Trade Unions

godtabh

I think this should be politics because of the vast amount of power trade unions have these days. They seem to be getting more and more militant every day with strike threats hanging over nearly every week from deferent parts of the country.

I was just wondering how people feel about them.

Me personaly dont like them and will never join them again.

I think in order to get a pay rise you work practice has to change so that your work producitivy rises after you get your raise. Many unions dont seem to want this. The want the raise without giving anything pack.

I read a couple of weeks ago that a new sorting office was built for An Post becaue workers felt the old place wasnt good enough. It was built a short distance away. The works wanted distrubance money and refused to move.

The DART drivers seeking more money to drive longer carriages.

The ESB workers paid to turn up to power stations that dont produce electricity.

These are some of the examples why there need to be a reform in the trade unions.

Also who here is part of a trade union and what do you do? My own thinking would be that many profesionals such as engineers accounts etc wont be but skilled workes such as plumbers/electricans and "unskilled" works such as shop assistants will be.

All posts welcome

billy the squid

It is mostly in the public sector you will find unions jumping on the gravy train.

Industrial disputes in the private sector where private companies have a union presence are rare. I wouldnt even consider leaving my union. working conditions were attrocious before our company became unionised.

BuffyBot

These are some of the examples

Indeed. But are they representative?

godtabh

BuffyBot wrote:

Indeed. But are they representative?

Probably not.

Where their argument is just the trade unions are worth while.

But the above examples arent, as far as I'm concerened, valid reasons to go on strike or to seek extra money.

billy the squid

kearnsr wrote:

Probably not.

Where their argument is just the trade unions are worth while.

But the above examples arent, as far as I'm concerened, valid reasons to go on strike or to seek extra money.

How about a six-month pregnant woman being forsed to do a standing up position for 12 hour shift, until she collapsed, resulting in her miscarrying. this happened where I work.

How about a spannish worker dismissed because the chair at her workstation was damaged and she requested a replacement, causing a production line to stop for three minutes while a maintainance guy went and got a replacement. The company hired spannish contracors and shipped her out of the country within a few days of her dismissal.

Making irish workers redundant, not because the company is making the positions redundant as is required by legislation, but making the positions availible for people who will work for below minimum wage.

just a couple of reasons of the top of my head from experience but there are more reasons why especialy the private sector needs trade unions to keep some employers, mainly multinationals, in check.

therecklessone

kearnsr wrote:

I think in order to get a pay rise you work practice has to change so that your work producitivy rises after you get your raise. Many unions dont seem to want this. The want the raise without giving anything pack.

Some unions, not mine. We're currenty participating in serious changes in work practise and service delivery before we get any improvements in pay or conditions, the union plan on using our willingness to cooperate as a bargaining tool (and should pay negotiations break down, or our employer breaks the terms of any agreement, we look far more reasonable during dispute resolution) Its been very effective to date, wages have gone up c.40% in the last six years through pay deals and partnership increases, all paid for by increased productivity and savings generated by agreement.

kearnsr wrote:

I read a couple of weeks ago that a new sorting office was built for An Post becaue workers felt the old place wasnt good enough. It was built a short distance away. The works wanted distrubance money and refused to move.

The DART drivers seeking more money to drive longer carriages.

The ESB workers paid to turn up to power stations that dont produce electricity.

Theres a difference between looking for money, and using industrial action to achieve unreasonable demands. Unions have to represent the members who pay their dues. Sometimes they'll chance their arms, and sometimes they'll be spanked for their troubles. Thats the nature of the business.

I do feel some recent demands from public sector unions have been unreasonable though.

landser

billy the squid wrote:

How about a six-month pregnant woman being forsed to do a standing up position for 12 hour shift, until she collapsed, resulting in her miscarrying. this happened where I work.

How about a spannish worker dismissed because the chair at her workstation was damaged and she requested a replacement, causing a production line to stop for three minutes while a maintainance guy went and got a replacement. The company hired spannish contracors and shipped her out of the country within a few days of her dismissal.

Making irish workers redundant, not because the company is making the positions redundant as is required by legislation, but making the positions availible for people who will work for below minimum wage.

just a couple of reasons of the top of my head from experience but there are more reasons why especialy the private sector needs trade unions to keep some employers, mainly multinationals, in check.

