Bereavement time off

[Salvadore]

If they want to do something other than push the government around to take more money from the poor, sick and vulnerable for their middle and upper income members and perpetuate waste that kills people in the health service then yes, it would be useful if they moved out of their bunker and actually did what they say they are there to do.

That’s a hell of an unsubstantiated claim.

I’m no fan of unions as they’re currently constructed but it’s some leap to say they’re directly responsible for deaths.

I think the union movement could play a stronger role in improving society but they ultimately exist to act on behalf of their members. If their influence is too strong, that’s not their fault. Employers tend to get the unions they deserve.

 

[Salvadore]

It’s absolutely hilarious to think that people feel that more should be done for low paid workers when effectively such workers are sidelined by the State who legislate that although such workers can join a Union their employers can refuse to negotiate with such Unions.
A Catch - 22 situation which hopefully will not continue indefinitely.

It’s hilarious to think that unions feel they should have a foot in the door of every employer in the country.

The employment relationship is between the employer and employee. Why should there be an obligation to include any third party?

 

[Purple]

That’s a hell of an unsubstantiated claim.

I’m no fan of unions as they’re currently constructed but it’s some leap to say they’re directly responsible for deaths.

If people are dying due to lack of resources then those who actively obstruct reform, improvements in efficiency, improvements in accountability, improvements in standards and better allocation of resources have to shoulder a big part of the blame.

I think the union movement could play a stronger role in improving society but they ultimately exist to act on behalf of their members.

They only exist to act on behalf of their members. The same goes for IBEC and ISME and the IFA and every other vested interest group. They have zero role in improving civil society and none of them should be given any oxygen or air time to pretend they do.

If their influence is too strong, that’s not their fault.

True but that doesn't reduce the harm they do.

Employers tend to get the unions they deserve.

Also true, in most cases, but when the State is the employer then essential services suffer, the citizens relationship with the State suffers, and those who need the social infrastructure the State provides suffer most.

 

[Purple]

Hmmmmmmmmm! Amazing how many non trade union members want to run trade unions.

I don't want to run any vested interest group. I want to see their insidious and poisonous influence reduced and the elected Parliament of the county and the Government they elect actually running the country.

 

[Leper]

I don't want to run any vested interest group. I want to see their insidious and poisonous influence reduced and the elected Parliament of the county and the Government they elect actually running the country.

Look at your posts. Of course, you want to run everything.

 

[Purple]

Look at your posts. Of course, you want to run everything.

No, I want competent people who will act in the national interest to run things. I don't qualify under any of those requirements.

 

[Leper]

No, I want competent people who will act in the national interest to run things. I don't qualify under any of those requirements.

The Taliban are saying this too. But, at least one can negotiate with them.

 

[Salvadore]

I was in a public sector union for over 30 years. I’ve also dealt with them from a manager’s perspective.

As a young guy back in the 80s, it was amusing to see the local rep organise a walk-out because the office temperature had fallen marginally below agreed limits.

As I got a bit older and a bit more responsible, I saw my union buy into various social partnership agreements which were sold to members on the basis of being in their long term interest.

Notwithstanding the improv in the industrial relations climate that followed, I think the overwhelming sense of members was that they were sold down the river and that the heads of unions became part of the establishment they were supposed to disrupt. In my opinion, they became bloated and lazy. They presented 1% pay rises as achievements they’d ‘negotiated’ fiercely.

Threatened walk outs for low temperatures are now a thing of the distant past. Union reps are hard to get because most people either couldn’t be bothered or don’t see it as a good career move. Those who eventually take on the job are either acting in self interest or are just the ’bolshie’ type who would start an argument with themselves. They’re the unreasonable types who stir the proverbial just because they can.

Some unions (such as those representing medical consultants) seem to be quite a bit more active and assertive. You may not agree with them or condone the impact they’re having on the rest of us but at least they know why they exist.

 

[Purple]

Notwithstanding the improv in the industrial relations climate that followed, I think the overwhelming sense of members was that they were sold down the river and that the heads of unions became part of the establishment they were supposed to disrupt. In my opinion, they became bloated and lazy. They presented 1% pay rises as achievements they’d ‘negotiated’.

They did achieve a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the middle-class so as far as their mandate goes they did a brilliant job of representing their members.

Some unions (such as those representing medical consultants) seem to be quite a bit more active and assertive. You may not agree with them or condone the impact they’re having on the rest of us but at least they know why they exist.

Yes, they are a proper Union. They stymied reform for 14 years and ended up with very high rates of pay along with absolutely no accountability to their employers for their members. Job done. A massive amount of human suffering caused but it's not their job to worry about that.

