Thank you - Dunnes Stores.

D

Deiseblue

Registered User
Messages
829
A huge shout out to Dunnes stores whose intransigence has brought the question of zero hours/low hours contracts front & centre .
It is heartening to see cross party support for Mandate supported employees stance in this matter & even more heartening to see the public's support in ensuring that all Dunnes Stores did little business yesterday.
JoanBurton's undertaking that collective bargaining legislation is to be introduced by the summer is also good news.
 
+1

My wife and I moved to the UK a couple of years ago and the only employment we could acquire at the time, after 7 weeks of looking, was a zero hours / minimum wage contract (warehouse position) with a large UK retailer. We were among 1000 seasonal staff taken on for the Christmas Peak Period. We met several people who were still on zero hours contracts after 5 years + of employment.

(1)The agency would text us at any time up to 11pm to let us know if we had work the following morning at 6am - or, if we were working at 2pm, we would receive a text at about 12pm. (We, like most other employees lived an hours drive from work). We had to text back immediately to let them know or they would text someone else and we would lose our hours for that day.

(2) It was typical for a sizeable minority of people to be sent home within minutes of arriving in work, even after receiving / responding to a text message. This occured as the 'figures' for projected orders wouldn't be generated until after people had received / responded to the text. If someone complained - they would never receive another text.

(3) There were 3 large onsite employment agencies controlling all of the hours and as a result, these people had total control.The same agencies controlled most 'picker / packer warehouse' employment in all of the warehouses in the north of England. We applied for a similar position in a different company - as we were not receiving enough hours to pay our bills - through a different agency and we were refused as the agencies had 'an unspoken rule' amongst them that they would not 'poach' from each other. In effect, we were tied to the one agency, even if that meant we received a mere 8 hours pay at £6.5 per hour in any given week.

(4)The inequitable relationship between employer and employee encouraged the worst type of bullying behaviour (and worse) on the part of the employer.

(5)We found it impossible to plan our finances with any certainty and, as a result, we stopped 'participating' in the economy. We cut out all lunches, coffees, clothes purchasing etc. We were constantly stressed out waiting for the text to arrive. We found ourselves checking our phones every 30 seconds - in case we had accidentally switched it off or on to silent mode. I kept repeating the mantra that ' The how of living is tolerable if one has a why to live for' - as we knew that we would eventually be in a position to leave. But the awful reality is that everyone we met in the warehouse had the same issues without any prospect of change. My wife spoke to some women who lived in mouldy / freezing accommodation as they were afraid to turn on the heating and were afraid to shower, as they couldn't predict their wages and as a result were afraid of not being able to pay their electricity / water charges at the end of each month. We never met anyone in the warehouse who didn't want to work every hour that was available to them.

In my opinion, low hours / zero hours contracts need to be outlawed ASAP. Adam Smith's rising tide analogy is oft quoted by people who justify these exploitative work practices. The reality is that people on these ccntracts should not have to be sacrificed to ensure our 'recovery' maintains momentum. Then again, one would hardly expect a bunch of privately educated parliamentarians to 'understand' this.
 
Last edited:
Epicaricicy , what appalling working conditions with consequent effects on all facets of your lives , I hope that things have improved for both you & your wife.
I have no doubt your experiences are replicated across workforces where such contracts exist .
Both IBEC & ISME state that there is a place for such contracts , might I suggest that the waste paper bin is the appropriate place ?
Hopefully the current level of political & public opprobrium will lead to such contracts being binned.
 
Have been following zero hours contracts on Ch4 news for the past couple of years and while no expert on this type of thing, it definitely sounded wrong to me. Very unfair and no way to work long term.
So while it may suit the likes of students or even retirees, I for one would be glad to see it stopped in it's tracks in this country before it gains a foothold.

So well done DS workers on forcing the issue into the headlines here
 
Well done the the Dunne Stores workers...

Hopefully another day or two of industrial action will make the Heffernan family think twice with regard to their Charles Dickens type management policies.
 
The Dunnes Stores workers who went out on strike yesterday did a favour for the entire workforce in this country. If Dunnes got away with what they had been offering it would only be a matter of (short) time before every employer in the country jumped on the bandwagon. Dunnes give good employment and have always played the green card "The Difference is We're Irish" - It's about time they recognised they do business in Ireland and in the Irish way. There is a long way to go yet.

Dunnes management will not negotiate with trades unions. There is a management regime there like something you would see in the Third Reich.

Some of the Dunnes workers passed the picket too - it is their right, but shame on them leaving others to do their fighting for them. And worse again, more shame on the shoppers who for one reason or other passed the picket also.
 
