Unions - Was Mrs Thatcher Right?

cal29

the_syco wrote:

I support the right of a trade union. They're still all lefty socialist bas*ards, tho.

Unfortunately thet are not all like that that is why we end up with national pay agreements that at stages barely if even covered the rate of inflation. Look at the leadership of ICTU and the big unions they have as much in common with the workers they represent as the employers do

magpie

so should the same happen to your own job if your employer can find someone from outside the country willing to do your job for half your current wage should you just be sacked

Yes. Absolutely.

whilst you dont have a permanent pensionable job I get the impression that you would like one

I do have a permanent pensionable job. Its just not Union-Protected. Ever hear of being made redundant? Its what happens to people who are surplus to requirements in the private sector. In the public sector they're given annual increments and flexi-time.

cal29

magpie wrote:

Yes. Absolutely..

Yes I'm sure you would be more than happy to stand aside. To follow your logic why should companies employ any Irish people there are a Billion Chinese people to exploit. It would be a lovely society to live in your orwellian dream.

magpie wrote:

I do have a permanent pensionable job. Its just not Union-Protected. Ever hear of being made redundant? Its what happens to people who are surplus to requirements in the private sector. In the public sector they're given annual increments and flexi-time.

But Dart drivers are not Public Sector workers they are employees of CIE and IE. I presume you do know the difference.

So your problem is that they are union members you have made a choice not to be in a union that is your problem deal with it.

And where did you get the notion that Union members can not be made redundant I hear about companies with Unions laying off workers all the time surprised you never heard of it.

And CIE in the past has made people redundant it would not make much sense to do it at the moment considering they are looking to take people on all the time

Zombrex

the_syco wrote:

Most jobs start at 20K. Any IT job you look at starts at about 20K, if you have little to no experience. The train drivers start at €38K.

And if you worked for 25 years in IT how much money would you expect to be on? A lot more than €48,000 I would imagine.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

I do have a permanent pensionable job. Its just not Union-Protected. Ever hear of being made redundant? Its what happens to people who are surplus to requirements in the private sector. In the public sector they're given annual increments and flexi-time.

A little bitter are we ... you haven't explained why you believe the non-Union method is better for society as a whole?

You seem to be siding with the greedy money-first corporation who would gladly fire all their employees (including you) and replace them with college grads. You seem to be forgetting the point of unions. The employers actually need the employees as much as vice versa. You might fire one guy because you want to replace him with a robot, but you will piss of the union and you can't run a company with absolutly no workers.

Their are plent of unions in the private sector (as someone has already pointed out CIE isn't exactly public sector). You don't find much unions in the IT industry precisely because the IT industry doesn't have a reputation for treating employes badly. All the waffle about people being replaced by younger people etc doesn't happen in the IT industry. In fact it is quite the opposite, experience is regarded over nearly everything else. Yes you are much more likely that your company will go broke, it certainly isn't stable. But you are far more likely to be replaced by the Scew-o-matic 2000 automatic robot working in a construction/manual labour job.

So it is quite easy to preach about the dangers of unions for a position in an industry sector that actually rewards employee loyalty quite well. I have never heard of anyone in the IT industry being fired and replaced with a college grad purely cause the company can (ie it wasn't cause the company was desperate for money).

magpie

A little bitter are we ... you haven't explained why you believe the non-Union method is better for society as a whole?

Free market economy

You seem to be siding with the greedy money-first corporation who would gladly fire all their employees (including you) and replace them with college grads.

All successful businesses are money-first. I'd rather have public transport run by a successful (i.e. efficient) business than a semi-state with unionised labour. Trains running on time and all that.

it is quite easy to preach about the dangers of unions for a position in an industry sector that actually rewards employee loyalty quite well.

Loyalty, no. Experience yes.

A DART driver who's been driving DARTs for 10 years is hardly any better than someone straight out of "DART Skool". They both press the green button to go, red to stop.

My entire point is that there should be rewards for education, skill and experience. Low-achievers who become train drivers should expect low salaries, as they are eminently replaceable. If they don't like it they could always try passing their Leaving Cert.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

Free market economy

Which is good why?

magpie wrote:

All successful businesses are money-first. I'd rather have public transport run by a successful (i.e. efficient) business than a semi-state with unionised labour. Trains running on time and all that.

