It's time to review the right to strike, or at least to strike intermittently.

Bullying !

Certainly not , intermittent strikes are a legimate industrial ploy which has often dragged intransigent employers to the negotiating table .

You say tomato etc !

As a trade unionist I find it encouraging that you believe that no Irish Government , in all probability , will introduce such punitive legislation .

It must be said that it's all very well to say that the law must be changed but surely on the basis that you seem to accept that the Irish Government will not act then you are effectively whistling in the wind ?
 
Last edited:
I don't think that the current government or whatever emerges from the current TDs will bring in such legislation.

But that does not make it right. We should campaign to change the law so that people can't bully their employers and their customers.

Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century. They see this as a dispute between intransigent employers and hard pressed workers. But the reality is that all of those drivers are very well protected by legislation. And the market protects them as well. They are free to leave their jobs at any time and get higher salaries elsewhere.

They should not have a monopoly on the supply of labour.

It's even more outrageous that they are claiming that their employer's plans to provide buses to help the customers will inflame the matter further. If these guys are not prepared to work for the salaries on offer, let others take their jobs.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I don't think that the current government or whatever emerges from the current TDs will bring in such legislation. . . .

Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century. . . .

Brendan
Click to expand...

There is no point in even arguing against this stupid and ill judged (to say the least!) comment
 
What the continuing Luas dispute did prove is that legimate industrial action drove a extremely intransigent Transdev to the negotiating table where the company quite happily offered wage increases way in excess of what they originally offered , it is quite obvious if the Luas employees had not taken the action they did the company would simply have played hardball .

As the realities of our industrial relations are , as we both agree , unlikely to change over the the lifetime of the current Government I look forward to resuming the debate in the unlikely event that any future Government will debate or introduce the legislation you propose.

There really is not much point in debating the point further unless we ever reach the unlikely scenario that your proposed legislation gains political traction , I will dip in again after the next election but I have no doubt that that we will see no change to the status quo.

Perhaps the best way to ensure industrial peace is a return to some form of social partnership as suggested by Kieran Mulvey in his article in last Saturday's Indo !!!
 
Last edited:
Delboy said:
Why would you think that it is stupid?
Click to expand...

"Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century." Quote from BB.

The comment is without foundation.

If things are pretty and we have a workforce that is happy in modern Ireland why are there still trades unions? Are all workers treated well?

Tell that to people working with less than the minimum wage (remember the thread about au-pairs and conditions and low pay that many of them suffered: different argument, I know). Outside of Dublin, look at the amount of hotels that have staff working not knowing if there will be a job for them next week, never mind next year. Have a look at many people working as bar staff outside of Dublin. They work part-time and many do not get paid after closing and spend at least an hour unpaid with cleaning duties etc. Have a look on this forum where some people won't join trades unions. Some such people think it not the right thing to do. Others fear it will prevent them from advancing in their employment. Then look at the way some of them are treated, again on this forum.

I wish we had no need for trades unions. I wish we had no need for industrial disputes. I wish we had no reason to strike. But, the reality is different and for somebody to say that most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century is probably the greatest trades union pro-recruitment statement of the year.
 
Leper said:
There is no point in even arguing against this stupid and ill judged (to say the least!) comment
Click to expand...

Sorry but I think BBs comment is far from stupid and ill judged in fact from an employers point of view he has hit the nail on the head with regard to the unions and there attitude to all employers.
In relation to the Luas dispute you can not compare them to people on minimum wage or less, or people on zero hour contracts, no in fact they are on a great package and conditions and one thing that most people forget is it also can be a job for life if the employee so chooses.
 
Last edited:
Unions don't represent those who need them most. Powerful unions in Ireland mostly represent workers who aren't downtrodden or exploited. I wouldn't consider Irish Rail/LUAS/Dublin Bus or teachers to be exploited.

For most workers, employment legislation has replaced the need for unions. In the 19th Century most employers couldn't move to China. Now they can (except for Irish Rail/LUAS/Dublin Bus etc). The sectors that can't move have the powerful unions. As much as we don't like it it's the reality. Most coming from college with a 4 year degress, don't earn as much as a LUAS driver or have similar job security.

Is there a large staff turnover with LUAS drivers, this would be an indication of poor working conditions.
 
There would be absolutely zero sympathy from the general Irish public if all LUAS drivers were sacked tomorrow. Zero. The general attitude would be serve them right. Would there be any sympathy if driverless trams were introduced?

It's a great trade union that lays the foundation for the ultimate decimation of the jobs they are supposed to protect. Trade unions who force through pay deals and limitations on productivity that companies cannot bear in the long run have accomplished nothing except the elimination of trade unions from vast areas of the private sector and the loss of jobs here to overseas.
Look at Aer Lingus and Ryanair.

Which is why we are left with unions only in those jobs that must be done here. Why do you think every second government project or increased spending ends up going to outsourced non-unionised companies? Trade unions have made themselves, and are, an obstacle to better and more efficient public services in this country. They should be part of the solution but nine times out of ten, are part of the problem.

I think any trade unionist cheering on the LUAS drivers to reject the recent deal should consider the long term consequences of putting themselves on the complete wrong side of public opinion when there is a deal on the table.
There is such a thing as winning the battle but losing the war.
 
Last edited:
odyssey06 said:
I think any trade unionist cheering on the LUAS drivers to reject the recent deal should consider the long term consequences of putting themselves on the complete wrong side of public opinion when there is a deal on the table.
There is such a thing as winning the battle but losing the war.
Click to expand...

Their 19th century thinking wont allow them to countenance such. The luas strike is doing massive damage to the trade unionist movement, however, for the first time in nearly a decade a very public fight has been pitched. The union wont want to back down, and is likely to damage it further.