One of the largest employers in the country, the HSE, sub-contracts certain services to employers who treat their employees in this fashion. No regular hours, no guaranteed hours, very little prior notice of being needed at work. The work isn't even seasonal as it involves covering for (apparently) unpredictable spikes in demand for services or sick leave. The HSE unions won't support the changing of these arrangements for non-members as it would mean addressing the incredibly high sick-leave rates of some of their members.
 
mathepac said:
One of the largest employers in the country, the HSE, sub-contracts certain services to employers who treat their employees in this fashion. No regular hours, no guaranteed hours, very little prior notice of being needed at work. The work isn't even seasonal as it involves covering for (apparently) unpredictable spikes in demand for services or sick leave. The HSE unions won't support the changing of these arrangements for non-members as it would mean addressing the incredibly high sick-leave rates of some of their members.
Click to expand...
I am not fully conversant about this post as I do not know what grades are involved. There is an embargo on recruitment to the public service for years and the HSE is not recruiting. It uses the services of on-call agencies which is more costly than recruiting a fulltime person.

The sick leave situation in the public service has been addressed under the Haddington Road Agreement and staff are on the receiving end of an austere programme which sees them on Half Pay and Nil Pay fast. I feel the unions have left their members down with such a programme.
 
Leper said:
The sick leave situation in the public service has been addressed under the Haddington Road Agreement and staff are on the receiving end of an austere programme which sees them on Half Pay and Nil Pay fast. I feel the unions have left their members down with such a programme.
Click to expand...
Aye, sure!
I recall a recent report in the Indo showing sick leave as high as ever
 
The thread topic is Dunnes Stores workers, zero / low hours contracts, union recognition, etc and I introduced the HSE as an example of how a union-dominated organisation exploits non-unionised workers for the benefit of union members. Managers & supervisors in the union-domineered HSE are members of the same trades unions as those they purport to supervise / manage, an unhealthy incestuous relationship which clients pay for by reductions in services and service quality. The HSE is being run for its employees not its clients.
 
Leper said:
The Indo was talking about County Councils there. We were talking about sick leave in the HSE. Remember? I don't know what statistics the councils use.
Click to expand...
You mentioned the PS, not the HSE. Anyways, we're just taking this off topic
 
Delboy said:
You mentioned the PS, not the HSE. Anyways, we're just taking this off topic
Click to expand...
Sorry, Delboy, you are correct I mentioned the PS. However, the only sick leave figures available to me are HSE staff. If you can source them you will see that the HSE has come to grips with the sick leave situation.

Mathpac made the point that we are going off topic and we are, sorry about that too! To agree with Mathpac I have problems with unions representing Chiefs and Indians simultaneously. I wish to point out the staff is not exploiting anybody and neither are the unions. Neither of these employs people. Anyway back to the subject afoot. . .
 
Deiseblue said:
A huge shout out to Dunnes stores whose intransigence has brought the question of zero hours/low hours contracts front & centre .
Click to expand...
I agree. It's a disgraceful practice and should have been consigned to history years ago.

Deiseblue said:
JoanBurton's undertaking that collective bargaining legislation is to be introduced by the summer is also good news.
Click to expand...
It will lead to the institutionalised bullying of employers, particularly small employers, by the usual slew of self serving unions, so I disagree on that one.

Leper said:
If Dunnes got away with what they had been offering it would only be a matter of (short) time before every employer in the country jumped on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...
What a grossly offensive comment. Some would, most wouldn't. Employers are no different from employees when it comes to morals and ethics; there are some bad but most are good.

mathepac said:
One of the largest employers in the country, the HSE, sub-contracts certain services to employers who treat their employees in this fashion. No regular hours, no guaranteed hours, very little prior notice of being needed at work. The work isn't even seasonal as it involves covering for (apparently) unpredictable spikes in demand for services or sick leave. The HSE unions won't support the changing of these arrangements for non-members as it would mean addressing the incredibly high sick-leave rates of some of their members.
Click to expand...
That's hardly surprising. Unions have a long history of complicity in the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable in order to promote the interests of their members.

mathepac said:
The HSE is being run for its employees not its clients.
Click to expand...
That could apply to just about every state service provider.

Leper said:
I wish to point out the staff is not exploiting anybody and neither are the unions. Neither of these employs people. Anyway back to the subject afoot. . .
Click to expand...
Any group that uses its power or position to gain more power or position at the expense of others is engaged in exploitation. Unions sometimes do it, employers sometimes do it and sometimes even employees do it. The objective is balancing the power and interests of different groups. When Unions are too powerful then businesses are put out of business, non members are exploited and those employees who disagree with the union are treated without mercy. There is plenty of legislation to protect employees from their employer, and rightly so. There is little or no legislation to protect employers, or the population at large, from the actions of over zealous unions.
 
