The majority should not be allowed to infringe on the basic rights of the minority. The right to go to work is a basic right.
I think I’ll go on strike
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
The majority should not be allowed to infringe on the basic rights of the minority. The right to go to work is a basic right.
To be fair, if you are in a union, then you have at least implicitly (and probably explicitly - if anyone reads their union rules) agreed to abide by union rules, which include supporting strike decisions.
The real difficulty, I think, is that in many unionised workplaces, workers do not in reality have a whole lot of choice about whether or not to join the union. And workers who do not support the present strikes are not really all that free to leave the union, in the sense that I cannot imagine their unionised colleagues saying 'fair enough - I respect your choice......'. So they are stuck with hard choices: lend support that they do not feel for a strike they do not want or suffer the odium of their colleagues.
The real difficulty, I think, is that in many unionised workplaces, workers do not in reality have a whole lot of choice about whether or not to join the union. And workers who do not support the present strikes are not really all that free to leave the union, in the sense that I cannot imagine their unionised colleagues saying 'fair enough - I respect your choice......'. So they are stuck with hard choices: lend support that they do not feel for a strike they do not want or suffer the odium of their colleagues.
I agree.
My point is that if you join a union then you should abide by the union decisions. You can't have a la carte decisions within a union no more than in a wider democracy. That said, there's not a whole lot you can do other than expel someone from the union if they break a strike.
Do you take the benefits which your colleagues' unions fight for? For instance, if as a result of your peers going on strike, the levy was reduced to a more manageable amount, or spread more evenly across workers, would you insist on paying the original amount as you 'have no time for unions' and didn't take part in the strike.
watching the dail debates online yesterday, the opposition are looking for changes to the legislation in relation to lower paid workers and the minister is open to some rejigging, so how do you know if it is the unions or the opposition causing the change.
It was just an example. What I'm really saying, and it has been said loads of times before, is that a lot of people criticise the union but are quite happy to take the benefits they have achieved through negotiation, and when necessary, some form of industrial action.
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
Fight for ?? They get a raise through the social partners like all workers. Just as those on companies with no unions do also !!
They unions had their chance and did nothing before the levy was introduced ?? Now the members have to do what they paid the union heads to do, sort out the mess......great value for money every week eh
Highest a CO can be paid is 34k after a number of years service.....what do the guys at the top of the union get, much higher than that i'd say.
As i've said, no levy for them and a good salary.....where is the motivation ?
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
Complete bull, i'm in the union because i feel they are too powerful in this country and are to blame for the high wage costs in this country that have driven jobs elsewhere.
Add to that their part in the FAS waste of money and the total two faced way of taking high salaries and yet.....standing up for the little man. Pull the other one, please.
At least Joe Higgins etc only took AIW
I'm not sure the rest of the Eurozone members would go along with the whims of Irelands government and employers somehow
'They' being .... who ? The unions IMO, and I thought you were along the same (picket?) lines.
I'm confused by your post. I think you either mean you're NOT in the union and the above quote is a typo, or you mean the govt and employers are too powerful....
Or maybe I'm just tired and seeing things
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
I'm not sure the rest of the Eurozone members would go along with the whims of Irelands government and employers somehow
'They' being .... who ? The unions IMO, and I thought you were along the same (picket?) lines.
I'm confused by your post. I think you either mean you're NOT in the union and the above quote is a typo, or you mean the govt and employers are too powerful....
Or maybe I'm just tired and seeing things
The unions are too powerful and i am not in the union as i have stated in many posts on this thread.
DublinTexas
can edit posts
- Messages
- 349
I'm not sure the rest of the Eurozone members would go along with the whims of Irelands government and employers somehow
Now come on, how can you dispute a very clear statement of "congress"? The quote "Goverment and Employers are engaged in a Campaing to Drive Down Wages, as an alternative to currency devaluation" is coming straight out of their newest flyer asking me to go and demonstrate.
How can you question the wisdom of "congress"?
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
SOme do, some don't.
Wrong. They didn't do nothing. They entered into serious negotations, and walked when it was clear that no fair deal was on the table. I don't hear too many union members quibbling about 'value for money'. The obvious solution for any member concerned about value for money is to leave the union, but 850,000 have opted to pay and stay in the union.They unions had their chance and did nothing before the levy was introduced ?? Now the members have to do what they paid the union heads to do, sort out the mess......great value for money every week eh
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you proposing that all union officials should be paid at CO rates? Sounds like an attempt to emasculate the unions to me.
