How are Unions allowed get away with this?

brandon_flowers

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/workers-1400-claim-for-a-onemile-move-is-thrown-out-3080727.html

EIGHTY Tesco workers who argued they should get up to €1,400 each for locating to a new store just one mile away have had their claim thrown out.
The union Mandate went to the Labour Court looking for compensation for its staff at its Ballinasloe store in Co Galway.
The union claimed "the transferring to the new location has caused disturbances and inconveniences and required increased flexibility and co-operation from employees".
Staff wanted compensation "as a result of the issues associated with the relocation and contends that the employer has previously paid compensation in situations such as this".
Tesco moved from its former store on the outskirts of the Co Galway town at Sarsfield Road to a central location at Dunlo in the town centre -- a distance of about one mile.
As a gesture of goodwill to staff, Tesco had offered a once-off payment of €1,600 to the staff social fund, the Labour Court heard.
However, this was rejected by Mandate, who instead looked for up to €1,400 per employee.
Tesco told the Labour Court yesterday "that there was no impact on employees who transferred to the new store". The Labour Court later recommended that the retail giant should increase its payment to the social fund to €2,000.
No other payment was recommended.
Mandate official John Carthy said that the claim didn't relate to the distance between the two stores.
He said it centred on the inconvenience of the move through changing school runs, car-pooling and the need for staff to familiarise themselves with where products go in the new store. Mr Carthy confirmed that a union committee was to consider the ruling on Monday and make a recommendation to staff on whether to accept it or not.
A spokesman for Tesco said it was waiting for the union to respond.
- Gordon Deegan

Tesco employ something like 15,000 people in Ireland and Unions think its acceptable to hold them to ransom for something as petty as this. What a joke these unions have become. They have now become the opposite of what they should be doing by putting jobs in danger, not protecting them.

Mr Benevolent

Combine Communism with money and you're got unions.

CIARAN_BOYLE

The unions in a Bank of Ireland branch managed to get 3,400 per person because the company moved the water fountain during the height of the celtic tiger. Unions chance their arms and sometimes the employer folds.

c_man

Unions in trying to screw someone shocker.

mikemac1

Lucky they have a union or they'd be replaced by FÁS free labour soon enough

Cee-Jay-Cee

He said it centred on the inconvenience of the move through changing school runs, car-pooling and the need for staff to familiarise themselves with where products go in the new store

That there sums up just what a shower of cretins the workers are!

mike65

Mandate official John Carthy said that the claim didn't relate to the distance between the two stores.

He said it centred on the inconvenience of the move through changing school runs, car-pooling and the need for staff to familiarise themselves with where products go in the new store

:eek: You represent shop workers you silly twat, its their job! (that and shop plans are standard).

Biggins

I fully support the principle idea behind unions (that of a joint amalgamation of people coming together to see their rights too are upheld) but the unions in Ireland are going overboard and totally taking the piss!

sureitsgrand

If I've read correctly the Unions have not been allowed to get away with this.

Logical Fallacy

Biggins wrote: »

I fully support the principle idea behind unions (that of a joint amalgamation of people coming together to see their rights too are upheld) but the unions in Ireland are going overboard and totally taking the piss!

Absolutely agree with this. Unions seem to pick fights about the strangest things, often ignoring big issues and focusing on little ones.

brandon_flowers

sureitsgrand wrote: »

If I've read correctly the Unions have not been allowed to get away with this.

Yes in this instance but its the fact that they are allowed bring such tripe to court is what I meant.

flutered

there should be a limit on what can be brought before the labour court.

awec

The problem with unions is that they are run by a bunch of nutjobs out to make a name for themselves and pick arguments over the stupidest of things.

A union will seek to protect terms and conditions, even if it means job losses, when in reality it should be the other way about. They are oblivious to financial realities.

It's about time they were told to cop the fcuk on.

token101

It's Tesco FFS. It's hardly high skilled labour that you can't replace easily. If they want to f*** around and start demanding ridiculous sh*t, just sack them all and rehire. Then you'll see a few coming around.

Galwayguy35

I think some of the unions take the piss a bit all right but they do some good as well. Where my brother works the company took €20 a week off the workers wages because they said it was necessary even though management salaries were not touched. The union got this reversed for the workers. Although dont get me started on the Public Sector unions....

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Although dont get me started on the Public Sector unions....

In this thread about a non-Public Sector Union, I wondered how long it would take before someone mentioned Public Sector Unions

the_syco

awec wrote: »

They are oblivious to financial realities.

Once the union bosses keep their big salaries, they will continue to do so!

PenguinMan

token101 wrote: »

It's Tesco FFS. It's hardly high skilled labour that you can't replace easily. If they want to f*** around and start demanding ridiculous sh*t, just sack them all and rehire. Then you'll see a few coming around.

