Unions - Was Mrs Thatcher Right?

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

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

My brother started off on 29k, he works for a financal trader, and was giving a pay rise to over 32k after 3 months of working in his job. He gets another pay review after 6 months.

A mate of mine did arcatecture (sp?) in England, he started off about 35k sterling in his first position.

One of the lads i was my masters course works as a industrial designers, he start off on 32k

this is all within their first year of employment. After 5 years they should all easily be on salaries over €40k, some probably a lot more

the reason the starting pay in IT is so crap is because everyone went into IT and now there are surplus college grads for too few jobs.

By the way, does anyone actually know that people are lining up to be train drivers if all the ones who are there for 20 years and on €48,000 were fired?

NotInventedHere

magpie wrote:

Yes. Absolutely.



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.

Why dont you work for the public sector then?

therecklessone

Wicknight wrote:

Is that wrong? Should he not get that?

I knew you'd come back with that.

No its not wrong. Its part of his pay and conditions. Just like when he gets a permanent position he'll have a hell of a lot more job security than he had on €19000 a year answering phones for Iomega. So even though he's only got a temp position as a teacher (did I mention his Hdip in additiion to his other qualifications?) he's got better pay and better conditions than he got in the private sector.

Wicknight wrote:

the reason the starting pay in IT is so crap is because everyone went into IT and now there are surplus college grads for too few jobs.

And the reason the top grade on the DART drivers pay scale is no higher than €48000 is because there is no shortage of suitably qualified people to complete an 18 week training program and periodic refresher/new skills training.

For the record, the staring salary for a DART driver is €8k more than the average industrial wage (€29,879 in Sept 2004 source) and the top grade on the scale is €18k more. Puts things into some perspective methinks...

SkepticOne

Wicknight wrote:

By the way, does anyone actually know that people are lining up to be train drivers if all the ones who are there for 20 years and on €48,000 were fired?

It would need to be put to the test. Not something I would imagine the unions would be happy with though. They did not invent the word scab for nothing.

cal29

therecklessone wrote:

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.

Except they never threatened strike action

They rejected the labour court ruling which they are entitled to do

they did not vote on industrial action of any description

They then met during the week and decided that although they had rejected the labour court ruling they would not pursue the claim any further

Unions reject labour court rulings all the time it does not immediately follow that a strike will take place

cal29

bonkey wrote:

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?

You suggested that the Unions should act in the interest of the state that is not their function.

bonkey wrote:

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.

I suggest that you read the first page again paying people a fraction of the current wage as Magpie suggest later putting a figure of 50% of the current wage would be a worsening of the conditions of the job


And no it is not like the IT sector after the crash there was an oversupply of
IT professionals alot of whom had been on short term high pay contracts by their own choice

what was suggested here was sacking people who are on permanent contracts and getting in foreign nationals ( who should be happy to get any job) to work for half the current wage the position would not be brought about by a market crash and an oversupply of train drivers

bonkey wrote:

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.)

I still dont see the link the only thing they have in common is that they are two semi state companies
And the story fits your view of semi state workers as lazy and greedy

bonkey wrote:

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.

well frankly that is bull**** and if you accepted it more fool you for a start a verbal complaint is useless

And there is no Union contract that gives a driver 30 minute breaks during a duty
the driver is entitled to 3 minutes at each terminus that time is put into the timetable
One meal break but that would not be taken on the bus that is it

Other rules governing driving times etc are law and not anything to do with any union contract


If an inspector was present then the only way the driver was sitting there was on his instructions

bonkey wrote:

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

probably reasonably paid as to the second part well treated from my own Knowledge of CIE i doubt it

I will give you an example someone I know who works for CIE recently decided that he had enough after 30 years went to his respective manager and said how do i give in my notice

Without even looking up from the desk the manager handed him the relevant form and just said fill that out

No questions no thank you no good bye this guy is an exemplary employee never in trouble never late never sick. He has served the company to the best of his ability for over 30 years and he is not even asked why or if there is anything the comapny could do for him

that is one example I could tell you loads more

The management of the various CIE companies leave no doubt in the workforces mind that the company could not give a flying **** about them that at the end of the day they are a number nothing else this breeds a contempt for the company which manifests itself in a believe by the workforce that they should get whatever they can from the company because the company is going to take whatever it can from them.

