# I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses!



## billko (12 Feb 2009)

I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses ! They have made this country seriously uncompetitive with their policies in many large companys and are directly responsible in many cases for 1000's of job losses over the last decade. Getting a little tired of it to be honest.


----------



## ANORAKPHOBIA (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Maybe you would prefer life without representation where most of us would be earning little more than the minimum wage.


----------



## billko (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Spare me the BS.. People had a choice up until last year to move if they were not being treated fairly.. they shouldn't need someone to hold their hand. No business can withstand inefficiency and sooner or later will pay the price. There needs to be flexibility in the workplace and that never happens when unions are involved.


----------



## bren1916 (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

The days of the former Team Aer lingus staff being heavily subsidised are gone thankfully. So what we are left with are aircraft mechanics/engineers on massively inflated earnings in Ireland which now finds itself redundant in a cut-throat business.
Aer Lingus will be next I'd imagine as the unions will no doubt drag that entity down too.


----------



## olddoll (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

It is simplistic to blame Unions for current job losses.  I would image most of the multinational companies relocating to cheaper economies are not unionised.  We were delighted when these companies located in Ireland some years ago.  They came here because there was a young, educated, cheap workforce.  They are now locating to different countries which can provide them with just that.


----------



## thedaras (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



billko said:


> There needs to be flexibility in the workplace and that never happens when unions are involved.[/quote
> 
> Agreed billko


----------



## Wexfordguy (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Funny the way most of the people who lost thier jobs to multinationals werent in unions...they've only got themselves to blame when the foreign firms up sticks and go somewhere cheaper.
If it wasnt for unions working conditions,taxation and wages would all be far worse for the employees.


----------



## billko (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



olddoll said:


> It is simplistic to blame Unions for current job losses. I would image most of the multinational companies relocating to cheaper economies are not unionised. We were delighted when these companies located in Ireland some years ago. They came here because there was a young, educated, cheap workforce. They are now locating to different countries which can provide them with just that.


 
Speaking of Multinationals - If unions had been involved in DELL it would have been closed years ago. The reason it stayed open so long was because the workers were flexible and productive. We are not going to be able to compete on a manufacturing basis in the future because of cheap labour abroad but in a case like this, providing a fast and efficient service would have saved them - but when unions are in the way - that will never happen !


----------



## LennyBriscoe (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Wexfordguy said:


> Funny the way most of the people who lost thier jobs to multinationals werent in unions...they've only got themselves to blame when the foreign firms up sticks and go somewhere cheaper.


 
Very interesting take on private sector employment !! We cant all work in the public sector you know! We all cant be insulated against asymmetric economic shocks. 

Unions also represent private sector workers you know!


----------



## Wexfordguy (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



billko said:


> Speaking of Multinationals - If unions had been involved in DELL it would have been closed years ago. The reason it stayed open so long was because the workers were flexible and productive. We are not going to be able to compete on a manufacturing basis in the future because of cheap labour abroad but in a case like this, providing a fast and efficient service would have saved them - but when unions are in the way - that will never happen !


 
And what use did it do them in the long run?

The unions _werent_ there and they _still_ closed.

To my mind you're talking a load of rubbish  my friend..


----------



## Wexfordguy (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



LennyBriscoe said:


> Very interesting take on private sector employment !! We cant all work in the public sector you know! We all cant be insulated
> 
> Unions also represent private sector workers you know!


 
Ah but we're NOT insulated.
The media and the government have vilified the Public sector to the extent that they're taking  hit on the pensions levy by themselves and the private sector are sitting around going "ha,that'll teach you!"

When the times were good,we couldnt get anybody to take a job in my place,they all wanted the 40 grand that the they thought the private sector was offering.
I used to have people asking me how much i earned than sneering,saying "thats aload of crap..get another job".
Now we're earning _slightly _more than we were then and people want us to shoulder the economic burden because we have the cheek t o pay into a pension fund!!


----------



## Grumpybut... (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Personal soapbox!!!  My other half works in a company which is strongly unionised-theor latest plan-in their infinite wisdom-is to vote on strike action for a 10% pay INCREASE!!!!!!!!  They have only just received their towards 2013-which none of the rest of us are likely to get!  They are also taking great exception to some very *minor* changes to their working conditions.  No understanding apparently that they are lucky to have jobs in the current climate!  I work for a charity (considered as a public servant) but was never a union member at all, we're probably covered by the pension levy and subject to funding every year so I fully appreciate how tight things are, really can't get my head around how you could justify going on strike for more pay at the moment!


