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



## Brendan Burgess (25 Mar 2016)

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


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Mar 2016)

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.


----------



## ppmeath (25 Mar 2016)

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.



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.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Mar 2016)

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.



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


----------



## ppmeath (25 Mar 2016)

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.



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.



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.


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 Mar 2016)

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.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Mar 2016)

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


----------



## ppmeath (25 Mar 2016)

I tend to agree with that Brendan. I was just reading this article:

http://www.newstalk.com/Luas-Jack-OConnor-SIPTU-1913-Lockout-workers-drivers-WRC-1916-strikes

*"The dispute between Luas staff and management has been compared to the 1913 Lockout by SIPTU."*

Eh, no. Really not.


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 Mar 2016)

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.


----------



## Leper (26 Mar 2016)

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.


----------



## Jim2007 (26 Mar 2016)

Leper said:


> I believe that if the right to strike is taken away from people their civil rights are being reduced.



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.


----------



## losttheplot (26 Mar 2016)

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.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Mar 2016)

losttheplot said:


> 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.



Excellent points!


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Mar 2016)

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 !!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2016)

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


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Mar 2016)

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 .


----------



## Delboy (26 Mar 2016)

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


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> I remain convinced that such legislation will , thankfully , never see the light of day .



Hi Deise

I note you have not put forward one reason at all in defence of the right to strike intermittently for higher wages. 

Brendan


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Mar 2016)

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?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2016)

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


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Mar 2016)

Bullying !

Certainly not , intermittent strikes are a legimate industrial ploy which has  often dragged intransigent employers to the negotiating table .

You say tomato etc !

As a trade unionist I find it encouraging that you believe that no Irish Government , in all probability , will introduce such punitive legislation .

It must be said that it's all very well to say that the law must be changed but surely on the basis that you seem to accept that the Irish Government will not act then you are effectively whistling in the wind ?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Mar 2016)

I don't think that the current government or whatever emerges from the current TDs will bring in such legislation.

But that does not make it right. We should campaign to change the law so that people can't bully their employers and their customers.

Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century. They see this as a dispute between intransigent employers and hard pressed workers. But the reality is that all of those drivers are very well protected by legislation. And the market protects them as well. They are free to leave their jobs at any time and get higher salaries elsewhere.

They should not have a monopoly on the supply of labour.

It's even more outrageous that they are claiming that their employer's plans to provide buses to help the customers will inflame the matter further. If these guys are not prepared to work for the salaries on offer, let others take their jobs.

Brendan


----------



## Leper (26 Mar 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think that the current government or whatever emerges from the current TDs will bring in such legislation. . . .
> 
> Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century. . . .
> 
> Brendan



There is no point in even arguing against this stupid and ill judged (to say the least!) comment


----------



## Delboy (26 Mar 2016)

Why would you think that it is stupid?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Mar 2016)

What the continuing Luas dispute did prove is that legimate industrial action drove a extremely intransigent Transdev to the negotiating table where the company quite happily offered wage increases way in excess of what they originally offered , it is quite obvious if the Luas employees had not taken the action they did the company would simply have played hardball .

As the realities of our industrial relations are , as we both agree , unlikely to change over the the lifetime of the current Government I look forward to resuming the debate in the unlikely event that any future Government will debate or introduce the legislation you propose.

There really is not much point in debating the point further unless we ever reach the unlikely scenario that your proposed legislation gains political traction , I will dip in again after the next election but I have no doubt that that we will see no change to the status quo.

Perhaps the best way to ensure industrial peace is a return to some form of social partnership as suggested by Kieran Mulvey in his article in last Saturday's Indo !!!


----------



## Leper (27 Mar 2016)

Delboy said:


> Why would you think that it is stupid?



"Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century." Quote from BB.

The comment is without foundation. 

If things are pretty and we have a workforce that is happy in modern Ireland why are there still trades unions?  Are all workers treated well? 