Your examples in the first two instances are irrelevant to the issues of trades unions

the first example is contrary to health and safety legislation for which the company would be fined if it happened, and the directors possibly imprisoned. do you have proof of causation here or are you relying on the water-cooler gossip?

the second is also against health and safety law and secondly the worker has a clear case for unfair/wrongful dismissal (not sure how that fact that she is spanish is in any way relevant), anyway they couldn't ship her out... the employer (probably an evil man with hooked moustace, eyeliner and stovepipe hat) has no power to deport her. she's an eu citizen.

also your facts regarding the irish ferries matter (if that is what your third example refers to) is wrong. they are not sacking irish workers. the majority of their crews are of baltic origin.

the problem with unions is that there is very little point to them anymore. social legislation in the eu has meant a lessening of the raison d'etre for unions and they now have to justify their very existence. hence we have the self publicising likes of brendan ogle, who will call a strike becuase the workers are asked to drive a slightly different train to the train they normally drive and which they are contracted to do.

billy the squid

landser wrote:

Your examples in the first two instances are irrelevant to the issues of trades unions

No they are not. they are examples of employers mistreating their workers.

the first example is contrary to health and safety legislation for which the company would be fined if it happened, and the directors possibly imprisoned. do you have proof of causation here or are you relying on the water-cooler gossip?

would yo ucall travelling in the ambulance with the person to the hospital, water cooler gossip. The employer was sued. It did not stop them from doing what they did to begin with.

the second is also against health and safety law and secondly the worker has a clear case for unfair/wrongful dismissal (not sure how that fact that she is spanish is in any way relevant), anyway they couldn't ship her out... the employer (probably an evil man with hooked moustace, eyeliner and stovepipe hat) has no power to deport her. she's an eu citizen.

she was contracted from an overseas recruitment agency at a time when Irish employees were hard to find. and yes she was sent home.

also your facts regarding the irish ferries matter (if that is what your third example refers to) is wrong. they are not sacking irish workers. the majority of their crews are of baltic origin.

The ones being offered redundancy to make way for eastern european workers are irish.

the problem with unions is that there is very little point to them anymore. social legislation in the eu has meant a lessening of the raison d'etre for unions and they now have to justify their very existence. hence we have the self publicising likes of brendan ogle, who will call a strike becuase the workers are asked to drive a slightly different train to the train they normally drive and which they are contracted to do.

As has been pointed out already, some the crazy reasons for public sector workers giong on strike are not representative of all trade union affiliated workers.

i dont appreciate being called a liar either.

godtabh

landser wrote:

Your examples in the first two instances are irrelevant to the issues of trades unions

the first example is contrary to health and safety legislation for which the company would be fined if it happened, and the directors possibly imprisoned. do you have proof of causation here or are you relying on the water-cooler gossip?

the second is also against health and safety law and secondly the worker has a clear case for unfair/wrongful dismissal (not sure how that fact that she is spanish is in any way relevant), anyway they couldn't ship her out... the employer (probably an evil man with hooked moustace, eyeliner and stovepipe hat) has no power to deport her. she's an eu citizen.

also your facts regarding the irish ferries matter (if that is what your third example refers to) is wrong. they are not sacking irish workers. the majority of their crews are of baltic origin.

the problem with unions is that there is very little point to them anymore. social legislation in the eu has meant a lessening of the raison d'etre for unions and they now have to justify their very existence. hence we have the self publicising likes of brendan ogle, who will call a strike becuase the workers are asked to drive a slightly different train to the train they normally drive and which they are contracted to do.

I'm not 100% sure about what you say about IF but agree with everything else you say.

As far as I know , but could be wrong, IF sail the flag of a different country so they dont have to pay minimum wage.

therecklessone

CWU announce industrial action to begin from Monday

Poor form IMO.

Postal workers have announced that nationwide industrial action will start at midnight on Sunday.

In a statement, the Communications Workers' Union said there will be a ban on overtime as well as complete stoppages at the GPO in Dublin and other selected centres around the country.

The statement was made despite talks that continued throughout the afternoon with An Post management through the National Implementation Body.

patzer117

billy the squid wrote:

Making irish workers redundant, not because the company is making the positions redundant as is required by legislation, but making the positions availible for people who will work for below minimum wage.