----------



## billko (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



LennyBriscoe said:


> Very interesting take on private sector employment !! We cant all work in the public sector you know! We all cant be insulated against asymmetric econiomic shocks.
> 
> Unions also represent private sector workers you know!


 
For your information I work in the private sector and am not in a union. The chances are I will be out of work before the end of this year but thats down to global factors ( lack of demand for the product). There is still a need for servicing aeroplanes so they should have been pretty well insulated from the global suitation.


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

There is and has been  value in unions,  but at the moment they are acting irresponsibly in not accepting that a cut in public sector pay, in any form. Jack O'connor was on the other day about right wing agendas and the media having workers at each others throats. Its the unions that are deviding the workers. Jobs are being lost in unionised companies and pay has been cut and pensions wiped out. Yet the same unions are outraged when there's a cut in public sector pay. How can a union official not accept any public sector pay cut when unionized private sector jobs are being lost in the 000's each week. Whats unfair about a cut in a garaunteed job? Can someone ask jack, why arent pubic sector jobs been benchmarked now? And someone please slap him if he says public sector workers didnt cause this...well jack either the 36000 last month.


----------



## Wexfordguy (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



billko said:


> For your information I work in the private sector and am not in a union.


 
My commiserations on both counts.


----------



## Grumpybut... (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Despite my earlier rant I really believe that there is a bit of divide and conquer going on at the moment.  Every average Jo soap is affected by the current situation, and it's none of our individual faults.  However, instead of being united in our protest against the way we are being screwed over, now public and private sector workers are at each other's throats.  All of our children for example, suffer equally when there are ed cuts....


----------



## billko (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Wexfordguy said:


> And what use did it do them in the long run?
> 
> The unions _werent_ there and they _still_ closed.
> 
> To my mind you're talking a load of rubbish my friend..


 
Either way it would have closed and so will the majority of manufacturing companies in this country over the next five years - that's business - we cannot compete with wages in the eastern europe at the moment and definitely not Asia. The point is service industries are more specialised in many cases and take years to build up an experienced workforce. It's harder for that to be transferred abroad. They are exactly the jobs we should be looking after.


----------



## z103 (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



> Maybe you would prefer life without representation where most of us would be earning little more than the minimum wage.


Well I'm not represented by any union, and am earning little more than minimum wage.
I would be delighted if the unions disbanded. They've made a terrible job of running the country.


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Grumpybut... said:


> now public and private sector workers are at each other's throats. ....


 
This is being fueled by the unions by making out the public sector are being attacked. Instead if they came out and said that the pain has to be shared and that pay levels are too high (which they are in these times) their members would probably accept that, private sector would commend them. Their role then would be to make the CUT fair and equitable.


----------



## Grumpybut... (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Docking-I completel accept that the pain needs to be shared but in the area in which I work, none of us are lighting cigars with 100e notes!  We work on the coalface with a difficult client group for which no money would pay us!  It's just very frustrating that we get tarred with the same brush as highly paid, high level administrators.


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Grumpybut... said:


> Docking-I completel accept that the pain needs to be shared but in the area in which I work, none of us are lighting cigars with 100e notes! We work on the coalface with a difficult client group for which no money would pay us! It's just very frustrating that we get tarred with the same brush as highly paid, high level administrators.


 

Fair point. Im not tarring all with the same brush but some cut has to happen and I think the unions need to accept this and then they should be concentrating on how these cuts are applied. Look at what happened, no acceptance of cuts so a a cut across the board and outrage then Unions blame the govt . Unions get real a 2bln cut needs to happen, unions say ok now we'll talk about how.


----------



## limerick123 (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Unions destroy companies in the long run. its becoming apparent that the union heads are very stupid and ignorent people that dont understand economic cycles and booms / busts etc.


----------



## grahamo (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



billko said:


> I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses ! They have made this country seriously uncompetitive with their policies in many large companys and are directly responsible in many cases for 1000's of job losses over the last decade. Getting a little tired of it to be honest.


 
Rubbish!
The country is uncompetitive, I agree, but why do you lay this at the door of the unions? Surely the financial bosses, property speculators,  shop owners, and the self employed whose blatant profiteering constantly raised prices over the last 15 years are  just a little to blame for Ireland's uncompetitiveness.