Tell that to people working with less than the minimum wage (remember the thread about au-pairs and conditions and low pay that many of them suffered: different argument, I know).  Outside of Dublin, look at the amount of hotels that have staff working not knowing if there will be a job for them next week, never mind next year.  Have a look at many people working as bar staff outside of Dublin. They work part-time and many do not get paid after closing and spend at least an hour unpaid with cleaning duties etc. Have a look on this forum where some people won't join trades unions. Some such people think it not the right thing to do.  Others fear it will prevent them from advancing in their employment. Then look at the way some of them are treated, again on this forum. 

I wish we had no need for trades unions.  I wish we had no need for industrial disputes. I wish we had no reason to strike.  But, the reality is different and for somebody to say that most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century is probably the greatest trades union pro-recruitment statement of the year.


----------



## Cervelo (27 Mar 2016)

Leper said:


> There is no point in even arguing against this stupid and ill judged (to say the least!) comment



Sorry but I think BBs comment is far from stupid and ill judged in fact from an employers point of view he has hit the nail on the head with regard to the unions and there attitude to all employers.
In relation to the Luas dispute you can not compare them to people on minimum wage or less, or people on zero hour contracts, no in fact they are on a great package and conditions and one thing that most people forget is it also can be a job for life if the employee so chooses.


----------



## losttheplot (27 Mar 2016)

Unions don't represent those who need them most. Powerful unions in Ireland mostly represent workers who aren't downtrodden or exploited. I wouldn't consider Irish Rail/LUAS/Dublin Bus or teachers to be exploited. 

For most workers, employment legislation has replaced the need for unions. In the 19th Century most employers couldn't move to China. Now they can (except for Irish Rail/LUAS/Dublin Bus etc). The sectors that can't move have the powerful unions. As much as we don't like it it's the reality. Most coming from college with a 4 year degress, don't earn as much as a LUAS driver or have similar job security.

Is there a large staff turnover with LUAS drivers, this would be an indication of poor working conditions.


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Mar 2016)

There would be absolutely zero sympathy from the general Irish public if all LUAS drivers were sacked tomorrow. Zero. The general attitude would be serve them right. Would there be any sympathy if driverless trams were introduced?

It's a great trade union that lays the foundation for the ultimate decimation of the jobs they are supposed to protect. Trade unions who force through pay deals and limitations on productivity that companies cannot bear in the long run have accomplished nothing except the elimination of trade unions from vast areas of the private sector and the loss of jobs here to overseas.
Look at Aer Lingus and Ryanair. 

Which is why we are left with unions only in those jobs that must be done here. Why do you think every second government project or increased spending ends up going to outsourced non-unionised companies? Trade unions have made themselves, and are, an obstacle to better and more efficient public services in this country. They should be part of the solution but nine times out of ten, are part of the problem.

I think any trade unionist cheering on the LUAS drivers to reject the recent deal should consider the long term consequences of putting themselves on the complete wrong side of public opinion when there is a deal on the table.
There is such a thing as winning the battle but losing the war.


----------



## Redone (27 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I think any trade unionist cheering on the LUAS drivers to reject the recent deal should consider the long term consequences of putting themselves on the complete wrong side of public opinion when there is a deal on the table.
> There is such a thing as winning the battle but losing the war.



Their 19th century thinking wont allow them to countenance such. The luas strike is doing massive damage to the trade unionist movement, however, for the first time in nearly a decade a very public fight has been pitched. The union wont want to back down, and is likely to damage it further. 

The unions have achieved a lot in the past, but if they are reduced to trying to get such a pay deal for the luas drivers they are effectively dodos.


----------



## Delboy (27 Mar 2016)

Leper said:


> "Most trade unionists are stuck in the 19th century." Quote from BB.
> 
> The comment is without foundation.


As someone who works in a heavily unionised organisation, I can assure you that it does have some foundation


----------



## cremeegg (28 Mar 2016)

The phrase "right to strike" originates with legislation introduced in 1906 by the first Liberal government. 

Prior to that workers in effect could not go on strike. This is because if a person withdraws their labour they are breaking their employment contract. If they encourage another person to withdraw their labour they are conspiring to damage the economic well being of the employer.

