An Post Unions: Responsibility and Liability

Question: Is a Union that causes a srike or stoppage of services for a monopoly responsible for damages that might occur to businesses that have loss of business or income during the period of a strike?

What I mean is this. The recent An Post stoppage. An Post is a monopoly. There is no real alternative for sending of payment by small to medium sized businesses to creditors, in a society that focuses on the current postal system. Should a Union that calls a strike be held liable for loss of business or loss of income because they've called a strike during a sensitive time?

You see, this period of the year is probably the busiest time of the year for post. And its also the hardest time of the year to get payment from debtors. Since bills during this period have more impact on a business, so does the income generated from Cheques sent by post. Therefore do the Unions not have a responsibility to the businesses in Ireland, to pick a time period less likely to cause damage to them (businesses) for strikes, stoppages etc.?

I don't want this to turn into a thread as to if the An Post workers are correct in calling a strike. I want to know your opinions from a political/legal standpoint as to whether Unions should be held liable for damages caused to small-medium sized businesses in Ireland. Cheers!

Sparks

Sure, so long as SMEs can be held legally liable for financial hardship occoured by workers that are made redundant by those SMEs...

Sparks, as far as I can see thats an entirely different issue. Employees that are made redundent, is an internal issue within that company. I'm asking abt the Union and the affect its actions has on Businesses.

Victor

I hear that SMEs now have fax, e-mail and can pay over the internet / by phone.

Deleted User wrote:

Question: Is a Union that causes a srike or stoppage of services for a monopoly responsible for damages that might occur to businesses that have loss of business or income during the period of a strike?

No they aren't liable. However, they may not induce others to prevent customers from obtaining replacement services (in this case the union couldn't get, say, DHL workers to refuse to handle post) - Dunmanway case.

I hear that SMEs now have fax, e-mail and can pay over the internet / by phone.

Lol, I know. However, if you speak to speak to most Sme's they'll tell you that as much of 80% of their income will come in the form of cheques that come in the normal post. Add to that, that debtors will use a postal strike to delay payment.

A postal strike has great effects on the income of a business, when bills don't disappear in themselves, which means less of an income over a period when its really needed.

No they aren't liable. However, they may not induce others to prevent customers from obtaining replacement services (in this case the union couldn't get, say, DHL workers to refuse to handle post) - Dunmanway case.

I understand. However, most of the public will use An Post for the sending of mail. They won't use couriers or other such companies. Since An Post have a monopoly over this specific service, an action the Union does has great impact on everyone else.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Since An Post have a monopoly over this specific service, an action the Union does has great impact on everyone else.

Isn't that kinda like saying the Guardia have a monopoly on law enforcement?

Redleslie2

Deleted User wrote:

Since An Post have a monopoly over this specific service, an action the Union does has great impact on everyone else.

Perhaps management should be more careful about arsing the workers about then.

Nuttzz

While this strike affects SME's, those SME's are full of workers. So its a case of one set of workers indirectly screwing over another set of workers. There are few unions in the SME sector because there isnt generally enough staff to band together (i know they can still join but its less likely in a smaller company) so the workers in the SME have little or no voice with regard to union activites however at times they can be the ones greatly affected by it

ixoy

Redleslie2 wrote:

Perhaps management should be more careful about arsing the workers about then.

That sounds like a veiled threat though, doesn't it? Do as we [the unions] say or else, since we're a monopoly, we'll screw around with all our dependent customers.

Redleslie2

ixoy wrote:

That sounds like a veiled threat though, doesn't it? Do as we [the unions] say or else, since we're a monopoly, we'll screw around with all our dependent customers.

I think it's more a case of don't renege on agreed deals or else. Occassionally, strikes are due to poor management.

Victor

Redleslie2 wrote:

Perhaps management should be more careful about arsing the workers about then.

Ex-management, quite a few heads rolled. The current problems are largely down to the pain in undoing changes by former management. The split the company into a multitude of divisions was an accounting exercise to separate public / social services (i.e. loss making ones) from profit making ones and thereby establishing the basis for the public service obligation levy. The accusation then being that management would get nice bonuses / shares when An Post was floated.

Nuttzz wrote:

those SME's are full of workers.

SMEs and in particular the ISME ("Is me") type are dominated by the self-employed.

