why didn't the unions make this much noise for the private sector?

DrumSteve

not too sure if this issue has been brought up before... But why haven't the unions been threatening strikes for private sector members who've taken cuts or lost their jobs? As a private sector worker myself who is in a union i am very tempted to leave it as i see no advantage to being in it if they only kick up a stink when public sector workers are goin to get a cut. I'm not naive about stuff like this however it does strike me as odd that they would only strike for one part of their bases...

Ordinary man

It seems to be the unions that have stirred up the division between the private and public sectors. All the private sector workers who disagree with their agenda should seiously consider leaving them. As a matter of interest what pecentage of the memers are public sector

nesf

Because a company can just up sticks and move to a different factory in a different country if it needs to. A country can't exactly outsource nursing and policing abroad if the unions give them too much trouble.

amacachi

Because they're about making political points, harder to do when the government has less input into the Private sector.

Bosco boy

The reality is that the private sector cuts are not as real as is stated by the media, The only people who you can be sure have taken cuts are private sector workers, sure cuts have been made but many private sector workers are uneffected and I know many.

murphaph

Bosco boy wrote: »

The reality is that the private sector cuts are not as real as is stated by the media, The only people who you can be sure have taken cuts are private sector workers, sure cuts have been made but many private sector workers are uneffected and I know many.

...or that in reality only a tiny proportion of private sector workers have union representation.

I remember a (lazy disgruntled) colleague of mine tried to get SIPTU into our employer (US Multinational). He told me the SIPTU rep wasn't interested unless he could deliver at least 500 members or something crazy. Unions aren't interested in the average private sector worker as they know their employers don't have to collective bargain with them if they don't want to.

I would not have wanted the union in. They'd have defended the rights of that lazy slob regardless of performance, which is wrong and unfair on his hardworking colleagues to my mind.

uberwolf

Bosco boy wrote: »

The reality is that the private sector cuts are not as real as is stated by the media, The only people who you can be sure have taken cuts are private sector workers, sure cuts have been made but many private sector workers are uneffected and I know many.

any company which has seen a plummeting turnover has sought to reduce costs, the alternative is going out of business and unemployment. I'm involved in literally dozens of such companies, and all their staff have taken pay and hourly cuts. Staff in three such companies have shown tremendous loyalty by continuing to work their original hours.

Funnily, the state has also suffered a plummeting turnover.

irishpaddy

the unions will fight for a sure winner. i was a union rep. my self; we used to be called shop stewards then; and i had a lot of arguments with the suits in the union. so often would they want me to stop what i was arguing for; they were awful. you could see them when they are talking to members they would be always trying to get away before they would be asked too much. but talking to the bosses now that was different, they could stay all day with them.
the worse thing the unions did imo. was to allow pay increases to be given in a % of your pay. because the highest paid always get the higher %. i have not heard any of the union leaders volunteer to take a pay cut; and they must have lost a lot of money coming in with so many out of work now.:(

nesf

Bosco boy wrote: »

The reality is that the private sector cuts are not as real as is stated by the media, The only people who you can be sure have taken cuts are private sector workers, sure cuts have been made but many private sector workers are uneffected and I know many.

Got some evidence to back that up?

Sandwich

You only make a fuss and threaten when you think it will achieve something.
The unions know there is no point bullying the private sector - it doesnt have to listen - it just ups and leaves. So reality reigns.

But the govt cant just shut down or move its services, so the union reckons it can put a lot of pressure on the govt to achieve by force the outcome it wants. And the employer, being politicians interested in reelection, are very susceptible to that pressure.
Hence 20% of the workforce through lack of moral courage and integrity, and poor leadership, are abusing the position of their employer and making all the rumpus.

There is also probably a coreographed dance going on - union officials acting angry, betrayed, outraged etc for the benfit of the members. Marshal the troops for a few days of protest, strikes,marches etc. The govt knows its coming and it isnt as if it werent a factor in their calculations. Sabre rattling, tough talk, all night negociations followed by a face saving compromise that doesnt really affect the thrust of the govt's changes. Unions accept, "for the good of national unity". Rank and file are not happy "but at least we stood up and didnt give in without a fight etc". And the country carries on.

Rujib1

Bosco boy wrote: »

The reality is that the private sector cuts are not as real as is stated by the media, The only people who you can be sure have taken cuts are private sector workers, sure cuts have been made but many private sector workers are uneffected and I know many.

