Curtail the Right to Strike & Hold Unions Responsible for Costs!

CityCentreMan

The selfish and unwarranted action by IMPACT / Air Traffic Controllers has caused untold damage to us as a country as well as resulting in considerable costs to thousands of innocent travellers.

In the light of this action we must seriously question our current legal framework which allows unions to cause disproportionate damage / cost to the country, to the public and to employers at little cost to themselves.

Coming out of the worst ever recession, it is apparent that the unions will seek to unfairly abuse the right to take industrial action as a means to thwart government's efforts to bring the economy around.

As a country in our position, we cannot allow this to happen and I believe that the time is right to seriously question the rights and responsibilities of our trade unions, not only viz their members but with regard to the public, unrelated companys and in overall terms the community in general.

For starters , I believe that we need to implement the following:

a) Remove the right to strike entirely from areas of employment which are Strategically Critical to the running of the nation. These "Strategically Critical" areas to be identified as such and an alternative mechanism implemented for conflict resolution;

b) Remove the right for various unions to act jointly in such a fashion that they are in effect using their dominant position in the market to unfairly force unreasonable conditions for the benefit of their members;

c) Permit the use of strikes only for instances where all other conflict resolution mechanisms have been exhausted;

d) Make unions liable for 3rd party costs incurred when premature action has been taken.

The days of Jim Larkin are well gone and as a nation we can not afford to be held to ransom by the unions.

Welease

I really don't see the need for legislation changes with regards to unions..

The unions are funded by working people across this country, and the members need to start taking collective responsibility for the negative actions of some unions. Those members are directly effected by the state of our economy and the available public funds/jobs/inward investment, and should instruct their unions to work in the best interests of the economy.

If you disagree with the actions of your union, then let them know, and if they won't curtail activities designed to cause maximum impact to the economy then stop funding them.

Just my 2c

Kristopherus

It is a universal right to strike, so put up with it.

Welease

Kristopherus wrote: »

It is a universal right to strike, so put up with it.

I don't think it is iirc Garda can't, not sure about the Army etc.

SC024

Fair enough you have your right to strike, But why should I or my employees be out of pocket because Begg & Co. decide to throw their rattler rout of the pram becuase reality is starting to bite? We couldn't work the day of PS strike before xmas through no fault of our own, Unions should definitly be forced to compensate anyone put out of pocket by their childish antics...

CityCentreMan

In many areas of life, either the silence or apathy of the majority, serves to pave the way for the vocal, often hardline, minority to push themselves forward into positions of power.

I honestly believe that within the union sector there is a high level of indifference by the majority and and that whilst the union leaders may represent the unions, that they are more extreme in their views than most members and that their views are not representative of the opinions honestly held by most ordinary members.

I believe that the union leaders regard their right to take guerilla action whereby they inflict maximum damage to the public / employer at minimum cost to their members as being amongst their greatest weapons, particularly as they have totally lost out on public opinion.

As citizens and taxpayers and members of the public we have to recognise that it is US that these guys are hurting and we have to defend ourselves and if we have to get the rules changed to defend ourselves, then let us get on to our representatives (in Dail Eireann) and let them know - LOUDLY & OFTEN!!

Jane5

Curtail the right to strike and employers will do whatever they want to employees, and ride roughshod all over them. Ever since the recession, employers that are doing well are using it as an excuse to profiteer. I know-I worked for a private institution recently who were very profitable-and admitted it-and then cut our pay and allowances unilaterally without notice or negotiation. I am lucky in that I was able to instantly quit and find better work somewhere else, as did several others. If we had not left then yes, we would have been striking.

Not all are so lucky. There are employment laws for a reason. Your employer cannot unilaterally alter your contractual terms and conditions without your agreement.

If you did that to your employer you would be in breach of contract. Despite the proliferation of extreme anti employee pro slavery right wingers the recession has spawned-the reverse still holds true.

The employers in Ireland usually like for the employees to strike if they are public sector rather than negotiate with them, as it gives them a wonderful opportunity to paint their employees as the bad guys who care not a whit about the public. In fact the reverse is true.

The employers could, if they negotiated with their workers fairly and sought compromises, prevent these sorts of strikes.