This may be a little off topic, but what exactly is the problem with sacking somebody and replacing them with somebody else? If someone isn't doing a good job then they don't deserve to keep it, as someone better could do the job. If they are doing a good job but somebody else could do it for cheaper, then why shouldn't the employer employ the cheaper people? Is it because they aren't Irish? I'm not sure about the below minimum wage, but i'd have no problem telling people they would have to take the sac if somebody else would work for cheaper doing the exact same job to the exact same standard.

On the issue of trade unions i know they have done some great things in the past, but they are rapidly getting a bad rep. Things like getting extra money to drive an extra carraige really anger me, - it's greedy people looking for greedy money. And as far as I'm concerned the postal workers are doing more damage to the industry than good. A christmas strike planned? Well they won't be getting my support...

Victor

So tell me how many man-days are lots to strikes these days compared to the 1980s

patzer117 wrote:

I'm not sure about the below minimum wage, but i'd have no problem telling people they would have to take the sac if somebody else would work for cheaper doing the exact same job to the exact same standard.

And I think this brands you as someone with sociopathic behavior.

RainyDay

patzer117 wrote:

This may be a little off topic, but what exactly is the problem with sacking somebody and replacing them with somebody else? If someone isn't doing a good job then they don't deserve to keep it, as someone better could do the job. If they are doing a good job but somebody else could do it for cheaper, then why shouldn't the employer employ the cheaper people? Is it because they aren't Irish? I'm not sure about the below minimum wage, but i'd have no problem telling people they would have to take the sac if somebody else would work for cheaper doing the exact same job to the exact same standard.

Expect to find yourself spending a lot of time at Employment Appeals Tribunals if you ever put this plan into practice. It is against employment law to fire somebody because you have a cheaper alternative.

patzer117

RainyDay wrote:

Expect to find yourself spending a lot of time at Employment Appeals Tribunals if you ever put this plan into practice. It is against employment law to fire somebody because you have a cheaper alternative.

Thanks RainyDay, i'm perfectly aware it's illegal, i just want to know why! I wouldn't plan on putting it into practise because i'd get too much stick from bloody unions... But seriously why should i have to pay more to someone if somebody else will do the exact same job for the cheaper?!? I'm not really talking about permanant employees, more the kind in the Irish Ferries dispute - who had already accepted severences packages

And Victor it's not any behavioural disorder, i'm not a sociopath

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

i semi-comply with one of these and that's logical in a pro business open market in my opinion

billy the squid

patzer117 wrote:

This may be a little off topic, but what exactly is the problem with sacking somebody and replacing them with somebody else? If someone isn't doing a good job then they don't deserve to keep it, as someone better could do the job. If they are doing a good job but somebody else could do it for cheaper, then why shouldn't the employer employ the cheaper people?

Firstly I have no problem with dismissing someone on disciplinary grounds.

On your second point above, replacing someone with someone cheaper is illegal. If your going to make someone redundant it must be because the position they are in is redundant. not the individual.

Is it because they aren't Irish? I'm not sure about the below minimum wage, but i'd have no problem telling people they would have to take the sac if somebody else would work for cheaper doing the exact same job to the exact same standard.

It is not because they are not Irish. it is because they are being exploited by not being paid the going rate.

On the issue of trade unions i know they have done some great things in the past, but they are rapidly getting a bad rep. Things like getting extra money to drive an extra carraige really anger me, - it's greedy people looking for greedy money. And as far as I'm concerned the postal workers are doing more damage to the industry than good. A christmas strike planned? Well they won't be getting my support...

Thankfully most bollix acting like that is confined to public sector workers. as I have said, the employer in the private sector has to be a real bastard before a stoppage will occour.

mountainyman

I think that they have been far to accomododating over the past decade. I don't really care about public sector workers but what we need in the private sector is a real union movement. One that's aggressive that confronts employers and strikes. The Celtic tiger is worthless unless the people benefit.

Also Kernsr have you ever had a job or are you a student? If an employer has the 'riht' to shift production overseas why should my tax money be wasted investigating his murder? Rights incur obligations (for humans anyway squids [1] have neither rights or obligations)

[1]meant as the specific plural rather that the general plural

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

I don't really care about public sector workers...

Workers of the world unite! Unless yis work for the government, in which case yis can fup off.

mountainyman wrote:

...but what we need in the private sector is a real union movement. One that's aggressive that confronts employers and strikes. The Celtic tiger is worthless unless the people benefit.