----------



## Padraigb (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



limerick123 said:


> its becoming apparent that the union heads are very stupid and ignorent people that dont understand economic cycles and booms / busts etc.



Rather like Ministers for Finance, property developers, bankers, property investors, shareholders, company directors ...


----------



## lemur (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Unions are yesterdays game. Dinosaurs. Their last holdout is the public services.


----------



## dockingtrade (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

sorry have to come back again on union leaders. Its very easy to say no to pay cuts and raise taxes. I can do that. Their members should be getting better bang for thier buck from so called socialist , left wing whatever, who are 100k plus a year (a bit of a paradox). In the interest of fairness they should be asking how come there civil servants on 250k etc and how did it get to this for civil servants in ireland. They should be demanding pay reform in the civil service first ie share the wealth. Do a bit of hard work them selves, make tough decisions. Then accept the pot of money is smaller and work than one through. As I said its very easy say no, then spin to their members they're being attacked. Union member need to question 100k salaries these guys get. again they are causing the devide between public and private. Whast to Jack if the country shuts down for a week.


----------



## TSThomas (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

What's your solution billko / lemur, follow the Chilean economic "miracle"?


----------



## ajapale (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Moved from   to Letting Off Steam


----------



## Complainer (12 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Wexfordguy said:


> Ah but we're NOT insulated.
> The media and the government have vilified the Public sector to the extent that they're taking  hit on the pensions levy by themselves and the private sector are sitting around going "ha,that'll teach you!"


Indeed, it's the old 'divide and conquer' strategy. But it's not working;
[broken link removed]



dockingtrade said:


> There is and has been  value in unions,  but at the moment they are acting irresponsibly in not accepting that a cut in public sector pay, in any form. Jack O'connor was on the other day about right wing agendas and the media having workers at each others throats. Its the unions that are deviding the workers. Jobs are being lost in unionised companies and pay has been cut and pensions wiped out.


This is wide of the mark. Jobs are being lost right across the board, in the non-unionised sector (Dell, RR Donnelly, Ryanair), the unionised private sector (SR Technics), and the public sector (Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, many local authorities). Attempts to create division to targeting one sector only will fail.



dockingtrade said:


> Yet the same unions are outraged when there's a cut in public sector pay. How can a union official not accept any public sector pay cut when unionized private sector jobs are being lost in the 000's each week. Whats unfair about a cut in a garaunteed job?


What is unfair is that it targets one particular group of employees for no good reason. There are many very secure jobs in the private sector - why aren't they making a contribution? There are many self-employed people who continue to bring in a good steady income - why aren't they making a contribution?

The simple solution was to increase the tax rate, so those who are earning pay.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (13 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

The only union that I have ever dealt with was the *IBOA.* I have to say that if I had my time over I would not contribute one penny to this organisation in subscriptions. They may have been good back in the 1970's but the latest crowd running this organisation seems more focused on producing a fancy glossy magazine, spending large sums of members money on a glitzy website and buying themselves new premises.
If you have a problem with your employer as an individual the IBOA doesn't want to know. They don't even answer your correspondence. There's no publicity in taking up the case of an individual, so they don't bother.


----------



## DublinTexas (13 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Sure unions are to blame but so is the goverment , the polit bureau (Social Partnership), the reckless banks and the individual citizen.

For years most of people and organisations in this state did know that the whole economy was build on reckless lending and that most of the archivements were actualy only possible because of borrowing from either banks (private sector) or our future children (public sector).

Nobody realy cared and everybody thought it would go on for a long time and hence acted accordingly, got greedy (not only the banks got greedy, nearly everybody did) and in some cases reckless.

Unions and employers did know that the cost base in Ireland is significant higher than in other countries due a lot of reason ranking for high salary over infrastruture cost (Electricity/Gas) to a bad tax system which shifts the tax burden to individuals instead of the whole economy.

So for years a bad sense of entitlement existed in which everybody tried to make the most without planing for the future. How many people realy took out a private pension, how many people actualy tried to save 1 year of salary to be ready for a possible downturn?

The problem with unions is that they did not react quick enough once it became clear that the ponzi scheme that is our economy has broken down and even once they realzied the problem they are still in the "entitlement" mind set.

SR Technics lost major contracts (From Gulf Air over to the state controlled AirLingus) and has a 20% higher cost base in Ireland, so what do the unions expect? 