That would be unfair dismissal though, it's not as easy to "hire and fire" as it might be in America.

mikemac1

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The unions in a Bank of Ireland branch managed to get 3,400 per person because the company moved the water fountain during the height of the celtic tiger.

I can't find anything about this

Have you a link?

IBOA are a very weak union, I can't see them being able to get that money
Was is SIPTU?

MagicSean

Biggins wrote: »

I fully support the principle idea behind unions (that of a joint amalgamation of people coming together to see their rights too are upheld) but the unions in Ireland are going overboard and totally taking the piss!

This particular case and ones just like it are the reason unions get such a bad name.

Galwayguy35

deccurley wrote: »

In this thread about a non-Public Sector Union, I wondered how long it would take before someone mentioned Public Sector Unions

Well I hope Ive made your day that I have proved you right:)

old_aussie

Greedy workers, the union is only acting on their instigation.

Dubit10

Don't see much wrong here tbh.

token101

PenguinMan wrote: »

That would be unfair dismissal though, it's not as easy to "hire and fire" as it might be in America.

Maybe legally, but morally, how would it be unfair? Person holds business to ransom for €1400, business says f*** off and if you don't like it go work elsewhere.

fasttalkerchat

Thank god I was with LIDL! Couldn't handle Tesco staff!!
LIDL contract is that you can be moved within 35km of your home store. And unions wont go near the place!

UrbanSea

Unions are what is wrong with the labour force in this country. I'm sick to death of hearing about them and their petty arguments.

UrbanSea

Dubit10 wrote: »

Don't see much wrong here tbh.

So you think they deserved 1,400 e each for moving a mile to a new shop?

RussellTuring

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Yes in this instance but its the fact that they are allowed bring such tripe to court is what I meant.

How do you decide that it's tripe if it's not allowed to be brought to court?

I think a large part of the problem is full-time union bureaucrats who have no interests other than the security of their own jobs. They have to try things like this to justify their own salaries to the union members.

Flancrest

Right this is something that really does annoy me.

Workers pay a union to represent them. They then go to the union if they feel they have an issue that cannot be solved without a 3rd party.
The union official advises on the best course of action but if the workers want to pursue the case the union official has the jump aboard.

Not saying they're perfect but unions take alot of abuse for thier members decisions

RobbieTheRobber

Flancrest wrote: »

Right this is something that really does annoy me.

Workers pay a union to represent them. They then go to the union if they feel they have an issue that cannot be solved without a 3rd party.
The union official advises on the best course of action but if the workers want to pursue the case the union official has the jump aboard.

Not saying they're perfect but unions take alot of abuse for thier members decisions

I agree with you, it may seem a frivolous reason to go to the labour court but the union represenatives can only do as the members say.

So when we view the union in this case as merely acting on behalf of the workers much a like a solicitor might also work for a client in a frivolous lawsuit then the issue is not the union but the workers themselves.

Fozzie Bear

Gotta love the unions and the sheer neck they have. They do some good but by and large are absolute chancers.

I'm getting married in a few weeks time and as a private sector worker I get one single day off for this.

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

I'm the bloody groom and I am just getting a day off.

Jeremy Clarkson may have been onto something when he said machine gun them..... (union officials that is)

awec

the_syco wrote: »

Once the union bosses keep their big salaries, they will continue to do so!

This is one of the most hilarious aspects to it for me.

Union bosses on their massive salaries preaching about protecting the little man. Irony at its best.

RobbieTheRobber

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Gotta love the unions and the sheer neck they have. They do some good but by and large are absolute chancers.

I'm getting married in a few weeks time and as a private sector worker I get one single day off for this.

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

I'm the bloody groom and I am just getting a day off.

Jeremy Clarkson may have been onto something when he said machine gun them..... (union officials that is)

Oh really!
What area of the public sector because i reckon your talking bullcrap?

b.harte

I'm going to show my hand first:
I'm vice chair of the Union (SIPTU) in the factory where I work.

It is an utterly thankless role, that I don't get paid for and I even get phone calls from people on my days off.....
The union movement in principle is a great concept, the notion that solidarity can generate positive results for employees and employers is the cornerstone of every union movement.

However, in my opinion, and in my experience the Unions (by and large) are completely disconnected from reality.
Yes, workers rights are important and it is correct and proper that these be upheld or improved at every opportunity, but the notion of entitlements and such is getting a bit dated, especially given the current business climate in this country.

I believe that the union model needs to change, I think that the idea of asking people to strike, sit-in, frustrate changes to work practices where necessary are fundamentally wrong and have no place in a progressive workplace.
I believe that the unions need to concentrate on the legal aspects of employment, if something an employer does is illegal then challenge it, if something is questionable, look for clarification on it. If the current methods of resolution at labour court or conciliation aren't working then devise a suitable alternative with business partners that is fit for purpose.