Is it really still the case that anyone does not have the choice about joining the union? What workplaces did you have in mind?
DublinTexas
can edit posts
- Messages
- 349
The opinion that I should support unions because they did good things for me via the polit bureau, sorry social partnership process is hogwash.
This whole social partnership process is one of the core problems that next to greed of individuals and businesses and incompetence of the ruling classes has caused the problems we are facing today.
When 2 years ago I said that this whole country is going to colapse because it is build on borrowed money and no significant savings were made by goverment to ensure we are ready for hards times most people laughed and did not believe me. Well look a the now, no significant savings to ensure they can survive for a couple of month from their savings and no equity in their house.
Instead of "gimme gimme gimme" during the good times all members of the polit bureau should have had this wisdom to know we will be crashing sooner or later and agreed on long term projects instead of a x% payrise.
Now that 20% of our workforce are in public service and 20% will become umemployeed we need to find a way how we can all support that.
We are already breaking all EU rules about our borrowing and what we are borrowing we can't pay back for centuries to come.
This is not the time in which we need unrelaistic demands from either side (unions or employers), this were we face the music and make up for the mess the polit bureau has created.
The first step is to look at what we actualy need on services, than see how we delivery that (with how many resources), than what we have to actualy pay for that and than adapt the workforce accordingly.
If that means to get ride of 150 drivers in Dublin bus because there is no passenger to drive arround than that means letting these people go. We can't just employ people to do nothing, this is (not yet) the Communist Republic of Ireland.
I have a very strict opinion of people going on strike because they don't want to contribute to the rescue of a company. Let them go and replace them with people who are willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. In case of Dublin Bus, if they find drivers which are willing to work for the same money/conditions that are currently existing than they should bring these people in and get ride of the strikers. This is about survival not about the employer having a good time trying to gain some more profit, there is none!
If our infrastructure providers (which are in bad shape despite years of good money coming in) are going bust than the whole of the country is going down.
We need to act (and that includes both sides unions and employers) and so far I have not seen anything on side of the unions or the goverment that makes me feel confident that in 6-10 month we won't see civil unrest on the streets.
This whole social partnership process is one of the core problems that next to greed of individuals and businesses and incompetence of the ruling classes has caused the problems we are facing today.
When 2 years ago I said that this whole country is going to colapse because it is build on borrowed money and no significant savings were made by goverment to ensure we are ready for hards times most people laughed and did not believe me. Well look a the now, no significant savings to ensure they can survive for a couple of month from their savings and no equity in their house.
Instead of "gimme gimme gimme" during the good times all members of the polit bureau should have had this wisdom to know we will be crashing sooner or later and agreed on long term projects instead of a x% payrise.
Now that 20% of our workforce are in public service and 20% will become umemployeed we need to find a way how we can all support that.
We are already breaking all EU rules about our borrowing and what we are borrowing we can't pay back for centuries to come.
This is not the time in which we need unrelaistic demands from either side (unions or employers), this were we face the music and make up for the mess the polit bureau has created.
The first step is to look at what we actualy need on services, than see how we delivery that (with how many resources), than what we have to actualy pay for that and than adapt the workforce accordingly.
If that means to get ride of 150 drivers in Dublin bus because there is no passenger to drive arround than that means letting these people go. We can't just employ people to do nothing, this is (not yet) the Communist Republic of Ireland.
I have a very strict opinion of people going on strike because they don't want to contribute to the rescue of a company. Let them go and replace them with people who are willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. In case of Dublin Bus, if they find drivers which are willing to work for the same money/conditions that are currently existing than they should bring these people in and get ride of the strikers. This is about survival not about the employer having a good time trying to gain some more profit, there is none!
If our infrastructure providers (which are in bad shape despite years of good money coming in) are going bust than the whole of the country is going down.
We need to act (and that includes both sides unions and employers) and so far I have not seen anything on side of the unions or the goverment that makes me feel confident that in 6-10 month we won't see civil unrest on the streets.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
The criticisms you detail here seem to relate a lot more to corporate greed than to social partnership. Perhaps you'd like to expand on what might have happened over the last 10 years without social partnership?
This is nothing to do with communism. This is to do with Bus Eireann who went out last year with an aggressive recruitment campaign to poach drivers in steady employment to join them, and then dumping those same drivers at the end of their probationary period with no redundancy and no compensation. A fair deal is required - no-one is suggesting employing drivers to do nothing, please hold back on the exaggeration.