Purple said:
What a grossly offensive comment. Some would, most wouldn't. Employers are no different from employees when it comes to morals and ethics; there are some bad but most are good.
Click to expand...

A rather naive statement from somebody as eloquent as Purple. Not only is it anti trades union it suggests that employers hold the high ground on morals and ethics. He concedes that some are bad and most are good i.e. sure some are bad, but sure you wouldn't mind that.

By far the biggest trades union in this country is IBEC. It is not called a union but it has harder clout and agenda than any hardened trades union; it is there to represent employers and use its might almost at will dictating what should and should not happen even where it has no members. Its main agenda is profit for its members who seem willing to pocket as much as they can from any situation. Dunnes senior management would be a good example of this kind of greed.
 
Leper said:
A rather naive statement from somebody as eloquent as Purple. Not only is it anti trades union it suggests that employers hold the high ground on morals and ethics. He concedes that some are bad and most are good i.e. sure some are bad, but sure you wouldn't mind that.

By far the biggest trades union in this country is IBEC. It is not called a union but it has harder clout and agenda than any hardened trades union; it is there to represent employers and use its might almost at will dictating what should and should not happen even where it has no members. Its main agenda is profit for its members who seem willing to pocket as much as they can from any situation. Dunnes senior management would be a good example of this kind of greed.
Click to expand...

It was a pretty reasonable response to the statement that all employers would be as bad as Dunnes. If that's the case why haven't all employers gone for zero hours? Or why do those that do offer zero hours operate much more ethically in arranging hours than Dunnes? Because a relatively small supply of unethical employers does not mean all employers are unethical or will be. All employers could make each employee self-employed (like RyanAir's pilots) and avoid any employment law issues...but they don't.

The issue with trade unions is rational too, it is in their interest to look after their members, at times this can be to the detriment of non-members. The common denominator is that employers and employees are human beings and some are abhorent power seeking immoral people and some are just decent and trying to do their best.

Last, to go with your aside on ibec. If it is a trade union, how come under the new lobbying legislation its interactions with the government and civil service isn't protected and exempt like the "trade unions"? Its old FUE activities are trade union, but that's mostly its IR/HR service, the bulk of operations are individual sectors and policy. A social partner is not automatically a trade union and I think you imagine it has far more power than it actually does in determining policy.
 
Leper said:
A rather naive statement from somebody as eloquent as Purple. Not only is it anti trades union it suggests that employers hold the high ground on morals and ethics. He concedes that some are bad and most are good i.e. sure some are bad, but sure you wouldn't mind that.
Click to expand...
My point is that employers and employees are just people, no better or worse, no more ethical or un-ethical than each other.
Neither side should hold a disproportionate amount of power over the other, indeed there shouldn’t be sides, just people working in the same organisation or business who rely on the skill and labour of each other to earn an income.
Employers have to worry about the long term sustainability of the business they run. Unions seldom worry about this which is why they have succeeded in closing down so many businesses and why their membership is mainly concentrated in the protected sectors.
There are bad employers who are unethical and exploit and bully their employees. In that case legislation and organisations like NERI are very helpful. If the case suits the political agenda of the employees union then they may also help.
Leper said:
By far the biggest trades union in this country is IBEC. It is not called a union but it has harder clout and agenda than any hardened trades union; it is there to represent employers and use its might almost at will dictating what should and should not happen even where it has no members. Its main agenda is profit for its members who seem willing to pocket as much as they can from any situation. Dunnes senior management would be a good example of this kind of greed.
Click to expand...
I agree that IBEC is a union (while, ironically, the ICTU isn’t). I disagree that they have much power as it is the Unions with the nuclear option of striking but I am no fan of theirs, in their capacity as a lobby group, either.
By the way, SIPTU is the biggest union in the country.
 
Last edited:
Latrade said:
Last, to go with your aside on ibec. If it is a trade union, how come under the new lobbying legislation its interactions with the government and civil service isn't protected and exempt like the "trade unions"? Its old FUE activities are trade union, but that's mostly its IR/HR service, the bulk of operations are individual sectors and policy. A social partner is not automatically a trade union and I think you imagine it has far more power than it actually does in determining policy.
Click to expand...
IBEC has a licence to negotiate as a union and so it is one.
I wasn’t aware that the employee trade unions were exempt from the new legislation on lobbying. That seems ridiculous as they are the biggest, most powerful and most influential lobby groups in the country. If anything proves their power it is that exemption.
We should stop calling lobby groups social partners. Our democracy has been undermined enough over the last decade and a half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top