I also strongly believe that the Unions in this country, (by and large) need to take stock of the situations we find ourselves in. It is, in my opinion, disrespectful to all employees to protect the entitlements of some sections and take a stance against the economic measures proposed to pay for those entitlements, and I'm not deliberately bash the P.S. or the banking sector here. I feel it is inappropriate for any union to oppose taxes and charges when similarly opposing alterations to "agreed conditions" where some of these conditions are funded by tax or charges to customers.

Back to the OP, it is inappropriate to seek any payment for such a trivial move, if it were a move of 20 or 30km then I could understand how there may be an argument for an inconvenience payment. But FFS looking for extra money because you have to figure out where stuff goes, how about engage with the employer on a system where there is a standardisation in store layout? Instead of whining bout the inconvenience develop a mutual solution. What this boils down to is greed, it is know that Tesco is a profitable organisation, someone wants a bigger slice of the pie.

It is also worth pointing out that there is discontent within the Union movements about how some aspects are managed, the ideas or precedent and "it's been done before" are being challenged.

MY OWN OPINION:
Just because a payment was made before does not mean it is appropriate to demand that the payment be made again, unless the previous payment was incorporated into the relevant collective agreement or employment contracts, (this goes back to the legal aspects I referred to earlier).
This may seem at odds with the union role but I firmly believe that concrete agreements and contracts are worth more in the long run than the Labour court route.
Finally, I also believe that every collective agreement should have a provision for role-backs / re-negotiation where the economic situation of the employer, both private and public changes dramatically. This would have been handy for benchmarking and the CPA.

Also, the union representative (outside of the local shop steward don't have to "Jump on Board, I've experienced situations where the advice from Siptu Legal was not to pursue something, and this was supported with appropriate levels of research into the probable outcome. Didn't go down well at work.

Sorry for the rant, don't even get me started on non-contributory pensions.

RobbieTheRobber

awec wrote: »

This is one of the most hilarious aspects to it for me.

Union bosses on their massive salaries preaching about protecting the little man. Irony at its best.

How is it Ironic?

seanoge

I worked in Germany for 20 years. Over there firms over 20 employees must have a Union rep on the board. We got 6 WEEKs paid holiday a year. An extra months wages at Xmas. And looked after. Don't hear Germany going down the pan because of strong unions.

mike65

seanoge wrote: »

I worked in Germany for 20 years. Over there firms over 20 employees must have a Union rep on the board. We got 6 WEEKs paid holiday a year. An extra months wages at Xmas. And looked after. Don't hear Germany going down the pan because of strong unions.

Germany, despite a few quirks, is rather better run.

davet82

mike65 wrote: »

Germany, despite a few quirks, is rather better run.

probably because germans are robots

Mountjoy Mugger

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

They get a paid day's leave because they are entitled to take leave, as are all employees. The fact that it's a wedding is neither here nor there.

No such thing as "wedding leave" in the public service. Oddly enough, some private sector companies seem to give it.

Staff may be allowed to carry forward leave that they have unused. This might be helpful for honeymoon etc.

davet82

The Unions are a grand bunch of lads, now leave it be

gazzer

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Gotta love the unions and the sheer neck they have. They do some good but by and large are absolute chancers.

I'm getting married in a few weeks time and as a private sector worker I get one single day off for this.

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

I'm the bloody groom and I am just getting a day off.

Jeremy Clarkson may have been onto something when he said machine gun them..... (union officials that is)

What part of the public service is your wife and her bridesmaids in cos I am in the Civil Service and I am getting married in August and I am only getting one day for it. There is absolutely nothing in the civil service leave guidelines about getting time off if you are a bridesmaid or a best man.

davet82

gazzer wrote: »

What part of the public service is your wife and her bridesmaids in cos I am in the Civil Service and I am getting married in August and I am only getting one day for it. There is absolutely nothing in the civil service leave guidelines about getting time off if you are a bridesmaid or a best man.

oh yes there is, you also get a goose and a maiden fair, or is that for retirement...

Gummy Panda

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

I fully support the principle idea behind unions (that of a joint amalgamation of people coming together to see their rights too are upheld) but the unions in Ireland are going overboard and totally taking the piss!

Absolutely agree with this. Unions seem to pick fights about the strangest things, often ignoring big issues and focusing on little ones.

Some unions pick little fights they can win so they look like they're doing something and can justify their monthly payments.

mikemac1

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Gotta love the unions and the sheer neck they have. They do some good but by and large are absolute chancers.

I'm getting married in a few weeks time and as a private sector worker I get one single day off for this.

