. Today however, well, as a business person I can safely say that any company with a long established and unionised workforce tends to have extremely wasteful costs and work practices associated with the unions.

I think, in general, that their purpose in terms of workers rights has been served, and it is enshrined in law and isn't going away, and if it does, we all know how to organise a union.

As regards everything else, work practices etc, they're just a nuisance to good business; and I know many union members in public and private sector who agree, and would like to leave their union particularly now that strikes and destructive action are being considered.

At the end of the day, unions are just another special interest.

glaston

The first company I worked for didn’t have any unions and as a result my opinion of them would have been fairly neutral. Since changing job my opinion has changed drastically. A few things I have noted and particularly dislike.

- Its always the loud mouth, fear mongering idiots that drive the union agenda.
- The notion that unions are democratic is comical. The mob rules. If you don’t agree keep your mouth shut or else.
- At union meetings reason and rational thinking are almost frowned upon. Emotional ranting and whinging always get the best reception.
- According to union ideology the company is always the bad guy. Even if management propose something that benefits both sides its probably just a trick (leading back to previous point).
- Unions consistently resist change, even when its obvious that chenge is necessary to survive.

optocynic

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Can you show us these examples, links please??

Give us an example of a union having a positive impact in Ireland in the last decade!

And by positive impact, I mean what was previously mentioned.

Increased Productivity
Increased Profits
Increased Accountability

irish_bob

glaston wrote: »

The first company I worked for didn’t have any unions and as a result my opinion of them would have been fairly neutral. Since changing job my opinion has changed drastically. A few things I have noted and particularly dislike.

- Its always the loud mouth, fear mongering idiots that drive the union agenda.
- The notion that unions are democratic is comical. The mob rules. If you don’t agree keep your mouth shut or else.
- At union meetings reason and rational thinking are almost frowned upon. Emotional ranting and whinging always get the best reception.
- According to union ideology the company is always the bad guy. Even if management propose something that benefits both sides its probably just a trick (leading back to previous point).
- Unions consistently resist change, even when its obvious that chenge is necessary to survive.

unions install a misplaced sense of victimhood in thier members when it comes to dealing with thier employer

optocynic

irish_bob wrote: »

unions install a misplaced sense of victimhood in thier members when it comes to dealing with thier employer

Indeed.
Theirs in the weed that grows from the seed of begrudgery!

And in this country, petulant begrudgery is a national passtime!!

Riskymove

glaston wrote: »

- Its always the loud mouth, fear mongering idiots that drive the ...agenda.

this sounds familiar

The mob rules. If you don’t agree keep your mouth shut or else

hmm...yes....definitely familiar

reason and rational thinking are almost frowned upon. Emotional ranting and whinging always get the best reception.

on the tip of my tongue now

the company is always the bad guy

ah...got it now.....

the company public sector is always the bad guy


welcome to Boards!!!

BroomBurner

Taxipete, you pretty much summed up how I view unions also.

If we were to get of unions altogether, than the ordinary worker would be at a major disadvantage.

While people may believe that workers rights are all that's needed, what you have to contend with is that for everything, you need a for and against. If there were no unions, employers would simply lobby countries/EU for a change to the laws that would suit themselves. However, with the unions there, it means that there is, essentially, a yin to the yang.

I do believe, though, that today's unions need to get back to basics and stop thinking of themselves first.

nesf

Honestly, I think unions have a role on a local level, working with an individual private company on behalf of their workers.

I'm not sure I like or support the idea of mega unions like SIPTU etc. I think they wield too much power really.

glaston

Riskymove wrote: »

ah...got it now.....

the company public sector is always the bad guy


welcome to Boards!!!

...which reminds me of another thing.
Unions generally fail to understand the concept of union.

With the current hullabaloo regarding the public sector you would think think that SIPTU members in the private sector would be fully supportive of their cause.
Not the case from what I have seen.

Some of the fiercest criticism I have heard is from private company union members. They seem to resent what they see as the cushy perks and conditions enjoyed by civil servants and the likes. Some of the anecdotal evidence they cite would make your head spin; of course I dont believe a word of it.

Taxipete29

optocynic wrote: »

Give us an example of a union having a positive impact in Ireland in the last decade!

And by positive impact, I mean what was previously mentioned.

Increased Productivity
Increased Profits
Increased Accountability

The fact is you will never hear about such stories. I have worked in several companies over the years where unions and management worked well together for the better of the company and its employees. If there is give and take from both sides there is rarely a problem. These stories dont make the news because this is what happens in the normal run of things. Its whats expected.