Redleslie2

Ta for that Victor, but I was referring to management in general rather than An Post's management specifically.

Nuttzz

Victor wrote:

SMEs and in particular the ISME ("Is me") type are dominated by the self-employed.

SME's are by defination up to 50 employee's. My business has one self employed person (me) and 5 employed persons. Most of our customers are SME's and they are structured somewhat similar 1-2 self employed (owners) and the rest are employed by the company.

Sleepy

sovtek wrote:

Isn't that kinda like saying the Guardia have a monopoly on law enforcement?

Which is why the Guardai are forbidden from taking strike action.

AngelofFire

Minister Noel dempsey must take some responsibility for the strike, he initially refused to go into direct negotiation with staff and unions.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

Isn't that kinda like saying the Guardia have a monopoly on law enforcement?

No, a closer example would be eircom turning off all their phone exchanges, or (if all petrol stations were owned by the same company) all petrol stations closing because of industrial action. Both would be withdrawing a vital service from everyone in the country, just like a postal strike does. Unfortunatly there doesn't appear to be any penalty to the unions for carrying out strikes like this.

Hobbes

Sleepy wrote:

Which is why the Guardai are forbidden from taking strike action.

Thats why they have "Blue days" instead.

pork99

I might have got this arseways but the issue is that they have to close SDS and lay off workers because they aren't making a profit. Yet the history of postal strikes in this country and the UK has been that everytime there has been a postal strike over the last 30 years it has had the effect of hastening the adoption by businesses and the general public of alternative communication methods such as fax, email and private courier companies thereby undermining their capacity to make profits in the future. Vicious circle.

Given the steady growth in ecommerce which has lead to an increase in the volume of parcel post the EU and USA I'm amazed that an operation like SDS could not take advantage of this trend to grow it's business.

Victor

pork99 wrote:

I might have got this arseways but the issue is that they have to close SDS and lay off workers because they aren't making a profit.

Nominally, at least, the strike is for the company not paying a pay rise that was due. SDS is a separate matter, but the whole shebang is down to past mismanagement.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Minister Noel dempsey must take some responsibility for the strike, he initially refused to go into direct negotiation with staff and unions.

That is precisely what he should NOT have done and I am glad he didn't. Experience in other EU countries, especially France, has shown that when a Government intervenes in an industrial-dispute and grants concessions then everyone else goes on strike looking for the same.

We should not reward Arthur Scargill-wannabees.

cdebru

Why would you hold the unions responsible what about the management of the company why did you not suggest holding the company liable

or is it that you take the view that the workers are always in the wrong when it comes to strike action and management are innocent bystanders

arcadegame2004

cdebru wrote:

Why would you hold the unions responsible what about the management of the company why did you not suggest holding the company liable

or is it that you take the view that the workers are always in the wrong when it comes to strike action and management are innocent bystanders

cdebru, the unions based their industrial action on a supposed breach of the National Wage Agreement. However, that same agreement provides for "inability to pay" situations whererby companies in that position do not have to give the payrises to their staff. As state-aid is seemingly not allowed under EU rules, the Government can't be expected to step in and reward An Post for making losses. Hence, the company has to cut costs. Hence they have to lay off workers. See?

I naturally sympathise with workers who will lose their jobs but one union in one company mustn't be let hold the country to ransom.

cdebru

afaik

The non payment of the national wage agreement is only one aspect of the dispute

and I notice you say seemingly because we all know that the Irish government is using this as an excuse not to invest in any state company but it does not seem to be a problem in the rest of the EU

It seems to me that the government wants companies like An post to provide
essential public services like rural post offices expecting the work force to subsidise these public services that other companies are not obliged to fulfill is unfair to the workforce

I dont expect the goverment to step in and reward An post for making a loss what could reasonably be expected is that the government pays on post for the loss making public services it provides that no one else is willing to provide and that the cost of these services should not be expected to be borne by the workforce


it seems to me that the workers in this company have a fair complaint they were told that the company was heading for a small profit then the new management take over and tell them the company is in a terrible state about to lose millions with no explanation as to how the situation changed
now we are told that the company is going to break even
cooking the books is a very common tactic in semi state companies when they are trying to force something through
Dublin bus did the same a number of years ago when they were trying to force through a change they lowered the number of years a bus was depreciated over from 14 to 7 which put a huge write off into their books right when they needed it and made the company look like it was losing millions of course it made an excess the previous year and the year later but for the year that they were pushing through the change they made a loss
which allowed them to argue their case at the time


so your obvious suggestion is that people in semistate companies should no be allowed to strike

arcadegame2004

I dont expect the goverment to step in and reward An post for making a loss what could reasonably be expected is that the government pays on post for the loss making public services it provides that no one else is willing to provide and that the cost of these services should not be expected to be borne by the workforce