The legal basis of strike action is the employment legislation which says that a striker cannot be sued for breach of contract.

This is why the law can prescribe how strikes must be conducted, secret ballots, notice periods etc. If these provisions are ignored an employer can sue the strikers for breach of contract, and seek damages for the loss the employer has suffered.

The principle that strike action should be fair and proportionate is well established in law, for example strikers must give the employer adequate notice of strike action.

It seems to me that extending this to prevent intermittent strike action is not unreasonable. The present position where striker can strike for short periods, say two hours during the morning rush and cause maximum disruption to the employers business, then claim six hours pay for the day, is unreasonable. 

I don't think it is that far beyond the bounds of political discussion either. Employers are well organised too, unlike taxpayers, as discussed on other threads.


----------



## Purple (29 Mar 2016)

I see the need for Trade Unions in many areas in Ireland. Unfortunately those are the very areas where Trade Unions are least interested in being involved. They are not interested in representing the have-not's as their role is to protect the have’s from the have-not's.

They want to represent well paid employees so that they get a good income stream to fund their organisation and pay the hansom salaries of their executives. They want to be able to bully the softest employer in the country; the State. They want the easy option, the best bang for their buck. They are a business after all.


I think that strikes should not be allowed in sectors which are of strategic importance to the state and/or function as monopolies. This includes the police, armed forces, customs and boarder protection, most public transport and most state services including education.

A strike should be a battle between employees and their employer. They should not be allowed when the main victims are the general public.


A good indication of how Unions are stuck in the 19th century is their categorisation of employees of an organisation into two artificial and meaningless groupings which they refer to as the “workers” and the “management”. The fact that the heavily unionised Public Sector Broadcaster RTE perpetuates these 19th century categorisations does not in any way legitimise them.

Let’s be clear; every employee of an organisation works and therefore is a worker. Most people have some management function. The fluidity of reality makes hard categorisations both meaningless and offensive.


----------



## Leo (29 Mar 2016)

losttheplot said:


> Unions don't represent those who need them most. Powerful unions in Ireland mostly represent workers who aren't downtrodden or exploited. I wouldn't consider Irish Rail/LUAS/Dublin Bus or teachers to be exploited.



There has been quite a few threads here over the years that would back that point up too, cases of employee grievances where the unions just don't want to know. 

It's actions like this from the Luas drivers that is encouraging the increased use of agency workers and the erosion of conditions in such sectors.


----------



## Gerry Canning (29 Mar 2016)

Brendan,
Your arguments on the face of it are good.I am NOT saying I largely dis agree with you but,
1. (bullying works) ? yup, look what our Banks have managed , maybe get our jellyfish leaders to take them on, before we go hell for leather on what is not an economy wrecking dispute ..
2. (not happy with salary can leave) that is a recipe for a complete dumming down of wages ,I don,t really see that as a cure.
eg. starting wages for Guards/teachers/nurses don,t seem fair , so they just leave? and remember guards/teachers/nurses are better protected that normal workers?

I would be very very slow to interfere in any dispute , experience tells me both sides compromise and the (annoyance) we feel soon fades.
I am not a fan of having more laws, or more changes.


----------



## Purple (29 Mar 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> eg. starting wages for Guards/teachers/nurses don't seem fair , so they just leave? and remember guards/teachers/nurses are better protected that normal workers?


How do you decide what constitutes fair?
We have a problem filling Nursing positions and Gardai are leaving, and have to be paid well enough to avoid them succumbing to corruption due to everyday financial pressures. Therefore they should probably be paid more. We have no problem filling teaching positions therefore there is not much of a case for pay increases there.


----------



## Gerry Canning (29 Mar 2016)

Purple ,
I wasn,t saying they should all be paid more , but that new entrants are paid less.(that seems not just unfair but stupid!)
I don,t decide what constitutes fair , but in most things people come to sensible rather than (lawful) compromises.


