# Thank you - Dunnes Stores.



## Deiseblue (3 Apr 2015)

A huge shout out to Dunnes stores whose intransigence has brought the question of zero hours/low hours contracts front & centre .
It is heartening to see cross party support for Mandate supported employees stance in this matter & even more heartening to see the public's support in ensuring that all Dunnes Stores did little business yesterday.
JoanBurton's undertaking that collective bargaining legislation is to be introduced by the summer is also good news.


----------



## epicaricacy (3 Apr 2015)

+1

My wife and I moved to the UK a couple of years ago and the only employment we could acquire at the time, after 7 weeks of looking, was a zero hours / minimum wage contract (warehouse position) with a large UK retailer. We were among 1000 seasonal staff taken on for the Christmas Peak Period. We met several people who were still on zero hours contracts after 5 years + of employment.

(1)The agency would text us at any time up to 11pm to let us know if we had work the following morning at 6am - or, if we were working at 2pm, we would receive a text at about 12pm. (We, like most other employees lived an hours drive from work). We had to text back immediately to let them know or they would text someone else and we would lose our hours for that day.

(2) It was typical for a sizeable minority of people to be sent home within minutes of arriving in work, even after receiving / responding to a text message. This occured as the 'figures' for projected orders wouldn't be generated until after people had received / responded to the text. If someone complained - they would never receive another text.

(3) There were 3 large onsite employment agencies controlling all of the hours and as a result, these people had total control.The same agencies controlled most 'picker / packer warehouse' employment in all of the warehouses in the north of England. We applied for a similar position in a different company - as we were not receiving enough hours to pay our bills - through a different agency and we were refused as the agencies had 'an unspoken rule' amongst them that they would not 'poach' from each other. In effect, we were tied to the one agency, even if that meant we received a mere 8 hours pay at £6.5 per hour in any given week.

(4)The inequitable relationship between employer and employee encouraged the worst type of bullying behaviour (and worse) on the part of the employer.

(5)We found it impossible to plan our finances with any certainty and, as a result, we stopped 'participating' in the economy. We cut out all lunches, coffees, clothes purchasing etc. We were constantly stressed out waiting for the text to arrive. We found ourselves checking our phones every 30 seconds - in case we had accidentally switched it off or on to silent mode. I kept repeating the mantra that ' The how of living is tolerable if one has a why to live for' - as we knew that we would eventually be in a position to leave. But the awful reality is that everyone we met in the warehouse had the same issues without any prospect of change. My wife spoke to some women who lived in mouldy / freezing accommodation as they were afraid to turn on the heating and were afraid to shower, as they couldn't predict their wages and as a result were afraid of not being able to pay their electricity / water charges at the end of each month. We never met anyone in the warehouse who didn't want to work every hour that was available to them.

In my opinion, low hours / zero hours contracts need to be outlawed ASAP. Adam Smith's rising tide analogy is oft quoted by people who justify these exploitative work practices. The reality is that people on these ccntracts should not have to be sacrificed to ensure our 'recovery' maintains momentum. Then again, one would hardly expect a bunch of privately educated parliamentarians to 'understand' this.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Apr 2015)

Epicaricicy , what appalling working conditions with consequent effects on all facets of your lives , I hope that things have improved for both you & your wife.
I have no doubt your experiences are replicated across workforces where such contracts exist .
Both IBEC & ISME state that there is a place for such contracts , might I suggest that the waste paper bin is the appropriate place ?
Hopefully the current level of political & public opprobrium will lead to such contracts being binned.


----------



## Delboy (3 Apr 2015)

Have been following zero hours contracts on Ch4 news for the past couple of years and while no expert on this type of thing, it definitely sounded wrong to me. Very unfair and no way to work long term. 
So while it may suit the likes of students or even retirees, I for one would be glad to see it stopped in it's tracks in this country before it gains a foothold.

So well done DS workers on forcing the issue into the headlines here


----------



## The_Banker (3 Apr 2015)

Well done the the Dunne Stores workers...

Hopefully another day or two of industrial action will make the Heffernan family think twice with regard to their Charles Dickens type management policies.


----------



## Leper (3 Apr 2015)

The Dunnes Stores workers who went out on strike yesterday did a favour for the entire workforce in this country.  If Dunnes got away with what they had been offering it would only be a matter of (short) time before every employer in the country jumped on the bandwagon.  Dunnes give good employment and have always played the green card "The Difference is We're Irish" - It's about time they recognised they do business in Ireland and in the Irish way.  There is a long way to go yet.

Dunnes management will not negotiate with trades unions.  There is a management regime there like something you would see in the Third Reich.

Some of the Dunnes workers passed the picket too - it is their right, but shame on them leaving others to do their fighting for them. And worse again, more shame on the shoppers who for one reason or other passed the picket also.


----------



## mathepac (5 Apr 2015)

One of the largest employers in the country, the HSE, sub-contracts certain services to employers who treat their employees in this fashion. No regular hours, no guaranteed hours, very little prior notice of being needed at work. The work isn't even seasonal as it involves covering for (apparently) unpredictable spikes in demand for services or sick leave.  The HSE unions won't support the changing of these arrangements for non-members as it would mean addressing the incredibly high sick-leave rates of some of their members.


----------



## Leper (5 Apr 2015)

mathepac said:


> One of the largest employers in the country, the HSE, sub-contracts certain services to employers who treat their employees in this fashion. No regular hours, no guaranteed hours, very little prior notice of being needed at work. The work isn't even seasonal as it involves covering for (apparently) unpredictable spikes in demand for services or sick leave.  The HSE unions won't support the changing of these arrangements for non-members as it would mean addressing the incredibly high sick-leave rates of some of their members.


I am not fully conversant about this post as I do not know what grades are involved.  There is an embargo on recruitment to the public service for years and the HSE is not recruiting.  It uses the services of on-call agencies which is more costly than recruiting a fulltime person. 

The sick leave situation in the public service has been addressed under the Haddington Road Agreement and staff are on the receiving end of an austere programme which sees them on Half Pay and Nil Pay fast. I feel the unions have left their members down with such a programme.


----------



## Delboy (5 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> The sick leave situation in the public service has been addressed under the Haddington Road Agreement and staff are on the receiving end of an austere programme which sees them on Half Pay and Nil Pay fast. I feel the unions have left their members down with such a programme.


Aye, sure!
I recall a recent report in the Indo showing sick leave as high as ever


----------



## Leper (5 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> Aye, sure!
> I recall a recent report in the Indo showing sick leave as high as ever


Before I comment can you say what Indo report?


----------



## Delboy (5 Apr 2015)

Here's 1 as an example


> Local authorities are failing to initiate any significant clampdown on absenteeism, despite workers taking an average of 11 sick days every year.
> http://www.independent.ie/business/...staff-absent-for-11-days-a-year-31071993.html
> Almost one-in-four councils have failed to put in place systems to monitor sickness rates among staff, despite high absenteeism rates which run at twice those of the private sector.


----------



## Leper (6 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> Here's 1 as an example



The Indo was talking about County Councils there.  We were talking about sick leave in the HSE. Remember? I don't know what statistics the councils use.


----------



## mathepac (6 Apr 2015)

The thread topic is Dunnes Stores workers, zero /  low hours contracts, union recognition, etc and I introduced the HSE as an example of how a union-dominated organisation exploits non-unionised workers for the benefit of union members. Managers & supervisors in the union-domineered HSE are members of the same trades unions as those they purport to supervise / manage, an unhealthy incestuous relationship which clients pay for by reductions in services and service quality. The HSE is being run for its employees not its clients.


----------



## Delboy (6 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> The Indo was talking about County Councils there.  We were talking about sick leave in the HSE. Remember? I don't know what statistics the councils use.


You mentioned the PS, not the HSE. Anyways, we're just taking this off topic


----------



## Leper (6 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> You mentioned the PS, not the HSE. Anyways, we're just taking this off topic


Sorry, Delboy, you are correct I mentioned the PS.  However, the only sick leave figures available to me are HSE staff.  If you can source them you will see that the HSE has come to grips with the sick leave situation.

Mathpac made the point that we are going off topic and we are, sorry about that too! To agree with Mathpac I have problems with unions representing Chiefs and Indians simultaneously. I wish to point out the staff is not exploiting anybody and neither are the unions.  Neither of these employs people.  Anyway back to the subject afoot. . .


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> A huge shout out to Dunnes stores whose intransigence has brought the question of zero hours/low hours contracts front & centre .


 I agree. It's a disgraceful practice and should have been consigned to history years ago.



Deiseblue said:


> JoanBurton's undertaking that collective bargaining legislation is to be introduced by the summer is also good news.


 It will lead to the institutionalised bullying of employers, particularly small employers, by the usual slew of self serving unions, so I disagree on that one.



Leper said:


> If Dunnes got away with what they had been offering it would only be a matter of (short) time before every employer in the country jumped on the bandwagon.


What a grossly offensive comment. Some would, most wouldn't. Employers are no different from employees when it comes to morals and ethics; there are some bad but most are good.



mathepac said:


> One of the largest employers in the country, the HSE, sub-contracts certain services to employers who treat their employees in this fashion. No regular hours, no guaranteed hours, very little prior notice of being needed at work. The work isn't even seasonal as it involves covering for (apparently) unpredictable spikes in demand for services or sick leave.  The HSE unions won't support the changing of these arrangements for non-members as it would mean addressing the incredibly high sick-leave rates of some of their members.


 That's hardly surprising. Unions have a long history of complicity in the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable in order to promote the interests of their members.



mathepac said:


> The HSE is being run for its employees not its clients.


 That could apply to just about every state service provider.



Leper said:


> I wish to point out the staff is not exploiting anybody and neither are the unions.  Neither of these employs people.  Anyway back to the subject afoot. . .


 Any group that uses its power or position to gain more power or position at the expense of others is engaged in exploitation. Unions sometimes do it, employers sometimes do it and sometimes even employees do it. The objective is balancing the power and interests of different groups. When Unions are too powerful then businesses are put out of business, non members are exploited and those employees who disagree with the union are treated without mercy. There is plenty of legislation to protect employees from their employer, and rightly so. There is little or no legislation to protect employers, or the population at large, from the actions of over zealous unions.


----------



## Leper (7 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> What a grossly offensive comment. Some would, most wouldn't. Employers are no different from employees when it comes to morals and ethics; there are some bad but most are good.



A rather naive statement from somebody as eloquent as Purple.  Not only is it anti trades union it suggests that employers hold the high ground on morals and ethics.  He concedes that some are bad and most are good i.e. sure some are bad, but sure you wouldn't mind that.