The Goverment is unable to lower the cost base because it needs to hike taxes, the ESB can't lower power cost because they need to be able to pay more to their workers, the airlines don't need so many aircrafts and there is no work in general in that sector.

So unless we realy make the jump to a communist state (and we are on the road to it), where the goverment forces the companies it controlls to not use the best bid for their services but rather those where the masses are keept quite than maybe the goverment should instruct AerLingus to use SR technics to keep at least some jobs. But is that fair?


----------



## dockingtrade (13 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

Complainer. Do you not accept that the avergae public sector wage is too high given the state of the public finances. And because jobs are being lost in the 000's (not pay cuts but job losses), that there should be a cut in public sector pay where the jobs are garaunteed.
What Im saying is that the unions need to accept this, and relay this to their public sector members and then the unions get to work to work out how the cut should be implemented in a "fair an equitable way."

You talk about taregeting workers, the private have been targeted and reduced in thousands, a pay cut comes nowhere near a job loss.


----------



## dockingtrade (13 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*

One last post on this. I just listnened to the radio and guy asking his members to protest outside wherever over the DEVASTATION the pension levy has caused. he used the word devastation. What planet are these people on.Im convinced to only people out of touch with the real world and also insulated from the recession are the union leaders. 000s losing jobs but protesting at a levy because of the DEVASTATION it has caused....ban me im done


----------



## Complainer (13 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



dockingtrade said:


> Complainer. Do you not accept that the avergae public sector wage is too high given the state of the public finances. And because jobs are being lost in the 000's (not pay cuts but job losses), that there should be a cut in public sector pay where the jobs are garaunteed.
> What Im saying is that the unions need to accept this, and relay this to their public sector members and then the unions get to work to work out how the cut should be implemented in a "fair an equitable way."


The unions were and still are ready to sit down and work out how the cuts should be implemented in a fair and equitable way. The current proposal is not within an asses roar of a fair and equitable way. The current proposal is that those who gained least from the boom years pay most for the recovery.

I certainly don't believe all the media guff about public sector pay being too high. The famed ESRI report was not an ESRI report, even by their own standards it was a 'working paper' not a report, and had not been peer reviewed. It was based on some Ernst and Young analysis which took a very superficial approach to job matching - the results just don't stand up. It certainly would not have been accepted as credible by the large multi-national where I used to work. When they did job-matching/benchmarking exercises, they looked at the detail of what the job was about, not just looking at a few superficial numbers about years of service (picked because the data was easily collectible).

I do appreciate that public sector staff have to share the pain in recovering from our current mess, but that sharing must be fair and equitable. The obvious simple and fair method is a simple tax increase of the higher band, and/or bringing in a higher-again-band for incomes over say €100k. Those who are earning will pay. Those who've had pay cuts will pay less. Those who've lost their jobs will not pay at all. Simple and fair.



dockingtrade said:


> You talk about taregeting workers, the private have been targeted and reduced in thousands, a pay cut comes nowhere near a job loss.


It is comments like this that lead me to believe that talk of public sector cuts are motivated by jealously and/or spite, not by any sense of fairness.


----------



## liaconn (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



dockingtrade said:


> One last post on this. I just listnened to the radio and guy asking his members to protest outside wherever over the DEVASTATION the pension levy has caused. he used the word devastation. What  planet are these people on.Im convinced to only people out of touch with the real world and also insulated from the recession are the union leaders. 000s losing jobs but protesting at a levy because of the DEVASTATION it has caused....ban me im done


 
I work in the public sector and have not heard one single colleague complain about having  to contribute towards economic recovery. What we are objecting to is the unequal way some people are being asked to contribute. The public sector includes many people on low salaries which qualifies them for family income supplement. Of course a drop in pay is going to devaste them if they can't pay their mortgage and are at risk of losing their house. The unions are not trying to imply that higher earning public servants are in the same bracket as dell workers or waterford glass staff. In fact, the unions are now trying to  heal the damaging rift that was manufactured by Government between private and public sector workers as this then allowed them to 'divide and conquer'. They have also come up with a ten point plan for economic recovery. I haven't seen it but I assume it will address issues  such as TD pensions, millionaires paying no tax because they are domiciled outside of Ireland, bankers and developers getting off scot free and all of the issues that Fianna Fail ignored and hoped they would get away with. I understand the plan includes a public sector levy and I don't think public serva.nts have any problem with that


----------



## rabbit (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Complainer said:


> I certainly don't believe all the media guff about public sector pay being too high.


lol lol lol  Its much higher than the private sector ( despite the security , pension + perks of the public sector ) but shure you " certainly don't believe all the media guff about public sector pay being too high ".
No wonder the world laughs at us. ...from the most overpaid public servant of all ( Cowen, paid more than the President of US, Germany, France etc ) down.