Congratulations - you've just created the IBEC nirvana wet dream race to the bottom. No employee rights, no redundancy rights. Once you get a cheaper employee, dump the current guy in a skip and replace him. And once you get a cheaper guy again, dump the cheap replacement in a skip. Rinse and repeat. And watch for a cut in the minimum wage to ensure that the cheap replacements don't get above their station.
DublinTexas
can edit posts
- Messages
- 349
That is not what I said you are describing the Ryainair model of employee relationship and I don't do Ryanair.
What I said was that in case where the survial of the company providing essential services is at stake and unresonable union demands are made workers who want to work for the existing conditions must be allowed to do so and that those who do not want to contribute to the survial of the company need to be let go and be replaced by people that are willing to contribute. I quite clearly said that those must be willing to work for the same conditions that the strikers would get. Not more Not less. I'm not saying they should get less as you describe.
In respect of minimum wage, I always advocate a fair minimum wage as work must be rewarded and if you work you should get more than on social welfare. And I don't care if that is in public or private sector. Work is a basic right and fair money for work is one too.
Bohooo. Corporate greed can only work if there is no effective supervision of existing rules (and that is what we have) and there is another party that is willing to accept corporate greed. Nobody forced anybody to buy an overprized property with a 100% loan that anybody with half a brain knows they could not effort if the APR goes up by even a slight % point.
Greed went through all layers of our society, some just profited more than others.
I think that the Irish experiment of social partnership has contributed to the current problem and while I agree that there were some positive elements to it overall I would classify it as a failure as it only works in good times but not bad times (as we currently see).
I worked in several countries where labour relations are dictated by the goverment over where unions are an accepted partner up to where a block of people controll every element of the work live (aka social partners). None of these is perfect.
I actualy am of the opion that the social partnership only serves to protect top earners ranking for higher level public servants over union officials to private business CEO's.
Sorry, but who owns or controlls Bus Eireann? Isn't that the goverment?
If you accept a job at terms and conditions that allow an "at will" employment by the employer that includes the option how redudancy is made than you have the risk that this happens. I have the same, I'm working "at will" of my boss, if they deceide to let me go, than let me see I get my P45 and if I'm long enough with the company I get my payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2007.
But I took the decision to accept that terms of my employment freely, I negoiated a package that I accepted as resonable for my circumstances and than entered the job knowing that if the economy turns I might loose it.
Just because Bus Eireann is owned by the state does not mean that this is a job for life.
It's time people accept that they contributed to this mess and that is from union officals over goverment to bank CEO's.
You still haven't answered my question. The union has negotiated work/life balance policies, fairer promotion systems etc. Non union members are perfectly happy to avail of these while slagging off the union. They have also, in the past, had to fight for some very basic rights for workers eg health and safety regs. The problem is that some people don't realise how much of what they have is actually down to the existence of unions, take it for granted and then think the unions serve no purpose. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I feel sorry for all the people who have worked hard on union committees over the years, gained a lot for staff and now find that staff who don't remember the way things used to be just think they're a waste of time.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for jumping to a conclusion. Actually, I don't think even Ryanair treat their employees like that, though Irish Ferries gave it their best shot.
I guess our disagreement comes down to what are 'unreasonable union demands'. I don't see anything unreasonable about a union seeking a fair deal for staff who (for example) gave up secure jobs just a few months back to join Bus Eireann being dumped out without a red cent.
Yes and no. You are partially right when you say that nobody forced people to buy property. But this ignores the reality that a young couple who wanted to build a home for themselves and their family had no choice but to buy overpriced property. That's the only kind of property that was available, and we had the entire infrastructure of the state working to keep those prices artificially high. It would have been brave (and without the benefit of hindsight foolhardy) for a young couple to have opted out of the property market.
In fairness, you're not answering my question. What do you think would have happened in the industrial relations arena in Ireland over the past 10 years without social partnership. It is very easy to criticise when you don't look at the other side of the coin.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Beverly was legally entitled to her extra €41k allowance, but that doesn't make it right. Rody from FAS was legally entitled to his first class travel, but that doesn't make it right. Seanie was legally entitled to hide his director loans in Irish Nationwide, but that doesn't make it right.
Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus staff deserve fair treatment.
Maybe you could explain how a driver who gave up a decent job to move to Bus Eireann 6 months ago contributed to this mess?