Will there be a celtic tiger in an environment where strikes are a common occurrence?

I've observed in the past that there's an element of the trade union movement that is obsessed with equality at all costs - and if that means that everyone's equally poor and miserable, so be it.

mountainyman

If we had strong private sector unions perhaps decent treatment and holidays at work would be normal. That would be awful wouldn't it:rolleyes:

The problem with this country is everyone is planing for when their Bulgarian apartment makes them a millionaire:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

If we had strong private sector unions perhaps decent treatment and holidays at work would be normal.

Decent treatment and holidays are mandated by employment law.

mountainyman wrote:

The problem with this country is everyone is planing for when their Bulgarian apartment makes them a millionaire:rolleyes:

I don't have a Bulgarian apartment, and I don't have any short-to-medium term plans to have one. Maybe you meant everyone but me. How's yours coming on?

mountainyman

Well there's 2 of us. Oscar Bravo the Law is open to all like the Ritz hotel is open to all, if unions do nothing else they aid in the enforcement of already existing rights and lobby for changes to the law.

I want something a bit more Paris '68 though.

cal29

patzer117 wrote:

This may be a little off topic, but what exactly is the problem with sacking somebody and replacing them with somebody else? If someone isn't doing a good job then they don't deserve to keep it, as someone better could do the job. If they are doing a good job but somebody else could do it for cheaper, then why shouldn't the employer employ the cheaper people? Is it because they aren't Irish? I'm not sure about the below minimum wage, but i'd have no problem telling people they would have to take the sac if somebody else would work for cheaper doing the exact same job to the exact same standard.

On the issue of trade unions i know they have done some great things in the past, but they are rapidly getting a bad rep. Things like getting extra money to drive an extra carraige really anger me, - it's greedy people looking for greedy money. And as far as I'm concerned the postal workers are doing more damage to the industry than good. A christmas strike planned? Well they won't be getting my support...

Yes it sounds like a wonderful society you would build very stable

As for postal workers they are looking for exactly what was agreed under the National wage agreements nothing more
An Post as an employer was represented at those talks and signed off on an agreement and have refused to pay that agreement postal workers are quite entitled to take industrial action my only question would be why it has taken them so long to take that action.

As for Unions in general they are completely useless to anyone until you need one and then they are vital

The main problem with unions in this country is that the leadership is lily livered they have become largely irrelevant to most people because of the National wage agreements and no strike clauses
Far from being militant what kind of Union let the situation of non payment of wage agreements at An post go on for so long perhaps the CWU were to busy working out the value of their shares in eircon

Siptu did **** all about the gama situation and if it had not been for Joe Higgins it would still be going on

Again Siptu let Irish Ferries away with contracting out jobs on the French routes and it is no big surprise that the greedy bastards at Irish ferries want the Irish Sea routes as well they should have stood up to them before instead of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted

Mick Oreilly at ATGWU who I would have a lot of respect for however there is no way I would join a union that Is effectively run from the UK his removal from his position even though he has now been reinstated showed how corrupt the union movement in Britain is if the ATGWU wants to be taken seriously in this country they need to break the link with the UK as well as ICTU

NBRU is the most undemocratic organisation I have ever come across the leader is not selected by the membership
The leadership change the constitution at the drop of a hat to secure their own positions and ensure they are the only ones eligible to run for office.


And people who are suggesting that we dont need Unions because we have health and safety legislation and discrimination laws please give me a break
have you ever tried to make a complaint to the HSA how many inspectors do the HSA have
The HSA is a joke just look at the number of Building site deaths for example that is an area where we know there has been a problem for years and the HSA still cant do anything about it.

If you make a complaint to the HSA the first thing they do is write to the employer if the employers answer is not good enough they may send out an inspector
Of course the employer is aware of this because he has recieved a letter from them so they will be on best behaviour till the inspectors gone and then it is business as usual until someone is killed then they will have an investigation.

gandalf

mountainyman wrote:

Also Kernsr have you ever had a job or are you a student? If an employer has the 'riht' to shift production overseas why should my tax money be wasted investigating his murder? Rights incur obligations (for humans anyway squids [1] have neither rights or obligations)

[1]meant as the specific plural rather that the general plural

If I see another comment like this from you on Politics I will be relocating your right to post here.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

But seriously why should i have to pay more to someone if somebody else will do the exact same job for the cheaper?!?