By far the biggest trades union in this country is IBEC.  It is not called a union but it has harder clout and agenda than any hardened trades union; it is there to represent employers and use its might almost at will dictating what should and should not happen even where it has no members.  Its main agenda is profit for its members who seem willing to pocket as much as they can from any situation.  Dunnes senior management would be a good example of this kind of greed.


----------



## Latrade (8 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> A rather naive statement from somebody as eloquent as Purple.  Not only is it anti trades union it suggests that employers hold the high ground on morals and ethics.  He concedes that some are bad and most are good i.e. sure some are bad, but sure you wouldn't mind that.
> 
> By far the biggest trades union in this country is IBEC.  It is not called a union but it has harder clout and agenda than any hardened trades union; it is there to represent employers and use its might almost at will dictating what should and should not happen even where it has no members.  Its main agenda is profit for its members who seem willing to pocket as much as they can from any situation.  Dunnes senior management would be a good example of this kind of greed.


 
It was a pretty reasonable response to the statement that all employers would be as bad as Dunnes. If that's the case why haven't all employers gone for zero hours? Or why do those that do offer zero hours operate much more ethically in arranging hours than Dunnes? Because a relatively small supply of unethical employers does not mean all employers are unethical or will be. All employers could make each employee self-employed (like RyanAir's pilots) and avoid any employment law issues...but they don't.

The issue with trade unions is rational too, it is in their interest to look after their members, at times this can be to the detriment of non-members. The common denominator is that employers and employees are human beings and some are abhorent power seeking immoral people and some are just decent and trying to do their best.

Last, to go with your aside on ibec. If it is a trade union, how come under the new lobbying legislation its interactions with the government and civil service isn't protected and exempt like the "trade unions"? Its old FUE activities are trade union, but that's mostly its IR/HR service, the bulk of operations are individual sectors and policy. A social partner is not automatically a trade union and I think you imagine it has far more power than it actually does in determining policy.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> A rather naive statement from somebody as eloquent as Purple.  Not only is it anti trades union it suggests that employers hold the high ground on morals and ethics.  He concedes that some are bad and most are good i.e. sure some are bad, but sure you wouldn't mind that.


My point is that employers and employees are just people, no better or worse, no more ethical or un-ethical than each other.
Neither side should hold a disproportionate amount of power over the other, indeed there shouldn’t be sides, just people working in the same organisation or business who rely on the skill and labour of each other to earn an income.
Employers have to worry about the long term sustainability of the business they run. Unions seldom worry about this which is why they have succeeded in closing down so many businesses and why their membership is mainly concentrated in the protected sectors.
There are bad employers who are unethical and exploit and bully their employees. In that case legislation and organisations like NERI are very helpful. If the case suits the political agenda of the employees union then they may also help.


Leper said:


> By far the biggest trades union in this country is IBEC.  It is not called a union but it has harder clout and agenda than any hardened trades union; it is there to represent employers and use its might almost at will dictating what should and should not happen even where it has no members.  Its main agenda is profit for its members who seem willing to pocket as much as they can from any situation.  Dunnes senior management would be a good example of this kind of greed.


I agree that IBEC is a union (while, ironically, the ICTU isn’t). I disagree that they have much power as it is the Unions with the nuclear option of striking but I am no fan of theirs, in their capacity as a lobby group, either.
By the way, SIPTU is the biggest union in the country.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2015)

Latrade said:


> Last, to go with your aside on ibec. If it is a trade union, how come under the new lobbying legislation its interactions with the government and civil service isn't protected and exempt like the "trade unions"? Its old FUE activities are trade union, but that's mostly its IR/HR service, the bulk of operations are individual sectors and policy. A social partner is not automatically a trade union and I think you imagine it has far more power than it actually does in determining policy.


IBEC has a licence to negotiate as a union and so it is one.
I wasn’t aware that the employee trade unions were exempt from the new legislation on lobbying. That seems ridiculous as they are the biggest, most powerful and most influential lobby groups in the country. If anything proves their power it is that exemption.
We should stop calling lobby groups social partners. Our democracy has been undermined enough over the last decade and a half.


----------



## Latrade (8 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> IBEC has a licence to negotiate as a union and so it is one.
> I wasn’t aware that the employee trade unions were exempt from the new legislation on lobbying. That seems ridiculous as they are the biggest, most powerful and most influential lobby groups in the country. If anything proves their power it is that exemption.
> We should stop calling lobby groups social partners. Our democracy has been undermined enough over the last decade and a half.


 
It is one in part under its old FUE scope, the lobbying and policy work is not under the scope of a union. And as its the internet and we love technicalities, social partners are recognised at a national and European level as representatives of agreed interested parties (usually employers and empployees, but stretches to NGOs). That is different to lobbying as social partner work tends to be in an official minuted and documented capacity always under the freedom of information act, lobbying less so and is much more cloak and dagger. Social partners do lobby, but their submissions and positions are usually documented and publically available.

Anyway, for full disclosure, I'm ex-ibec, so while not biased towards them (I'm ex-union too), I think the actual influence of both social partners is overestimated, that may be presuming that ministers and senior civil servants listen to reasoned, rational arguments.

Back to the OT, i think there is much kudos to the demonstrators, how much impact it has is debateable. The problems with mandatory union recognition are considerable which is part of the reason that it has taken so long in the programme of government to come about. There are plenty of employers who operate very well, consult with their employees, offer fair terms and conditions, even exceed most t&cs and do so without recognising unions. Most of the bigger private employers do not recognise trade unions and yet seem to operate without any industrial relations issues.

As to zero hours, again, many employers offer these contracts and on its own zero hour contracts are not a bad thing. In many cases where the hours become more fixed, they offer full contracts. I do agree however that they are too easy to exploit and behave unethically around, but we have to be careful in that the service industry would suffer if it couldn't offer zero hour contracts at least initially.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2015)

Latrade said:


> It is one in part under its old FUE scope, the lobbying and policy work is not under the scope of a union. And as its the internet and we love technicalities, social partners are recognised at a national and European level as representatives of agreed interested parties (usually employers and empployees, but stretches to NGOs). That is different to lobbying as social partner work tends to be in an official minuted and documented capacity always under the freedom of information act, lobbying less so and is much more cloak and dagger. Social partners do lobby, but their submissions and positions are usually documented and publically available.


I agree that they are different in theory but a rose by any other name and all that. Everyone who was involved in the discussion and decision to define them was either a union activist or member, a lobbyist or a member of an NGO.


Latrade said:


> Anyway, for full disclosure, I'm ex-ibec, so while not biased towards them (I'm ex-union too), I think the actual influence of both social partners is overestimated, that may be presuming that ministers and senior civil servants listen to reasoned, rational arguments.


 I agree that they have been dethroned since the Bertie days when they were in their pomp and effectively ran the country. It is very much to FG’s credit that they have resisted these anti-democratic influences.


Latrade said:


> The problems with mandatory union recognition are considerable which is part of the reason that it has taken so long in the programme of government to come about. There are plenty of employers who operate very well, consult with their employees, offer fair terms and conditions, even exceed most t&cs and do so without recognising unions. Most of the bigger private employers do not recognise trade unions and yet seem to operate without any industrial relations issues.


 I agree. Unions foster an atmosphere of division and hostility and seek to create a “them and us” mentality between different employees, depending on whether the union deems those employees to be “wurkers” or “management”. It is destructive and Dickensian and such ideologically driven divisiveness has no place in the modern world.


Latrade said:


> As to zero hours, again, many employers offer these contracts and on its own zero hour contracts are not a bad thing. In many cases where the hours become more fixed, they offer full contracts. I do agree however that they are too easy to exploit and behave unethically around, but we have to be careful in that the service industry would suffer if it couldn't offer zero hour contracts at least initially.


 It is because they are so easy to exploit that they need to be, at the very least, radically changed.


----------



## The_Banker (8 Apr 2015)

Looks like Dunnes have up'd the anti... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...rs-who-went-on-strike-union-alleges-1.2169020


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2015)

I was expecting this from lower management in Dunnes Stores.  Their managing regime is based on hopping off each soft target instead of any kind of praise (which works better).  These low grade managers have some mistaken aura about them that this makes their presence almost divine. Officers in the SS were the same and you know where they ended up when captured.

It was said earlier on this thread that most employers do not behave like this.  This is true, but the like of Dunnes behaving in such a way will inspire others to abuse their position as good managers.

We have a supermarket regime in Ireland that closed down nearly every corner shop.  They claim to be good giving employment.  In the past few months I saw three retail outlets close when Tesco moved in with a small supermarket employing less people than were working in the outlets.

We now have seven day a week shopping forever.  Only the recession prevented more widescale 24 hour shopping.  Even the greedy Spaniards have not jumped on this greed bandwagon.  I think it is time we restored Ireland back to the people of Ireland and close the damn supermarkets on Sundays.


----------



## Latrade (9 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> I was expecting this from lower management in Dunnes Stores.  Their managing regime is based on hopping off each soft target instead of any kind of praise (which works better).  These low grade managers have some mistaken aura about them that this makes their presence almost divine. Officers in the SS were the same and you know where they ended up when captured.
> 
> It was said earlier on this thread that most employers do not behave like this.  This is true, but the like of Dunnes behaving in such a way will inspire others to abuse their position as good managers.


 
Ok, nazi allusions aside, I'm not sure how good managers operating in different companies with different policies and different cultures will be inspired to do the same. In case you haven't paid attention to operating results for Dunnes competitors, they're doing pretty well without copying Dunnes or being anything like Dunnes. I doubt they're likely to take on such bad PR and throw out their own good procedures based upon the news reports of Dunnes.



Leper said:


> We now have seven day a week shopping forever. Only the recession prevented more widescale 24 hour shopping. Even the greedy Spaniards have not jumped on this greed bandwagon. I think it is time we restored Ireland back to the people of Ireland and close the damn supermarkets on Sundays.


 
Ok, now we're overlooking both a nazi reference and bizarre reference to greedy Spaniards...however, yes let's go back to the good old days why not. Except Sunday is a good day for us to do our shopping because we both work 5 days a week and its hard to organise a week day to do our shopping with a family to feed when we get home. Changes in shopping habits haven't been driven by greed, they've been driven by demand. Families now tend to have both parents working and in some cases working long hours or shifts. The move to weekends, 24 hour, etc shopping was driven by convinence for people and consumers. It isn't greed that means I do my shopping on a Sunday morning, it is necessity.

I'm sure the employees don't mind the Sunday premium though.


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2015)

I’ll be working this Sunday. I’ll be driving to Scotland for meetings on Monday morning.
I have to drive as I’m not allowed to fly at the moment for medical reasons. That doesn’t make me greedy (I may well be greedy but it’s not the Sunday working that makes me so ).