IMO CIE needs a complete overhaul starting by removing the excessive layers of management that only exists for the sake of its own existence and dont perform any real function

allowing voluntary redundancy and early retirement for frontline staff. Their are so many people who have upto or over 40 years service who would love to leave but if they go before 65 they will get a reduced pension despite the fact that many of them have over 40 years paid into the pension

the pension is so bad that they could not afford to reduce it

Hanging on to these people does absolutely nothing for the company or for its customers they are there just to mark the days til they can retire
They dont deserve to be sacked they deserve after long service to be allowed to retire

jc



jc[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

therecklessone

cal29 wrote:

Except they never threatened strike action

They rejected the labour court ruling which they are entitled to do

they did not vote on industrial action of any description

Semantics and you know it.

They rejected the Labour Court recommendation. What next? Sit on their hands? Bo**ox!

SIPTU rejected the ruling almost seven weeks ago in a letter to IE, confirmed by the SB Post. Staff voted on whether to ballot for strike action this week, but decided against it, mainly because they realised the public was 100% against them. Whether they said "we're all out" or not, the fact that they rejected the Labour Court ruling was enough to be considered a threat.

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

....IT professionals alot of whom had been on short term high pay contracts by their own choice

and in your opinion the staff who are in CIE by their own choice are poorly treated........

cal29 wrote:

The management of the various CIE companies leave no doubt in the workforces mind that the company could not give a flying **** about them that at the end of the day they are a number nothing else this breeds a contempt for the company which manifests itself in a believe by the workforce that they should get whatever they can from the company because the company is going to take whatever it can from them.

But they aren't being forced to stay in CIE, just like the IT worker's decision to opt for short term contracts-it's their decision to stay there in CIE. They can look for another job like anyone who dislikes their current employer.

cal29 wrote:

allowing voluntary redundancy and early retirement for frontline staff. Their are so many people who have upto or over 40 years service who would love to leave but if they go before 65 they will get a reduced pension despite the fact that many of them have over 40 years paid into the pension

the pension is so bad that they could not afford to reduce it

Hanging on to these people does absolutely nothing for the company or for its customers they are there just to mark the days til they can retire. They dont deserve to be sacked they deserve after long service to be allowed to retire

Woah! you think they should get big fat reundancy payments and their pension early because they are 'just clocking in time'? Let them take early retirement if they hate the job, but under no circumstances should voluntary redundancy be offered because they dislike their job and are underperforming-they should be sacked if they aren't doing what they're paid for, because as you say-hanging on to these people does nothing for the company (or the travelling and/or taxpaying public).

cal29

murphaph wrote:

Woah! you think they should get big fat reundancy payments and their pension early because they are 'just clocking in time'? Let them take early retirement if they hate the job, but under no circumstances should voluntary redundancy be offered because they dislike their job and are underperforming-they should be sacked if they aren't doing what they're paid for, because as you say-hanging on to these people does nothing for the company (or the travelling and/or taxpaying public).

What I am talking about is people in there sixties who have paid enough years into the pension scheme to receive a full pension at 65 are not alowed to retire early.

It is only a matter of giving them what they are already entitled to a couple of years early instead of making them stay on to 65 it is available to other grades in CIE

They are doing what they are paid to do but they just dont want to do it anymore but they have invested 40 years in a pension and are not going to go early and not have any money.

cal29

therecklessone wrote:

Semantics and you know it.

They rejected the Labour Court recommendation. What next? Sit on their hands? Bo**ox!

SIPTU rejected the ruling almost seven weeks ago in a letter to IE, confirmed by the SB Post. Staff voted on whether to ballot for strike action this week, but decided against it, mainly because they realised the public was 100% against them. Whether they said "we're all out" or not, the fact that they rejected the Labour Court ruling was enough to be considered a threat.

