9,400 Jobs to go and no Dail Discussion or campaign to save them.

swordofislam

CDfm wrote: »

I would rather not say the line of work only that it is seasonal.

Price wise he can't recover the cost of the proposals from his customers and that being the case he wont be doing it and there also is the risk to him if he takes the work on.

Its fairly simple really, a lot of the jobs that this will affect are not essential jobs either.

I understand this is a 'My Mate told me thread'.

CDfm

swordofislam wrote: »

I understand this is a 'My Mate told me thread'.

Not exactly, I was in about a job for my youngfella, and heard the tale of woe before I opened my mouth.

"Bejaysus" I exclaimed inwardly "this is something for Scofflaw and Dr G the guardians of truth and light for the Irish economy".

So this is a Dad thread.

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

I understand this is a 'My Mate told me thread'.

No - despite your vehement dismissal of the NRF's position, the AGW Directive is coming in December, politicians have suggested a derogation, an industry body has stated a position, and the discussion is therefore about something real, rather than "some bloke told me that a mate of his said that they were building an escape tunnel from Leinster House to the airport".

I'm not sure why you're so keen to tell everyone that there's nothing to see here and no discussion to be had, but I'll remind you that it's not your job to do so.

moderately,
Scofflaw

swordofislam

Scofflaw wrote: »

No - despite your vehement dismissal of the NRF's position, the AGW Directive is coming in December, politicians have suggested a derogation, an industry body has stated a position, and the discussion is therefore about something real, rather than "some bloke told me that a mate of his said that they were building an escape tunnel from Leinster House to the airport".

I'm not sure why you're so keen to tell everyone that there's nothing to see here and no discussion to be had, but I'll remind you that it's not your job to do so.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Because the claim that the EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work will 'destroy jobs' is specious.
Evidence presented for the claim by interested parties has been presented as though those parties were disinterested.
The evidence presented is dishonest on its face and tortuous in its reasoning. The evidence presented is innumerate.

Those making the claim (not the people on this board) fall into a category that has an especially low reputation among society at large.

The specific individual making the claim has a decades long tack record of intellectual inconsistency and just being plain wrong in a way that is consistently in the short term interests of the people who are paying him.

Further it is basic historiography to examine one's sources and critical thinking is a skill much lacking on the internet and in Ireland.

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

Because the claim that the EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work will 'destroy jobs' is specious.
Evidence presented for the claim by interested parties has been presented as though those parties were disinterested.
The evidence presented is dishonest on its face and tortuous in its reasoning. The evidence presented is innumerate.

Those making the claim (not the people on this board) fall into a category that has an especially low reputation among society at large.

The specific individual making the claim has a decades long tack record of intellectual inconsistency and just being plain wrong in a way that is consistently in the short term interests of the people who are paying him.

Further it is basic historiography to examine one's sources and critical thinking is a skill much lacking on the internet and in Ireland.

None of that means there's no discussion to be had, though. It means that your view is that one side of the discussion is lacking any basis, and that you believe anything said by the NRF (who have stated that they generally welcome the Directive) can simply be discounted because - again, in your opinion - they're part of an industry with "a reputation for dishonesty".

How do you account for the previous torpedoing of the AGW Directive by several Member States (even to the extent of the UK doing a deal with Germany to bring them on-side)? Were they persuaded by mendacious temp agencies?

cordially,
Scofflaw

swordofislam

Scofflaw wrote: »

How do you account for the previous torpedoing of the AGW Directive by several Member States (even to the extent of the UK doing a deal with Germany to bring them on-side)? Were they persuaded by mendacious temp agencies?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The English implemented the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 on the 1st of October of this year.
They opposed them previously on the grounds of Labour Market Flexibility and the Confederation of British Industry lobbied its government aggressively as did the owners of Temp agencies.
The ethical coherence of the party of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson is left as an exercise for the reader.
The cooperation of the German government (which already has vigorous domestic protection for agency workers under its Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz and its Civil Code) was secured by the UK agreeing to help Germany sink the Takeover Directive.

Scofflaw wrote: »

... you believe anything said by the NRF ... can simply be discounted because - again, in your opinion - they're part of an industry with "a reputation for dishonesty".

That reputation could be assessed easily by binging "recruitment agencies" site:boards.ie

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

They were persuaded by a complex of opinion that seeks to drive down wages for the poor and increase wages for the rich. It certainly includes mendacious temp agencies.

Your position appears to be a mixture of the doctrinal and the personal, with an over-simplistic dichotomy between the interests of the rich and the poor.