----------



## Complainer (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



rabbit said:


> lol lol lol  Its much higher than the private sector ( despite the security , pension + perks of the public sector ) but shure you " certainly don't believe all the media guff about public sector pay being too high ".


I guess you can keep on saying it, and hope that enough people will believe it.. regardless of the lack of evidence.


----------



## Padraigb (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



liaconn said:


> I work in the public sector and have not heard one single colleague complain about having  to contribute towards economic recovery. What we are objecting to is the unequal way some people are being asked to contribute...



Let's put aside the issue of whether there should be a levy, and ask ourselves if the particular levy is equitable. I believe that it is not in two ways. 

First, it is a long-established pattern that contributions to pension plans are proportional to pay -- the same percentage for everybody. The imposition of  different rates for the levy breaks the supposed link between contribution and benefit.

Second, the scheme ignores the fact that a portion of the pay of post-1995 public servants is not covered by superannuation schemes, but is covered by the SW Contributory Old Age Pension scheme.

In my judgement, a fairer scheme would have been to exempt the COAP element from the levy, and apply a uniform rate on all income over that threshold. My guess is that to yield the same amount, that rate might have to be about 12%. The net effect would actually be more progressive than the existing scheme.

[As the arrangements for pre-1995 recruits are different, some further work would need to be done to ensure equivalent treatment of all staff. It would not be too difficult.]


----------



## dockingtrade (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Complainer said:


> It is comments like this that lead me to believe that talk of public sector cuts are motivated by jealously and/or spite, not by any sense of fairness.


 

Rubbish. So what do you think is fair... no cuts?? People want ps workers to take a cut out of spite, again the reality of it all


----------



## rabbit (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*

For every three euro the governments spends this year - be it on public service, politicians, nurses, Gardai, teachers , social welfare, FAS , embassies, McAleese or whoever - the government is having to borrow one further euro.   

For every three *billion *euro the governments spends this year - be it on public service, politicians, nurses, Gardai, teachers , social welfare, FAS , embassies, McAleese or whoever - the government is having to borrow one further *billion *euro.

We are borrowing 23 billion this year.   We simply cannot afford to spend so much.


----------



## Lollix (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*

It can be all too easy to have a view of unions as sterotypical defenders of idiotic demarcation, but the reality is often quite different.
National wage rounds over the years were negotiated by unions, and those of who worked in non-unionised businesses were happy enough to take the increases that were established by the trade union process.
In the case of the lower paid in service industries, union representation helps to avoid the use of slave labour. Anyone who has read Hsiao-Hung Pai's book "Chinese Whispers" will be aware of the exploitation of non unionised workers in the supply chain of some of the larger British supermarket operators. Thankfully, apart from some small issues in the mushroom business, we have not seen any of this abuse of people in Ireland so far, although the growth of these same supermarket multiples in Ireland is a cause for concern to anyone who wants to live in a just society. Where such abuses did happen in Ireland, it is only fair to say that it was the unions who highlighted it and sought redress for the victims.
Like many posters, I am no fan of the "not an inch" type of union bodies, but they serve a need and there are times when we all benefit. If we want to find scapegoats in the current climate, we need to look much higher up.


----------



## rabbit (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



Lollix said:


> If we want to find scapegoats in the current climate, we need to look much higher up.