Cause you are entering into a social contract with these people, it would be unfair to just dismiss them at a whim. They work (hard) for you, under the understanding that along with paying them, you will respect them enough not to treat them unaccepably. Its the same reason you can't put kids down coal mines anymore, cause working is supposed to have evolved beyond the old fashioned idea that "we pay them don't we, they should be happy with that, no matter what else we do to them"

ArphaRima

As for postal workers they are looking for exactly what was agreed under the National wage agreements nothing more
An Post as an employer was represented at those talks and signed off on an agreement and have refused to pay that agreement postal workers are quite entitled to take industrial action my only question would be why it has taken them so long to take that action.

The company and workers BOTH signed up for the terms of the Sustaining Progress national wage agreement. The terms of that agreement states that Work practice changes must be negotiated in return for wage increases. The payment is NOT automatic.
Sooo. The company asks for the moon and the stars. The workers refuse any changes. This is normal. Then the company and union bring their cases before an independent arbiter(sp?) in this case Phil Flynn. His job is to facilitate agreement by listening to proposals from both sides and making a non-binding recommendation for its solution. If both sides agree then the union gets its increase and the union gets its work practice changes.
If however the union is still unhappy, they can reject the proposal, give the company notice and go on strike. This usually ends in better terms being offered by the arbiter.
Again if they reject the terms after a period (that i dont know) the case is referred to the NIB National Implementation Board. They do exactly that. They implement change. And its binding. Basically they come in, rewrite the workers conditions and pay their increase. This is in nobody's interest normally.
I hope this clears up the idea that the workers are entitled to that money first and foremost. They arent. Not without change. Nor is the company allowed to refuse the increase(except for critical financial reasons). This is what must be resolved in the next few days.
Personally I feel their (admittedly strong) union is over-reaching. They are an unpopular group and this could backfire. A government with balls could let them freeze on strike indefinitely.

landser

Wicknight wrote:

Cause you are entering into a social contract with these people, it would be unfair to just dismiss them at a whim. They work (hard) for you, under the understanding that along with paying them, you will respect them enough not to treat them unaccepably. Its the same reason you can't put kids down coal mines anymore, cause working is supposed to have evolved beyond the old fashioned idea that "we pay them don't we, they should be happy with that, no matter what else we do to them"

No, he's entering into an employment contract with them. I have never heard of a social contract... although i did promise my mates i'd meet them for a pint this evening... is this what you mean??:)

billythe squid. You missed my point re causation of that woman's miscarriage. I didn't call you a liar (don't be so touchy) what I asked was how do you know that the miscarriage was caused by the work. Answer is, you don't.

The power of the unions has lessened in the last 20 years. In the 1970's and 1980's there were more unions in CIE than there was in the whole of germany. Lightning strikes were the norm and the ludicrous sympathy strike was commonplace. Thankfully both these have been done away with.

billy the squid

billythe squid. You missed my point re causation of that woman's miscarriage. I didn't call you a liar (don't be so touchy) what I asked was how do you know that the miscarriage was caused by the work. Answer is, you don't.

it was the conclusion reached by a judge in a courtroom following evidence. as imentioned before, she sued the company personal injury.

Had there been a union present at the time, a shop steward could have pulled the supervisor up and had something done about it. The word of a shop steward carries the thread of production being halted if his or her concerns are ignored. without that power to back up a complaint, a supervisor or a manager can just tell you to feck off, or threaten to sack you.

Legislation is all well and good but it only works after you have been sacked and after a lengthy legal process. Having a union in a company helps resolve issues without people getting hurt or sacked unnecessarily.

landser

billy the squid wrote:

it was the conclusion reached by a judge in a courtroom following evidence. as imentioned before, she sued the company personal injury.

Had there been a union present at the time, a shop steward could have pulled the supervisor up and had something done about it. The word of a shop steward carries the thread of production being halted if his or her concerns are ignored. without that power to back up a complaint, a supervisor or a manager can just tell you to feck off, or threaten to sack you.