How do you know that no-one else is willing to offer An Post's services? If we had full competition in this sector we would know! It would also force An Post to become more efficient and that would make it more profitable.

I heard that the profit they were expected to make under the previous management was a paltry 1 million euro. So even if a forecast was slightly wrong you could end up with a loss, which has happened.

so your obvious suggestion is that people in semistate companies should no be allowed to strike

I did not say that. I feel that where you have a semi-state absolute monopoly then you have a special case where the country can be held to ransom by an industrial-dispute in that company. It isn't fair to the public to inconvenience them in this way. Where feasible (and it usually is except maybe in the case of the railways), the public should therefore have and alternative outlet to postal-services, where this does nto already exist.

cdebru

arcadegame2004 wrote:

How do you know that no-one else is willing to offer An Post's services? If we had full competition in this sector we would know! It would also force An Post to become more efficient and that would make it more profitable..

I am sure there would be no shortage of people willing to take parts of an posts business IE the profitable parts but that would they be willingly to keep open rural post offices or offer next day postal delivery to the whole country
for 48 cent

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I heard that the profit they were expected to make under the previous management was a paltry 1 million euro. So even if a forecast was slightly wrong you could end up with a loss, which has happened..

but a profit of 1 million to a loss of over 30 million that is not slightly wrong
now they are actually saying they may break even so something is very wrong with these figures

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I did not say that. I feel that where you have a semi-state absolute monopoly then you have a special case where the country can be held to ransom by an industrial-dispute in that company. It isn't fair to the public to inconvenience them in this way. Where feasible (and it usually is except maybe in the case of the railways), the public should therefore have and alternative outlet to postal-services, where this does nto already exist.

why do you always make railways your exception you have never explained this
and how could we have two competing POst offices offering the same services both making money explain how this would work

what I suspect you mean is that a private company should be let in to cherry pick what is profitable and leave An post to carry on with the unprofitable services which would become a millstone around the neck of the tax payer

arcadegame2004

why do you always make railways your exception you have never explained this
and how could we have two competing POst offices offering the same services both making money explain how this would work

what I suspect you mean is that a private company should be let in to cherry pick what is profitable and leave An post to carry on with the unprofitable services which would become a millstone around the neck of the tax payer

I make railways the exception because it is difficult to see how effective competition could be introduced in the rail-sector.

This is not so with other sectors of the economy.

I don't sympathise very much with the argument that rural post-offices are essential nowadays. Have you ever heard of email? Also have you ever heard of courier companies?

cdebru

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I make railways the exception because it is difficult to see how effective competition could be introduced in the rail-sector.

This is not so with other sectors of the economy.

I don't sympathise very much with the argument that rural post-offices are essential nowadays. Have you ever heard of email? Also have you ever heard of courier companies?

I see so how would elderly people collect their pensions via email

i have heard od courier companies and i have seen how much they charge also they do not have a universal service obligation so if it does not suit them they do no have to take your parcel

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I make railways the exception because it is difficult to see how effective competition could be introduced in the rail-sector.

This is not so with other sectors of the economy.

Right...

so you'll have no problems explaining this one to me...

I live in Switzerland. If I send a letter home to my folks, how do I determine which one of your competing postal services gets to deliver the post? After all...whoever delivers the letter gets the payment for the service provided.

I'm making the (perhaps overly optimistic) asusmption that you actually understand the postal system here, of course. If not, may I suggest that you do a bit of research about the UPU.

I don't sympathise very much with the argument that rural post-offices are essential nowadays.

Isn't it amazing how often people feel perfectly justified rationalising how other people will do just fine without a service that they themselves aren't offering to do without???

Have you ever heard of email?

