Dublin Airport security staff considering all-out strike

i71jskz5xu42pb

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=158773046&p=y5877375z

Is it just me or are the unions taking the pi55 these days. Hot on the heels of the DART drivers demanding €20,000 for pulling two extra carriages we have the security staff looking to strike because extra staff are being hired instead of them getting overtime rates. Whatever about unions standing up for workers' rights this is just unions standing up for workers' greed.

The Labour/FG coalition is looking like less and less of an alternative to FF in the next election. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Hobbes

Do they have any idea of when or how long?

Zombrex

PaschalNee wrote:

The Labour/FG coalition is looking like less and less of an alternative to FF in the next election. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Why? What are FF going to do about this? U would probably get less strikes from a Labour government because they would be more accomadating to the unions. U might call that giving in, but it would be less strikes

Victor

How do the two parts of the first post meet-up?

Can the OP indicate the number of man-days lost in the last year to strikes? Compared to the previous year? 10 years ago, 10 years ago?

i71jskz5xu42pb

Wicknight wrote:

Why? What are FF going to do about this?

Fair enough. FF have not exactly been too hard on the unions - the cave in over the new terminal at Dublin airport being a prime example. That said I think they'd be less accommodating that Labour (or SF for that matter). The devil you know I suppose.

Wicknight wrote:

U would probably get less strikes from a Labour government because they would be more accomadating to the unions. U might call that giving in, but it would be less strikes

Yep, I would call that giving in. Given the choice between caving in to unreasonable union demands and strikes I'd go for the strikes any day of the week.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Victor wrote:

How do the two parts of the first post meet-up?

Siptu are a union, Labour are the union party. If the unions continue to make unreasonable demands I'm less inclined to vote for a Labour/FG coalition.

Victor wrote:

Can the OP indicate the number of man-days lost in the last year to strikes? Compared to the previous year? 10 years ago, 10 years ago?

I don't get your point. Are you saying that the decrease in man-days lost to strikes means all is well? I would say the opposite may be true - the unwillingness of the government to stand up to unions has hamstrung satisfactory liberalisation in a number of areas - ESB, Eircom, transport, prison service, health, etc.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

U would probably get less strikes from a Labour government because they would be more accomadating to the unions. U might call that giving in, but it would be less strikes

I don't think any government could have been or be more accomadating to Airport unions than Ahern.

So a union is threatening strike action because the company wants to hire more staff??

Thats bad, very bad.I mean they only increased the numbers on security recently and its those that are being relieved of the overtime thta they've had for what like 6 months or however short a time ago it was that Dublin Airport failed the security audit.

It's greed and in a private company, I wouldnt have a problem with said company giving the strikers an ultimatum-Do what you are paid to do or someone else will.
Honestly some people think they are special,unique and irreplaceable.
Anybody can run a metal dectector :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

PaschalNee wrote:

Whatever about unions standing up for workers' rights this is just unions standing up for workers' greed.

I can see a logic behind what they're doing, however. If part time staff are brought in such circumstance without any kind of agreement in place, then there is very little to stop management from replacing (over time) the existing full time staff with cheaper part time staff, by stealth. As such, the present policy could well be seen as 'the thin edge of the wedge', which could well justify their present actions.

Zombrex

I don't say this alot, but - what TC said

I don't think this is about loss of overtime. This about hiring of new part time staff. I would imagine the unions is worried that this is a beginning of an introduction of cheap labour that could eventually threaten the positions of the workers, and to be honest I don't blame them, it probably is. Not saying I agree or disagree with the strike (I have to get a plane on Friday to Brussels, a short break I have been looking forward to for weeks), but I think it is a little more complicated than the workers wanting to keep overtime bonuses.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think this is about loss of overtime.

I'm just going on the news report. Direct quote - "The staff, who operate airport searches, believe they should be offered overtime rather than have their work done by part-timers."

Granted this could have been misreported.

The issue could be more about the part-time worker thing. I'd have more time (not a lot mind) for the union if they were saying they wanted full time staff - but apparently they are not. They want you, the traveller, to pay double time.

Strike is not planned for two weeks so you'll get your gaufres, fruity beer, chips with mayo, .......

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I don't say this alot, but - what TC said

I tend not to have a lot of sympathy for employees of organizations like Aer Rianta as they tend to be grossly uncompetitive in today's global market. I also don't fancy the idea of a strike at Dublin airport as I fly through there twice a week. However I do see their logic. Whether I think their position is justified beyond that is another matter, but one which I am not qualified to comment upon without further information.

I'd say it is about the part time worker thing but the two issues are related.

We do live in a free labour market though dont we ? The Airport authority should be entitled to hire and fire subject to the labour laws , statutory redundancies etc as they see fit without the threat of strikes.

Perfect example of where Unions can create maximum mess when they dont like this, would be the Gate Gourmet situation with BA.
Ultimately the Union lost that one as much as they moaned they couldnt turn the tide that companies have to make a profit and cost cutting is inevitable when viability is an issue.

Going back to the airport-theres no doubt that the cost of security has risen markedly in the last six months and the authority are trying to be cost effective.

In this case they should have seen the needs before rising the overtime and just taken on the extra staff.

Instead they have made the usual balls of it by giving the overtime in the first place and what does a cat do when you put a plate of cream in front of it-yes it wants it more and more.