In days gone by when women stayed at home with the kids and were available to do the shopping during the week Sunday opening was not necessary. Society has changed, for good or ill, but it’s not the result of greed.


----------



## Leo (9 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> We now have seven day a week shopping forever.  Only the recession prevented more widescale 24 hour shopping.  Even the greedy Spaniards have not jumped on this greed bandwagon.  I think it is time we restored Ireland back to the people of Ireland and close the damn supermarkets on Sundays.



As a consumer I'm very happy we have progressed. Do you want to go back to a time when businesses only operated 9-5 Monday to Friday, housewives did all the household shopping, and sure they'd nothing better to be doing anyway???

Supermarkets opening longer is in response to consumer demand. To suggest it's some kind of greed bandwagon, and comparing Dunnes management to the SS demeans your argument to a rant.


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2015)

Leo said:


> As a consumer I'm very happy we have progressed. Do you want to go back to a time when businesses only operated 9-5 Monday to Friday, housewives did all the household shopping, and sure they'd nothing better to be doing anyway???
> 
> Supermarkets opening longer is in response to consumer demand. To suggest it's some kind of greed bandwagon, and comparing Dunnes management to the SS demeans your argument to a rant.



Longer supermarket hours is not progression.  I have no problem with supermarkets being open 8am - 6pm Monday to Saturday. I never said anything sexist like you are suggesting (although humorously).  Supermarkets extending their hours because of "consumer demand" - You mean because of greater profits - consumer demand, my hat! Dunnes lower management have always been pretty anti people in their dealings. Have a chat with any of their fulltime employees and you will see what I mean. Look at today's newspaper for example i.e. a lesson on how not to deal with staff.

For the record I have always looked on Sunday as a special day where you had time for yourself, your family and a worthwhile break from the normal humdrum.  Unfortunately, Sunday is now only an extended trading day to make more profit.


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> Supermarkets extending their hours because of "consumer demand" - You mean because of greater profits - consumer demand, my hat!



If there was no consumer demand then they wouldn't make more profit. Almost all improvements in service and quality are driven by the desire to make more profit. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2015)

Latrade said:


> Ok, nazi allusions aside, I'm not sure how good managers operating in different companies with different policies and different cultures will be inspired to do the same. In case you haven't paid attention to operating results for Dunnes competitors, they're doing pretty well without copying Dunnes or being anything like Dunnes. I doubt they're likely to take on such bad PR and throw out their own good procedures based upon the news reports of Dunnes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. You don't know how other companies will behave because of the likes of Dunnes.  Unfortunately, I have seen companies run well, and then the son takes over and suddenly and employee friendly company turns into a near prison camp regime for some reason or other.
2. Protect me from people who see Sunday as a shopping day.  Just imagine the highlight of your week - shopping in Dunnes or Lidl!
3. Twenty four hour shopping had nothing to do with convenience whatsoever, it's profit repeat profit.

Can anybody say what the Sunday Premium Rate is in supermarkets?


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> If there was no consumer demand then they wouldn't make more profit. Almost all improvements in service and quality are driven by the desire to make more profit. There is nothing wrong with that.


There are other more family friendly ways of making profit.  What you are referring to is just greed on behalf of supermarkets.


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> There are other more family friendly ways of making profit.  What you are referring to is just greed on behalf of supermarkets.


We'll have to agree to differ on that one. We're both too long in the tooth to change!


----------



## Sunny (9 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> 1. You don't know how other companies will behave because of the likes of Dunnes.  Unfortunately, I have seen companies run well, and then the son takes over and suddenly and employee friendly company turns into a near prison camp regime for some reason or other.
> 2. Protect me from people who see Sunday as a shopping day.  Just imagine the highlight of your week - shopping in Dunnes or Lidl!
> 3. Twenty four hour shopping had nothing to do with convenience whatsoever, it's profit repeat profit.
> 
> Can anybody say what the Sunday Premium Rate is in supermarkets?



So you and your family never leave your house on a Sunday? You never buy petrol on a Sunday for one of those family trips? You never buy your kids an ice cream from a little shop? You have never gone for a drink? You have never visited a tourist attraction? You have never stayed in a hotel on a Sunday? You have never bought a Sunday newspaper from your local shop? You have never got public transport on a Sunday? You have never attended a sporting event on a Sunday? Do you need me to go on?? Why are supermarkets different to every other part of the economy?

And I don't know anyone who views Sunday as a shopping day and a trip to Lidl as a highlight of the week. Maybe instead of looking down your nose at other people who might pop into a supermarket on a Sunday (may they burn in hell), you should spend more looking at yourself and your ridiculous comparisons between Dunnes Stores and Nazi Prison Guards and your strange slur on Spanish people....


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2015)

Sunny said:


> So you and your family never leave your house on a Sunday? You never buy petrol on a Sunday for one of those family trips? You never buy your kids an ice cream from a little shop? You have never gone for a drink? You have never visited a tourist attraction? You have never stayed in a hotel on a Sunday? You have never bought a Sunday newspaper from your local shop? You have never got public transport on a Sunday? You have never attended a sporting event on a Sunday? Do you need me to go on?? Why are supermarkets different to every other part of the economy?
> 
> And I don't know anyone who views Sunday as a shopping day and a trip to Lidl as a highlight of the week. Maybe instead of looking down your nose at other people who might pop into a supermarket on a Sunday (may they burn in hell), you should spend more looking at yourself and your ridiculous comparisons between Dunnes Stores and Nazi Prison Guards and your strange slur on Spanish people....



Sunny what are you talking about?  Of course we leave the house on Sunday (and every Sunday for that matter), but it is not to compete for parking space in some supermarket carpark where many of our unimaginative couples think this is the highlight of the week.  Of course I've bought ice cream on Sunday in that shop down the road. I have been even known to visit a hotel or a bar on Sundays. But, supermarket shopping is not an enjoyable experience as the likes of Dunnes inform us. Supermarket shopping is a modern necessity, but no so on Sundays.  The Irish were always known as a care free people.  That has changed. Our image has been raped and now the nation has been turned into slaves to advertising trying to decide on what processed sliced pan to buy.  Sunday (to me) is a day where you get out and enjoy the day.  People have different ways of doing this, but supermarket shopping?  I'm trying to imagine Purple and yourself discussing the texture of St-Bernard spread while waiting in the aisles for the check out operator to try and get through your stuff.

I never looked down my nose at anybody.  If you want to pop into a supermarket for an hour, then do it, but know why you are doing it.  It is about profit and nothing else and at the expense at what was our way of life.  Let's get back to the Spaniards.  I lived in Andalucía for quite some time. You won't see them opening supermarkets on Sunday.  Sometimes they open for 3 or 4 hours on Sundays on the Costas during the high tourist season.  But, for the rest of the year forget about the main Spanish supermarkets opening.  I don't know how you came up with the word "slur."

The words to supply the demand have been used on this thread.  Dunnes (down the road from me) used to open until midnight all week before the recession.  Soon after the recession started they closed much earlier and have remained with the earlier hours since.  You see those later hours were unprofitable.  So, it is about profit, after all.

I know I've hogged this thread and probably to the rolled eyes of the OP (Déise Blue).  I've probably ruffled a few feathers too.  But, I genuinely think there is a better way forward and risking swapping paint with other carpark users to fight a way through a supermarket is my idea of how not to spend a worthwhile Sunday.


----------



## Leo (10 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> Longer supermarket hours is not progression.  I have no problem with supermarkets being open 8am - 6pm Monday to Saturday.



But 8am-6pm Monday to Saturday don't suit me. So in your regressive utopia, am I expected to do my grocery shopping in convenience stores? Or should all businesses only operate during the above hours? What's so special about supermarkets that they are singled out for opening outside these hours?

I was in a supermarket at 9:30pm last night, there were many more staff then customers about. So the profit margins during those late hours are way down on the busy periods. If this were purely a greed play, all supermarkets would have stuck with the old opening hours which would ensure maximum profitability during the hours they are open. They'd also need a lot fewer staff, as they'd only have one shift each day.  




Leper said:


> For the record I have always looked on Sunday as a special day where you had time for yourself, your family and a worthwhile break from the normal humdrum.  Unfortunately, Sunday is now only an extended trading day to make more profit.



You don't need to inconvenience everyone else to have your special day, that's a matter of personal choice. All you have to do is not spend any money, anywhere.

If your supermarket experience is the battle you make out, perhaps it's time to look at the alternatives. Supervalu at 9:30pm was the essence of convenience by the way, no queues for anything, breezed through in a few minutes. Beats battling for an hour on a busy Saturday so I can dedicate that to some quality time


----------



## Purple (15 Apr 2015)

I never do my shopping on Sundays. I go to the Lidl near where I work at lunchtime.
I don't think that makes me any better than people who do their shopping on Sundays.
To say supermarket Sunday opening is all about greed is just silly as the same can apply to any other business that opens on a Sunday.

Leper, what's your view on shopping centres opening on Sunday? Should only the restaurants, coffee shops, cinemas and other businesses that are based on entertainment be allowed to open whereas grocery shops should be closed? What about cafe's that also sell produce? I'm not trying to be glib it's just that the genie is out of the bottle and the way we live has changed. I don't think it's necessarily worse though.

People are free to choose to work on Sunday or not work on Sunday. If you want more power as an employee then make yourself more skilled and more valuable to your employer or other potential employers.
I work in a sector with constant skills shortages, where someone could walk out this morning and have another job by lunch time. That's because they are skilled and their labour is valuable. If you choose to not bother acquiring skills then it's your own fault if you are not valued. That doesn't excuse exploitation but it does mean that you have chosen to not empower yourself.


----------



## Leper (15 Apr 2015)

I think I have answered all the questions poised in previous posts.  You said you never do shopping on Sundays.  And fair enough! - Neither do I.  We are all in a rat race whether we know it or not.  We can succomb as do most.  Or we can try and get a break from the rat race. I believe the country has lost the run of itself opening the likes of shopping centres on Sundays.  No matter what I say here will result in this being reversed.  So I am not going to waste my time.  But, I believe Sunday should be reserved as a day of rest where quality family time can be used and for that matter personal time also.  If this means going to a sporting event (which I do on most Sundays), or going to a pub/restaurant/hotel/cinema etc then so be it.

But, those looking forward to spending Sunday evening in Idly-Didly (Aldi-Lidl) or such like, protect me from such people. But, they are entitled to fill their Sundays as they see fit.


----------



## Sunny (15 Apr 2015)

So you have no problem with people being forced to work in bars, cinemas, restaurants on a Sunday because they are facilitating your entertainment and family enjoyment but supermarkets that open on a Sunday are profit greedy businesses that have ruined our beautiful country. 

