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

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,803
We have very strict competition legislation in Ireland. If a company agrees some restrictions on prices or supply with a competitor, it's a criminal offence, for which they can go to jail.

Yet, a group of employees can get together and prevent their employer from operating their business.

They can strike completely. Or they can strike for a day or two, or an hour or two to inflict maximum damage on their employer and on their employer's customers.

If the Luas drivers are not happy with their pay and conditions, let them quit their job. The company will be able to find plenty of other people to take their jobs.

If CIE pays their drivers more, let the Luas drivers apply to CIE for a job.

I don't think that there should be a divine right to strike. But if there is some good reason for this divine right, then they should go on an all-out strike and not on an intermittent one.

Alternatively, some independent body should be able to determine the salaries. And if the employees don't like them, then let them quit.

Brendan
 
I think competition legislation should be applied to unions as much as the companies supplying the product.

I think the right to strike for pay increases should be removed. To oppose pay reductions yes, to force pay increases no.
 
odyssey06 said:
I think competition legislation should be applied to unions as much as the companies supplying the product.

I think the right to strike for pay increases should be removed. To oppose pay reductions yes, to force pay increases no.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that and I definitely think that this conversation has to be had especially where essential services are involved.

It's like being in a relationship with one person who has their bag packed and is ready to leave if you don't give into their demands.

There has to be a point where this element of any negotiation has to be taken off the table.

If workers rights are breached, or if there are serious H&S concerns then yes, but if you start in a job where the t&c's and salary scales are clearly set out, then that is your contract.

In this case, the workers did not suffer any pay cuts during the recession, they received their increments and their bonus's. It would have been different if they were looking for an element of pay restoration, but they're not. They're logic is when you do badly we don't suffer but when you do well we want more.
 
ppmeath said:
It's like being in a relationship with one person who has their bag packed and is ready to leave if you don't give into their demands.
Click to expand...

Is it not more like a guy who goes out at the weekend and sleeps around, and then comes back on Monday.

I have no problem at all with the Luas drivers threatening to quit their jobs. They are entitled to do this. They can do it en masse if they wish, but they can't all go out for a few days every couple of weeks.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Is it not more like a guy who goes out at the weekend and sleeps around, and then comes back on Monday.
Click to expand...

Lol, only if the guy has other offers.

I think my point is that once leaving is on the table, it undermines negotiations because this is almost the default position.

Brendan Burgess said:
I have no problem at all with the Luas drivers threatening to quit their jobs. They are entitled to do this. They can do it en masse if they wish, but they can't all go out for a few days every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Agree. But how can you negotiate with people when the threat of leaving is their response to proposals that they don't like. I can understand that the LUAS drivers weren't happy with the deal, but they have an obligation to go back in and thrash it out - but this response to go ahead with the strike is simply wrong, this is what has to be removed.

A strike should only be considered as a very last resort, for example if the company is not working to resolve the issue, clearly this company is.

I personally don't know where it goes from here, but I would wager that striking action on these services is being discussed at a higher level.
 
There is no "right" to strike.

However, those who do are protected by sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

In particular, section 12 states that:

12.—An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that—

(a) it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or

(b) it consists of a threat by a person to induce some other person to break a contract of employment or a threat by a person to break his own contract of employment, or

(c) it is an interference with the trade, business, or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills.

The furtherance of a trade dispute would include working-to-rule, go slows, etc as well as strikes.

"Trade dispute" is defined in section 8 of the Act as any dispute between employers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms or conditions of or affecting the employment, of any person.

There are other relevant Acts and other relevant sections but the above are the main ones.

I think section 12(c) would rule out the "competition" angle.
 
Last edited:
Hi Sop

I am not looking at this from the current legal point of view, with which I am not familiar.

The law should be changed so that if people go on strike, they terminate their employment contract.

Employees are extremely well protected by other legislation, so there is no need to strike anymore.

Brendan
 
Brendan,

I am not taking sides.

But sometimes when you want something changed, particularly legislative change, you have to look at what currently exists and why, what is wrong with it and what should change.
 
Last edited:
Nice to see a debate being talked out sensibly. I believe that if the right to strike is taken away from people their civil rights are being reduced. We can look at the Luas drivers and their situation and to be honest at this stage I don't know what to believe with conflicting reports from all the sides. Then have a look at some of the threads even on this Forum and you can see that many workers appear to be treated with contempt. Take away the right to strike and you are loading the dice in favour of employers some of whom will play every card to pay as little as possible. But, some here are probably thinking that workers mistreatment is in the distant past. Not so, I regret to say.