Well I am afraid trains running on time have nothing to do with a completely for profit train company. In fact quite the opposite as Britian demonstrated with the disaster that was the privisation of the rail network.

Why? Because the point of a public transport system is to serve the public, not make money. If you make the point to make money then the interests of the public become a very low second. What are you going to do if you don't like how crap a private rail company is run? Use the other DART line? :rolleyes:

magpie wrote:

A DART driver who's been driving DARTs for 10 years is hardly any better than someone straight out of "DART Skool".

Says who?

magpie wrote:

They both press the green button to go, red to stop.

As has been explained to you, it is a bit more complicated than that. Sure all IT is is "glorified typing", as my grandfather once said.

magpie wrote:

My entire point is that there should be rewards for education, skill and experience.

There are, you get paid a hell of a lot more money the better the education you have and the better experience you have in "boom" industries like IT.

What there shouldn't be is punishment for people who don't enter these industries or who don't have a high level of education.

magpie wrote:

Low-achievers who become train drivers should expect low salaries

Low-achievers ... please!, the majority of 3rd level college kids in Ireland get there because mammy and daddy pay their way. How is living without responsibility or want for 3 years on your parents pay cheque while you drink and screw your way to an "education" being a high-achiever?

Some of the hardest working people in ireland are doing the least paid jobs. I have far more respect for someone who went out and got a job to support themselves than leeched of their parents for a further 3-6 years.

magpie

What there shouldn't be is punishment for people who don't enter these industries or who don't have a high level of education.

Explain how getting paid €38,000 pa starting salary is being punished?

Low-achievers ... please!, the majority of 3rd level college kids in Ireland get there because mammy and daddy pay their way. How is living without responsibility or want for 3 years on your parents pay cheque while you drink and screw your way to an "education" being a high-achiever?

You obviously have some kind of guilt about this. I got a university scholarship and washed dishes in a hotel for 5 years through my degree and masters, so I don't owe 'nobody nuthin' as they say.

Some of the hardest working people in ireland are doing the least paid jobs.

What's that based on?

Did you read the article about Polish workers in Ireland in Saturday's Irish Times (I know, how bourgeois...) where the Employers quoted the belief that a single Polish worker was worth 2 1/2 times the standard Irish 'worker'.

the least paid jobs

Like the people working in the technology sector getting a fraction of what those high-earners like Plumbers, Bricklayers and Train Drivers get paid? I assume that's what you mean.

cal29

magpie wrote:

Like the people working in the technology sector getting a fraction of what those high-earners like Plumbers, Bricklayers and Train Drivers get paid? I assume that's what you mean.

Now we are getting to the nub of it

You are jealous of people you perceive to be beneath you

Not everybody goes to college not everybody can or wants to if they did then we would not have plumbers bricklayers or train drivers

To be honest I dont see the difference between doing an apprenticeship and going to college other than you have to actually work when you are doing an apprenticeship

Personally I think it is time you took the chip of your shoulder ok you worked hard to be what ever you are and to have whatever you have but so did the traindriver bricklayer and plumber you are not any better than them and they are not any better than you time you stopped looking down your nose at people and got on with your life

therecklessone

magpie wrote:

What's that based on?

An interesting question. Apply it to the following:

magpie wrote:

Low-achievers who become train drivers should expect low salaries

magpie wrote:

Because Irish people with 3rd level education don't drive DARTS, people who leave school at 15 with no qualifications do

magpie wrote:

What percentage of DART drivers have mortgages, and what percentage live in Council Houses I wonder?

magpie wrote:

these are considerably more skilled and educated people than train drivers. They also contribute to the economy through the creation of jobs, the expansion of business and the development of marketable ideas. They don't sit in a carriage reading the Star and pressing green and red buttons alternately.

And finally...

magpie wrote:

You'll note I'm not sitting on my arse after 18 weeks training expecting a permanent pensionable job

Not sitting on it, no. Talking out it maybe.