Do you honestly believe that workers in this country would be better off without unions and that employers can be trusted not to exert their influence to dilute employment laws in their favour if there was no one to challenge them?? Of course much of this law comes from Europe so my example would mean the total abolition of unions across the EU but Im sure you get the point.

gandalf

The union leadership worked hand in hand with the government and their backers over the whole celtic tiger era. They negotiated benchmarking that delivered decent wage hikes for their members for so called productivity (ie an extra 80,000 or so being recruited into the PS!). Added to this they themselves had their snouts firmly in the trough serving on the boards of the Central Bank, FAS & Aer Lingus to name just a few. It would be interesting to see if we can get a complete list of where else these "protectors of the worker" were on state boards.

From what I can see they have had a significant role in the erosion of Ireland as a competitive force along with the Government themselves. They have an awful lot to answer for.

Tipp Man

nesf wrote: »

Honestly, I think unions have a role on a local level, working with an individual private company on behalf of their workers.

I'm not sure I like or support the idea of mega unions like SIPTU etc. I think they wield too much power really.

I'd agree with this, in my opinion a union should be about looking after workers on a personal level, dealing with grievances with bosses etc. And while there is EU legislation in place to deal with a lot of this i think that employees would find it reassuring to have a union as a first point of contact and back up, in certain cases. I do feel they have some role to play in the workforce

However these superunions try to put out an agenda where one size fits all and it simply doesnt' work. How can you have several hundred thousand members and do something to please them all?? Thats easy to do when things are booming and you have secured a mega pay deal, not so easy when cuts need to be made.

Also the problems with the Beggs and O'Connors of this world is that they have a clue how the economy or business works, and it seems they don't care either

OMD

Tipp Man wrote: »

I'd agree with this, in my opinion a union should be about looking after workers on a personal level, dealing with grievances with bosses etc. And while there is EU legislation in place to deal with a lot of this i think that employees would find it reassuring to have a union as a first point of contact and back up, in certain cases. I do feel they have some role to play in the workforce

However these superunions try to put out an agenda where one size fits all and it simply doesnt' work. How can you have several hundred thousand members and do something to please them all?? Thats easy to do when things are booming and you have secured a mega pay deal, not so easy when cuts need to be made.

Also the problems with the Beggs and O'Connors of this world is that they have a clue how the economy or business works, and it seems they don't care either

I agree fully here. Unions do a great job in so many areas especially in individual cases of protecting workers from things like bullying etc.

The problem is they have become obsessed with pay to the detriment of all else. This was fine during boom times pay could go up and numbers employed could also rise. Now that cannot happen. The unions are refusing pay cuts so there will be job losses and in the public sector deterioration in services.

For example health. We only have so much money to say pay nurses and doctors. The rate of pay will not be cut so in time the number of nurses and doctors will fall and the health service will get worse. Likewise education, teacher numbers will continue to fall, class sizes will rise, disadvantaged children will be put on scrapheap. The unions need to engage properly on this. In boom times wages constantly rose above inflation. It is only fair that when deflation occurs wages should go down.

Brigantes

OMD wrote: »

The problem is they have become obsessed with pay to the detriment of all else. This was fine during boom times pay could go up and numbers employed could also rise. Now that cannot happen. The unions are refusing pay cuts so there will be job losses and in the public sector deterioration in services.

You're mistaken. The Unions are refusing further pay cuts.

If you were faced with a 7% pay cut... followed by threats of another pay cut in the same year, would you lie back and think of Ireland? Or would you become 'obsessed with pay' too?

Brigantes

Alcatel wrote: »

As regards everything else, work practices etc, they're just a nuisance to good business; and I know many union members in public and private sector who agree, and would like to leave their union particularly now that strikes and destructive action are being considered.

At the end of the day, unions are just another special interest.

"Good Business?"

Without Unions the race to the bottom would have already been won.

irish_bob

Tipp Man wrote: »

I'd agree with this, in my opinion a union should be about looking after workers on a personal level, dealing with grievances with bosses etc. And while there is EU legislation in place to deal with a lot of this i think that employees would find it reassuring to have a union as a first point of contact and back up, in certain cases. I do feel they have some role to play in the workforce

However these superunions try to put out an agenda where one size fits all and it simply doesnt' work. How can you have several hundred thousand members and do something to please them all?? Thats easy to do when things are booming and you have secured a mega pay deal, not so easy when cuts need to be made.