Today, my postman delivered to me the collectors-edition box-set of ROTK. I'm at a loss to undserstand how they could have sent that, or how I could have received this over email.

Also have you ever heard of courier companies?

Yes, I have. As have most people.

There's a reason couriers exist, which is seperate to the reason why the post office exists. They serve a different market, with a different business model. They are not intended to be a replacement for the postal service, but rather a related service which bears some simililarity. They are the private car to the public bus....but then I wouldn't be surprised to hear you suggest that rural areas could do without any public transport because, well, couldn't they all buy cars.

jc

ixoy

Agreed on the general principle that it's hard to introduce competition, particularly in areas like rural post offices where there's no profitable motive for a corporation to exist. Couriers operate in those areas that, I'm sure if done properly, An Post's management would much prefer. That's not what they're about, as a service.

What are the existing plans though to try and tackle An Post's shortcomings? Are the rural areas over-staffed or could urban areas be reduced? I've never been behind the scenes of an An Post office (can never see them on account of their minimal opening hours) but are there many idle hands? Could better sorting routines make savings without compromising "quality" of delivery to all areas? Wasn't there talk of more communal collection points for letters in rural areas - is that an acceptable compromise or should the compromise not be on the part of Joe Public but on the company itself through rationalisation.

are there many idle hands?

Well my local post man is delivering to at least 800 more houses in the last 18 months for no extra pay-theres enforced productivity for you!
I'm of the view that the post office anywhere is or should be a chargeable public service.
By that I mean there should be public subvention , yes, for areas where theres no economic return possible from the price of a few stamps when delivering to outlying areas.
Ok thats more or less whats happening at the moment but ,I'd like to see less of an emphasis on decaring what losses an Post make and saying "oh my god, oh my god-how ineffecient are those guys!"
Instead any reasonable losses should be looked at as a subvention for a necessary public service and of course subjected to a rigourous control.

arcadegame2004

Earthman wrote:

Well my local post man is delivering to at least 800 more houses in the last 18 months for no extra pay-theres enforced productivity for you!
I'm of the view that the post office anywhere is or should be a chargeable public service.
By that I mean there should be public subvention , yes, for areas where theres no economic return possible from the price of a few stamps when delivering to outlying areas.
Ok thats more or less whats happening at the moment but ,I'd like to see less of an emphasis on decaring what losses an Post make and saying "oh my god, oh my god-how ineffecient are those guys!"
Instead any reasonable losses should be looked at as a subvention for a necessary public service and of course subjected to a rigourous control.

The Luddites would have argued that they too were being very productive for human-beings and that new technology introduced at the time of the industrial-revolution should therefore not have been introduced.

I would rather send and receive communications via email rather than letters. It's so much more convenient. I don't agree that the Government should subsidise An Post. That will only make it even more complacent than before, resulting in bigger losses still.

They need to be smartened up. They need to learn to look after themselves in the big wide world. Handing them out "sweets" every time they get into trouble certainly won't work! They should be "spoiled" by the taxpayer. They need to learn from their mistakes and take responsibility for them!

Bonkey, pensions should be sent by electronic-funds-tranfer and if An Post has any involvement in this, it should end because the unions must not be allowed another tentacle with which to strangle the people (metaphorically). I understand that competition in the postal-sector is due to be introduced in 2009, and I would hope that then we can all choose between An Post and other companies, including courier-companies, to deliver our mail. These companies could compete on the basis of stamp prices and prices for swiftpost and registered post ,postage and packaging etc.

I don't believe in treating semi-state companies automatically like sacred-cows that are automatically entitled to a hand in the public-purse regardless of their efficiency in spending that money. In fact, experience has shown that in the absence of competition, semi-state companies are woefully inefficient. Competition from Ryanair ultimately helped Aer Lingus to learn to stand up on its own two feet, and competition in the postal sector will have a similar affect on An Post. Don't give them a penny, I say.

There's a reason couriers exist, which is seperate to the reason why the post office exists. They serve a different market, with a different business model. They are not intended to be a replacement for the postal service, but rather a related service which bears some simililarity. They are the private car to the public bus....but then I wouldn't be surprised to hear you suggest that rural areas could do without any public transport because, well, couldn't they all buy cars.

I see no reason why courier companies shouldn't be allowed to do everything An Post does.