So what if people want to go to a shopping centre. I avoid them every day of the week but saying something like 'protect me from such people' who do go for whatever reason on a Sunday is pathetic. 'Such people' is such a rude and ignorant phrase.


----------



## Leper (15 Apr 2015)

Sunny said:


> So you have no problem with people being forced to work in bars, cinemas, restaurants on a Sunday because they are facilitating your entertainment and family enjoyment but supermarkets that open on a Sunday are profit greedy businesses that have ruined our beautiful country.
> 
> So what if people want to go to a shopping centre. I avoid them every day of the week but saying something like 'protect me from such people' who do go for whatever reason on a Sunday is pathetic. 'Such people' is such a rude and ignorant phrase.



Hi Sunny, Bars, cinemas, restaurants etc are places within the hospitality sector and as far as I am concerned and must be open on Sundays.  I never realised until you informed me that they are being forced to work in such places. I'm not advocating that dear old Ireland should close down completely on Sundays.  I am supporting that there should be a day where people can have some quality time to enjoy themselves and share in all that is good about themselves. This could involve going to sporting events, cinema etc.  If people want to spend Sunday evenings in supermarkets, let them have their shopping experience; they can camp in Idly-Didly or some other forlorn grocery laden aisles as far as I am concerned, but I think there are better ways of enjoying oneself.  I believe there are enough shopping hours over the other six days to satisfy anybody's lust for buying St-Bernard 0.50c processed sliced pans or a punnet of southern Spain plastic tunnel grown off season strawberries showered daily with treated Iberian urine.

Sunny, you are entitled to your opinion and long may you have it, but don't forget I am entitled to my opinion also. The words "such people" are not rude or ignorant.Enjoy your shopping experience in whatever day you want.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Apr 2015)

Leper you do realise (or do you?) that people do not enjoy grocery shopping - it is a necessary evil to ensure that one has food in ones house! This idea you have that people look forward to doing their grocery shopping on a Sunday (or any other day of the week) is frankly just showing up your own blinkered view of the world rather than portraying any reality. Just think yourself lucky that you have the luxury of indulging yourself by doing what you like on a Sunday rather than doing the chores that you were unable to get to any other day of the week, as is the case for many others.


----------



## Purple (16 Apr 2015)

Ceist Beag said:


> Leper you do realise (or do you?) that people do not enjoy grocery shopping - it is a necessary evil to ensure that one has food in ones house! This idea you have that people look forward to doing their grocery shopping on a Sunday (or any other day of the week) is frankly just showing up your own blinkered view of the world rather than portraying any reality. Just think yourself lucky that you have the luxury of indulging yourself by doing what you like on a Sunday rather than doing the chores that you were unable to get to any other day of the week, as is the case for many others.


I think Leper is lamenting the societal changes that have taken place in recent decades which necessitate people doing their shopping and chores on Sundays.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Apr 2015)

That may be so Purple but see below for the many quotes from Leper suggesting people choose and enjoy doing grocery shopping on a Sunday. For many it's not a choice and they certainly don't enjoy it so I don't really see why he is so upset with "such people" as he calls them. Leper is in a more privileged place than "such people" clearly.



Leper said:


> Just imagine the highlight of your week - shopping in Dunnes or Lidl!





Leper said:


> But, I genuinely think there is a better way forward and risking swapping paint with other carpark users to fight a way through a supermarket is my idea of how not to spend a worthwhile Sunday.





Leper said:


> But, those looking forward to spending Sunday evening in Idly-Didly (Aldi-Lidl) or such like, protect me from such people. But, they are entitled to fill their Sundays as they see fit.





Leper said:


> If people want to spend Sunday evenings in supermarkets, let them have their shopping experience


----------



## Purple (16 Apr 2015)

Ceist Beag said:


> Leper is in a more privileged place than "such people" clearly.


I try to avoid conjecture on the place poster are in. We know only a tiny fraction about each other when we post here.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> I try to avoid conjecture on the place poster are in. We know only a tiny fraction about each other when we post here.


I'm not sure what you're reading into my statement Purple, I thought it was obvious I was commenting within the context of this thread, i.e. the privileged place being a place where you have the choice not to have to do grocery shopping on a Sunday. There was nothing more to read into it than that.


----------



## Firefly (16 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> If you want more power as an employee then make yourself more skilled and more valuable to your employer or other potential employers.
> ...
> If you choose to not bother acquiring skills then it's your own fault if you are not valued. That doesn't excuse exploitation but it does mean that you have chosen to not empower yourself.



This is so true and I really wish more people took personal responsibility for their futures! Your employer owes you nothing and likewise you actually owe your employer nothing either. It always amuses me when someone is left go they feel a great injustice has been done  ("I gave them 20 years of my life"), but when someone resigns from a job to go elsewhere it's OK!


----------



## Purple (16 Apr 2015)

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm not sure what you're reading into my statement Purple, I thought it was obvious I was commenting within the context of this thread, i.e. the privileged place being a place where you have the choice not to have to do grocery shopping on a Sunday. There was nothing more to read into it than that.


Fair enough.


----------



## Firefly (16 Apr 2015)

Hi Leper,

I hear where you are coming from. I've often passed a Tesco on a Sunday when they weather is good and the carpark is full and wondered what people were doing going in there. It's a romantic notion that all the supermarkets should be closed on Sundays, but in reality, for a lot of people, it would be a pain in the backside - people work all sorts of hours these days and for families, both couples often work. If supermarkets HAD to close on Sundays, people would of course survive by adapting their schedules, but there's obviously a demand for it. As you mention, supermarkets do open on Sundays to make a profit, however, it's a bit naive to think that the local shop you might buy your Sunday paper from or the hotel you may go for a drink is there for the public good!

Sunday opening hours are just a fact of life I'm afraid and it's up to everyone to decide how to spend their time. 

Firefly.


----------



## Firefly (16 Apr 2015)

Regarding zero-contract hours, I'm with the workers on this one. I am pro-capitalist in general, but this is a step too far in my opinion. Decent planning by management should ensure adequate staffing levels...they mightn't achieve 100% efficiency, but the human cost must come in to it. Complainer posted here some time ago that we are a society first. Although, I still believe that a society can be best served by a free market economy, there must be boundaries to this. The days of men lining out on the quaysides each morning looking for work shoud never return. At a minimum you should know how much work is going for the following week.

Firefly


----------



## Leper (16 Apr 2015)

Purple and Firefly have hit the nail on the head regarding my position on Sunday supermarket shopping. I know the clock will not be turned back regarding the likes of Sunday shopping.  Pity too! Call it what you like, but it is not progress.

In my working career I have worked continuous night duty, split attendances, shift work, was a good parent, a good husband, a good son, a good brother, sometimes had no car, had a few bob, was broke, etc.  I can say that I never had any need to use Sunday as a supermarket shopping day. If that is a privileged position, then I plead guilty.  It would take much convincing for me to accept that people cannot find time Monday - Saturday to shop.

I know such people like Ceist Beag and Sunny have some difficulty in what I am saying, but please realise that I am entitled to my views as are you.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Apr 2015)

Leper I have absolutely no issue with your view that Sunday is a day to enjoy - I take the same view myself and count myself quite fortunate that I'm in a position to do so. The only issue I have is with your statements that those who do otherwise are doing it for the enjoyment of grocery shopping or that it is in any way a highlight of the week for them. That just sounds a bit judgemental to me. Anyway, we're not really on topic here, this is supposed to be a thread on the Dunnes Stores workers, whom I very much support in their stance. Firefly put it quite well there so I'll leave it at a +1 to that post.


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2015)

I haven't heard anything in the news recently about this. Has there been any movement from Dunnes?


----------



## Delboy (21 Apr 2015)

Was chatting to a neighbour down West at the weekend who works in Dunnes. It's all set up for an escalation in the coming weeks/months as Dunnes Mgmt aren't talking...some friction going on too between workers who went on strike and Mgmt on a day to day basis.

Neighbour said they weren't happy with the day of the strike itself. Stores with only 1 entrance meant no workers crossed. But Stores with several entrances were harder to watch and a lot of workers crossed the line...mostly 'new Irish' as the IT would call them. And a lot of customer went in shopping also...again mostly non-nationals.


----------



## The_Banker (21 Apr 2015)

I think Margaret Heffernan is so dominant on the Dunnes board that she may not see the woods for the trees. They successfully won two previous strikes in the 80s and 90s and I believe she hasn’t moved with the times.
While the small number of strikers campaigning against apartheid in the 80s went on strike they garnered more international support than they did national support. Shopping in Dunnes did not fall off because of that strike.
The strike in the 90s won the workers some concessions and didn’t last long (but it hurt Dunnes financially) and while staff won the battle they lost the war as all the concessions were rolled back over the intervening years.
I think this strike is somewhat different… In the 80s and 90s any opinions regarding the strikes were discussed in newspapers and radio/television news bulletins. Now it is being discussed on social media. Everyone now more or less has a phone and they get updates instantly via social media.
When you are bombarded with facts/pictures constantly on twitter/facebook and all your friends say they are boycotting Dunnes then it is a lot harder to go against the flow. Added to this all social commentators in the opinion pieces of national newspapers are backing the striking staff.
Due to the support on social media I think the staff now will get a better response now to people boycotting Dunnes than they did back in the 80s/90s. I think only one or two staff have been let go by Dunnes since the strike but if you ask most people they will think it is much higher.

One of the guys dismissed had a very polished video published on line regarding his dismissal and shows that the Union are fighting this battle on social media. Dunnes on the other hand are not… choosing not to engage so they are losing the propaganda war.
Ultimately this is slowly leading to an all out strike because the Unions have drawn a line in the sand in relation to the growth of zero hour contracts and they want it nipped in the bud before other companies start implementing them. Dunnes for their part have built a war chest as they know this is coming and are prepared.
Ultimately I think if the staff are resolute enough I think they will win as customers have so much choice now with Aldi/Lidl / SuperValu / Tesco and customers wont be too inconvenienced like they would have been by an all out action back in the 80s/90s…
If she isnt careful I think Margaret Heffernan will lead Dunnes over a cliff. She will either be ousted by the younger members of the board (the Mahons) or because of the strike action and they lose market share and have to sell to a large UK multiple (Sainsbury/Asda)..


----------



## Leper (21 Apr 2015)

The trades unions have been too quiet for years.  They have got involved in almost everything except representing their members on core issues. Consequently, members are voting with their feet and ceasing their membership and saving themselves a few bob in the process.  In a nutshell, in recent years the trades unions have shot themselves in the foot and now must be seen to represent workers more.  They now have an added dilemma if they go on strike because it could be nullified by non union members who do not have to support any union action. And depending on the public for support is a misnomer, social media or not.  A reduction in price on a few items will see the public marching into Dunnes in droves and waving their purchases sadistically in the strikers' faces on their way out. Dunnes won't rest on their laurels either and will bombard the gullible public with offers of 20% discount, like they did a few weeks ago and probably will add free home delivery. Support from the public - with few exceptions, forget it!