----------



## Purple (29 Mar 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple ,
> I wasn,t saying they should all be paid more , but that new entrants are paid less.(that seems not just unfair but stupid!)
> I don,t decide what constitutes fair , but in most things people come to sensible rather than (lawful) compromises.


I agree. Solidarity would suggest that existing employees take a very small cut in pay in order to give a large increase to new entrants. That or a very small cut by pensioners in those sectors. But solidarity and such concepts are long dead in the Irish Union movement.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Mar 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple ,
> I wasn,t saying they should all be paid more , but that new entrants are paid less.(that seems not just unfair but stupid!)
> I don,t decide what constitutes fair , but in most things people come to sensible rather than (lawful) compromises.



If we paid new entrants the same as current staff, we would be unable to take on as many of them. So the question is, what's fairer: 90 on same wage as current staff, or 100 on less? How fair would it be to the 10 who miss out who want to work as teachers? What would they be doing? Emigrating? Claiming unemployment benefit?
So I think there are limits to fairness as a useful concept here.


----------



## Purple (29 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> If we paid new entrants the same as current staff, we would be unable to take on as many of them. So the question is, what's fairer: 90 on same wage as current staff, or 100 on less? How fair would it be to the 10 who miss out who want to work as teachers? What would they be doing? Emigrating? Claiming unemployment benefit?
> So I think there are limits to fairness as a useful concept here.


If all employees and retirees took a very small cut then the new entrants could be paid the same as them. Equality, solidarity, financial viability; problem solved. But that's not the Union way. That are there to protect the haves from the have-not's.


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 Mar 2016)

Purple.

Problem with (cuts) is where do you start ? and more importantly where do you end ?
I believe that once you let something happen eg cuts, these cuts become the new normal and wages get dummed down on the altar of (solidarity).
To say (not Union way) or they (protect the haves from have nots)  is simply a comment based on where you perceive todays unions , not the factual reality of how (for all their current flaws) they have aided workers.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Mar 2016)

Yet another example, where the public and the taxpayer is being held to ransom by trade unions. 


Irish Independent
*[broken link removed]*

CIE does not exist for benefit of its employees. It is a vital public service which happens to employ people. 

Brendan


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 Mar 2016)

Not quite.

In watching most disputes (not just work) it ends up with poor management.
It can be that management just roll over or some unions being unreasonable.
You say CIE is vital , then it is vital for management to really manage.
This (on the face of it) seems a poor reason for unions to not co-operate .
Methinks this is part of a bigger issue of trust.


----------



## thedaddyman (30 Mar 2016)

I was formally in a TU, once in the UK and once here but have not been a member for 12 years as it was a waste of money. It gave me no additional protection with my employers as I am well educated and able to stand up for myself. Any deals when you drill down into them often resulted in short term gain for long term loss. I've also sat on the other side of the table as a manager and listened to some of the ranting and ravings from leaders in front of their members and then met then the next day in a hotel café to hammer out a deal in peace and quiet. An awful lot of union behavior is just like a peacock strutting and showing off. People should always remember that unions are in a competitive business themselves and if SIPTU get a very good deal in Luas, what a selling point they have to other staff in other organisations, especially those in the NBRU in CIE. Member's subs pay union leaders wages and union leaders are rarely badly paid

Having said all of that, I'm also a firm believer that a knee jerk legislation banning strikes in response to what in essence is a minor strike in Luas which has no impact on 98% of the country would be an appalling decision. Unions were originally set up to protect workers from exploitation and anyone who thinks this doesn't occur is a naïve fool. There is still a role for them to play there and the threat of a picket can often force management to exercise some common sense. The problem nowadays is that the staff doing all the complaining are not always being "exploited" regardless of what they think and unions seem to spend most of their time protecting pay and benefits of people who are mainly well paid middle class, not working class.


----------



## Gerry Canning (30 Mar 2016)

thedaddyman.
(able to stand up for myself) = all well and good but never forget employer holds a bigger stick than you.
(well paid middle-class) etc = yes and no , most wages just cover expenses , few are well paid ,except when compared to poorly paid and thats not a good comparison.