Now reader, ask yourself the question:- Does any worker really want to go on strike? If you think the answer is "Yes" you are not thinking straight. A strike even for an hour is the last resort of any trades unionist. Remember, the strikers suffer most in any strike. If anybody here thinks I am wrong, please inform me of any worker who enjoyed a strike.
 
Leper said:
I believe that if the right to strike is taken away from people their civil rights are being reduced.
Click to expand...

Taking away the right to strike does not mean that people can't protest, it simply means that people can't go around holding the country to ransom as the Luas drivers are doing especially when the claim has very little merit. You can hold all the protest marches you want outside work, but if you decide not to turn up for work then you are in breach of contract and should not be surprised if you are terminated.
 
Unfortunately most workers who are mistreated tend to have no union protection. Unions today only have real power in services that can't be transferred to other countries easily. Strikes are only powerful if the public suffer and if the service is a monopoly. I wonder would Connolly and Larkin be impressed with todays unions.

If Dunnes workers strike, people will go to another super market.If I ask a plumber to do a job and agree a price, I wouldn't be too impressed if half way through he asked for more because he found out a house up the road was paying more.

Striking should be reserved for breach of contracts or serious issues, not just pay rises. In most multinational companies productivity improvements are constantly being introduced and are needed for the jobs to survive, they're competing with cheaper countries for the jobs.
 

Excellent points!
 
The thought of legislation banning either all out strikes or targeted strikes is enough to invoke horror in the minds of Trade Unions & their members.

However there are plenty of reasons to hope that debate on any such legislation will be confined to niche websites , occasional articles in the media when public transport , teacher & ESB strikes are threatened or take place rather than the Dail chambers.

The thought of endeavouring to pass such legislation through such a divided , fragmented Dail would be an adventure in itself , as Sir Humphrey would say " how very courageous Minister " !

Perhaps , I am hope I'm not being
unduly optimistic but I do think that before any such legislation could be enacted the Unions would effectively bring the country to a standstill by calling for an all out general strike - there is nothing liklier to provoke such a response than the removal of the most effective weapon in their armoury.

It should also be borne in mind that such legislation would fly in the face of ILO conventions & would most certainly be challenged in the European Courts & given previous Governments experience in such courts I doubt if they would relish appearing again.

All in all I see no reason to be fearful at the moment , now if Renua ever come to power !!
 
Last edited:
Hi Deise

The fact that it would be difficult to do and that the Trade Unions wouldn't like it, are not arguments against it.

The fact that it would be difficult to get through the Dáil is no argument against it.

I think we need to do it. And I think we need to accept that in trying to do it, there would be a huge backlash and, yes, the country would face a general strike. But the long term benefit for the country as a whole would be well worth it.

Brendan
 
Let's not be naive Brendan , the thought of a general strike , the vista of any such legislation being overturned by a European Court & the flaunting of ILO conventions allied to the anger of a sizable voting bloc are the ultimate arguments as to why no political party will even countenance debating this matter.

I remain convinced that such legislation will , thankfully , never see the light of day .
 
All out ban will never work.

You'd need to be clever on this (which I don't think any Irish Govt ever will be). For example if bus workers go on strike, then the Govt should aggressively privatise some routes. Get the message across that way.
Or with the Luas dispute...get someone in from Copenhagen who oversaw the driverless Trams. Let the Unions see whats coming if they don't get real.

At least thats how i'd approach it
 
Historically, accepted practise & precedent has insured that striking intermittently is a legimate industrial ploy which has regularly proved successful and as such is often the preferred Union option allied to the fact that such action is less financially demanding on those taking such action.

The key of course is that on the basis that Unions obey the requirements such as the required notice period to legitimise such action then they are acting in accordance with accepted industrial practises.

May I ask if you think that any Irish Government will enact the legislation you suggest & if so what party will be brave or stupid enough ( depending on your viewpoint ! ) to run with same?
 
Last edited:
So the only argument you have is "bullying works"?

We should not give in to bullies. I know we have a spineless government who probably won't stand up to bullies. But the government is there for all of the people. And it's time that the national interest was prioritised.

Employees are very well protected by various legislation on equality, unfair dismissals, holidays, health and safety etc.

If an employee is not happy with their salary, they can leave.

Let's look at it another way. Can you imagine a tenant has a two year lease on their home. The landlord demands extra rent. The tenant refuses to pay. So the landlord evicts them every Saturday night and every Christmas but still holds them to the lease and demands rent for the rest of the days? That is exactly what is happening here and it's morally wrong. It may be allowed by the law, but that law must be changed.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register