It's not necessary to take the NRF's views on board wholesale to conclude that it's possible for inflexible transposition of the Directive to reduce the opportunities for businesses to make use of agency workers, which is something that would reduce opportunities for agency workers. Nor is it opposed to the Directive to state that fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

swordofislam wrote: »

The English implemented the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 on the 1st of October of this year.

Having successfully delayed its adoption until 2008 (from 2001/2).

swordofislam wrote: »

That reputation could be assessed easily by binging "recruitment agencies" site:boards.ie

That would only tell me what people on boards.ie thought about them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

swordofislam

Sir George Young wrote:

He said the alleged lobbying of Whitehall departments by former Cabinet ministers, including Stephen Byers, would appal [SIC] the public.

English Ministers were selling access to their former colleagues at the time that the temp agencies put the kibosh on the directive.

People on boards are surely a representative sample.

As for the delay in adoption surely that tells the OP that as we have waited even longer than the English in transposing the directive there is no chance of his friend getting it over turned.

Score this one for the good guys thank you Brussels! We finally won one!

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Directive will say that agency workers (temp workers hired from an agency) should be treated in principle on similar terms to permanent workers, in terms of pay and conditions, and after a suitable qualifying period.

Where the job losses come from is if you take the least flexible possible attitude to this, interpreting 'pay and conditions' in the broadest sense possible and 'suitable qualifying period' in the narrowest sense possible, then you can wind up in a situation where hiring temporary workers becomes as burdensome (from a business perspective) as hiring permanent workers.

Since there are many business opportunities which wouldn't be opportunities if it weren't possible to hire temporary workers, the more similar you make hiring agency workers to hiring permanent workers, the more of these business opportunities will simply not be taken up, because they're no longer opportunities to do anything except lose money. Those temporary jobs, then, simply don't happen - they're not replaced by permanent jobs.

From the perspective of a union, however, the use of temporary agency workers can be seen primarily as a threat to permanent and unionised workers, because there are some business situations where the two are interchangeable.

Tip the balance one way, and you have a situation in which employment of temporary workers is as flexible as possible to allow businesses to exploit short-term opportunities, and thereby create short-term employment - but also to use short-term agency workers to substitute in some circumstances for permanent workers. Tip the balance the other way, and it's no longer possible to exploit some of the short term opportunities and create short-term employment, but it's also not possible to use short-term agency workers to substitute in some circumstances for permanent workers.

The claim being made here is that the unions have weighed in heavily in favour of the latter approach, and that therefore the transposed Directive here will tend heavily in favour of inflexibility, and thereby, overall, cause a loss of employment opportunities. The Directive itself doesn't mandate the balance - it's up to the Member State transposing it to decide what's included in pay and conditions, to decide on how long the qualifying period is, and decide on how much red tape is involved in showing compliance for a business employing temporary workers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agree with all that you say. However, as with the part-time and fixed-term directives that preceded this one by a number of years (legislated in Ireland in 2001 and 2003) which have created huge problems in the health and education sectors, the problem doesn't lie wholly with the unions and/or the directive.

The biggest problem in relation to flexibility of the workforce in Ireland (and by that I mean hiring and firing) relate to the redundancy and unfair dismissal legal provisions which make getting rid of permanent workers in unionised situations extremely difficult, cumbersome and expensive(particularly in the public sector, which situation has now been worsened by the CPA).

If the redundancy and unfair dismissal laws were relaxed, the Agency workers directive would have less of an effect on jobs (though it would still serve to potentially increase pay and improve other terms and conditions).

CDfm

swordofislam wrote: »

Score this one for the good guys thank you Brussels! We finally won one!

You won what ? I haven't won anything . My youngfella didn't win anything either.

I grew up in a different Ireland where when we joined the EU the textile mills and factories closed and the men held up the post office walls or emigrated. The good guys did that and we opened our borders for grant aid.

That does not make me ancient and that was Ireland c 1990.

So my perception of the current crisis is based on first hand knowledge of how bad it can get.

I have heard all the explanations too before , so I am cynical and I have also seen the manipilation of live register figures and tourist figures ( I was a tourist for many years!!!) .

Deja vu, as they might say in Brussels.

thebman

Can't companies write off redundancy against tax anyway or something like that anyway.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

You won what ? I haven't won anything . My youngfella didn't win anything either.

I grew up in a different Ireland where when we joined the EU the textile mills and factories closed and the men held up the post office walls or emigrated. The good guys did that and we opened our borders for grant aid.

That does not make me ancient and that was Ireland c 1990.

Which is, to be fair, some 18 years after we joined the EC, and after a decade of disastrous domestic economic policies had left the country in tatters (sounds familiar, somehow).

