Is there broad support for the current Public Sector strikes?

[Purple]

The scope to catch-up on postponed screenings for a 1-day work stoppage is already demonstrated.

Excellent. Where is it demonstrated?

 

[Purple]

This a refreshing change from the usual emotive 'gun-to-the-head' language or any other perspectives of unions dictating staffing levels and appointment numbers.

In Sinn Fein parlance the Unions have a gun under the table. They have shown frequently that they have no problem holding it to the head of the Irish people.

 

[JoeRoberts]

The scope to catch-up on postponed screenings for a 1-day work stoppage is already demonstrated.

How many days stoppage do you believe it would take to have an impact. I asked this before.

 

[Purple]

How many days stoppage do you believe it would take to have an impact. I asked this before.

Good question.
Let's try a bit of maths here: If the impact of a single days stoppage is zero (1 X 0 = 0) then logically the impact of any number of days stoppage is zero multiplied by that number of days which, of course, equals zero (e.g. 500 X 0 = 0). What we can deduce from that is that our Cancer Screening programmes are of no value and have zero impact on outcomes and cancer survival rates. We've learned that the whole thing is a colossal waste of money.

 

[Itchy]

If Unions didn't limit the workload of their members they would not be doing their job. Remember, their function is to extract the maximum remuneration for the minimum amount of work.

And the State's role is to extract maximum work for the minimum amount of remuneration, like any other employer.

In Sinn Fein parlance the Unions have a gun under the table. They have shown frequently that they have no problem holding it to the head of the Irish people.

The State is not a benign employer. Ban Union membership and the right to strike and you get treated like the Defence Forces. Industrial relations without a Union is grim.

Now the State could be proactive. Provide better conditions, appropriate staffing and equipment, reasonable and achievable targets, meaningful performance management, set public expectations appropriately - what's the point in Union membership then? But no, they waited for the strike. Like they did with the fuel protestors. They need the push-pull in order to act. In part because of the divisiveness in society. Nordic society is a good example of normal people understanding that choices and trade offs have to be made - and extreme rhetoric is rightly shunned. I can only imagine the public outrage and disgust at the government, if they took steps to manage public services in a drama free way.

 

[Leo]

Industrial relations without a Union is grim.

I'm sure it was in the past, but with modern workplace regulations and employment law, times have changed. The majority of the large MNCs here do not recognise unions, my experience would suggest working conditions and pay in many of these employers exceed that of unionised businesses.

 

[Itchy]

I'm sure it was in the past, but with modern workplace regulations and employment law, times have changed.

Assuming a) your employer actually implements the regulations and b) you are subject to those regulations, which the Defence Forces/Garda are not. If you are subject to additional restrictions or do not enjoy the benefits of employment legislation, all things being equal - would you expect more or less compensation, relatively?

The majority of the large MNCs here do not recognise unions, my experience would suggest working conditions and pay in many of these employers exceed that of unionised businesses.

Precisely.

 

[redstar]

Industrial relations without a Union is grim.

Depends on the sector.

Having worked in IT for over 40 years without any union involvement, ive yet to see anything 'grim' there.
Quite the opposite. Pay and conditions were generally good to excellent. Performance was rewarded.
It was by no means perfect, but definately not like some 18th workhouse either.

 

[JoeRoberts]

which the Defence Forces/Garda are not. If you are subject to additional restrictions or do no

They know why that is and they knew before signing up.

 

[Itchy]

Depends on the sector.

Having worked in IT for over 40 years without any union involvement, ive yet to see anything 'grim' there.
Quite the opposite. Pay and conditions were generally good to excellent. Performance was rewarded.
It was by no means perfect, but definately not like some 18th workhouse either.

Public or private sector?

For clarity - within the State sector, not having Union representation seems to lead to far worse outcomes (Garda excepted - they are subject to representative restrictions but seem to effectively ignore them).

 

[redstar]

Private sector.

 

[Itchy]

They know why that is and they knew before signing up.

Of course.