The Airport Authority created the expectation so they should share some of the blame for the mess.
If the union is looking for a security of tenure with the old working hours then fair play.
If they just want to block new employee's alltogether by saying we will do it with the overtime and thats the only option they are countenancing then-it's Bad form, very bad form.

black_jack

PaschalNee wrote:

I'm just going on the news report. Direct quote - "The staff, who operate airport searches, believe they should be offered overtime rather than have their work done by part-timers."

Granted this could have been misreported.

The issue could be more about the part-time worker thing. I'd have more time (not a lot mind) for the union if they were saying they wanted full time staff - but apparently they are not. They want you, the traveller, to pay double time.

Strike is not planned for two weeks so you'll get your gaufres, fruity beer, chips with mayo, .......

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather airport security be taken care of by a dedicated team working slightly longer hours, rather than a group of part timers.

I don't really mind my latte or panini made by a part time worker, but I'd be concerned that security is being run by some half trained indifferent part timer.

I'm not saying the guy checking my shoes for explosives needs to be MI5 trained, it's just in the light of recent security lapses at Dublin Airport, I don't think shifting more work onto part timers is going to help fix those holes.

i71jskz5xu42pb

black_jack wrote:

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather airport security be taken care of by a dedicated team working slightly longer hours, rather than a group of part timers.

I don't think this is even an issue. The recent security lapses you refer to were the responsibility of these same full time workers. If anything the argument could be made that overtime would be a bad thing i.e. concentrating on that screen for a six hour shift is hard enough.

black_jack wrote:

...I'd be concerned that security is being run by some half trained indifferent part timer.

Indifference is a job requirement for airport security the world over. Bonus points if said indifference can be made obvious to travellers. Being a bit facetious, I know, but indifference?

therecklessone

black_jack wrote:

I'm not saying the guy checking my shoes for explosives needs to be MI5 trained, it's just in the light of recent security lapses at Dublin Airport, I don't think shifting more work onto part timers is going to help fix those holes.

Personally I'd prefer if they weren't checking my shoes at all (like most major international airports)...

Part time does not equal poorly trained, or incompetent. As long as training standards are adhered to, there is no operational reason why part time staff would be any worse at the job than their full time coleagues.

From an IR perspective, I'd be sympathetic to worries about the security of tenure or pay and conditions that arise as a result of this development, but if the action is to safeguard overtime payments alone then its unjustified. As an ex-Aer Rianta part time employee, my recollection was that the airport branch of SIPTU was useless, and showed no interest in part time workers (until they needed us to support their unofficial action in March 98 when the Ryanair baggage handlers dispute escalated). Reports I've heard since haven't changed my mind TBH.

I'm a committed trade unionist, but like I said when the Dart driver dispute surfaced, irresponsible industrial action does great harm to the trade union movement.

black_jack

PaschalNee wrote:

I don't think this is even an issue. The recent security lapses you refer to were the responsibility of these same full time workers. If anything the argument could be made that overtime would be a bad thing i.e. concentrating on that screen for a six hour shift is hard enough.

With respect I concentrate on a screen for 12 hours plus often enough. And there are breaks, switching of duties to keep the mind limber. Increases in part time staff mean in general a high staff turnover, shorter training periods, and a less motivated workforce.

Indifference is a job requirement for airport security the world over. Bonus points if said indifference can be made obvious to travellers. Being a bit facetious, I know, but indifference?

A bit facetious?

therecklessone wrote:

Part time does not equal poorly trained, or incompetent. As long as training standards are adhered to, there is no operational reason why part time staff would be any worse at the job than their full time coleagues.

Yes but in general training standards won't be adhered to among part time staff. And it's difficult to monitor staff competence levels when shifts flucate, turnover is higher, how will improved safety standards be created or maintained.

I'm a committed trade unionist, but like I said when the Dart driver dispute surfaced, irresponsible industrial action does great harm to the trade union movement.

Agreed but as someone said earlier this is the thin edge of the wedge.

therecklessone

black_jack wrote:

Yes but in general training standards won't be adhered to among part time staff. And it's difficult to monitor staff competence levels when shifts flucate, turnover is higher, how will improved safety standards be created or maintained.

I suspect you don't know any specifics in this case, and I know I don't. But...

Whats makes you think training standards won't be adhered to? I work in a safety critical industry where family friendly policies allow job sharing. Its as close as we have to part time staff, those employees who avail of the opportunity work exactly half the time that full time staff do. Minimum training requirements are minimum training requirements. Fail to meet the standard and you don't get to perform your role in the system, its that simple. Likewise with competency checks, any properly constituted safety system should ensure minimum training and competency standards are met by ALL staff.

To suggest otherwise is supposition.

black_jack wrote:

Agreed but as someone said earlier this is the thin edge of the wedge.

The OP's linked source suggested the dispute was due to full time staff wishing to protect their overtime payments. On the face of it, thats an unreasonable demand for the union to make (unless they're willing to negotiate some form of guaranteed overtime similar to suggested reform of the prison service), rather than an attempt to safeguard their positions within the company. If this was a question of worker's rights, SIPTU should pursue this from the perspective of the incoming part time staff, to ensure they receive the same conditions and entitlements that full time staff enjoy. Like I said earlier, my experience of the aviation branch of SIPTU is that they are uninterested in part time staff within the airport.

Yet again, I'm not fully aware of the facts in this dispute, so I'm open to correction on anything I've stated here. T'is just my initial impression.