Re Brendans post.
I heard SIPTU man on. What I took from him was that management had brought in new rotas without staff or equipment in place ,he could be a bluffer or it could be management are incompetent .
Methinks there is a pair of them in it, and I also worry about reportage (but thats another story) ie what the paper says ain,t necessarily correct.


----------



## Purple (30 Mar 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> I heard SIPTU man on. What I took from him was that management had brought in new rotas without staff or equipment in place ,he could be a bluffer or it could be management are incompetent .
> Methinks there is a pair of them in it, and I also worry about reportage (but thats another story) ie what the paper says ain,t necessarily correct.


I agree. As long as there are state run monopolies which are run by unsanctionable and unsackable executives I would be slow to heap all the blame on Unions. There are indeed two of them in it.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Mar 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> I heard SIPTU man on. What I took from him was that management had brought in new rotas without staff or equipment in place ,he could be a bluffer or it could be management are incompetent .
> Methinks there is a pair of them in it, and I also worry about reportage (but thats another story) ie what the paper says ain,t necessarily correct.



The SIPTU guy interviewed on TV3 didn't give a damn about staff or equipment... maybe the mask slipped - it was all about money for drivers. Anything else is just a smokescreen. More DARTs would mean more drivers. SIPTU don't care about that either to hear them. The more I see of SIPTU shop stewards, the more contempt it engenders.
All current drivers should be made to ride a packed rush hour DART. Maybe then they'd change their tune out of solidarity with their fellow workers. I wouldn't hold my breath.


----------



## thedaddyman (31 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The SIPTU guy interviewed on TV3 didn't give a damn about staff or equipment... maybe the mask slipped - it was all about money for drivers. Anything else is just a smokescreen. More DARTs would mean more drivers. SIPTU don't care about that either to hear them. The more I see of SIPTU shop stewards, the more contempt it engenders.
> All current drivers should be made to ride a packed rush hour DART. Maybe then they'd change their tune out of solidarity with their fellow workers. I wouldn't hold my breath.



My understanding is that extra drivers have already been hired and trained or are being trained. Hence the staff will be in place and as someone said before, a train driver can only drive one train at a time. Hence I am not sure what extra workload the drivers will have unless they have a shorter turnaround at the end of the line. The 10 minute DART is an excuse, train drivers want to preserve a gap between then an Luas drivers which they see as a less complicated tax (which is probably true in fairness, since it takes a year to train a train driver and 6 weeks to train a Luas driver)


----------



## Gerry Canning (31 Mar 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The SIPTU guy interviewed on TV3 didn't give a damn about staff or equipment... maybe the mask slipped - it was all about money for drivers. Anything else is just a smokescreen. More DARTs would mean more drivers. SIPTU don't care about that either to hear them. The more I see of SIPTU shop stewards, the more contempt it engenders.
> All current drivers should be made to ride a packed rush hour DART. Maybe then they'd change their tune out of solidarity with their fellow workers. I wouldn't hold my breath.



Are you clairvoyant ?,
All I can go on is what I hear/read.
What I know is any dispute is very rarely one sided.
Of course any Union man wants money for his members, that's a far cry from your quote.
A steward would be silly not to want more drivers/members. 
I presume Dart crowded only @ rush hour, I presume the drivers see this , maybe the compromise is to tweek the timing on rush hour only.
Again; theres a pair of them in it ie Management and Workers and it shows very poor leadership to use the Airways as an advertising post .


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Mar 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Are you clairvoyant ?,
> All I can go on is what I hear/read.
> What I know is any dispute is very rarely one sided.
> Of course any Union man wants money for his members, that's a far cry from your quote. A steward would be silly not to want more drivers/members.



It's not clear to me why this can't this be one of the disputes that is one sided?

All I can go on is what I'm seeing and this was straight from the steward's mouth in terms of being interviewed on TV. He was clearly prioritising increases for current members over gaining new members, and any other considerations. That is the only takeaway any reasonable person could draw from the interview.