 

[Leper]

I was in a public sector union for over 30 years. I’ve also dealt with them from a manager’s perspective.

As a young guy back in the 80s, it was amusing to see the local rep organise a walk-out because the office temperature had fallen marginally below agreed limits.

As I got a bit older and a bit more responsible, I saw my union buy into various social partnership agreements which were sold to members on the basis of being in their long term interest.

Notwithstanding the improv in the industrial relations climate that followed, I think the overwhelming sense of members was that they were sold down the river and that the heads of unions became part of the establishment they were supposed to disrupt. In my opinion, they became bloated and lazy. They presented 1% pay rises as achievements they’d ‘negotiated’ fiercely.

Threatened walk outs for low temperatures are now a thing of the distant past. Union reps are hard to get because most people either couldn’t be bothered or don’t see it as a good career move. Those who eventually take on the job are either acting in self interest or are just the ’bolshie’ type who would start an argument with themselves. They’re the unreasonable types who stir the proverbial just because they can.

Some unions (such as those representing medical consultants) seem to be quite a bit more active and assertive. You may not agree with them or condone the impact they’re having on the rest of us but at least they know why they exist.

I won't argue with Salvadore as what he says is true. I joined the Public Service in 1970 where on Day One I realised that I was out of my depth in a modernising age with dinosaur thinking and that was only the junior management. If you wore a sports jacket, sleeveless pullover and black shoes with steel tipped heels and could move six pints of Arthur Guinness at lunchtime you'd have no work problems and would be promoted almost automatically on the death or retirement of a colleague. Times change but the PS/CS moved slower than the times.

I was a union rep quite early as nobody else was inclined to take on the role. I had no problem fitting in as my predecessors and the local management they dealt with were seated in Victorian thinking. Things were so sad (I can't think of a better word) before I represented any union member I asked for a written summary of the problem. If he/she failed to supply the summary I'd write out what I thought the problem was and show it to the member prior to tackling management. I had no time for moaners with the lighting is too strong or not strong enough. I was interested in local issues e.g. unwanted behaviour towards females or males on the staff (of which there was too much). It took years to solve such problems such were the times.

Obviously, things changed with the advance of time and the role of the union rep changed almost daily. The Labour Court deals more comprehensively now with what I used have to deal with on a local level.

 

[Salvadore]

Things were so sad (I can't think of a better word) before I represented any union member I asked for a written summary of the problem.

You’d have your work cut now Leper. No one can write anymore. You’d probably just get a string of emojis that you’d have to interpret.

 

[peemac]

All the evidence shows that the decline of unions has coincided with a massive rise in wealth inequality.
It's not that there isn't enough profit, its that the profit is being hoarded by fewer and fewer people.

Capitalists are so dumb, they actually have to rescued by unions and labour parties, from their own demise.

Share the wealth guys, or it'll be tumbrel time.

The decline in Union membership has not see a decline in the pay and very generous expenses and pension benefits of the Union hierarchy.

But in some sectors Unions can be good and can be progressive. An post is an example.

But at the other end of the scale is the ASTI who must have it written in their Constitution that they must threaten a strike on at least two occasions every year.

 

[Peanuts20]

I used to have to deal with unions in previous roles. Mostly they were fine and I've seen an experienced union rep stop an inexperienced or just stupid manager making a fool of themselves and making an issue worse by pointing out the error of their ways. I've also sat in union discussions and watched the full time union officials slam their books shut and walk out of the meeting angrily that some of their members were at. As i've escorted them to the door, it was not uncommon for them to mention to me quietly that they would be up the road in a coffee shop or pub and to pop up there in half an hour and we'd sort out a deal quietly. In effect, it was a show but we always got a deal done.

They are also very useful for "stating the obvious" and confirming things like rights under TUPE where staff may not believe the management, even though what the management may be stating is the law of the land.

I also can't help but think what would have happened in the 1970's if UIster Bank said they were closing back then. It would have been a nationwide bank strike. How times change.

 

[Leper]

I used to have to deal with unions in previous roles. Mostly they were fine and I've seen an experienced union rep stop an inexperienced or just stupid manager making a fool of themselves and making an issue worse by pointing out the error of their ways. I've also sat in union discussions and watched the full time union officials slam their books shut and walk out of the meeting angrily that some of their members were at. As i've escorted them to the door, it was not uncommon for them to mention to me quietly that they would be up the road in a coffee shop or pub and to pop up there in half an hour and we'd sort out a deal quietly. In effect, it was a show but we always got a deal done.

They are also very useful for "stating the obvious" and confirming things like rights under TUPE where staff may not believe the management, even though what the management may be stating is the law of the land.