But they hope that by a big disruptive strike, that with lots of spin, they can kill any public support for the union/employees and hence get their way with respect to unilateral contractual alterations-which are unfair and illegal.

So to any employers reading this: Trust is a key factor. If you are an employer that your workers can trust, and you sit down with them and negotiate FAIRLY-they will be much more likely to accept your proposals and try and work with you. Unilateral bully boy tactics will blow up in your faces. People are wising up and are less and less likely to take it, and more likely to unite and cripple your business. Be honest and fair in your dealings, and your employees will be fair with you.

Idbatterim

Their need to be consequences if they dont co-operate, and that should be pay reductions! Or sack them! Their not calling the shots. no way should the Goverment re enter social partnership, unless the unions withdraw all strike action! and even then, they should be told whats going to happen, and if they dont like it and threaten unrest, their will be even greater wage reductions or changes in work practices etc!

Idbatterim

Jane 5, you are only worth what your employer or the market is prepared to pay! As the IBEC guy on Frontline the other night said, wealth distribution and fairness isnt up to them!

CityCentreMan

In todays worlds, the people most likely to suffer from a strike are the general public, other companies, clients, students, patients, tourists ....in other words "us".

Strikers are not just withdrawing their labour - they are holding the country to ransom. It is this "collateral" damage from which they wield their greatest power.

If someone is going to have the power to inflict pain, suffering, cost & damage to us, yes to US - then is it not reasonable that they be forced by our government to look at alternatives such as negotiation, conciliation , arbitration and even court action (Labour Court) before making us suffer and taking the ultimate sanction of going on strike.

....and if they have'nt taken all reasonable precautions not to cause us pain, suffering, cost & damage then they should have to pay accordingly.

Count Dooku

May be extra 5% levy on workers of state, semi-state and commercial monopolies will change anything?
Because it is not fair if somebody can achieve something through strike, while others can not do anything, except destruction of their companies

irish_bob

Jane5 wrote: »

Curtail the right to strike and employers will do whatever they want to employees, and ride roughshod all over them. Ever since the recession, employers that are doing well are using it as an excuse to profiteer. I know-I worked for a private institution recently who were very profitable-and admitted it-and then cut our pay and allowances unilaterally without notice or negotiation. I am lucky in that I was able to instantly quit and find better work somewhere else, as did several others. If we had not left then yes, we would have been striking.

Not all are so lucky. There are employment laws for a reason. Your employer cannot unilaterally alter your contractual terms and conditions without your agreement.

If you did that to your employer you would be in breach of contract. Despite the proliferation of extreme anti employee pro slavery right wingers the recession has spawned-the reverse still holds true.

The employers in Ireland usually like for the employees to strike if they are public sector rather than negotiate with them, as it gives them a wonderful opportunity to paint their employees as the bad guys who care not a whit about the public. In fact the reverse is true.

The employers could, if they negotiated with their workers fairly and sought compromises, prevent these sorts of strikes.

But they hope that by a big disruptive strike, that with lots of spin, they can kill any public support for the union/employees and hence get their way with respect to unilateral contractual alterations-which are unfair and illegal.

So to any employers reading this: Trust is a key factor. If you are an employer that your workers can trust, and you sit down with them and negotiate FAIRLY-they will be much more likely to accept your proposals and try and work with you. Unilateral bully boy tactics will blow up in your faces. People are wising up and are less and less likely to take it, and more likely to unite and cripple your business. Be honest and fair in your dealings, and your employees will be fair with you.