SkepticOne

48,000? I'm surprised it is so little. If they got together with other transport workers they could bring the the country to its knees if they so wished.

Sand

48,000? I'm surprised it is so little. If they got together with other transport workers they could bring the the country to its knees if they so wished.

Only for 18 weeks. By then wed have the next generation of hard working immigrants trained up - people who are willing to work. And in the long run wed be better off. I think we could do with a Thatcher to break the backs of the unions and remind them they are there to protect workers from exploitation, not to exploit the public.

cal29

Sand wrote:

Only for 18 weeks. By then wed have the next generation of hard working immigrants trained up - people who are willing to work. And in the long run wed be better off. I think we could do with a Thatcher to break the backs of the unions and remind them they are there to protect workers from exploitation, not to exploit the public.

perhaps you need reminding unions do not just exist to protect workers from exploitation they exist to get the best deal possible for their members their loyalty should be to their members and they should act in their members best interests not in your interests or the governments


Now quick question who would train these immigrants you want to bring in and exploit not too mention that the course of action you suggest would lead to an immediate national public transport strike


but troll on Sand troll on

bonkey

cal29 wrote:

perhaps you need reminding unions do not just exist to protect workers from exploitation they exist to get the best deal possible for their members

I think Sand knows that very well, which is why he suggested that what we need is to break the backs of the unions.

their loyalty should be to their members and they should act in their members best interests not in your interests or the governments

Working against the best interests of the nation (which would be my best interests and the governments) is ultimately self-defeating.

Now quick question who would train these immigrants you want to bring in and exploit

]
Exploit? You mean giving them a job which would pay an honest days wage for an honest days work is exploitation. Are you speaking unionese are something?

This reminds me of the time ESB fitters went on strike because they were offered more money for working less hours. That too, apparently, was exploitation....because their basic objection was that they were concerned they'd be expected to work for the hours for which they were employed.

not too mention that the course of action you suggest would lead to an immediate national public transport strike

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the government actually wanted to tackle the problems in public transport.

I've sat at bus-stops where the bus was 50 yards away, and the driver reading a paper. He sits there for 30 mins then drives up to pick up passengers....15 minutes late.

I now live in a country with an exceptional public transport system...and you know what one of the major differences is? The workers of said system aren't just out for themselves and the best deal they can get. They are actually out to provide the service they are paid to provide.

Its a shocking concept, I know, but when unionism becomes synonymous with laziness, I don't find threats of a national strike all that intimidating. No service for a while, followed by an improved service? I'd say most ppl would take that over a cr@p service any day.

but troll on Sand troll on

/me nods in thedirection of forum rules.

Careful now. Down with that sort of thing.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

It never ceases to amaze me when people go off on one because they are envious and jealous about the working conditions and salary packages of other workers. I would love to know what steps these folk have taken to do the job they are so sure requires no skill.

It is possible to be totally against this chancing of the arm by the DART drivers (which has now been resolved) and not portray yourself as a green eyed monster.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

Working against the best interests of the nation (which would be my best interests and the governments) is ultimately self-defeating.

I cannot think of any private company that would not work against the best interests of the nation if it was in the best interests of their shareholders/owners/invester.

Unions work to protect their members interests, companies work to protect their invester/shareholder/owners interest. Is there a fundamental difference?.

magpie

They've backed down. They may be unconscionably greedy, but they're not so stupid that they can't recognise when they've got a good thing going. Its a shame they didn't strike, it would've been a great opportunity to replace the lot of them.


From: Ireland.com

Drivers' vote averts disruption to Dart services
James Fitzgerald

Disruption to Dublin's Dart services today was averted last night as drivers voted to withdraw their opposition to Iarnród Éireann's plans to introduce longer trains.

There had been concern that the drivers would proceed with unofficial industrial action, as the company's plan for testing the longer trains, due to be implemented last night, was postponed.

But in a meeting of drivers in Liberty Hall last night unions conducted a further ballot of their members and they decided against industrial action.

"The drivers have agreed to go ahead with the testing of the new, longer trains and there will now be no further ballot on whether to take industrial action," said a Siptu spokeswoman.