Labour court recomendations are rejected all the time it does not always lead to industrial action
most times it leads to more negotiations and a settlement or a further labour court ruling/s

If the workforce feel strongly enough about the claim they may vote for industrial action in this case they didn't

Once the workforce and employer are in dispute there is always the possibility that it could lead to industrial action but it does not have to

Capt'n Midnight

Maggie didnt' break the NUM , they shot themselves in the foot.

There was an 18 month stockpile of coal when they started the strike. And the expected to win against a govt that had shafted manufacturing industry by keeping interest rates high. High interest rates benefited financiers / inversters who supported the tories , and many tories themselves. But it meant companies had to make huge profits just to cover interest payments. The social misery caused by them, the economic waste of North Sea oil £650 Bn and nothing to show for it.

Some unions have too much power but there is a simple solution.
Make labour court decisions binding. - What's the point in arbration if neither side has to abide by it - why is the word court used if it can't do anything in these negotiations ?


So if employeers don't pay up they can be sued and if employees don't abide then they won't have the same security of tenure.

Sand

You suggested that the Unions should act in the interest of the state that is not their function.

Bonkeys been fighting my corner, so Ill just jump in here. Unions act in their own interest. No one denies this. However, their actions are no more valid or moral than say, a cosy cartel of publicans fixing prices - which is in their own interest.

The government is (theoretically at least) there to act in the publics interests, not the unions. Seeing as the unions only represent their members, not the public as a whole, and the unions interests often directly conflict with the interests of the public the government should *only* tolerate unions insofar as they are necessary to protect workers from exploitation.

Hence, back to my original point that the government needs to break the backs of the unions, to take the unions hands from the throat and the pockets of the public as it were. It would be a difficult 18 weeks for Dart users no doubt, but a properly motivated government could see it through and do Ireland a great service in the long term.

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

What I am talking about is people in there sixties who have paid enough years into the pension scheme to receive a full pension at 65 are not alowed to retire early.

It is only a matter of giving them what they are already entitled to a couple of years early instead of making them stay on to 65 it is available to other grades in CIE

They are doing what they are paid to do but they just dont want to do it anymore but they have invested 40 years in a pension and are not going to go early and not have any money.

That's not at all the same as what you said before, which was;

cal29 wrote:

allowing voluntary redundancy and early retirement for frontline staff. Their are so many people who have upto or over 40 years service who would love to leave but if they go before 65 they will get a reduced pension despite the fact that many of them have over 40 years paid into the pension

the pension is so bad that they could not afford to reduce it

Hanging on to these people does absolutely nothing for the company or for its customers they are there just to mark the days til they can retire. They dont deserve to be sacked they deserve after long service to be allowed to retire

I agreed with you about the early retirement being offered to staff who wish to avail of it and I disagreed with you that voluntary redundancy should be offered to staff who 'just don't like the place' or are 'getting on a bit'. and want to leave. Can I take it that you just meant early retirement (which I have no problem with, naturally) and not voluntary redundancy (which is typically only offered unless a company has little use for that staff member's position going forward)?

sceptre

murphaph wrote:

and not voluntary redundancy (which is typically only offered unless a company has little use for that staff member's position going forward)?

More to the point, voluntary redundancy can technically only be legally offered if a company has no use for that staff member's position in the near term (although typically as part of a larger group with extra positions deemed unnecessary by the company involved).

cal29

murphaph wrote:

That's not at all the same as what you said before, which was;

I agreed with you about the early retirement being offered to staff who wish to avail of it and I disagreed with you that voluntary redundancy should be offered to staff who 'just don't like the place' or are 'getting on a bit'. and want to leave. Can I take it that you just meant early retirement (which I have no problem with, naturally) and not voluntary redundancy (which is typically only offered unless a company has little use for that staff member's position going forward)?