FAIRNESS is in the eye of the beholder

brianthebard

Its getting more and more like the 1910s around here.

unit 1

If workers are not allowed to strike how can they defend their rights. Being discommoded by workers striking (legally) is part of the price of living in a democracy.
I'm guessing most anti-strike supporters are private sector workers who would have us believe PS workers are in a continual state of strike or work to rule which is completely untrue as strikes are in fact infrequent or rare.
Just because you are in dispute in bad times and have public support stripped from you (government policy) does not mean you do not have just cause.
Answer this. How will you get your employers foot off your head if you cannot withdraw your labour.

ei.sdraob

brianthebard wrote: »

Its getting more and more like the 1910s around here.

oh please :rolleyes:

did they have a 200 euro a week welfare program in 1910 or oublic sector jobs where you get a raise due to "benchmarking"

donkey balls

unit 1 wrote: »

If workers are not allowed to strike how can they defend their rights. Being discommoded by workers striking (legally) is part of the price of living in a democracy.
I'm guessing most anti-strike supporters are private sector workers who would have us believe PS workers are in a continual state of strike or work to rule which is completely untrue as strikes are in fact infrequent or rare.
Just because you are in dispute in bad times and have public support stripped from you (government policy) does not mean you do not have just cause.
Answer this. How will you get your employers foot off your head if you cannot withdraw your labour.

i have worked all my life in the private sector i never was interested in getting a job in the PS(even though its a job for life)and was never a member of a union untill my last job.
the reason i joined was the company that was taking over our company had a reputation as a bit of a bully(which was correct) when the company had to tender for the contract they had we found out that they where unsucessfull.
but yet they said that they were still in the running to get the contract that was 2 months before we were called in to be told that our jobs were gone thats 2 months that people could have been looking for another job.
if employers want to get rid of unions representing workers will they get rid of the employers union IBEC?.
and yes companies that are making profits are using the current climate to batter down there employee's t&c next time you see a tesco truck think of the responsibilty that the driver has and yet he gets paid the min wage.
and yet the biggest cost in supply chain (for supermarkets) are fuel&drivers wage do you think tesco have passed on those savings by reducing there drivers wage by 60%.

Wishbone Ash

CityCentreMan wrote: »

is it not reasonable that they be forced by our government to look at alternatives such as negotiation, conciliation , arbitration and even court action (Labour Court) before making us suffer

Would it not have been reasonable for the HR section of IAA to do this instead of suspending ATC staff - an action they knew would exasperate the situation. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people on boards.ie automatically assume the employers are the 'good guys'.

donkey balls

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Would it not have been reasonable for the HR section of IAA to do this instead of suspending ATC staff - an action they knew would exasperate the situation. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people on boards.ie automatically assume the employers are the 'good guys'.

true it was all spin by the IAA&IBEC+ that pr*ck from ryanair mouthing off and finally the english&irish red top rags printing crap.

CityCentreMan

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Would it not have been reasonable for the HR section of IAA to <b> look at alternatives such as negotiation, conciliation , arbitration and even court action (Labour Court) </b> instead of suspending ATC staff - an action they knew would exasperate the situation. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people on boards.ie automatically assume the employers are the 'good guys'.

Nobody in the real world would or could possibly countenance a situation whereby employees are allowed to remain uninterrupted in their jobs having refused to comply with <b>legitimate</b> instructions from management. Your suggestion that Management have to undertake a prolonged HR process just to get legitimate instructions followed is absolutely absurd!

The tail has been wagging the dog for too long !

CityCentreMan

donkey balls wrote: »

true it was all spin by the IAA&IBEC+ that pr*ck from ryanair mouthing off and finally the english&irish red top rags printing crap.

What planet are you on?

The Labour Court found in favour of the IAA!

Unfortunately they were not asked to make any decision or recommendations regarding the costs, inconvenience & damage suffered by over 20,000 people as a result of the ATC's selfish actions!

Sleepy

I'd personally go the route of introducing legislation which bans unions outright. A clause would be necessary that any changes to our existing labour laws (i.e. current protection of workers rights) would undo the legislation in order to ensure that the law wasn't seized upon to degrade workers rights but as it stands I feel we have sufficient protection of the worker on our statute books and, as such, the unions are not only redundant, they're now having a negative impact on the country at large.

Riskymove

CityCentreMan wrote: »

The Labour Court found in favour of the IAA!

