Strike?? outside House of Waterford Crystal

the_syco

dayshah wrote: »

Why? Are lunch breaks 'slacking off'?

Why would they fear their boss knowing when they're on lunch break?

Junior

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

There is some serious amount of speculation here and even better is people speculating, others taking the speculation as fact and condemning people because of the speculation they believe to be fact.

This is even before the people who are creating their own hypothesis and then believing their own hypothesis and getting riled up about an issue they created in their own head.

Amazing.

That's the quality of the Waterford Forum shining thru there kid, bullsh*t is around the world twice before the truth has it's trousers on.

dayshah

the_syco wrote: »

Why would they fear their boss knowing when they're on lunch break?

That's my point. People here don't know the full story, but are jumping to conclusions.

The quotation showed the workers were worried about the tracking even when the trucks are turned off.

It seems management didn't explain the powers of GPS.

Knightfall

mecco wrote: »

And picketing outside the WC centre was very cynical IMO.

Staying on topic.....why shouldn't they picket outside the WC centre? It houses the majority of City Council offices, and the building belongs to the City Council. So, the workers were in fact protesting outside one of their places of work. Irrespective of whether they were right or wrong they chose to protest where they felt that their protest would have the most effect and receive the most attention.

mecco

Knightfall wrote: »

Staying on topic.....why shouldn't they picket outside the WC centre? It houses the majority of City Council offices, and the building belongs to the City Council. So, the workers were in fact protesting outside one of their places of work. Irrespective of whether they were right or wrong they chose to protest where they felt that their protest would have the most effect and receive the most attention.

A couple of things about where they protested stood out to me.

Firstly, and I'm open to correction on this, but don't aggrieved workers usually protest outside the premises they work in? As in, if a company has multiple buildings, people strike outside the building they work in. I think it's fair to say that would mean their base in the Industrial Estate in this case.

Secondly, if their logic was to go to the place thats most associated with the city council, then would they not have been across the road where the city councils main point of contact is? That would have made it more obvious that their grievance was with the city council. This ties in with the third point that the WC building doesn't LOOK like a city council building (with little or no city council markings being visible), it gave the appearance to all those visitors that the Waterford Crystal centre was striking, which is not a reputation that it needs.

I agree with you when you say the location they chose got the most attention. Personally,I don't think it was the most effective location though. I'd be of the opinion that the truth in disputes is usually halfway between what management and staff are claiming. (Or miles away from what both are saying ) But, regardless of what I thought about their case, I just think its a disappointing image they created of one of waterfords true tourist advantages.

the_syco

mecco wrote: »

Firstly, and I'm open to correction on this, but don't aggrieved workers usually protest outside the premises they work in? As in, if a company has multiple buildings, people strike outside the building they work in. I think it's fair to say that would mean their base in the Industrial Estate in this case.

Agreed. Also, unofficial or not, they should let people know by placard or other means who they're protesting against. As it were, the public thought they were protesting against WC, and didn't cross the picket.

If I were WC, I'd sue the strikers for damages.

Knightfall

the_syco wrote: »

Agreed. Also, unofficial or not, they should let people know by placard or other means who they're protesting against. As it were, the public thought they were protesting against WC, and didn't cross the picket.

If I were WC, I'd sue the strikers for damages.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but seeing as you mentioned it (because I'm curious) on what grounds would you suggest that WC sue the strikers for damages? They were not on WC grounds and, as far as I'm aware (open to correction on this), did not directly prevent any member of the public from entering the building. I only saw them on the webcam but there seemed to be plenty of room to go around them if someone wanted to. So, on that basis WC couldn't sue on the grounds of obstruction. What's left?

Knightfall

mecco wrote: »

Firstly, and I'm open to correction on this, but don't aggrieved workers usually protest outside the premises they work in? As in, if a company has multiple buildings, people strike outside the building they work in. I think it's fair to say that would mean their base in the Industrial Estate in this case.

Not sure, but maybe all of their supervisors are in that building?

mecco

Knightfall wrote: »

Not sure, but maybe all of their supervisors are in that building?

Yeah, they could be I guess. It still looked as if WC were on strike though and you'd figure they'd have to have realised this.

Boooourns

They're now looking to be paid for the days that they striked, management told them no so they're going further with it. Embarrassing.

Yes Boss

Boooourns wrote: »

They're now looking to be paid for the days that they striked, management told them no so they're going further with it. Embarrassing.

Moron's - They should be given an official warning about their poor behavior!

wmpdd3

I know nothing about this situation, but my friend had to explain to guests in her B&B why the new WC she gave them directions to is being picketed too.