Dunnes sought to take advantage of sleeping trades unions and tried to introduce zero hour contracts.  I wonder if they expected the unions to remain asleep? So it will be interesting to see the outcome and if trades unions will behave like trades unions should. It will be interesting too, to see how Dunnes local management will behave.

The message is clear to the trades unions:- Get out of the bed you have been sharing with management for years and do what you have been paid to do.


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2015)

Zero hour contracts are not a new thing. I don't think they are a new thing in Dunnes Stores either.
Therefore I don't see this as the thin end the wedge as most employers either don't agree with treating their employees like that or have stable labour requirements and so have no need for zero hour contracts so let's not make this into something it isn't. I do not agree with zero hour contracts, particularly in the way Dunnes use them, and support this strike but it's a Dunnes Stores issue and not something that is prevalent across the wider economy.


----------



## blueband (22 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> The trades unions have been too quiet for years.  They have got involved in almost everything except representing their members on core issues. Consequently, members are voting with their feet and ceasing their membership and saving themselves a few bob in the process.  In a nutshell, in recent years the trades unions have shot themselves in the foot and now must be seen to represent workers more.  They now have an added dilemma if they go on strike because it could be nullified by non union members who do not have to support any union action. And depending on the public for support is a misnomer, social media or not.  A reduction in price on a few items will see the public marching into Dunnes in droves and waving their purchases sadistically in the strikers' faces on their way out. Dunnes won't rest on their laurels either and will bombard the gullible public with offers of 20% discount, like they did a few weeks ago and probably will add free home delivery. Support from the public - with few exceptions, forget it!
> 
> Dunnes sought to take advantage of sleeping trades unions and tried to introduce zero hour contracts.  I wonder if they expected the unions to remain asleep? So it will be interesting to see the outcome and if trades unions will behave like trades unions should. It will be interesting too, to see how Dunnes local management will behave.
> 
> The message is clear to the trades unions:- Get out of the bed you have been sharing with management for years and do what you have been paid to do.


totally agree with that, trade unions are got far too cushy in recent times, they are paid to represent workers and thats what they should be doing, not pussy footing around. Companies like Dunnes who refuse to negotiate with unions should be brought to their knees..


----------



## Delboy (22 Apr 2015)

blueband said:


> totally agree with that, trade unions are got far too cushy in recent times, they are paid to represent workers and thats what they should be doing, not pussy footing around. Companies like Dunnes who refuse to negotiate with unions should be brought to their knees..


Now thats just extreme left wing nonsense.
There's plenty of employment law, courts etc that will allow for employees with grievances to tackle their employer....no need for Unions everywhere!


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2015)

blueband said:


> totally agree with that, trade unions are got far too cushy in recent times, they are paid to represent workers and thats what they should be doing, not pussy footing around. Companies like Dunnes who refuse to negotiate with unions should be brought to their knees..


Unions have a long history of destroying businesses and putting their own members out of work. Therefore employees in businesses that are open to competition, both management and non management (they all work and so are all workers), have a very real and legitimate fear of unions and their destructive influence. It is unreasonable and unjust to expect union recognition where the majority of employees do not want it.
Trade Unions have become political lobby groups and involved themselves in areas which have nothing to do with them. They have sought to subvert the democratic workings of the state by influencing and controlling government policy in a vast number of areas rather than representing their members in the context of their relationship with their employers. It is disgraceful that they, the biggest and most powerful lobby groups in the country, are exempt from the recent legislation requiring lobbyist to register.
They need to get back to what they are meant to do and stop with the grandiose bombast and posturing.


----------



## Delboy (22 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> Trade Unions have become political lobby groups and involved themselves in areas which have nothing to do with them. They have sought to subvert the democratic workings of the state by influencing and controlling government policy in a vast number of areas rather than representing their members in the context of their relationship with their employers. It is disgraceful that they, the biggest and most powerful lobby groups in the country, are exempt from the recent legislation requiring lobbyist to register.
> They need to get back to what they are meant to do and stop with the grandiose bombast and posturing.



If Unions had their way, there'd be no Ryanair...and we'd still be paying the equivalent of €1k to fly to London. 
And to think some people still pine for the halcyon days of Aer Lingus when it was in it's pomp


----------



## Leper (22 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> If Unions had their way, there'd be no Ryanair...and we'd still be paying the equivalent of €1k to fly to London.
> And to think some people still pine for the halcyon days of Aer Lingus when it was in it's pomp



You have a fierce imagination there, Delboy.


----------



## Delboy (22 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> You have a fierce imagination there, Delboy.


Do you think we'd have Ryanair or Aircoach etc if Unions had their way back in the day when these companies were granted licences to operate out of here?


----------



## Purple (22 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> Do you think we'd have Ryanair or Aircoach etc if Unions had their way back in the day when these companies were granted licences to operate out of here?


Unions always oppose competition. If they didn't then they wouldn't be doing their job as it is not in the interest of the employees of a monopoly for that company or organisation to lose that monopolistic position. In that context I agree.


----------



## blueband (22 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> Unions have a long history of destroying businesses and putting their own members out of work. Therefore employees in businesses that are open to competition, both management and non management (they all work and so are all workers), have a very real and legitimate fear of unions and their destructive influence. It is unreasonable and unjust to expect union recognition where the majority of employees do not want it.
> Trade Unions have become political lobby groups and involved themselves in areas which have nothing to do with them. They have sought to subvert the democratic workings of the state by influencing and controlling government policy in a vast number of areas rather than representing their members in the context of their relationship with their employers. It is disgraceful that they, the biggest and most powerful lobby groups in the country, are exempt from the recent legislation requiring lobbyist to register.
> They need to get back to what they are meant to do and stop with the grandiose bombast and posturing.


I totally agree, let them get back to doing what they were originally set up to do.....looking after workers rights. instead of grand standing and using every opportunity to get their faces on the newspapers and tv .


----------



## Deiseblue (22 Apr 2015)

blueband said:


> totally agree with that, trade unions are got far too cushy in recent times, they are paid to represent workers and thats what they should be doing, not pussy footing around. Companies like Dunnes who refuse to negotiate with unions should be brought to their knees..



With Trade Union action prompting increased nursing posts & consultant posts in the HSE at competitive rates & with Dunnes suffering sustained commercial losses as a result of their refusal to interact with Unions & the Labour Court it would appear that the Unions are vigorously taking action on behalf of their members .
It also appears likely that pay restoration for Public Sector workers is high not only on the Union's agenda but on the Government's pre electoral agenda as well 
The Bus unions seem determined not to see their members terms & conditions suffer by any mooted transfer of any members to the private sector & thankfully the Minister seems to be increasingly of the same view.
The promised collective bargaining legislation before the summer recess will also be welcomed by the Unions.

Oh & how could I forget the brilliant victory for the Glass pensioners !


----------



## Leper (22 Apr 2015)

The trades unions through their own ineptitude are now fighting rearguard action.  There are more non members of unions working now than almost ever.  The unions must accept blame for such losses and are facing a fierce uphill battle to recover members.  The unions are there through the support of the membership, they would want to remember this and represent workers for a change.


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> With Trade Union action prompting increased nursing posts & consultant posts in the HSE at competitive rates


 Of course the fact that they have blocked and stymied reform and attempts at making the health service run efficiently with the result that we have a grossly inefficient healthcare system. Our nearest neighbour’s NHS spends less per head or population than our HSE does but their service includes all GP and hospital visits, all medication and lots of services such as physiotherapy. If you are proud of your unions hand in that that then shame on you.


Deiseblue said:


> Dunnes suffering sustained commercial losses as a result of their refusal to interact with Unions & the Labour Court it would appear that the Unions are vigorously taking action on behalf of their members .


 Why is it OK for Unions to ignore the Labour Court and their recommendations but it’s not OK for employers to do so?


Deiseblue said:


> It also appears likely that pay restoration for Public Sector workers is high not only on the Union's agenda but on the Government's pre electoral agenda as well


 So rather than paying off our debts or fixing any of the myriad of problems we have we should give pay increases to a sector which is still overpaid relative to OECD standards. I’d rather see the sick and vulnerable being looked after first but I accept that they are not on any Union’s agenda, despite their two-faced posturings.


Deiseblue said:


> The Bus unions seem determined not to see their members terms & conditions suffer by any mooted transfer of any members to the private sector & thankfully the Minister seems to be increasingly of the same view.


 There is no mooted transfer of any members to the private sector. There is a fledgling attempt, after 100 years, to run a small portion of one public service for the benefit of the public and not for the benefit of the people who work in it. This is Unions doing their job though; they always oppose fairness and openness and the public good.


Deiseblue said:


> The promised collective bargaining legislation before the summer recess will also be welcomed by the Unions.


 As would any lobby group if everyone was forced to deal with them.


Deiseblue said:


> Oh & how could I forget the brilliant victory for the Glass pensioners !


 Yes, tens of millions of state money diverted from the sick and vulnerable into the failed private pension fund of a failed private company. That’s a great example of how Unions hurt this country.


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> The trades unions through their own ineptitude are now fighting rearguard action.  There are more non members of unions working now than almost ever.  The unions must accept blame for such losses and are facing a fierce uphill battle to recover members.  The unions are there through the support of the membership, they would want to remember this and represent workers for a change.


If Unions were doing what they were set up to do they would be representing sex workers and the truly marginalised.
My great Uncle didn’t help set up the ICTU to take money from the poor and give it to safe middle income earners. People like him wanted to stop exploitation, not cause it.
The Dunnes strike is the first time I can remember in decades when the Union was doing what it is supposed to do. The reason so few people are members, outside of areas where Union membership is effectively a requirement, is that people see them for what they are and want no part of it.


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> The trades unions through their own ineptitude are now fighting rearguard action.  There are more non members of unions working now than almost ever.  The unions must accept blame for such losses and are facing a fierce uphill battle to recover members.  The unions are there through the support of the membership, they would want to remember this and represent workers for a change.



I do agree , although the Unions here still thankfully retain the capacity to bring the country to a halt like France where Union membership density is only 1/4 of ours.
Hopefully the collective bargaining legislation will prove effective in recruiting more members , we lag sadly behind most  EC countries where employers are required to both recognise & negotiate with Unions - given that fact it is surprising our  Union density is so high.
Given the highly publicised recent Union successes in the ESB , Waterford Glass , the HSE & the fact that the FEMPI legislation is to be unwound & gradual pay restoration in the Public Sector seems to be a pre electoral runner I think that a huge amount of cross sectoral employees will reflect on the fact that Union membership can only benefit them & with legislation on the way soon they may very well be able to avail of  Union membership where such Unions are recognised as negotiating entities.