I think the piint is that instead of suspending workers they should have awaited the LRC judgement ( a few days) which would have settled the issue

The IAA showed poor judgment in effectively ratcheting up the dispute to strike level unneccesarily.

ei.sdraob

actually let them strike

but

subtract any damage to the economy from their final "cushy" pensions



strikers before used to be directly impacted by their action (think coal miners, factory workers), the current breed don't suffer the consequences of their actions and hence find it much easier to resort to striking

murphaph

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually let them strike

but

subtract any damage to the economy from their final "cushy" pensions



strikers before used to be directly impacted by their action (think coal miners, factory workers), the current breed don't suffer the consequences of their actions and hence find it much easier to resort to striking

That's because their employer is in the main, the state. How many private sector strikes have we seen in the past 12 months? How many of those private sector companies are likely to survive? VERY FEW is the answer to both.

Byron85

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd personally go the route of introducing legislation which bans unions outright. A clause would be necessary that any changes to our existing labour laws (i.e. current protection of workers rights) would undo the legislation in order to ensure that the law wasn't seized upon to degrade workers rights but as it stands I feel we have sufficient protection of the worker on our statute books and, as such, the unions are not only redundant, they're now having a negative impact on the country at large.

Let us purge the intelligentsia while also taking all the land from the peasants. Any and all dissent must be dealt with accordingly. :rolleyes:

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

That's because their employer is in the main, the state. How many private sector strikes have we seen in the past 12 months? How many of those private sector companies are likely to survive? VERY FEW is the answer to both.

pfft......there have been many private sector industrial actions in this country in recent times ...such rose-tinted views are part of the problem in current public sector bashing

can you not recall:

the electricians strike halting work on many sites?

coca-cola plant dispute?


I suggest you pay a visit to the LRC and Labour Court websites and have a look at the cases

Sleepy

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Let us purge the intelligentsia while also taking all the land from the peasants. Any and all dissent must be dealt with accordingly. :rolleyes:

Thanks for that enlightened input :rolleyes:

The suggestion I made copper fastens the current protection afforded to workers whilst removing the main problem the country has in dealing with economic reality.

Have you a better suggestion? Elect the union leaders to government and let them call the ECB perhaps?

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

pfft......there have been many private sector industrial actions in this country in recent times ...such rose-tinted views are part of the problem in current public sector bashing

can you not recall:

the electricians strike halting work on many sites?

coca-cola plant dispute?


I suggest you pay a visit to the LRC and Labour Court websites and have a look at the cases

Did any of the private sector industrial action effect the entire country or just their employer's bottom lines.

It is in a privately held companies best interest to avoid industrial action and keep their employees happy. Even Ryanair realise this, providing performance related benefits which raise most of their staff's incomes above industry norms. But, if and when such disputes arise, they ultimately only hurt the owners / shareholders of the company at fault.

When the public sector engages in industrial action, every last one of us is hurt by the actions. This is not tolerable.

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

pfft......there have been many private sector industrial actions in this country in recent times ...such rose-tinted views are part of the problem in current public sector bashing

can you not recall:

the electricians strike halting work on many sites?

coca-cola plant dispute?


I suggest you pay a visit to the LRC and Labour Court websites and have a look at the cases

Compare numbers of staff involved in strikes or disruptive activity. What proportion of workers were private sector in say, the last 12 months?

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

Did any of the private sector industrial action effect the entire country or just their employer's bottom lines.

the electricians affected many other companies ability to work not just their own

When the public sector engages in industrial action, every last one of us is hurt by the actions. This is not tolerable.

a public-service wide strike or in particular areas, perhaps, but how many of those occur? how many strikes have there been?

are people in these areas to be told that they cannot react to anything done to them ever, simply because it might inconvenience people?

I should point out of course that strikes are extremely rare in the public sector in any event.

Compare numbers of staff involved in strikes or disruptive activity. What proportion of workers were private sector in say, the last 12 months?

is it a competition?

in your post you suggested that there were very few private sector strikes and that those who did would not survive...i disagree...can you provide any evidence or stats or is that only on one side?

up until the collapse of talks before the budget there has been a consistent period of industrial peace in the public sector with very few strikes.

even since then there has been a one day stoppage, thats it.....I listed two strikes in private sector that went on for longer and know of others

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

are people in these areas to be told that they cannot react to anything done to them ever, simply because it might inconvenience people?

You missed my point. Not only does it inconvenience people, the greed of the PS unions costs every taxpayer in the country.