What part of the country are you living in. I want to move there:cool:

R1

seclachi

I get the feeling unions in the private sector are all but dead at this stage. I know many multinationals have been milked down through the years by the unions, and some may have up sticks and left simply because it became to expensive to try and deal with them. I know of one new plant that has a policy of no unions for operators and takes on graduates instead.

Tbh its good and bad, some people can get away with murder because they know the union will have there back, but on the other hand companies could ride people without them.


I`m not a member of a union, and I dont feel vulnerable or anything, employment law is pretty decent these days.

mikemac

I worked in US multinational with SIPTU representing me and every other worker.
The union went far, far too far in defending the indefensible in many cases. Like drunk employees operating machinery and also union members refusing to work with the few who would not join SIPTU

However, I did also work in hotels where young staff and immigrants are basically abused by many managers. I tried to organize a sign to a union, meh it just petered out.

Unions are needed in some sectors. And have a role to play in the private sector.
And that's with dealing with individual cases and grievances, not with discussing dole rates, housing policies and lobbying on the budget. We elect politicians and give them departments and civil service advisors to do this.

imme

The unions brought up the cause of Waterford Crystal workers (several marches, a sit in), Coca Cola workers (a march on Coca Cola offices), SR Technics (a march on the Swiss embassy for some reason, I know the co is Swiss but there ya go!) workers to name but a few.

Also private sector employees have myriad organisations to speak up for them inter alia IBEC, ISME, RG Data, IFA, ICMSA, Institute of Directors Ireland, Chambers Ireland......
Numerous professional bodies e.g. Engineers Ireland, ACCA, Law Society....

thebman

irishpaddy wrote: »

the unions will fight for a sure winner. i was a union rep. my self; we used to be called shop stewards then; and i had a lot of arguments with the suits in the union. so often would they want me to stop what i was arguing for; they were awful. you could see them when they are talking to members they would be always trying to get away before they would be asked too much. but talking to the bosses now that was different, they could stay all day with them.
the worse thing the unions did imo. was to allow pay increases to be given in a % of your pay. because the highest paid always get the higher %. i have not heard any of the union leaders volunteer to take a pay cut; and they must have lost a lot of money coming in with so many out of work now.:(

Using their own logic when talking with the government they'll just up rates on members or borrow the money to pay their salaries :pac:

westtip

OP Union Leaders pay was for some strange reason (a kickback to the disaster that was the "social parntership") linked to senior civil service pay - they are only interested in themselves, Ergo it is only Civil Service pay rates that effects how much they can line their own pockets., therefore the Public Sector/Civil Service was all they were ever interested in. They couldn't give a tuppeny **** about their "brothers" in the private sector, and frankly they never could do anything about the private sector, in fact being a union member in the private sector has become an irrelevance.

They just can't get used to the fact that instead of the government bending over and saying **** me (and the taxpayer) as much as you can; as they did in the past, they have at last stood up to them.

The beards have gone quiet and subdued and its bloody marvelous.

nesf

westtip wrote: »

OP Union Leaders pay was for some strange reason (a kickback to the disaster that was the "social parntership") linked to senior civil service pay - they are only interested in themselves, Ergo it is only Civil Service pay rates that effects how much they can line their own pockets., therefore the Public Sector/Civil Service was all they were ever interested in. They couldn't give a tuppeny **** about their "brothers" in the private sector, and frankly they never could do anything about the private sector, in fact being a union member in the private sector has become an irrelevance.

They just can't get used to the fact that instead of the government bending over and saying **** me (and the taxpayer) as much as you can; as they did in the past, they have at last stood up to them.

The beards have gone quiet and subdued and its bloody marvelous.

It reminds me of the "Yes, Minister" episode where the civil service tie MP pay to the upper civil service grades in order to get the pay increase through the Parliament.

Riskymove

DrumSteve wrote: »

not too sure if this issue has been brought up before... But why haven't the unions been threatening strikes for private sector members who've taken cuts or lost their jobs? As a private sector worker myself who is in a union i am very tempted to leave it as i see no advantage to being in it if they only kick up a stink when public sector workers are goin to get a cut. I'm not naive about stuff like this however it does strike me as odd that they would only strike for one part of their bases...

Coca-Cola
Electricians

and so on

If you have a look at the labour court or LRC, you'll see a long list of issues and disputes between unions and private firms

the reason most of these dont get such coverage is down to sheer scale, few private sector vs union disputes involve 330,000 staff

brianthebard

OP have you contacted your shop steward on this issue?