If I join the army, I expect to have to sleep outdoors and eat food from a bag. If you send me to do a job in Dublin, say alongside a civil servant, and you expect one of us to sleep in a field and eat their food from a bag and one to sleep in a hotel and eat their meal there, and you think that's ok because "they knew before signing up", then you've missed the point of having the limitations in the first place. No one deserves to be made a mug of.

https://www.independent.ie/weather/investigation-launched-as-soldiers-forced-to-sleep-in-appalling-conditions-during-papal-visit/a/135979314.html

Private sector.

So good pay and conditions and performance recognition negated the need for collective action. Makes sense.

 

[Purple]

So good pay and conditions and performance recognition negated the need for collective action. Makes sense.

There are few unionised jobs in the parts of the private sector which are open to real competition because Unions have destroyed those businesses. Where I work there is no union and employees are paid more than the average for the sector, we've always offered sick pay, always topped up maternity pay, offer flexible working hours. We do that because it's the right thing to do and because it's an employees market when it comes to skilled labour so if you don't offer the right pay and terms and conditions people will leave. The caveat is that we can only spend our own money, we have to remain profitable, there is a very high degree of labour mobility (people just do whatever needs to be done) and people work (paid) overtime if it is required.

All of the above is done by employees to help keep the business profitable and viable. In the Public Sector there is no such consideration. The expectation is that they will just put their hand into someone else's pocket and take more of their money for themselves and the the Kafkaesque world of the Unionised sector inefficiencies and waste are never the fault of the people who are actually delivering the services.

 

[Purple]

And the State's role is to extract maximum work for the minimum amount of remuneration, like any other employer.

No, the Employers role is to extract the best return on the labour.

 

[Leo]

For clarity - within the State sector, not having Union representation seems to lead to far worse outcomes

I think that's a very mixed bag, it would appear that total compensation isn't bad, and a friend who's in a pretty senior role laments how it's close to impossible to remove incompetence.

My suspicion is that heavily unionised environments lead to equality of outcomes where top performers effectively carry their under-performing colleagues for no additional pay. Some high-performers will stay hoping to progress in time, others will leave for better opportunities. Those looking for an easy pay check will stay.

 

[Itchy]

The majority of the large MNCs here do not recognise unions, my experience would suggest working conditions and pay in many of these employers exceed that of unionised businesses.

Having worked in IT for over 40 years without any union involvement, ive yet to see anything 'grim' there.
Quite the opposite. Pay and conditions were generally good to excellent. Performance was rewarded.

Where I work there is no union and employees are paid more than the average for the sector, we've always offered sick pay, always topped up maternity pay, offer flexible working hours. We do that because it's the right thing to do and because it's an employees market when it comes to skilled labour so if you don't offer the right pay and terms and conditions people will leave.

I feel like your making my point for me. I don't understand why the Government don't actually go ahead and do these things, like your employers would. They don't need Union agreement to improve the working environment. Though in parts of the State sector where there is no Union representation and legislative restrictions, the State have shown themselves to be exploitative of that power asymmetry. You lament the actions of Unions but don't seem connect it to the alternative?

There is broad public support for the public sector but is that because the push-pull dynamic of the strikes is required for political management of the public sector i.e. the public can understand the reasons for a pay deal (to prevent disruption) but drama free management is a hard sell (see the level of demonisation that exists in this thread for example). In private companies, the broader public do not care if you go on strike - so the management is left to get on with it. In the public sector, you have private sector IT professionals chiming in on how much nurses and teachers are paid, how many staff should be on a ward or kids in a class - jobs they would never do themselves, precisely because of the conditions the Unions are trying to change. I wouldn't be a Garda, even for €100k. And i'm supposed to turn around and say that Gardai are paid too much?!

 

[Itchy]

We do that because it's the right thing to do and because it's an employees market when it comes to skilled labour so if you don't offer the right pay and terms and conditions people will leave. The caveat is that we can only spend our own money, we have to remain profitable, there is a very high degree of labour mobility (people just do whatever needs to be done) and people work (paid) overtime if it is required.

All of the above is done by employees to help keep the business profitable and viable. In the Public Sector there is no such consideration.

No. It's done because of the profit motive. That is driven by various factors: reputation in the market, shareholder returns, strategy, risk appetite, risk vs. reward etc. The 'right thing to do' does not transcend the business cycle.

I think that's a very mixed bag

How so?