----------



## Delboy (23 Apr 2015)

I confidently predict that Union membership will remain static at best, but more than likely, will continue to fall. Most people would not share your rose-tinted views of a grouping that can 'bring the country to a halt' in pursuit of their own self interests


----------



## Deiseblue (23 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> I confidently predict that Union membership will remain static at best, but more than likely, will continue to fall. Most people would not share your rose-tinted views of a grouping that can 'bring the country to a halt' in pursuit of their own self interests



I would respectfully disagree , as a Public Servant you must surely agree that your terms & conditions have been vastly improved over the long term (in spite of recent cutbacks which cutbacks seem likely to be ameliorated by an increasingly nervous Government )by the the fact that your employment is hugely unionised .

Union membership has indeed been somewhat static in recent decades as employers became increasingly aware that legislation ensures that they need not negotiate with Unions but hopefully with the long promised legislation on collective bargaining on the cusp of being delivered things should improve - from the Union viewpoint that is .

The fact that Unions have delivered huge successes in the ESB , the HSE & the Waterford Glass recently must surely ensure that employees view the protection & advantages afforded by Union membership in a positive light , it must be infuriating for large groups of non unionised employees to reflect on the benefits of those lucky enough to be unionised by the fact that they are denied the democratic right to have a Union negotiate on their behalf ,  the fact that employer groups are vehemently opposed to the forthcoming legislation can only be indicative of pro employee legislation - it should also be borne in mind that the current Government are being obliged to introduce such legislation by European Courts .

It seems to be a general given that in any employment whether in the private or public sector that you are better off in a Union as strength in numbers & a concerted negotiation platform is more capable of delivering results as well as delivering better pension and redundancy terms - so surely if forthcoming legislation makes it easier to join a Union then numbers should increase.


----------



## Leper (24 Apr 2015)

If anybody thinks trades unions are not necessary, just have a look at some of the posts by non union members on this forum on different threads. I would rather have a union supporting me than fight alone.  Also, I recognise that some rare employment is better off without union representation.

But, the unions must be visible in representing members.


----------



## Gerry Canning (24 Apr 2015)

Quote { Oh & How could I forget the brilliant victory for the Glass Pensioners}

Please step back and review what happened in Waterford Glass.(I am working from memory)

1. Employees who had contributed for years to Pension Scheme in any organisation , would expect that their pension funds would be protected and their pension relatively safe.
(If pension funds are not protected we are all in danger in our older age)

2. From circa 2004? Government had signed up to EU wide protection of 80% of pension pot should private company fail.

3. When Waterford failed the Pensioners were left stranded.

4. Government ignored them.

5. I think SIPTU took the case up, and funded case up to Europe.
(there is no way any private citizen could have funded this)

So what this Union has done is too protect Pension funds for Union and non union members, long after anyone remembers it was the Union that fought for that protection.
If you think back it was Unions and Unions only who vindicated the rights we hold today.
It gets tiresome to have them bashed and bashed without acknowledging that without them, us workers would still be doffing our caps to our betters!
So remember the security of your Pension was protected by the pinkies!


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> If anybody thinks trades unions are not necessary, just have a look at some of the posts by non union members on this forum on different threads. I would rather have a union supporting me than fight alone.  Also, I recognise that some rare employment is better off without union representation.
> 
> But, the unions must be visible in representing members.


My problem with Unions, in their current form, is that they are willing to seriously damage the viability of the business they are negotiating with and that, in the public sector area, they stymie change and improvement in services to the public and subverted the democratic process by involving themselves in national agreements with a scope far beyond the remit of representing employees.
I know that Deise has extremist political views and supports any and all actions by unions, otherwise he couldn’t support their “success” in the ESB where the average wage is over €90’000 a year or the €180’000’000 that the Waterford Glass pension deal cost the people of Ireland. That’s greater than the cost of fixing the A&E crisis.
Unions were set up to help poor and vulnerable employees and those working in unskilled and low skilled areas.
It’s hard to see where they do that. Instead they agitate for better and better pay and T&C’s for middle and upper middle income employees which drains public funds, hurts competitiveness, costs jobs in the open sectors of the economy and ultimately hurts the poor and vulnerable most.
I’m a democrat and believe that we should all be equal and not subject to bullying and intimidation, be it an employee who is being bullied by their employer or an employer who is being bullied and intimidated by a union.
The person who is most vulnerable and open to bullying and intimidation is one who disagrees with the stance a union takes and speaks out against their actions. I have seen what that can do to a person and it is devastating.
Unions are necessary in some circumstances and if they behaved in a reasonable and rational way, without their hostile and often vitriolic pseudo-socialist dogma, then they could be a positive influence in the country but broadly speaking they do more harm than good.


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> 2. From circa 2004? Government had signed up to EU wide protection of 80% of pension pot should private company fail.


It's 49%


----------



## Delboy (24 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> I would respectfully disagree , as a Public Servant you must surely agree that your terms & conditions have been vastly improved over the long term (in spite of recent cutbacks which cutbacks seem likely to be ameliorated by an increasingly nervous Government )by the the fact that your employment is hugely unionised .


My T's&C's have nothing to do with the Unions. I've never been in a Union 
And as a Public Servant (maybe I'm being innocent here), I always assumed the #1 thing was to look out for the public....provide the best possible service, at the best possible value etc etc.
From my experience, the general public are a very distant second to workers interests and perceived 'rights'


----------



## Deiseblue (24 Apr 2015)

It appears that the pay freeze that applied in the ESB until March 2014 is over with a pay increase of 2% apparently agreed by the company & the joint industrial council.


----------



## Deiseblue (24 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> My T's&C's have nothing to do with the Unions. I've never been in a Union
> And as a Public Servant (maybe I'm being innocent here), I always assumed the #1 thing was to look out for the public....provide the best possible service, at the best possible value etc etc.
> From my experience, the general public are a very distant second to workers interests and perceived 'rights'



The terms and conditions enjoyed by Public Sector employees  were negotiated by Unions & the Government as employers , it doesn't matter whether or not you are a Union member - your T & C's were jointly negotiated by unions & employer.


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> The terms and conditions enjoyed by Public Sector employees  were negotiated by Unions & the Government as employers , it doesn't matter whether or not you are a Union member - your T & C's were jointly negotiated by unions & employer.


The point Delboy is making is that the Public Service should be run to serve the public but instead it's run primarily to serve the interests of the people who work there. The unions are responsible for that but as most people want to do a good job and work with like-minded people the irony is that unions make unionised environments less attractive places to work in from a self respect and job satisfaction point of view. That's a high price to pay for good T's and C's.


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> It appears that the pay freeze that applied in the ESB until March 2014 is over with a pay increase of 2% apparently agreed by the company & the joint industrial council.


The march upwards from €90'000 a year starts again. I hope people take solace in that when they open their electricity bills. Labour accounts for over 50% of the input costs in the ESB so if their employees enjoyed an average of only 50% above the average industrial wage our bills could be at least 12% lower. But hey, the poor and the old have to be screwed to look after the "wurkers" in the ESB. That's the union way.


----------



## Delboy (24 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> It appears that the pay freeze that applied in the ESB until March 2014 is over with a pay increase of 2% apparently agreed by the company & the joint industrial council.


1 of the highest countries for electricity costs in the EU. Something to be proud about alright.


----------



## Delboy (24 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> The terms and conditions enjoyed by Public Sector employees  were negotiated by Unions & the Government as employers , it doesn't matter whether or not you are a Union member - your T & C's were jointly negotiated by unions & employer.


I can assure you, that my T&C's have nothing whatsoever to do with Unions. I came in from the outside, agreed my terms after being interviewed and offered a job. No Union representation at my level as such


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> 1 of the highest countries for electricity costs in the EU. Something to be proud about alright.


In a country which is still borrowing billions to fund current expenditure, with a small open economy which trades internationally, with very high wages and very high income tax rates and which lost its competitiveness and suffered a collapse in its real and most valuable exports (manufactured goods and services from the SME sector) during the boom I really don’t understand how anyone can celebrate wage increases for very highly paid employees in an uncompetitive sector.
It is obvious that such actions hurt the country and so not serve the greater good. Such selfishness and destructive self-interest is nothing to be applauded.


----------



## Deiseblue (24 Apr 2015)

Nonetheless the benchmark for such pay has long been set out by unions & employer.
I'm sure that you agree that T&C's for the vast majority of public sector employees whether unionised or not are at pay scales negotiated by Unions & employer.
I was of the impression that all levels of PS employees were represented by various Unions including management


----------



## Deiseblue (24 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> 1 of the highest countries for electricity costs in the EU. Something to be proud about alright.



Proud no , not even overly happy but I do sense a change in the wind.

Pay increase in a semi state , talks between Unions & the Government in the offing with pay restoration at the top of the agenda , massive public support for Dunnes stores strikers & an extremely lucrative & deserved deal for the Glass pensioners.

Now while the forthcoming collective bargaining legislation may not be all that I hope for it is a beginning & with the continuing electorate swing to the left ( a swing echoed by our political parties  )  I believe that things can only improve from a Union viewpoint

Oh & the Government talking about " social inclusion " !


----------



## Delboy (24 Apr 2015)

As usual Deise, in all your praise for Unions and talk of workers getting payouts/paydeals....you never mention the Public or the services they're getting from these same organisations in question. 
As I said earlier, Workers conditions first, the Public a distant second when it comes to the PS


----------



## Deiseblue (25 Apr 2015)

I think that Public Sector employees & their Unions showed a huge degree of responsibility in their response to having pay cuts , a pension levy  ,  extended hours & reductions in staffing levels arbitrarily forced on them.

Despite the obvious sacrifices made they were & continue to be vilified in the media & by large numbers of the public.

Given the above scenario morale is definitely on the floor & an amount of understandable frustration & bolshieness has crept in , hopefully things are going to be improved gradually as a result of the unwinding of FEMPI legislation & the upcoming employer/union talks.

I do believe that the Government have made a rod for their own back by talking up the economy & by stating that pay restoration is a runner !