Yes I meant early retirement

cal29

Sand wrote:

Bonkeys been fighting my corner, so Ill just jump in here. Unions act in their own interest. No one denies this. However, their actions are no more valid or moral than say, a cosy cartel of publicans fixing prices - which is in their own interest.

The government is (theoretically at least) there to act in the publics interests, not the unions. Seeing as the unions only represent their members, not the public as a whole, and the unions interests often directly conflict with the interests of the public the government should *only* tolerate unions insofar as they are necessary to protect workers from exploitation.

Hence, back to my original point that the government needs to break the backs of the unions, to take the unions hands from the throat and the pockets of the public as it were. It would be a difficult 18 weeks for Dart users no doubt, but a properly motivated government could see it through and do Ireland a great service in the long term.

No a unions function is not just to protect its members from exploitation that is one of its functions not its only function
amongst its other functions is to sell its members labour for the highest possible return for its members that is what the unions involved were trying to do there was no more money available and the unions have seen that.

If what people are claiming here about the unions was true the unions would have pressed on with there claim irrespective of the publics feelings


Can I take it that you would like the Government to break the back of the IMO IBEC ISME IFA the Bar Council etc etc

I notice when the IMO have their hand on the publics throat and pocket there does not seem to be the same shock and anger that is demonstrated here for dart drivers nor have I seen calls for the breaking of the backs of this organisation despite the fact they take far more from the public purse than Dart drivers ever will.

And if we are going to speak of cosy cartels they dont get much cosier than the closed shop of the law library how much money have they rifled from the public purse




And you never answered my question presuming you managed to sack every Dart driver not sure what grounds that you would sack them on ( rejecting a labour court ruling but not taking any further action hardly sounds like a sackable offence)
who would train the new dart drivers ??

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

Yes I meant early retirement

Then yes I agree, early retirement is an option for most civil servants seems silly that IE staff can't avail of it to replace these staff with fresher faces. The newer blood replacing the old guard should have different contracts though, ones with 'no-strike' clauses included, like the Luas drivers. This is standard practice in transport employment elsewhere.

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

Can I take it that you would like the Government to break the back of the IMO IBEC ISME IFA the Bar Council etc etc

I doubt most members of the public who've been raped by solicitor's fees during a simple conveyancing would have a problem with breaking The Law Society into a million pieces, likewise anyone whose ever tried to sue a solicitor. IBEC & ISME represent self employed people (the employers)-if their members strike, they starve! The IFA again, is just a lobby group for self employed people (farmers). Most people (PAYE, average joes, myself included) have no time for most of these organisations, but they can't hold them to ransom like transport union members can. The IMO is different, but public opinion usually rests with people who save their lives, tend their sick relatives etc. A nurse who cleans out a 90 year old's bed sores works 100 times harder than a DART driver, so will always have public sympathy. That's the real politique.

Unions have a very important place in society, but the unions in CIE have lost the plot over the years. They see CIE as a jobs provider, not a transport provider. That's the problem I have with them.

cal29

murphaph wrote:

Then yes I agree, early retirement is an option for most civil servants seems silly that IE staff can't avail of it to replace these staff with fresher faces. The newer blood replacing the old guard should have different contracts though, ones with 'no-strike' clauses included, like the Luas drivers. This is standard practice in transport employment elsewhere.

IE staff are not civil servants

The No Strike clause with the LUAS was agreed between SIPTU and Connex before any staff were taken on in return SIPTU were given exclusivity

Hardly the free market which seems so popular here or very democratic

cal29

murphaph wrote:

I doubt most members of the public who've been raped by solicitor's fees during a simple conveyancing would have a problem with breaking The Law Society into a million pieces, likewise anyone whose ever tried to sue a solicitor.

But where are the calls for it Solicitors and barristers are ripping this country off left right and centre every day and there is hardly a whisper train drivers look for extra money and you would swear the world was going to end

murphaph wrote:

IBEC & ISME represent self employed people (the employers)-if their members strike, they starve!