The unions have achieved a lot in the past, but if they are reduced to trying to get such a pay deal for the luas drivers they are effectively dodos.
 
Leper said:
"Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century." Quote from BB.

The comment is without foundation.
Click to expand...
As someone who works in a heavily unionised organisation, I can assure you that it does have some foundation
 
The phrase "right to strike" originates with legislation introduced in 1906 by the first Liberal government.

Prior to that workers in effect could not go on strike. This is because if a person withdraws their labour they are breaking their employment contract. If they encourage another person to withdraw their labour they are conspiring to damage the economic well being of the employer.

The legal basis of strike action is the employment legislation which says that a striker cannot be sued for breach of contract.

This is why the law can prescribe how strikes must be conducted, secret ballots, notice periods etc. If these provisions are ignored an employer can sue the strikers for breach of contract, and seek damages for the loss the employer has suffered.

The principle that strike action should be fair and proportionate is well established in law, for example strikers must give the employer adequate notice of strike action.

It seems to me that extending this to prevent intermittent strike action is not unreasonable. The present position where striker can strike for short periods, say two hours during the morning rush and cause maximum disruption to the employers business, then claim six hours pay for the day, is unreasonable.

I don't think it is that far beyond the bounds of political discussion either. Employers are well organised too, unlike taxpayers, as discussed on other threads.
 
I see the need for Trade Unions in many areas in Ireland. Unfortunately those are the very areas where Trade Unions are least interested in being involved. They are not interested in representing the have-not's as their role is to protect the have’s from the have-not's.

They want to represent well paid employees so that they get a good income stream to fund their organisation and pay the hansom salaries of their executives. They want to be able to bully the softest employer in the country; the State. They want the easy option, the best bang for their buck. They are a business after all.


I think that strikes should not be allowed in sectors which are of strategic importance to the state and/or function as monopolies. This includes the police, armed forces, customs and boarder protection, most public transport and most state services including education.

A strike should be a battle between employees and their employer. They should not be allowed when the main victims are the general public.


A good indication of how Unions are stuck in the 19th century is their categorisation of employees of an organisation into two artificial and meaningless groupings which they refer to as the “workers” and the “management”. The fact that the heavily unionised Public Sector Broadcaster RTE perpetuates these 19th century categorisations does not in any way legitimise them.

Let’s be clear; every employee of an organisation works and therefore is a worker. Most people have some management function. The fluidity of reality makes hard categorisations both meaningless and offensive.
 
losttheplot said:
Unions don't represent those who need them most. Powerful unions in Ireland mostly represent workers who aren't downtrodden or exploited. I wouldn't consider Irish Rail/LUAS/Dublin Bus or teachers to be exploited.
Click to expand...

There has been quite a few threads here over the years that would back that point up too, cases of employee grievances where the unions just don't want to know.

It's actions like this from the Luas drivers that is encouraging the increased use of agency workers and the erosion of conditions in such sectors.
 
Brendan,
Your arguments on the face of it are good.I am NOT saying I largely dis agree with you but,
1. (bullying works) ? yup, look what our Banks have managed , maybe get our jellyfish leaders to take them on, before we go hell for leather on what is not an economy wrecking dispute ..
2. (not happy with salary can leave) that is a recipe for a complete dumming down of wages ,I don,t really see that as a cure.
eg. starting wages for Guards/teachers/nurses don,t seem fair , so they just leave? and remember guards/teachers/nurses are better protected that normal workers?

I would be very very slow to interfere in any dispute , experience tells me both sides compromise and the (annoyance) we feel soon fades.
I am not a fan of having more laws, or more changes.
 
Gerry Canning said:
eg. starting wages for Guards/teachers/nurses don't seem fair , so they just leave? and remember guards/teachers/nurses are better protected that normal workers?
Click to expand...
How do you decide what constitutes fair?
We have a problem filling Nursing positions and Gardai are leaving, and have to be paid well enough to avoid them succumbing to corruption due to everyday financial pressures. Therefore they should probably be paid more. We have no problem filling teaching positions therefore there is not much of a case for pay increases there.
 
Purple ,
I wasn,t saying they should all be paid more , but that new entrants are paid less.(that seems not just unfair but stupid!)
I don,t decide what constitutes fair , but in most things people come to sensible rather than (lawful) compromises.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Purple ,
I wasn,t saying they should all be paid more , but that new entrants are paid less.(that seems not just unfair but stupid!)
I don,t decide what constitutes fair , but in most things people come to sensible rather than (lawful) compromises.
Click to expand...
I agree. Solidarity would suggest that existing employees take a very small cut in pay in order to give a large increase to new entrants. That or a very small cut by pensioners in those sectors. But solidarity and such concepts are long dead in the Irish Union movement.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Purple ,
I wasn,t saying they should all be paid more , but that new entrants are paid less.(that seems not just unfair but stupid!)
I don,t decide what constitutes fair , but in most things people come to sensible rather than (lawful) compromises.
Click to expand...

If we paid new entrants the same as current staff, we would be unable to take on as many of them. So the question is, what's fairer: 90 on same wage as current staff, or 100 on less? How fair would it be to the 10 who miss out who want to work as teachers? What would they be doing? Emigrating? Claiming unemployment benefit?
So I think there are limits to fairness as a useful concept here.
 
odyssey06 said:
If we paid new entrants the same as current staff, we would be unable to take on as many of them. So the question is, what's fairer: 90 on same wage as current staff, or 100 on less? How fair would it be to the 10 who miss out who want to work as teachers? What would they be doing? Emigrating? Claiming unemployment benefit?
So I think there are limits to fairness as a useful concept here.
Click to expand...
If all employees and retirees took a very small cut then the new entrants could be paid the same as them. Equality, solidarity, financial viability; problem solved. But that's not the Union way. That are there to protect the haves from the have-not's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top