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

I'm the bloody groom and I am just getting a day off.

I think you've taken it up wrong

There is no special leave for bridesmaids. Maybe they are just winding you up, you seem to be easy to get a rise out of

Many of the multi-nationals have good offers like five days off.
MBNA in Carrick on Shannon have this, so do others

Wouldn't be as much in smaller Irish companies

Wishbone Ash

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

I'm getting married in a few weeks time and as a private sector worker I get one single day off for this.

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

I'm the bloody groom and I am just getting a day off

Good luck with your big day!


You'll need to clarify that post though.

Are you only taking one day from your annual leave allocation or are you lucky enough to be granted an extra day by your employer?
Is your wife to be taking a week from her normal annual leave allocation?
Are the bridesmaids taking time off from their normal annual leave allocation?

In some areas of the Public Service an employee getting married may apply for 5 days extra exceptional leave but those 5 days combined with their normal leave must not exceed 23 days. Therefore the employee would have to have an annual leave allocation of less than 18 days per year.

I have been in the Public Service for 24 years and have yet to hear of anyone qualifying for it. The only perk in my area is that one getting married may take annual leave at the time of marriage rather than the norm of signing for leave by seniority in service.

Galwayguy35

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How is it Ironic?

So you think its fine for Jack O Connor to be on a big salary? Im guessing you are PC, if so do you think he gives value for money?

D1stant

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Wife to be is public sector and gets a week. Her bridesmaids are also public sector and get a day off! Thats right they get a paid days leave just because they are shagging bridesmaids.

Your wedding sounds like a blast. Any chance of an invite?

fatherted1969

token101 wrote: »

Maybe legally, but morally, how would it be unfair? Person holds business to ransom for €1400, business says f*** off and if you don't like it go work elsewhere.

Plenty of
companies holding
workers to ransom the last couple of years and nothing about it. I always found that the more pressure that you could exert on companies the less **** that they came back with. Plenty of times i was in LRC with companies knowing that there was a strong possibility that we would lose. Another thing the union only represents the wishes of the workforce they dont come up with these notion's themselves. Comments like these sicken my hole sometimes. Maybe what they're at is part of a different plan and they knew they'd lose but gain ground elsewhere in negotiations

uch

flutered wrote: »

there should be a limit on what can be brought before the labour court.

Wait until your employer stops you from wearing a Kilt and curly red wig while He's extracting teeth in his dental surgery, then you'll appreciate the unions!

brandon_flowers

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Plenty of
companies holding
workers to ransom the last couple of years and nothing about it. I always found that the more pressure that you could exert on companies the less **** that they came back with. Plenty of times i was in LRC with companies knowing that there was a strong possibility that we would lose. Another thing the union only represents the wishes of the workforce they dont come up with these notion's themselves. Comments like these sicken my hole sometimes. Maybe what they're at is part of a different plan and they knew they'd lose but gain ground elsewhere in negotiations

So the situation never arises where the workers go the union and the union rep says "We should take this to court" And the sheep say "yes"

Do you think Tesco workers are experts in Employment Law that they could persuade Mandate to force this so far? Mandate are definitely leading this with the workers approval and not the other way around.

Re: in bold above. If you are a private sector worker you chose who you work for, if you dont like it after a while or the company acts like pr1cks you are free to leave. Don't give me this "I have no where else to go and where will I get a job" And its not that simple. I walked out of a job 18 months ago, I happened to get another job shortly after, I have subsequently left that job because I was offered another job. Life isn't easy but its as easy as you make it.

fatherted1969

brandon_flowers wrote: »

So the situation never arises where the workers go the union and the union rep says "We should take this to court" And the sheep say "yes"

Do you think Tesco workers are experts in Employment Law that they could persuade Mandate to force this so far? Mandate are definitely leading this with the workers approval and not the other way around.

Re: in bold above. If you are a private sector worker you chose who you work for, if you dont like it after a while or the company acts like pr1cks you are free to leave. Don't give me this "I have no where else to go and where will I get a job" And its not that simple. I walked out of a job 18 months ago, I happened to get another job shortly after, I have subsequently left that job because I was offered another job. Life isn't easy but its as easy as you make it.

My experience of working with employers as a union rep is yes sometimes you would know your going to lose your case but at least afterwards management knew that the workers and union were not going to be pushed around. Plenty of employers out there at the moment using this recession to change peoples terms of contracts so they can ride them as well. I'm also like yourself and have changed employment as well, i'm back working for the last year and get my contract renewed every month. Is that fair or should i be glad to be working at all. They've changed the job title for any new people that have started working there the last year or so and we're on half the saleries of our co workers. Is that fair or should i be glad to be working at all. Its an awful pity we dont have Mandate in my job cos they'd be getting plenty of use