Striking is not the only way to affect peoples lives

murphaph wrote:

The IFA again, is just a lobby group for self employed people (farmers).

And unions are a lobby group for employed people so what. They are a very powerful group who are only interested in the welfare of their members and do everything in their power to improve their members position even if it is to the detriment of the general public so what is the difference?

murphaph wrote:

Most people (PAYE, average joes, myself included) have no time for most of these organisations, but they can't hold them to ransom like transport union members can. The IMO is different, but public opinion usually rests with people who save their lives, tend their sick relatives etc. A nurse who cleans out a 90 year old's bed sores works 100 times harder than a DART driver, so will always have public sympathy. That's the real politique.

I never raised the issue of nurses the IMO dont represent nurses

The IMO however have for example extorted money from the taxpayer for medical cards for the over 75s and are currnetly holding up the issue of doctor only medical cards for the less well off
But there are no threads on those issues and the people who are jumping up and down about the unions are oddly silent.
Despite the fact that medical cards are a life and death issue for many people and the lack of a train service would be an inconvenience at worst

murphaph wrote:

Unions have a very important place in society, but the unions in CIE have lost the plot over the years. They see CIE as a jobs provider, not a transport provider. That's the problem I have with them.

What evidence do you have to support that view

The unions in CIE have overseen and cooperated with massive changes in work practises in the last 20 years. The CIE companies are nothing like the companies that existed 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. The proof of this is that 10 or 20 years ago the unions would not have backed down the way they did this time

Most of the problems with CIE are a carry over from the years of neglect and underfunding and mismanagement. Funding has only started to arrive in the last 5 or more years and the improvements dont just happen overnight unfortunately the mismanagement problem has not yet been sorted out there are still plenty of people in management positions in the various CIE companies who got there position because they were in the right cumman or GAA club or related to someone with pull.

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

IE staff are not civil servants

I never said they were.

cal29 wrote:

The No Strike clause with the LUAS was agreed between SIPTU and Connex before any staff were taken on in return SIPTU were given exclusivity

Hardly the free market which seems so popular here or very democratic

Nobody forced those people to work for Connex, that's democracy.

murphaph

cal29 wrote:

But where are the calls for it Solicitors and barristers are ripping this country off left right and centre every day and there is hardly a whisper train drivers look for extra money and you would swear the world was going to end

Like I said, I've no time for them either. You could always start a campaign if you feel so strongly about the issue or even start a thread on boards, have you?

cal29 wrote:

And unions are a lobby group for employed people so what. They are a very powerful group who are only interested in the welfare of their members and do everything in their power to improve their members position even if it is to the detriment of the general public so what is the difference?

The difference is that transport workers who strike affect people in a most inconvenient way.
The farmers can't withhold labour from themselves. They'd go out of business. Unions are more than mere lobby groups-they hold the balance of power-their labour which they can withdraw, even when they are being unreasonable in their demands.

cal29 wrote:

I never raised the issue of nurses the IMO dont represent nurses

Fair enough.

cal29 wrote:

The IMO however have for example extorted money from the taxpayer for medical cards for the over 75s and are currnetly holding up the issue of doctor only medical cards for the less well off
But there are no threads on those issues and the people who are jumping up and down about the unions are oddly silent. Despite the fact that medical cards are a life and death issue for many people and the lack of a train service would be an inconvenience at worst

You are free to start a thread on that, did you? You can't read anything into silence on boards, just because nobody's highlighted something doesn't mean they have no opinion on it-you're clearly annoyed by the IMO yet I haven't seen you speak out about them before, so using your logic I could have assumed you approved of them or at least didn't disapprove of them, which would have been incorrect. In any case, 'medical cards are life and death' is OTT. Name one person who has died because they didn't have a medical card.

cal29 wrote:

The unions in CIE have overseen and cooperated with massive changes in work practises in the last 20 years. The CIE companies are nothing like the companies that existed 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. The proof of this is that 10 or 20 years ago the unions would not have backed down the way they did this time

Cooperating? wtf? They made an agreement in 2000 which superceded the one in 1983 and out trots Willie Noone, banging on about the 1983 agreement last week. That's not cooperating.