----------



## Purple (31 Mar 2016)

If there's no additional work load on the drivers how is it any business of their how often their employer runs their trains?
What business is it of their how many drivers are employed?
Why on earth should the company have to consult the drivers about something like this?


----------



## Sophrosyne (1 Apr 2016)

Now there's a row between Jack O'Connor, SIPTU and Kieran Mulvey, WRC.

This is becoming more about SIPTU than Luas employees.


----------



## thedaddyman (1 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Now there's a row between Jack O'Connor, SIPTU and Kieran Mulvey, WRC.
> 
> This is becoming more about SIPTU than Luas employees.


 Transdev claimed last night that one of the "requirements" from SIPTU in negotiation was for new Luas drivers to only be assigned to anti-social hours late in the evening. So much for solidarity and equality.


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Now there's a row between Jack O'Connor, SIPTU and Kieran Mulvey, WRC.
> 
> This is becoming more about SIPTU than Luas employees.


Ironically this is about competition within the very competitive Union industry. It's competitive because it is shrinking due to the self-serving and destructive actions of Union leaders. That and the fact they have managed to but most unionised companies in the private sector out of business.


----------



## Marigold77 (9 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Ironically this is about competition within the very competitive Union industry. It's competitive because it is shrinking due to the self-serving and destructive actions of Union leaders. That and the fact they have managed to but most unionised companies in the private sector out of business.


Ambulance staff going on trike in Waterford.. simply blackmail. I lived in Sheffield in the winter of strikes and it was appalling. Fire service on strike, hospital laundries on trike and heaven help the old folk with no family to bring in clean linen. I used to cross the road to avoid the picket lines with their collecting boxes. Totally selfish action is striking.


----------



## Purple (11 Apr 2016)

Marigold77 said:


> I used to cross the road to avoid the picket lines with their collecting boxes. Totally selfish action is striking.


Given the opportunity with the LUAS strike I'd cross the road in order to pass the picket line and not give them any money.


----------



## Marigold77 (11 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Given the opportunity with the LUAS strike I'd cross the road in order to pass the picket line and not give them any money.


Agree totally.. never thought of that ! Now I see the Gardai are joining inhttp://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/gardai-to-discuss-strike-action-at-conference-despite-the-fact-it-is-illegal-for-them-to-do-so-729055.html


----------



## Purple (11 Apr 2016)

The Gardai start on 50% less than LUAS drivers. While they shouldn't go on strike they, more than nurses or teachers and certainly more than Tram drivers, should be paid more.


----------



## Gerry Canning (11 Apr 2016)

Just thinking ,
We have politicians on (strike) when to us it is obvious ,things will get  sorted..
We have Luas drivers striking , when to us it is obvious , things will get sorted.

Maybe sack them all !


----------



## Delboy (11 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> The Gardai start on 50% less than LUAS drivers. While they shouldn't go on strike they, more than nurses or teachers and certainly more than Tram drivers, should be paid more.


The Gardai are on a bit more than the headlines would have you believe!


> A newly-trained garda, after 32 weeks in Templemore, starts at €23,750. But there are payments for unsocial hours, overtime and other allowances. The actual average pay for a garda on frontline duty after one year on the job is €31,000. After seven years the basic is €42,138 and actual earnings average around €50,000. For un-promoted gardai (below the rank of sergeant) at mid-scale, the average gross pay at present is over €60,000 including all allowances and overtime. You may feel that this is not enough for a tough job but it is propaganda to describe it as "poverty".
> Teachers are not on the bread-line either: the scale for new entrant teachers runs from €30,702 in the first year to €59,940 on the top of the scale.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...pace-balloon-is-losing-altitude-34613890.html


----------



## Purple (12 Apr 2016)

Good info Delboy, thanks.

It looks like things are heating up with the LUAS strike.
The Union are desperately trying to garner some public support and a PR win by drawing parallels with the Lockout.


----------