The row was over the attempted implementation of eight-carriage trains by Iarnród Éireann, which drivers claimed was contrary to a 1984 agreement that stated the maximum number of carriages on any Dart train would be six.

Drivers felt that the increased productivity and responsibility associated with carrying more passengers should be rewarded accordingly.

But following a two and a half hour meeting with union leaders last night it was agreed to call off the protest.

"The drivers recognise that they have had a very good industrial relationship with the company up to now and they would like that to continue," said the Siptu spokeswoman.

"They were disappointed with the action that the company took but ultimately they are going to accept the longer trains and that is an end of the matter as far as we are concerned," she said.

Despite staff disquiet, management maintained that a more recent agreement in 2000 superseded the 1984 accord and the company refused to offer a pay increase or once-off payment for agreeing to operate the longer trains. The company said that drivers had already been paid for the work in the 2000 deal.

"We welcome the result of the drivers' ballot," said Barry Kenny of Iarnród Éireann last night.

"It is a good outcome for ourselves and more importantly for our customers, who have had to put up with all the disruption while the upgrading of our services has been going on."

It is thought that the longer trains will be in use by the middle of next month.

The Labour Court had heard the drivers' grievance in June and rejected their claim.

The unions involved, Siptu and the National Bus and Rail Union, had balloted their 84 Dart-driving members yesterday and they overwhelmingly voted to reject the court's ruling. But that decision was overturned at last night's meeting in Dublin.

Earlier, Dublin Chamber of Commerce had called the drivers' grievance "spurious" and said that unions were holding public transport investment to ransom.

". . . passengers have endured many weekends without an available service as these works are completed and now . . . a spurious claim is introduced attempting to delay a much-needed boost to the capacity of Dublin's rail system, said chamber chief executive Gina Quin.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

Explain how getting paid €38,000 pa starting salary is being punished?

Its not, getting paid €48,000 after 20 years service is

magpie wrote:

You obviously have some kind of guilt about this. I got a university scholarship and washed dishes in a hotel for 5 years through my degree and masters, so I don't owe 'nobody nuthin' as they say.

No offense, but I find it very hard to believe that you paid for college fees, rent, food, transport books etc etc from washing dishes in a hotel for 5 years ... if you are like any of the people i went to college with i would say your dish washing money went to top up your drink money.

magpie wrote:

Like the people working in the technology sector getting a fraction of what those high-earners like Plumbers, Bricklayers and Train Drivers get paid? I assume that's what you mean.

Well weren't you dumb to pick IT as a career. :rolleyes: Never mind the fact that you are talking about starting salaries (which is a bit pointless lets be honest, it is only when someone gets married and has kids that they really feel the pinch of a low salary), do you think other workers who you feel are educationally beneath you should not earn more money than you starting out?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Its not, getting paid €48,000 after 20 years service is

How can it be a punishment when people choose to take the job and stay in it, in the full knowledge of what it's conditions are?

cal29

bonkey wrote:

I think Sand knows that very well, which is why he suggested that what we need is to break the backs of the unions.

The union is obliged to get the best Deal possible for their members they would be negligent in their duty to their members if there was money available and they did not try to get it for their members In this case they tried but ultimately there was no money available
The Unions were doing exactly what they should be doing

bonkey wrote:

Working against the best interests of the nation (which would be my best interests and the governments) is ultimately self-defeating.

The Unions are there to work for the best interest of there members the Governments job is to work for the best interest of the People as a whole sometimes the two coincide often they do not


]

bonkey wrote:

Exploit? You mean giving them a job which would pay an honest days wage for an honest days work is exploitation. Are you speaking unionese are something?

No if you sack people with the intention of taking on Foreign nationals to work in worse conditions and for lower wages you are exploiting them

bonkey wrote:

This reminds me of the time ESB fitters went on strike because they were offered more money for working less hours. That too, apparently, was exploitation....because their basic objection was that they were concerned they'd be expected to work for the hours for which they were employed.

Does it dont see the link perhaps you could expalin

Dart drivers were not offered any more money or shorter hours

bonkey wrote:

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the government actually wanted to tackle the problems in public transport.