They just went back to their hire car and went on to Kennedy Park.

poppies2

Knightfall wrote: »

Not sure, but maybe all of their supervisors are in that building?

No, not even the majority of them. If their grievance was with management they should have been either outside City Hall or up in Carrickphierish.

Boooourns

The Croke park agreement anyone?

puppetmaster

Was this sorted after? I saw them outside WC, and if i was a tourist i wouldnt have went in as it looked as if they were picketing it and many ppl get very emotional if you try to cross a picket line.

There should be disaplinary action taken about the way they went about it, not on really.

And if it was about GPS on the vehicles, arent the vehicles Council property? never mind wanting to know what work is done in em. They should at the very least have a right to know where they are.

Knightfall

poppies2 wrote: »

No, not even the majority of them. If their grievance was with management they should have been either outside City Hall or up in Carrickphierish.

I think you'll find that the majority of them are in that building, specifically the management of the people who participated in the strike.

Hoffmans

Showed how over staffed the hole council setup is, apart from the group out walking the wall thwre was as many more lookin out the office windows @ them

.

Knightfall

Hoffmans wrote: »

Showed how over staffed the hole council setup is, apart from the group out walking the wall thwre was as many more lookin out the office windows @ them

.

Really? And other than your own opinion you have what proof of this?

poppies2

Knightfall wrote: »

I think you'll find that the majority of them are in that building, specifically the management of the people who participated in the strike.

Nope they don't and their biggest beef is with the City Manager and his office is in City Hall.

Yes Boss

It was good to see the Public Sector Union coming out today and telling the Public Sector to accept the Croke Park agreement with both hands. I think reality is finally setting in. We might now see an end to all this foolishness!

chelloveks

Knightfall wrote: »

Really? And other than your own opinion you have what proof of this?

The same proof that you must work for the council too.....lmfao!!!!! It's called deduction ya gob!

calvin_zola

is this strike still going on??

Sully

calvin_zola wrote: »

is this strike still going on??

Nope, ended not long after they were told management was going to court about it.

deise blue

Ended when Management agreed to consult & negotiate with the Union which is what should have happened in the first place.

laughter189

Union activity is on the increase . .. not good news at all

Sully

deise blue wrote: »

Ended when Management agreed to consult & negotiate with the Union which is what should have happened in the first place.

Coincidence that the day the management say they are going to courts its "sorted"? Also, reports (as stated earlier in this thread) suggest that they were consulted are false?

It was an unofficial strike anyway.

deise blue

Sully wrote: »

Coincidence that the day the management say they are going to courts its "sorted"? Also, reports (as stated earlier in this thread) suggest that they were consulted are false?

It was an unofficial strike anyway.

No injunction was required as City Council Management sat down with SIPTU & agreed to a meeting to discuss this matter on the 14th April.

The initial meeting was described as " amicable " - This was surely the way to progress matters from the start - a process of consultation & negotiation ?

Sully

Ill take it your going to not directly answer my two questions?

Absolutely pointless strike regardless.

deise blue

Sully wrote: »

Ill take it your going to not directly answer my two questions?

Absolutely pointless strike regardless.

The strike had to be unofficial as management took unilateral action to introduce ( without consultation ) GPS systems - official union action requires a notice period - the damage would have been done before the notice period expired.

The threat of an injunction was merely posturing as same was not required as Management sat down with SIPTU to discuss matters - the way it should have been from the start.

Dialogue & negotiation - surely the best way to avoid industrial conflict ?

Sully

deise blue wrote: »

The strike had to be unofficial as management took unilateral action to introduce ( without consultation ) GPS systems - official union action requires a notice period - the damage would have been done before the notice period expired.

The threat of an injunction was merely posturing as same was not required as Management sat down with SIPTU to discuss matters - the way it should have been from the start.

Dialogue & negotiation - surely the best way to avoid industrial conflict ?

Missed a question.

Also, reports (as stated earlier in this thread) suggest that they were consulted are false?

I assume you are family to one of those on strike, or at least a close friend? I think you were posting here during the strike so unless you guys took it in shifts I assume your not one of those on strike.

I do love coincidences tho. A bad strike, council management "posturing" as you put it and the end is quickly drawn with a "Oh we discussed it, that's all we wanted really. Thanks for having us!"

Sorry but the mood reflected in this thread and around town is that it was a petty reason to strike, its not a god given right that you are consulted with every move they make and there are far worse problems out there in the workforce and more concerning problems those workers should be focusing on. In addition, when jobs are so scarce and hard come by - striking over something like this further irritates people who are finding money tough regardless of their job status.

I fully understand and support workers rights. I just felt this pushed it.