 
Its much more serious than finding scapegoats higher up, although the highly paid heads of unions do indeed have a lot to answer for. Our minimum wage is roughly one and a half times that of the UK, a G7 country....no wonder refugees are going across the border to buy groceries. Our costs are simply too high here.  As I said earlier, for every three *billion *euro the governments spends this year - be it on public service, politicians, nurses, Gardai, teachers , social welfare, FAS , embassies, McAleese or whoever - the government is having to borrow one further *billion *euro.....we are borrowing 23 billion this year. We simply cannot afford to spend so much. The penny has not sunk with many public service mentality type people yet.....how long before the day comes when those we borrow of tell us SORRY...BUT no more MONEY...
​


----------



## Lollix (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*

The original question posed was whether the unions could be thanked for today's 1100+ job losses. The answer has to be that they are not to blame for the current crisis, although many of their members and the lower paid generally are certainly being asked to carry the can.
The crisis worldwide has resulted from an unregulated money market that ran riot with greed as its core value. In Ireland, this was compounded by planners and bankers who facilitated the huge oversupply of commercial and residential property, encouraged by politicians who were far too close to the construction industry. Remember Bertie Ahern's comments about people who urged caution? He advised them to go and commit suicide. What does he think now, cushioned as he is with a fat salary and a chauffer driven merc for life?
The unions may have played a small part in raising wage costs, but it was to a background of very high living costs related to overpriced housing.
I'm not an apologist for Trade Unions, and I may have differences with them from time to time, but there is no doubt that they are not to blame for this mess. If you want to find culprits, start with Ahern and the rest of the crowd who are linked with the "kid-glove" tribunals. Don't put all the blame on the people who had very little say in how this country was run for the last ten years. Ireland was run for the benefit of the few, same as now, and same as it will be when this mess is sorted. Those priveliged few not only won't end up in jail, but they won't be asked to take as much pain as the lower paid. Same as always.


----------



## Complainer (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



dockingtrade said:


> Rubbish. So what do you think is fair... no cuts??


I've already answered this question in my earlier posts, and just in case you missed it, my answer was not 'no cuts'. If you really are interested in my answer, feel free to go back and read my earlier posts. If you'd prefer to target one particular group of employees in an almost racist manner, keep on going...


----------



## Caveat (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*

I think unions prevaricate and procrastinate as a matter of course purely to justify their existence and salaries and rarely if ever act in the interest of 'the workers'. Largely they are an anachronism - unnecessary and often woefully informed and out of touch.

Heard a good one today - union rep (Louise O'Donnell maybe?) talking about public sector workers day of action in response to levy blah blah...

She actually said "contrary to the myth, most of these people are not well paid - a lot of them earn less than €60,000 PA"

Less then 60K? It's an absolute disgrace I tell you.

You would certainly never find any private sector worker earning less than 60K


----------



## Complainer (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



Caveat said:


> You would certainly never find any private sector worker earning less than 60K


Another great example of criticising those on one side of debate for something they didn't say. Louise (not my favourite union official, it has to be said) didn't say this, so please don't exaggerate.


----------



## dockingtrade (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: Unions !*



Complainer said:


> I've already answered this question in my earlier posts, and just in case you missed it, my answer was not 'no cuts'. If you really are interested in my answer, feel free to go back and read my earlier posts. If you'd prefer to target one particular group of employees in an almost racist manner, keep on going...


 

I never targeted the ps workers. I was talking about the unions approach to this mess, so read my posts. My point was its the unions themselves causing the devide, by using the word DEVASTATION for a levy when 000s are losing thier jobs, thats is angering people, fair play to anyone in a job and who can keep a job. And your use of words like "spite" and "racism" are way out of order.


----------



## Caveat (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



Complainer said:


> Louise (not my favourite union official, it has to be said) didn't say this, so please don't exaggerate.



No, of course she didn't say this and I never suggested that she did.  I don't know where "exaggeration" comes into it.

She said what I quoted in my post.

'Less than 60K' is hardly poor - but she seemed to be using the figure to suggest that these people cannot afford the reduction in take home pay that the levy results in.  My point is that many private sector workers are on less that 60K and they have taken hits in the form of redundancies, 3 or 4 day weeks, 10%+ reductions in salaries etc. 

My interpretation of her comment was that we are supposed to feel empathy or sympathy for these people because they are on 'less than 60K' - or else why make the comment?

Or can you maybe hazard a guess as to the point of her example of the salary she quoted?


----------



## Complainer (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



dockingtrade said:


> I never targeted the ps workers. I was talking about the unions approach to this mess, so read my posts.


Your opening sentence on this thread was "they are acting irresponsibly in not accepting that a cut in public sector pay" - if that's not targeting public sector workers, I don't know what is.



dockingtrade said:


> My point was its the unions themselves causing the devide, by using the word DEVASTATION for a levy when 000s are losing thier jobs, thats is angering people, fair play to anyone in a job and who can keep a job.