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

thebman wrote: »

Can't companies write off redundancy against tax anyway or something like that anyway.

There are a hell of a lot of employer obligations like holiday pay is 8 % or more of payroll.

I wonder what the other budget costs are that makes this expensive.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

There are a hell of a lot of employer obligations like holiday pay is 8 % or more of payroll.

I wonder what the other budget costs are that makes this expensive.

I've worked in companies who have supplied workers to other companies, and also in companies who have used agency workers, or bodyshoppers, as it's known in IT.

Anyway the additional costs are: equivalent salary, increments (public sector), bonus payments, holiday leave above and beyond statutory, any employer contributions to pensions, and any additional perks offered by the permanent employer rather than the agency.

I can add up to a significant amount, I worked in one company where using staff supplied by another company for a particular role, we saved 50% on what would have been paid to permanent company employees.

Another cost /factor that's not been mentioned is the right of staff in some organisations to be represented by and have a union recognised, not something done by a lot of agency type companies.....

CDfm

They both can't be right.

Chambers Ireland: Agency Workers Directive will damage economy

Thursday, December 01, 2011 - 11:02 AM

Chambers Ireland has today called on unions to re-enter talks regarding the upcoming implementation of the Agency Workers Directive.

Jobs Minister Richard Burton had attempted to delay the introduction of the EU Directive, which is set to come into effect next week, which would entitle agency workers to better pay and terms of employment.

The deal fell apart yesterday when unions and employers failed to agree.

Chambers Ireland has claimed however that it will "take cost out of economy rather than drive costs up".

Speaking this morning, John Forde, Chambers Ireland HR policy council chair said: "We clearly need responsible management of the economy and everyone must play their part.

"The principle of equal treatment for all workers must be accompanied by a qualifying period to ease pressure on businesses and enable flexibility, particularly for those companies seeking to hire agency workers on a short-term basis.

"If we do not have flexibility, then companies will simply not hire staff.

"Unions need to be mindful of our collective need to facilitate work and employment in the economy, their current negotiating position on agency workers will lead to destruction of jobs and opportunities."

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/chambers-ireland-agency-workers-directive-will-damage-economy-530505.html#ixzz1fIjvMk3G

And

The INMO has said it will lodge pay claims for agency nurses next week to ensure they secure equal treatment as provided for in an EU directive which comes into force on Monday.

The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation has said it will lodge pay claims for agency nurses next week to ensure they secure equal treatment as provided for in an EU directive which comes into force on Monday.
Under the terms of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, agency workers will be entitled to equal treatment from the first day of employment by a client company.
Yesterday employer and union representatives failed to negotiate a derogation or qualifying period for entitlement to equal treatment. As a result agency staff will be entitled to equal treatment from day one.
Earlier this year, the HSE forced down pay for agency staff, including nurses, by renegotiating procurement contracts with employment agencies.
INMO General Secretary Liam Doran said they want agency nurses to get the same incremental credit scale as directly employed nurses.
It has been estimated that the directive will increase the staffing costs of the Health Service Executive by €33m a year.


Frank Collins of the National Recruitment Federation said the directive would have serious implications for employment agencies.
He said that while the directive becomes effective from this Monday, the Government had so far failed to publish legislation giving clear indications of the liabilities end-user employers and agencies would face - including a definition of pay and what would be required to prove compliance with the directive.
He said employment agencies could find themselves running the risk of financial suicide in continuing to supply agency workers in the absence of knowing details of the legislation they would have to comply with.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1201/jobs.html

n97 mini

The unions have forced this in as it means agency workers will be more expensive and therefore the fulltime workers, who are largely unionised, are protected somewhat from being replaced by agency staff.

Makes it very expensive to deal with one-off or seasonal increases in workload.

Juxtapose

I work for an agency who are subcontracting us for a bigger company. Signed a 48 week contract with them that outlies my rights to holiday pay and sick pay etc and set wage, which is less than the permanent workers there.

Im confused at this though, will it mean that only new workers will be eligable to higher pay and same rights as permanent staff or because i have a contract i would have to see out that contract before any changes can be made? Or will it be implimented immediately and i get backpaid from my "first day of work". There seemed so many possiblilities from the wording i read in the paper this morning.. Any clarification would be hugely appreciated as im quite worried about my job and the rate of pay i am/could be getting.

CDfm

The National Recruitment Federation seem to be saying to agencies don't take the risk in a roundabout way. "financial suicide" is what they say.

The bottom line is there is no legislation and no-one knows.

One side is saying people will be taken on as permanent workers and the other says that is BS because the money is not there to pay them in the private sector anyway.