I've sat at bus-stops where the bus was 50 yards away, and the driver reading a paper. He sits there for 30 mins then drives up to pick up passengers....15 minutes late.

And did you complain to the company and look for an explanation if you didn't no point in moaning about it here

bonkey wrote:

I now live in a country with an exceptional public transport system...and you know what one of the major differences is? The workers of said system aren't just out for themselves and the best deal they can get. They are actually out to provide the service they are paid to provide.

And I'm sure they are well paid and well looked after



jc[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

How can it be a punishment when people choose to take the job and stay in it, in the full knowledge of what it's conditions are?

Well are we talking in general, or specifically the DART dispute ... cause as i said I dont think they have a leg to stand on because of the later agreement that they did sign up for.

Cal29

Trolling accusations are covered in the charter as an attack on the poster not the post.You are requested to keep such accusations to the reporting of posts only ,it's the mods job to look into that.
Go read the charter-If I see that again,it will be whoop Ass time

therecklessone

cal29 wrote:

The union is obliged to get the best Deal possible for their members they would be negligent in their duty to their members if there was money available and they did not try to get it for their members In this case they tried but ultimately there was no money available

Perfectly reasonable.

When they threatened strike action because the Labour Court threw out their claim due to an agreement they reached with IE five years ago (which they were paid good money for), thats when they started to take the piss.

Union members, particularly those in state or semi-state employment, need to realise that empoyer-employee relationships do not exist in a vacumn within their company. The impact of the threatened action by SIPTU and the NBRU would have been felt in the wider community, in the long run damaging the trade union movement IMO.

Do trade unionists wish to see a Reagan-like purge of the public service (google Reagan and Air Traffic Control strike for an idea of what I mean)? Will that be in their members interests?

Pay increases that are due to changes in work practises that yield increased productivity and efficiency are justified. Pay increases due to extortion are not. The union officials who suggested this course of action should hang their heads in shame.

therecklessone

magpie wrote:

Explain how getting paid €38,000 pa starting salary is being punished?

Wicknight wrote:

Its not, getting paid €48,000 after 20 years service is

Wicknight wrote:

Well weren't you dumb to pick IT as a career. :rolleyes:

One might say the same about DART drivers who take employment at IE in full knowledge of current pay scales?

On the one hand we seem to have a person or persons who believe that €48000 is an excessive amount to pay DART drivers, while they earn in the low €20ks after a slog through college. Don't like it? Tough. Quit you job in IT and apply for a job as a DART driver.

On the other hand we've those who think the poor DART drivers will only earn €48,000 at the top of their pay scale. To you I say: so what? If they're unhappy with the final salary, they should find another job that they're qualified for and that pays a better salary. I'm led to believe that labouring pays well at the moment...

bonkey

cal29 wrote:

The union is obliged to get the best Deal possible for their members they would be negligent in their duty to their members if there was money available and they did not try to get it for their members In this case they tried but ultimately there was no money available
The Unions were doing exactly what they should be doing

The fact that Sand believes the back of the unions should be broken shows that he is aware that they act in their own interest. Your response here has little, if anything, to do with the point I made, other than to flesh out the very logic that I presented.

Taking an extreme comparison (because its Friday, and people always get riled up by extreme comparisons on Friday).....

Terrorist organisations carrying out terrorism are also doing exactly what tehy should be doing, based on the reason for their existence. This doesn't mean that what they are doing is in anyone else's interest, nor that it should not be opposed.

Suggesting that we break the back of terrorism is an implicit acknowledgement that it is acting in its own interest, which happens to be diametrically opposed to our own.

Thus, suggesting we break the back of unions is similarly an acknowledgement of the reasons why we break their backs.

Or did you think Sand was suggesting they should be broken because he'd like to see some regular workers get shafted because they don't have a union to protect them from exploitation?

No if you sack people with the intention of taking on Foreign nationals to work in worse conditions and for lower wages you are exploiting them

1) Where did "worse conditions" come in to this? You seem to be pulling that one out of the air, because no-one suggested it.