Most of the problems with CIE are a carry over from the years of neglect and underfunding and mismanagement. Funding has only started to arrive in the last 5 or more years and the improvements dont just happen overnight unfortunately the mismanagement problem has not yet been sorted out there are still plenty of people in management positions in the various CIE companies who got there position because they were in the right cumman or GAA club or related to someone with pull.[/QUOTE]
It's too easy to blame all IE's ills on underfunding. The union stranglehold is as much or more to blame IMO. Lots of staff of all ranks 'got in' to CIE because of nepotism, not just management..

cal29

murphaph wrote:

Like I said, I've no time for them either. You could always start a campaign if you feel so strongly about the issue or even start a thread on boards, have you?

No and I didn't start this one either

murphaph wrote:

The difference is that transport workers who strike affect people in a most inconvenient way.
The farmers can't withhold labour from themselves. They'd go out of business. Unions are more than mere lobby groups-they hold the balance of power-their labour which they can withdraw, even when they are being unreasonable in their demands.

Unreasonable from your point of view

Farmers can and do use there power as a lobby group to attain tax payers money and various EU money. While they dont operate in the same way as unions they still exercise a lot of influence to further their own agenda and take to the streets blockade supermarkets meat processing plants etc etc things that ordinary unions would not be allowed to do.

murphaph wrote:

You are free to start a thread on that, did you? You can't read anything into silence on boards, just because nobody's highlighted something doesn't mean they have no opinion on it-you're clearly annoyed by the IMO yet I haven't seen you speak out about them before, so using your logic I could have assumed you approved of them or at least didn't disapprove of them, which would have been incorrect. In any case, 'medical cards are life and death' is OTT. Name one person who has died because they didn't have a medical card.

Iam not annoyed Iam merely posing the question why the furore over train drivers but a complete lack of comment on Doctors. I know I am free to start a thread I would merely like to know why the people who are so annoyed about dart drivers including the OP have not seen fit to start a thread on the need to break the back of the IMO.

And I believe you can rightly read a lot into the silence on Boards

And i dont think it is OTT to say medical cards are live and death. For people who cant afford 50 euro to visit a GP are obviously putting their lives at risk

murphaph wrote:

Cooperating? wtf? They made an agreement in 2000 which superceded the one in 1983 and out trots Willie Noone, banging on about the 1983 agreement last week. That's not cooperating.

There is no mention in the 2000 agreement of superceding that is the view the labour court
The agreement does not mention superceding anything it also makes no mention of 8 dart carriages which was not even on the agenda at the time
The drivers have complied with everything that was explicitly mentioned in the agreement

murphaph wrote:

It's too easy to blame all IE's ills on underfunding. The union stranglehold is as much or more to blame IMO. Lots of staff of all ranks 'got in' to CIE because of nepotism, not just management..

please give an example of this stranglehold and how it has effected IE more than underfunding It is too easy to say that prove it
What I see here is the Unions legitimately raising a issue that they believed they had an agreement on the labour court disagreed the drivers did not accept the labour courts view but decided not to pursue it any further. That kind of thing happens in companies private and semi state everyday of the week.

where is the strangle hold?? if anything the government has a stranglehold on the unions. The unions have a belief that public transport should be owned by the state they are unwilling to do anything that will undermine that position.

There has not been the need for nepotism to get a job in CIE for many years
however promotion with in the company still relies heavily on it

cal29

murphaph wrote:

I never said they were.

From your comment it was the clear implication

murphaph wrote:

Nobody forced those people to work for Connex, that's democracy.

that arguement could be used for any company or position nobody forced the Gama workers to work for gama they could have stayed at home unemployed in Turkey or the people whom irish ferries are exploiting

Whilst they may not have been forced to take a job with connex they were forced to join a specific union and no other once they had taken that job.