Legislation is all well and good but it only works after you have been sacked and after a lengthy legal process. Having a union in a company helps resolve issues without people getting hurt or sacked unnecessarily.

she could have refused to do it and taken a claim for contstructive dismissal if sacked. what's the name of the case? presumably such a case would be the subject of a reported judgment, i would have a professional interest in reading it. also, the company would have been prosecuted under H & S legislation; were they?

why did she need to be in a union? did her fellow employees not bring the matter to the attention of management... are they impotent without an "official" to let them know what they should do and think?? you don;t need to be in a union to care about a fellow worker

oscarBravo

landser wrote:

she could have refused to do it and taken a claim for contstructive dismissal if sacked.

Unfair dismissal. Constructive dismissal is when feel you have been forced to quit.

RainyDay

patzer117 wrote:

I wouldn't plan on putting it into practise because i'd get too much stick from bloody unions... But seriously why should i have to pay more to someone if somebody else will do the exact same job for the cheaper?!? I'm not really talking about permanant employees, more the kind in the Irish Ferries dispute - who had already accepted severences packages

It's not a question of 'stick from bloody unions'. You'll simply be breaking the law. You'll end up paying large amounts of money (which will totally negate any savings you make on wage costs) in compensation claims.

I don't get your point about those 'who had already accepted severences packages'. If they have already accepted a severance package, then they have taken voluntary redundancy, so you won't be firing anyone. Just for the record, if the reduncancies are not true redundancies (i.e. the job no longer exists [regardless of the wage level]), you won't get Govt support for the statuatory minimum redundancy payments and the payments to employees will not be tax free, which will significantly reduce their attractiveness to employees who you are hoping will volunteer to take the package.

patzer117

RainyDay wrote:

It's not a question of 'stick from bloody unions'. You'll simply be breaking the law. You'll end up paying large amounts of money (which will totally negate any savings you make on wage costs) in compensation claims.

ok, I know it's against the law. But what i'm asking still hasn't been answered, Why should I have to pay more for the exact same job to be done? For a business it is illogical.
The only answer given in this thread has been that one enters into a social contract for employment. I disagree with this interpretation but must then ask (if this is the case) is it ok to replace non-permanant employees? Or must the employee always have the rights? Surely a business should do what is profit maximising? it's things like these that will force multi-national companies to go abroad - not only do they have cheaper workers there, but they have cheaper workers here too they are just not allowed to access them!!!

in the case i was refering to RainyDay the Irish Ferries workers had accepted severence packages and were going to be replaced by other workers who will do the job for cheaper - but then other unions got involved and said they disagree with this practise. In my opinion it's none of their business, both the company and the ex-employees are happy, the unions have no right to complain.

RainyDay

patzer117 wrote:

ok, I know it's against the law. But what i'm asking still hasn't been answered, Why should I have to pay more for the exact same job to be done? For a business it is illogical.
The only answer given in this thread has been that one enters into a social contract for employment. I disagree with this interpretation but must then ask (if this is the case) is it ok to replace non-permanant employees? Or must the employee always have the rights? Surely a business should do what is profit maximising? it's things like these that will force multi-national companies to go abroad - not only do they have cheaper workers there, but they have cheaper workers here too they are just not allowed to access them!!!

A contract of employment is just that - a contract. For a permanent employee, the contract is perpetual, i.e. no end date. If you allow an employer to replace the worker with a cheaper one, then you are effectively allowing them to ignore their contractual committment. This would be a serious breach of trust. Should this also apply to b2b contracts, i.e. even though I've committed to buy 1000 widgets from you every month for an agreed price, can I just walk away from my contractual committment if I find a cheaper supplier?

It is not unreasonable to expect an employer to set the wage rates appropriately when entering the contract of employment. To allow cutting in the way that you mention would precipitate a 'race to the bottom' in terms of employment standards.

patzer117 wrote:

in the case i was refering to RainyDay the Irish Ferries workers had accepted severence packages and were going to be replaced by other workers who will do the job for cheaper - but then other unions got involved and said they disagree with this practise. In my opinion it's none of their business, both the company and the ex-employees are happy, the unions have no right to complain.

'happy' is an interesting choice of words. What makes you think the departing employees are 'happy'? If I put a gun to your head and let you choose between my shooting of your elbows or your knees, will you be 'happy' twhen I shoot your elbow? Just because employees opted for the severence package does not mean they were 'happy'. Trade unions (generally) act at the request of members, so it's a fair bet that the employees were 'happy' for the union to act & intervene in the negotiations.