Also the problems with the Beggs and O'Connors of this world is that they have a clue how the economy or business works, and it seems they don't care either

begg and o,connor are power mongers and in the case of o, connor , the man is an idealogue who has a three inche wide dogmatic world view , for them its about much more than protecting nurses and teacher wages

Brigantes

irish_bob wrote: »

begg and o,connor are power mongers and in the case of o, connor , the man is an idealogue who has a three inche wide dogmatic world view , for them its about much more than protecting nurses and teacher wages

So what's the alternative? Individual interests? Irish Thatcherism?

Are nurses and teachers responsible for global meltdown? Will the December Budget's pound of flesh make everything ok again?

ei.sdraob

Brigantes wrote: »

So what's the alternative? Individual interests? Irish Thatcherism?

Are nurses and teachers responsible for global meltdown? Will the December Budget's pound of flesh make everything ok again?

your argument would hold weight if

Ireland had the same levels of "meltdown" as the rest

it doesnt


things here are much worse
ask yourself why?


the very same unions were involved with government thruout the "boom" and are also responsible for this ****ing mess

gandalf

Brigantes wrote: »

You're mistaken. The Unions are refusing further pay cuts.

If you were faced with a 7% pay cut... followed by threats of another pay cut in the same year, would you lie back and think of Ireland? Or would you become 'obsessed with pay' too?

As I have said in another thread I have taken a cut in take home pay of 30% from two years ago. It was either that or be unemployed. I know I am not isolated in the private sector with this situation.

I'm actually obsessed with holding onto paid employment at the moment like most are in the private sector and I want to ensure that whatever tax monies that I pay are used wisely and our future generations are not burdened by the folly of this generation.

irish_bob

Brigantes wrote: »

So what's the alternative? Individual interests? Irish Thatcherism?

Are nurses and teachers responsible for global meltdown? Will the December Budget's pound of flesh make everything ok again?

to those who are lending ireland several hundred million a week , it is entirely irrelevant who caused the mess , cutting current spending ( and that includes wages ) is a key part of stabalising the public finances

Brigantes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the very same unions were involved with government thruout the "boom" and are also responsible for this ****ing mess

Nonsense. Government slept through the Global boom. Its lack of vision or ideology ensured that whatever gains were made, were p****d away. Castigating c300,000 public sector workers for Ireland's mess is lazy politics. If only FF could blame the English for this crisis.

Who was responsible? Government, for lack of leadership and regulation. Sure, all sectors of Ireland took advantage of this laissez-faire political gulf - whether it was Unions pushing Benchmarking, or Builders taking huge loans, Banks lending each other non-existent cash or your average new mortgage applicant.

Yet complaints about Benchmarking are risible, when you compare the €50bn we have to fork out for the reckless acts of the banking sector.

OMD

Brigantes wrote: »

You're mistaken. The Unions are refusing further pay cuts.

If you were faced with a 7% pay cut... followed by threats of another pay cut in the same year, would you lie back and think of Ireland? Or would you become 'obsessed with pay' too?

Only those earning above €45,000 paid 7% pension levy. Most public servants get yearly wage increases for simply not getting sacked. A typical public servant eg will have gotten a pay increment of 2-3% and paid a pension contribution of 6% so is only worse off by 3%. In other words got the equivalent of a pay rise 3% above inflation.

My point is the unions are prepared to sacrifice public services in order to protect public service pay.

Brigantes

OMD wrote: »

Only those earning above €45,000 paid 7% pension levy. Most public servants get yearly wage increases for simply not getting sacked. A typical public servant eg will have gotten a pay increment of 2-3% and paid a pension contribution of 6% so is only worse off by 3%. In other words got the equivalent of a pay rise 3% above inflation.

My point is the unions are prepared to sacrifice public services in order to protect public service pay.

Oh, but I thought most public sector workers earned in excess of 50kpa? Isn't that what the braying public is led to believe?

Also, your maths doesn't add up. How does an increment of 3% followed by a pay cut of 6% equate to a 3% pay rise?

100 + 3% = 103
103 - 6% = 96.82

(Inflation has been as near as 0% this year to be meaningless.)

Unions are sacrificing public services? LOL How so? By demanding Government engage in dialogue rather than insist on draconian, knee-jerk politics?