I can't imagine the Troika wants to see public sector numbers increase when in Greece they are letting people go and cutting wages.

So really, no-one knows, and its only guesswork but the omens seem bad for the non public service types.

Juxtapose

So nobody knows yet?

I thought this was coming into pass this monday..

CDfm

Juxtapose wrote: »

So nobody knows yet?

I thought this was coming into pass this monday..

The law has not been published yet .

I started this thread cos I was a bit miffed that seasonal work my son, who is taking some time off college, could have had was not available because of the proposed legislation.

The reason was that the additional cost took all the profit etc out of the deal and it wasn't worth peoples while doing it. Outsourced to Poland I hear. :mad:

whatnext

http://www.nrf.ie/news.asp?p=awd-press-release-from-eurociett-confederation-
the latest.......................

Jarren

This is already on the Citizens Information Board website


EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work

The EU Directive on Temporary Agency Work 2008/104/EC (pdf) provides that temporary agency workers (TAWs) must have equal treatment with regular workers in respect of:

The duration of working time, rest periods, night work, annual leave and public holidays
Pay
Work done by pregnant women and nursing mothers, children and young people
Action taken to combat discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disabilities, age or sexual orientation.
Temporary agency workers must also have equal access to facilities such as childcare and must be informed of permanent employment opportunities.

Under the Directive TAWs must have equal treatment from their first day at work. However, the Directive allows member states to derogate from this by agreements between the social partners. The Directive must be transposed into Irish law by 5 December 2011 (pdf).

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/types_of_employment/full_time_employment/agency_workers.html

donkey balls

Just thought I would add my tuppence worth both myself and mate work for very large bluechip MNC here in Ireland through agencies since we got let go from our full time jobs some time ago,My mate has worked in one particular company for over 2yrs nearly on a full time basis my self I have worked in two different companies for over a year nearly on a full time basis.
IBEC the companies union spouting on about job losess is a load of b*ll*x:mad: if our t&c was to change to the same as the full time staff members do you really think that companies would let agency staff go?and if they did who would cover their work.
The crowd that my mate works for 90% of the staff are agency with the other making up the full time staff,The company has since requested that the full time guys take a pay cut in excess of 30%,As the company were aware of the AWD and it's implications also the company posted healthy profits Q1/Q2&Q3.
For those of you that have never worked or deal with recruitment agencies it's an eye opener some dont pay you for bank holidays your hourly wage is a flat rate regardless if you work nights sat&suns etc,Some times your waiting on a call to see if your in work that day on one occasion I was on my way into work when I got a call to say that I was not required.
Considering this is Ireland I cannot see this act being enforced and if it is the legislation will be f**ked up that companies who can pay will find the loopholes around it.

CDfm

That may well be the case there.

All I know is I was checking for my son & the seasonal jobs were not being recruited from since october and are not being done here in ireland no more.

The pay was circa 450 per week.

So donkeyballs , its not all bollox as I have seen it and do not know if it is isolated. People never thought a few years back that Dell would outsource to India , but they did with their call centre and their netbook repairs under warranty are now outside Ireland.

So maybe some workers will get pay rises and kept on. Others won't or won't get recruited in the first place.

Not everyone is a HSE agency nurse .

I have a feeling there is a lot of misplaced optimism about this too.

CDfm

Here is something that confuses me.

The INMO has said it will lodge pay claims for agency nurses next week to ensure they secure equal treatment as provided for in an EU directive which comes into force on Monday.

The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation has said it will lodge pay claims for agency nurses next week to ensure they secure equal treatment as provided for in an EU directive which comes into force on Monday.
Under the terms of the Temporary Agency Workers Directive, agency workers will be entitled to equal treatment from the first day of employment by a client company.
Yesterday employer and union representatives failed to negotiate a derogation or qualifying period for entitlement to equal treatment. As a result agency staff will be entitled to equal treatment from day one.
Earlier this year, the HSE forced down pay for agency staff, including nurses, by renegotiating procurement contracts with employment agencies.
INMO General Secretary Liam Doran said they want agency nurses to get the same incremental credit scale as directly employed nurses.
It has been estimated that the directive will increase the staffing costs of the Health Service Executive by €33m a year.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1201/jobs.html

Our Nurses are the highest paid in Europe and the agency nurses are paid a lot less.Surely, that says something that the wages should be moving in the opposite direction. Thats way out of touch with reality.

Like we are in a bailout and surely if Greece our other PIGS has to do cuts we will need to eventually .

The money to pay the extra is coming from cuts elsewhere.