DrumSteve

brianthebard wrote: »

OP have you contacted your shop steward on this issue?

funnily enough i was approached by him to become the union rep in here... i just dont see the point you know.

murphaph

imme wrote: »

The unions brought up the cause of Waterford Crystal workers (several marches, a sit in), Coca Cola workers (a march on Coca Cola offices), SR Technics (a march on the Swiss embassy for some reason, I know the co is Swiss but there ya go!) workers to name but a few.

Also private sector employees have myriad organisations to speak up for them inter alia IBEC, ISME, RG Data, IFA, ICMSA, Institute of Directors Ireland, Chambers Ireland......
Numerous professional bodies e.g. Engineers Ireland, ACCA, Law Society....

BIG LOL! You think IBEC and ISME etc. speak for employees?

They are more realistic than the unions, but do not represent ordinary PAYE workers, we elect a government to do that, which is why I hate ISME and IBEC being involved in 'partnership' just as much as the bearded ones.

Bosco boy

nesf wrote: »

Got some evidence to back that up?

like I said I know many private sector workers who havent, I have a mate who's on a 3 day week and hes the only who has taken a cut, incidentially he's not keen on going back fulltime as hes not losing out too much and is enjoying the extra time off with family. Dont have any satistics but ifrom what i know on the ground.

murphaph

Bosco boy wrote: »

like I said I know many private sector workers who havent, I have a mate who's on a 3 day week and hes the only who has taken a cut, incidentially he's not keen on going back fulltime as hes not losing out too much and is enjoying the extra time off with family. Dont have any satistics but ifrom what i know on the ground.

Sounds like a good reason to cut his benefits tbh.

Arnold Layne

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds like a good reason to cut his benefits tbh.

Why, because there is little difference between what he takes home from working a 3 day than a 5 day week when his SW is added to the amount?

He may not be keen to get back to a 5 day week but will have no choice if & when the situation arises.

oldyouth

Bosco boy wrote: »

like I said I know many private sector workers who havent, I have a mate who's on a 3 day week and hes the only who has taken a cut, incidentially he's not keen on going back fulltime as hes not losing out too much and is enjoying the extra time off with family. Dont have any satistics but ifrom what i know on the ground.

Survey statistics for you there http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/1214/pay.html

The main reason I am posting is that I think that there are fewer & fewer people joining unions these days in SMEs. We've had the pay cuts, redundancies, loss of benefits, overtime ban, no sick pay etc but we are not in a union and none of us would want to be really.

nesf

Bosco boy wrote: »

like I said I know many private sector workers who havent, I have a mate who's on a 3 day week and hes the only who has taken a cut, incidentially he's not keen on going back fulltime as hes not losing out too much and is enjoying the extra time off with family. Dont have any satistics but ifrom what i know on the ground.

Right, let's read what you said: (I'm not interested in berating you here, just trying to make a general point to you)

The reality is that the private sector cuts are not as real as is stated by the media, The only people who you can be sure have taken cuts are private sector workers, sure cuts have been made but many private sector workers are uneffected and I know many.

You're extrapolating from the few guys you know to the entire private sector. Relating anecdotal evidence is grand, extrapolating from a small group of people to cover the country is going to leave you with false conclusions! One of the worst things we can do is ignore overall stats gathered by professionals and go with what you see as being the nationwide situation!

The equivalent situation would be you saying there's no swine flu in the country because no one you know has gotten sick! The one thing I'd stress here is that it is completely natural to make this mistake! Our brains seem to be very good at extrapolating conclusions from small samples of information. Most of the time this is good, if one person you saw got badly burned after thrusting their hand in the fire, it makes perfect sense to fear doing so yourself (and it works pretty well with tigers, people getting sick after eating certain plants and so on). Our minds haven't evolved much from the days when we were hunter gatherers, so we still have loads of heuristics (to use the technical term) or rules of thumb that our brains intuitively use. The problem is in the modern society where we're talking about nationwide effects, not just stuff that happens to the small group of people you personally know, these intuitions will mislead you, like your private sector friends did to you above.

Anyway I'll quit rambling about on human behaviour.

imme

murphaph wrote: »

BIG LOL! You think IBEC and ISME etc. speak for employees?

They are more realistic than the unions, but do not represent ordinary PAYE workers, we elect a government to do that, which is why I hate ISME and IBEC being involved in 'partnership' just as much as the bearded ones.

yeah IBEC & ISME speak more for employers, but in speaking for employers they also speak for employees.

What is an "ordinary PAYE worker" to which you refer?