When I look at the official statements of the unions, I don't see any 'causing the divide'. I see many attempts to bring together public and private sector workers to ensure that those who can best afford to contribute to getting us out of the mess created by the bankers/builders/bowsies(FF) pay their fair share. 
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]

Today's Irish Times poll indicates that 41% of  people believe the levy is unfair. It has to be changed.




dockingtrade said:


> And your use of words like "spite" and "racism" are way out of order.


Perception is reality. That's exactly how it feels to be a public servant over the last 3-6 months.



Caveat said:


> No, of course she didn't say this and I never suggested that she did.  I don't know where "exaggeration" comes into it.
> 
> She said what I quoted in my post.
> 
> ...


No indeed, €60k is hardly poor, but yet again, that's not what she said. €60k isn't poor, but it isn't rich either. The issue is not really about how the 8% cut compares against those who have lost their jobs or are on short time. The issue is about how the 8% compares against those who are still working away quietly at the same or better salary than last year, keeping very quiet about it, and thanking Christ that they don't work in the public sector. 

The public sector (as has been said ad nauseum by union leaders and others) is well prepared to pay its fair share. It is not prepared to pay an unfair share, as per the current proposal.


----------



## jasconius (14 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*

Strange how the last great bastion of unionism can put through a 2.5% increase on top of of average salaries of 70k ? before the unions agreed to disagree in Goverment Buildings.
Moreover they are exempt fom the Public Sector levy (even the Gardai could not duck that one), and all because of the unspoken threat of pulling the plug literally.
This, because of some paltry 5% shareholding which makes it exempt. And now we cannot get a price decrease for another 2 months !


----------



## dockingtrade (15 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*

complainer again you twist it to suit your point "they" refer to the union leaders. I agree the levy is unfair. All my post refer to the union leaders and my point is, again....If the unions accepted the cuts in pay are needed to be made,  instead of a point blank "no" there would not have been an "unfair cut" across the board. If the union were doing their job they should have been negotiating a fair cut. All my posts refer to the union leaders not the workers.


----------



## Purple (15 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



billko said:


> I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses ! They have made this country seriously uncompetitive with their policies in many large companys and are directly responsible in many cases for 1000's of job losses over the last decade. Getting a little tired of it to be honest.


Yes. The current owners of SR Technics and the owners when it was Team Aer Lingus all tried to make the company competitive but the unions resisted their every move. When the same work can be done in France for 20% less the employees and their unions who resisted change and ignored what the market wanted have to take the blame.


----------



## Complainer (16 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



dockingtrade said:


> If the unions accepted the cuts in pay are needed to be made,  instead of a point blank "no" there would not have been an "unfair cut" across the board. If the union were doing their job they should have been negotiating a fair cut. All my posts refer to the union leaders not the workers.


It seems that your blaming the union leaders for the outcome of the negotiating process, when they held few cards in the negotiation. The levy was intentionally presented at the last minute by the Govt, knowing well what the unions would have no choice but to walk. 

The unions accepted the need for cuts long before the talks, and long after.


----------



## Purple (17 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



Complainer said:


> It seems that your blaming the union leaders for the outcome of the negotiating process, when they held few cards in the negotiation. The levy was intentionally presented at the last minute by the Govt, knowing well what the unions would have no choice but to walk.


 Rubbish; the unions knew full well that pay cuts in some form or another were at the centre of the talks. They didn’t have the moral courage to stand up and be counted so instead they crawled away like craven dogs and let the government take the flak even though they knew well that cuts were necessary and unavoidable. 



Complainer said:


> The unions accepted the need for cuts long before the talks, and long after.


 Yes, but not for their members.


----------



## dockingtrade (17 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



Complainer said:


> It seems that your blaming the union leaders for the outcome of the negotiating process.


 

yes, i believe the cut in whatever guise would have been fairer (still tough) if the unions accepted we need a pay cut, because then they can negotiate that cut. 
Its easy for them to walk and convince their members their being attacked, they could have worked a bit harder for thier members. Someone on 15k pa, paying a pension levy is down the unions not the Govt, because they could have had some input into it.


----------



## Complainer (18 Feb 2009)

*Re: I think it fair to say that the Unions can be thanked for todays 1100+ job losses*



dockingtrade said:


> if the unions accepted we need a pay cut,


What is your basis for claiming that the unions didn't accept the need for a pay cut of some form?


----------