----------



## Leper (26 Apr 2015)

Delboy said:


> As usual Deise, in all your praise for Unions and talk of workers getting payouts/paydeals....you never mention the Public or the services they're getting from these same organisations in question.
> 
> As I said earlier, Workers conditions first, the Public a distant second when it comes to the PS



Let's face it, the public service needs overhauling.  Most Departments, Hospitals, County Councils, City Councils etc work well at what they do.  Many of the practices were inherited from a former age and for some reason (probably no reason) continue as part of the ordinary week's work.  I have in mind monthly/weekly/quarterly/sixmonthly/yearly surveys that are of no value whatsoever to anybody e.g. how many potholes were temporarily fixed in a particular road. It doesn't matter whether it was ten or a hundred potholes, they needed to be fixed anyway.  If they were fixed properly first day there would be no need for "temporarily fixed" scenarios - anyway I think you know what I am getting at.




Deiseblue said:


> I think that Public Sector employees & their Unions showed a huge degree of responsibility in their response to having pay cuts , a pension levy  ,  extended hours & reductions in staffing levels arbitrarily forced on them.
> 
> Despite the obvious sacrifices made they were & continue to be vilified in the media & by large numbers of the public.
> 
> ...



Vilification by the public and the media will continue no matter how the PS performs.  This criticism comes from many ports especially in Ireland where we have opinions on everything and which can change by the day.  The unions have responsibility to its members, not the country, not the city council, not the public, not the begrudgers, etc, to reiterate it's the membership, stupid!

It has become fashionable to chastise the unions and when you look around you can see that these guys farting in silk have effectively ignored their paying members and now find themselves fighting rearguard action.  If they cock up this time, they know they (the unions in Ireland) are doomed.  Lose your membership and you cease to exist. This is a no-brainer.

Now let's look at non union members.  I'm not talking about the workers who are in some dynamic employment who do not need unions and can do better without union representation (there are some lucky people in this category and good luck to them). I'm talking about the proles (like myself) who work their brains out overseen by upwardly mobile low management types who do not care whose toes they tread on, on their way to what they call the "top."  Some workers do not join unions for fear that they will be seen as agitators, some cannot afford union membership, some are happy to let others represent them and they piggy back on any gains. Union membership was never as important as it is now. From my working experience I have found that management tend to "discover" those who are not union members and when the fan needs feeding these non members are their easy targets.

Another thing I have noticed (at least in the Public Service) is that union activists tend to be promoted faster than ordinary union members and to higher grades . The thinking it is better to have somebody in your tent urinating out that the same person outside urinating in comes to mind.

I don't know if even the unions deserve another chance and there are times when I mentally argue with myself with some union strategy of the past few years. I won't get involved in the smugness of many of the union leadership. But, I reckon the situation is critical (at best) and the next few months will tell a lot.


----------



## Gerry Canning (27 Apr 2015)

I think we should ban Unions totally .
We can then rely on the beneficence of our Employers.
We can then rely on the stalwart support of our elected Td,s .
Minimum wages are for wimps.
Minimum hours should be retained, each morning workers should stand outside to see are they needed.
...........................

Where would we be without Unions?

Do we want a (Brave-New-World) ? or stay with the flawed one we have ?


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> I think we should ban Unions totally .
> We can then rely on the beneficence of our Employers.
> We can then rely on the stalwart support of our elected Td,s .
> Minimum wages are for wimps.
> ...


Hi Gerry,
Why not look forwards instead of backwards?
The battles Unions were set up to fight have been won, thankfully. The problem is that they have never moved on an re-defined themselves. We live in a less ideological age, thankfully, and the general push to overthrow the state and replace it with a socialist utopia has less support than in bygone days. The era of employers being landed gentry who own mills to process the cotton grown in their plantations is, thankfully, over. Also over as is the age when the “Wurkers” were uneducated masses living in slums. This, again, is a good thing.
The problem is that Unions don’t seem to realise that and still talk and act as if employers run their dark satanic mills and employees are vulnerable masses, ripe for exploitation. We all know that’s rubbish. We also know that the small proportion of employees who are vulnerable and whose employers do exploit them are not in unions as they can’t afford membership and the unions aren’t really interested in taking on a real fight.
By your logic we should still have suffragettes, instead of the more evolved and relevant equality movement which seeks equal rights for all.
Things change.
The old battle lines have gone.
The war it over.
Unions in their present form need to change beyond all recognition or they will continue to harm the country and remain a parody of what they should be.


----------



## Leo (27 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> If anybody thinks trades unions are not necessary, just have a look at some of the posts by non union members on this forum on different threads. I would rather have a union supporting me than fight alone.  Also, I recognise that some rare employment is better off without union representation.



You seem to be ignoring quite a few threads from union members over the years who faced individual issues such as bullying or harassment in their workplaces, where the unions were of no help whatsoever. The unions in those cases were all over collective bargaining, but didn't care about individual workers.


----------



## Gerry Canning (27 Apr 2015)

Hi Purple,

I ain,t a pinkie but would be adverse to leaving us to the tender clutches of employers.
I agree Unions need to redefine their place in a workplace were they have been very successful in making themselves redundant in that as you say , most wars have been won.
Unions have in too many instances opted for narrow sectional interests, but against that employers were weak.
....................................................................................................
The whole idea of having people on Nil Hour type contracts , harps back to former times.
I only see Unions defending people .
.................................................................................................
Leo,
You could get threads on many individual cases but I think in the round , Unions have more times been blamed for defending the indefensible rather than the reverse.Just proves you cant win!
...............................................................................................................


The whole robbing of pensions in Waterford Glass, was Union defended.

I am not overly comfortable with Public Servants being (got at). From my dealings with them I have found them largely helpful and competent .
We can argue that they are too well paid, too cossetted etc, so lets get the rest of us up to that happy position.And by the way God Bless Mr Union for giving us a benchmark (pun-intended)
It appears we want to get Mr Public Servant down to our level!
Onward and upwards I say !


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2015)

Gerry Canning said:


> I ain,t a pinkie but would be adverse to leaving us to the tender clutches of employers.
> I agree Unions need to redefine their place in a workplace were they have been very successful in making themselves redundant in that as you say , most wars have been won.
> Unions have in too many instances opted for narrow sectional interests, but against that employers were weak.


It shouldn’t be a battle or a fight. In a well run business the interests of employees and the employer are complementary. Any body, group or organisation that seeks to create an adversarial or “them and us” atmosphere is hurting everyone.


Gerry Canning said:


> The whole idea of having people on Nil Hour type contracts , harps back to former times.
> I only see Unions defending people .


 I agree. They are doing their job in that incidence but I can’t remember the last time they did so.


Gerry Canning said:


> You could get threads on many individual cases but I think in the round , Unions have more times been blamed for defending the indefensible rather than the reverse.Just proves you cant win!


 They would have more credibility if they didn’t defend the indefensible but they do.


Gerry Canning said:


> The whole robbing of pensions in Waterford Glass, was Union defended.


 The pension fund wasn’t robbed. It was under funded.


Gerry Canning said:


> I am not overly comfortable with Public Servants being (got at). From my dealings with them I have found them largely helpful and competent .
> We can argue that they are too well paid, too cossetted etc, so lets get the rest of us up to that happy position.And by the way God Bless Mr Union for giving us a benchmark (pun-intended)
> It appears we want to get Mr Public Servant down to our level!
> Onward and upwards I say !


The problem is that there is only a finite amount of money so when relatively well paid public sector employees get pay increases then there is less money for those who need it more. It’s about fairness and seeking to have a society where the poorest and most vulnerable are given the help they need to get to a point where they can support themselves. Unions seek to take from the poor to give to the middle.


----------



## Firefly (27 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> Given the highly publicised recent Union successes in the ESB , Waterford Glass , the HSE & the fact that the FEMPI legislation is to be unwound & gradual pay restoration in the Public
> 
> 
> Sector seems to be a pre electoral runner I think that a huge amount of cross sectoral employees will reflect on the fact that Union membership can only benefit them






Deiseblue said:


> Gas a Public Servant you must surely agree that your terms & conditions have been vastly improved over the long term (in spite of recent cutbacks which cutbacks seem likely to be
> 
> 
> ameliorated by an increasingly nervous Government )by the the fact that your employment is hugely unionised .






Deiseblue said:


> GThe fact that Unions have delivered huge successes in the ESB , the HSE & the Waterford Glass recently must surely ensure that employees view the protection & advantages afforded by Union
> 
> 
> membership in a positive light



Hi Deise,


Boy, you've really drank a lot of that Kool Aid recently haven't you?!!


I've worked in the IT industry for a good many years now (too many I might add!) and can only speak for my experience in this industry. In my time I've been a permanent employee but have been contracting for the past 6 or 7 years. As a permanent employee, I've only worked for large organisations, some of which have been unionised. In my experience, wages in larger organisations that have union involvement are at best, average. The perks generally concern working hours, annual leave, pensions and job security, which on the surface, are much better than in the big bad world of the non-unionised workplace. I mentioned "on the surface" for a reason however....I am seeing more and more employees in these types of organisations becoming stale / settled in their ways and over time, losing marketable skills. In other words they become more and more dependent on their _current_ employer. This is where you will find unions operating....in those areas where the employees' skills are not in demand in the market, or at least where those skills would not attract the same pay & conditions. 

There are many reasons for this, but generally, it boils down to the something like the following: Take a permanent employee in a "safe" job considering IT certification in their field. The key questions are (1) can they do it? (2) Is it worth it? The answer to Question (1) is Yes in the majority of cases. For Question (2) however the answer is generally No for many in large, unionised organisations...the employer might not fund the training / material costs nor the exam costs and might also not pay the employee anything more upon certification. Coupled with the good job security they perceive, the result is that the employee often doesn't bother. But what happens when the organisation decides to outsource their IT department? What do these employees do then? What good is the union then? Even partial outsourcing can be damaging....say the organisation brings in a consultancy to implement a new system...who ends up doing the most marketable work, the consultants or the staff?

The light bulb went off for me years ago when working in a large bank in Dublin. The CEO was giving a town-hall rallying talk (only a few months before they outsourced a large part of their IT function too!). He said something along the following lines:

You can have no greater job security than ensuring your skills are current and marketable.

Working for a unionised organisation, in my experience anyway, fails on both fronts.

Firefly


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Apr 2015)

I'm lost ! what is Kool Aid & what is a Town Hall rallying talk ?

The largest Unionised groups in the country are the semi states & the public sector followed by probably our financial institutions where wages far exceed those in the generality of the private sector - with the proviso that as the CSO state it is impossible to provide a like for like comparison between sectors but I think it fair to say that allied to better working conditions such as leave , working hours ,pension & job security it appears that Unionised workforces earn more as well - good reasons I would have thought to be unionised !

In recent times the BOI outsourced it's SAP system & a well trained workforce who availed of state of the art training were given the option of TUPE'ing across to the new employer or availing of an extremely lucrative voluntary redundancy package , it will not surprise you that the vast majority of employees availed of such package & given their IT qualifications the people I know were  employed rather quickly , one chap who I pal around with received a tax free lump sum of € 180,000 & has since been hired as a consultant by a competing Bank at a multiple of his previous salary albeit on a defined time contract - needless to say he does not feel failed by his Union !