I also can't help but think what would have happened in the 1970's if UIster Bank said they were closing back then. It would have been a nationwide bank strike. How times change.

Excellent post by Peanuts20 and I've got to say that as a participant in a GAA club and as a former trade union rep more got achieved at "meetings that never took place" than at real meetings.

Nice comment too about union officials who kept some members of management from making fools of themselves - more important than first thoughts.

Everything is achieved by discussion and nothing was ever achieved by ignoring the opposition.

 

[Purple]

I've had employees complain

Nice comment too about union officials who kept some members of management from making fools of themselves - more important than first thoughts.

I've had employees complain that they had to pay for their own prescription safety glasses. I tell them that they don't have to and if they give me a receipt I'll give them a cheque for the cost. I also point out that not only is it company policy but it's the law. I then tell them that we'll also pay for hearing tests but that I'm not a mind reader so unless they ask they won't get.
The same applied to any PPE, lifting equipment etc. I tell them that they've had the same manual handling training I've had, they have access to the same company handbook I do and if they are unsure or unhappy about something they should ask.

Most problems can be avoided with reasonable dialogue.

 

[WolfeTone]

as a former trade union rep more got achieved at "meetings that never took place" than at real meetings.

It's pragmatism. The reality is that to ward off industrial relation disputes both sides, union and employer reps, need to be able to sell a package to their members with both sides claiming a good deal.

Ireland has been successful at this over the last few decades. In no small part to broader economic considerations such as the wide availability of credit. Allowing workers to buy now what they need and want and working to pay it off rather than working and saving for years before being able to afford what they need and want.
It has been successful in warding off large scale industrial disputes but broader consequences are that economies of the world are built on the capacity to service debt.
Some see it as a triumph for working middle class Ireland over the poorer working class. Truth is, this has always been the case. Revolution is rarely sprung by poor working class.
It is sprung by working middle class who feel hard done by, that they then invoke the poorer working class to rise up and sacrifice on their behalf on the promise of better days ahead.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

As a young guy back in the 80s, it was amusing to see the local rep organise a walk-out because the office temperature had fallen marginally below agreed limits.

As I got a bit older and a bit more responsible, I saw my union buy into various social partnership agreements which were sold to members on the basis of being in their long term interest.

Yes I think social partnership domesticated a lot of union staff and they got far too cosy with the establishment. Since that fell apart in 2008 they're flailing to have any relevance at macro level - although in fairness there has been no inflation for them to seek to bid up wages for.

Old-fashioned trade unionists were working-class men who were only interested in securing better pay and conditions for their workers. This was very simple. Unions nowadays are far too busy now having opinions on political issues that affect much more than just their members. Ironically, in many cases unions have pushed for employment protection legislation that makes them irrelevant.


The bigger issue is that I just think most workers don't have the appetite or interest in walk-outs or strikes anymore. Maybe this is cultural, maybe staff are just treated better, maybe they are more bought in to the corporate point of view. I can't see this changing anytime soon.

 

[Purple]

The bigger issue is that I just think most workers don't have the appetite or interest in walk-outs or strikes anymore. Maybe this is cultural, maybe staff are just treated better, maybe they are more bought in to the corporate point of view. I can't see this changing anytime soon.

I think that at a macro level the conversation is over. The Unions did a great job back in the day and won the battles that needed to be won.
The things they looked for are now enshrined in law. The reason that most people in the private sector aren't in Unions is because they know that.

It's the same reason why women aren't in the Suffragettes any more. Most women (and men) are interested in equality but know that the big battles have been won and now it's about culture and compliance.

 

[Leper]

I think that at a macro level the conversation is over. The Unions did a great job back in the day and won the battles that needed to be won.
The things they looked for are now enshrined in law. The reason that most people in the private sector aren't in Unions is because they know that.

It's the same reason why women aren't in the Suffragettes any more. Most women (and men) are interested in equality but know that the big battles have been won and now it's about culture and compliance.

There is much truth in what Purple says, but there are exceptions and hence the need for trade unions today. Back in the 1970's, 1980's and even the 1990's where I worked there was a call-to-arms nearly every month. These calls were usually because of some internal promoted (largely less educated) people sabre rattling where a staff chat would have resolved the issues. More educated and qualified people are in management now and most that can be settled easily is settled. The troops are more educated and qualified also.

 

[Purple]

Hmmmmmmmmm! Amazing how many non trade union members want to run trade unions.

I’ve no desire to be a bus driver but when I’m in one or sharing the road with one I have an interest in what the driver of said bus it doing and now competent they are.