2) Lower wages are not necessarily exploitative. When they are offered as a fair wage as a means to get rid of high wages which had been obtained through unions exploiting their power, then they most certainly are not exploitative.

Its like in teh IT industry. During the boom, contractors exploited the market and drove salaries through the roof. Once the market crashed, salaries offered dropped significantly. Was this exploitation on the part of the employers? I think not. It was the removal of exploitation by the contractors.

Does it dont see the link perhaps you could expalin

I was talking about the hypothetical situation where rather than contionuing to be strongarmed, the govt decided to stand up to them and - ultimately - replace them by someone willing to do a fair days work for a fair days wage.

You immediately suggested that to do so would be exploitation. To me, its as exploitative as ESB asking some fitters to be employed for less hours, get a higher take-home at the end of it all, but actually be expected to work for the hours they were employed (less all statutory break-times, etc.)

And did you complain to the company and look for an explanation if you didn't no point in moaning about it here

Yes I did. I went to the inspector who was actually managnig all the buses around that set of stops. His reaction was to ring the complaints line. I rang that, and their answer was firstly that the bus was 15 minutes late because it was stuck in traffic. When I pointed out I could see it parked across the road, I was informed that then the driver was probably on a break, as per his union-agreed contract, and that there was nothing could be done.

And I'm sure they are well paid and well looked after

Are you suggesting that the DART drivers are currently not well paid by Irish standards?

jc



jc[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Zombrex

therecklessone wrote:

One might say the same about DART drivers who take employment at IE in full knowledge of current pay scales?

Well I was being sarcastic ... Magpie knows quite well that he won't always be making 25k a year, that IT has far far more options for career and pay advances than being a DART driver.

therecklessone wrote:

To you I say: so what? If they're unhappy with the final salary, they should find another job that they're qualified for and that pays a better salary. I'm led to believe that labouring pays well at the moment...

Well forgetting the specific DART dispute at the moment, the point of the public sector wage agreements that appeared in the late 90s and 21 century was that during the 80s when things were very tight the public sectors suffered, and now the state has quite a lot of money the idea is that public sector jobs should be paid good salaries. This isn't about people joining CIE now, it is about people who joined in the 80s who have worked at CIE for 20 years and still are getting crap pay. And max 48,000 is not a good salary, no matter what anyone says. The fact that an IT grad starts off on 25k is rather immaterial to that fact. There are plent of other private sector jobs that start off much higher than 25k.

bonkey

There are plent of other private sector jobs that start off much higher than 25k.

People have made several such claims in this thread. Can anyone actually name some of these job positions?

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

This isn't about people joining CIE now, it is about people who joined in the 80s who have worked at CIE for 20 years and still are getting crap pay.

And lets not forget how much sympathy they're going to get when the economy tanks again and its once-more belt-tightening time...

"Jaysus...I don't want a tax-hike so they can have a payrise."

Public sector salaries don't react to market adjustments like private sector does. Sometimes, they win, sometimes they lose. Trying to ensure they never get better than break-even isn't a fair way of dealing with the issue...although when viewed exclusively in the short-term it might appear so.

therecklessone

Wicknight wrote:

Well forgetting the specific DART dispute at the moment, the point of the public sector wage agreements that appeared in the late 90s and 21 century was that during the 80s when things were very tight the public sectors suffered

And the private sector was f*cking rolling in it? As the son of a supermarket worker I'd just like to say we had a whale of a time lighting cigars with burning £50 notes while my old man was on strike...

Wicknight wrote:

The fact that an IT grad starts off on 25k is rather immaterial to that fact. There are plent of other private sector jobs that start off much higher than 25k.

And plenty that fall far below 25k. Nothing scientific about this, but I've a mate returned from France after two years working in sotware localisation. Four years of college, an honours degree, two languages and computer skills, and the best job he could get was in call support for €19,000 a year. Thats right, €19,000. He rapidly ditched the private sector for teaching, and spent much of the last three months travelling whilst still being paid, despite not having a permanent position.

Zombrex

therecklessone wrote:

He rapidly ditched the private sector for teaching, and spent much of the last three months travelling whilst still being paid, despite not having a permanent position.

Is that wrong? Should he not get that?