I cannot comment about upskilling in the Public Sector but in the various jobs I have worked in across the private sector ( all unionised ) I was encouraged to do so .


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> The largest Unionised groups in the country are the semi states & the public sector followed by probably our financial institutions where wages far exceed those in the generality of the private sector


If wages were lower in those generally protected sectors then the rest of us could pay less income tax and there would be more money for services to the public.


----------



## Leper (27 Apr 2015)

Leo said:


> You seem to be ignoring quite a few threads from union members over the years who faced individual issues such as bullying or harassment in their workplaces, where the unions were of no help whatsoever. The unions in those cases were all over collective bargaining, but didn't care about individual workers.



With respect, I am not ignoring any threads here.  I have looked back at some of the bullying/harrassment threads and most posters appear not to be members of a trades union. I know when I represented staff as union branch officer in the past the likes of alleged bullying were ongoing issues  and easy enough to deal with once proper methods were adhered to. Once the "bully" was confronted with the allegation his/her techniques would suddenly stop in most instances.  Occasionally, the person at the receiving end would misrepresent the case or withdraw allegations, which did not help any of my representations. But, I can say that 100% of any bullying cases that went the distance the decisions went in favour of the victim. I have no doubt that this would not have happened without union input. There are items that I castigate trades union for, but in bullying situations unions (from where I sit) did everything possible for the victim.


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2015)

Fair comment Leper.


----------



## blueband (28 Apr 2015)

Purple said:


> Fair comment Leper.


I personally wouldn't like to see a time where there would be no unions, things I fear would very quickly revert back to the bad old days....you only have to look at the widespread abuse of the 'job bridge' scheme ect..  although I do think unions should be doing a lot more for vulnerable and low paid workers instead of those who have very good pay and working conditions as it is!


----------



## Firefly (28 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> I'm lost ! what is Kool Aid & what is a Town Hall rallying talk ?



If you don't know what Kool Aid is, then you must be drinking it! As for town hall rallies...these are generally those mind numbingly boring get-togethers that company CEOs organise to "rally the troops". For some reason that day I just couldn't sleep through it!



Deiseblue said:


> The largest Unionised groups in the country are the semi states & the public sector followed by probably our financial institutions where wages far exceed those in the generality of the private sector



Sing it from the rooftops Deise, sing it from the rooftops!!!



Deiseblue said:


> In recent times the BOI outsourced it's SAP system & a well trained workforce who availed of state of the art training were given the option of TUPE'ing across to the new employer or availing of an extremely lucrative voluntary redundancy package , it will not surprise you that the vast majority of employees availed of such package & given their IT qualifications the people I know were employed rather quickly , one chap who I pal around with received a tax free lump sum of € 180,000 & has since been hired as a consultant by a competing Bank at a multiple of his previous salary albeit on a defined time contract - needless to say he does not feel failed by his Union !



I would think that's an exception to the rule. BoI had previously outsourced their IT staff to Perot Systems and many of the staff moved to Perot. You would imagine if their skills were marketable they would have taken the cash and moved on as the guy you mentioned with the SAP skills had done. 



Deiseblue said:


> I cannot comment about upskilling in the Public Sector but in the various jobs I have worked in across the private sector ( all unionised ) I was encouraged to do so .



I believe you, but being encouraged by an employer is one thing, the actual take up by staff is another. 

I think trade unions certainly have their place, such as those against Zero Hours contracts as I've already mentioned. However, in the majority of cases I think they impede employment and reduce services to customers. Looking at the cuts in the Public Sector in the last number of years you can see that the reductions in staff were acheived via voluntary redundancy and early/full retirement. Consideration to services being provided was not considered at all, just the welfare of the employees. My father's friend (an excellent teacher) retired early with a big lumpsum and travels abroad about 6 times a year now. Good for him and more power to his elbow, but sadly, more tax payers' money can't help that old woman wetting herself on trolley on a trolley in A&E. The point I'm trying to make is that "money only comes from other people" as I have in my sig..


----------



## Deiseblue (28 Apr 2015)

Kool Aid - I have never heard of it & I'm sure the majority of posters here are not aware of it's properties or effectiveness & I have no intention of googling it  .

I well remember Perot & BOI outsourcing Cabinteely staff to same , you will surely agree that IT was in it's infancy in this country at the time & there was not anything like the demand for IT staff that followed in more recent decades & thus staff had little option but to transfer .

The irony of course is that is was the fact that the major Banks held out during the 1992 strike due to computerisation & then the scabs in BOI when Perot came knocking on the door sought & found the protection of the IBOA !

I really don't understand your concluding para - any Unions job is to protect & if possible enhance the terms & conditions of it's members - your Dad's teacher friend must be thrilled that his Union membership brought him such benefits , I should point out that I'm posting this from A Coruna where I'm enjoying my third holiday of the year with my wife who recently retired from BOI on an  excellent redundancy package .

As a BOI early retiree myself I get down on my knees every day & thank God for Union membership 

I do realise how lucky both myself & my wife are but we worked hard , showed loyalty , paid into a Union negotiated DB scheme & most importantly were lucky enough to work in a hugely Unionised workforce & are now reaping the benefits !


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> I really don't understand your concluding para - any Unions job is to protect & if possible enhance the terms & conditions of it's members - your Dad's teacher friend must be thrilled that his Union membership brought him such benefits , I should point out that I'm posting this from A Coruna where I'm enjoying my third holiday of the year with my wife who recently retired from BOI on an  excellent redundancy package .
> 
> As a BOI early retiree myself I get down on my knees every day & thank God for Union membership


You should be thanking the customers of Bank of Ireland and the rest of the people of Ireland who are paying for your holiday(s), not your union.


----------



## Leper (29 Apr 2015)

Well, I wish every union member enjoyed the same benefits as Déise and Mrs Déise which to me appear to be like a major prize win in the Lotto.  However, in my days as union representative in relatively low paid grades in the Public Service I should point out I spent my time trying to improve conditions, working hours and general feel-good of the workplace.  Even during my day's normal work my union input was additional and often a member would call to my home "in secret" to have something discussed.  This could be anything from cleanliness in the workplace to abject bullying.

Largely, I found myself representing people (mainly female) who would not speak up for themselves and sought total privacy.  The local junior management (members of the same union) seldom saw reason to change anything.  [We've been doing what we're doing for years and if it was good enough for us, it is good enough for you!]. The Herd Instinct ruled and if a couple of lipsticked brain-dead individuals thought so, no improvements occurred.  Enter Leper, a hardened veteran defender of any kind of injustice. Staff were represented verbally, and for the first time followed up by letter and later by written reminders.  Waterford Whispers, innuendo, sending-to-Coventry, leers, and much more followed. Even the people seeking what I was representing openly sided with the Herd. Generally, I found myself fighting other peoples battles alone [the phrase banging my head against the wall comes to mind].

Strangely, more senior management saw what I was doing and I found some good allies there.  You see, they were trapped in a situation where they depended on their junior management for local information too which was never forthcoming. Trying to change anything was like expecting the sun never to rise. Some of the junior management (usually when more senior posts were advertised) often went off on "solo runs" and somehow thought that by introducing more draconian measures for other staff helped their promotion prospects.

The point I am trying to make (Get to the point, Leper!) is that local union reps fight losing battles daily for even the minutest improvements.  Unions do not have anything like the power hinted at on some of the threads on this forum.  

[I'll return to this later, doorbell just rang and it's 7.00am]


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Apr 2015)

Leper , a 7 a.m call - I hope IBEC haven't sent the heavies around ! 
Both myself and my wife were indeed blessed.
I left at a ridiculously early age in 2007 with a lump sum both from the Bank & the State and a pension equal to approx half my finishing salary & then signed on for a year .
Somewhat to my amazement given the downturn in BOI's fortunes since then my wife retired earlier this year on excellent terms ( the one proviso is that she has to wait 2 years before the pension kicks   in ) but the lump sum helps & she is currently signing on & the training grant enables her to do a variety of courses.
Both of us served in a voluntary capacity as Branch/Departmental reps for years & then progressed to being regional secretaries , both capacities involved giving up a lot of free time but both of us found it rewarding & felt it was the least we could do in view of the benefits accrued from Union membership - as you say there were indeed trying times & representing members was never easy especially after the 1992 strike & to be honest I was glad to leave it all behind me although I remain a pensioner member to this day & am still actively involved but thankfully at a non confrontational level !


----------



## Firefly (29 Apr 2015)

Deiseblue said:


> Kool Aid - I have never heard of it & I'm sure the majority of posters here are not aware of it's properties or effectiveness & I have no intention of googling it  .
> 
> I well remember Perot & BOI outsourcing Cabinteely staff to same , you will surely agree that IT was in it's infancy in this country at the time & there was not anything like the demand for IT staff that followed in more recent decades & thus staff had little option but to transfer .
> 
> ...




Hi Deise,

You must be itching to know what Kool Aid is! Go on, Google it, I dare ya 

Anyway, my point is that the money has to come from somewhere! Even though the taxpayer bailed out BoI, I'm actually not too bothered about BoI pensions as BoI has fully repaid the taxpayer at this stage. BoI customers probably pay higher charges than they otherwise would do though. In the case of public sector pensions, the government must allocate funds to his pension that could be spent relieving said old woman on a trolley in A&E. That's my point really. It means resources are diverted from where they are needed most. Wound't anyone (especially those on the Left who advocate fairness) be in favour of reducing pensions to the point where only 2 foreign trips a year could be afforded to fix the aforementiond old lady on an A&E trolley?

As I've mentioned before, Mrs Firefly worked in the HSE for a good number of years and we ourselves will be due a half-decent pension as a result. (I actually have a small, defined benefit pension from BoI myself so thanks for reminding me of that!). Even though she has left, her pension will be based on the final salary for her grade, which come retirement should be way higher than when she left. Basically, she could earn more when retired than when working. We certainly won't be turning the money away ourselves, but it just seems wrong to me though. Having said that, like you we'll be holidaying ourselves when, please God, the time comes 

Firefly.


----------



## Leper (29 Apr 2015)

Just to clear up matters from my post with finished at 7.00am today due to an interruption.  Mick-the-Pole (although he is a Slovak) rang the door-bell - I had put out the wrong wheelie bin.

Back to the unions, but first Firefly have another look at Mrs Firefly's HSE pension.  It is impossible that her pension is worth more than her HSE fulltime working hours. It may be that she left the HSE and is employed by an agency and combined agency wages + pension = greater amount that her full HSE wages.

Most unions work hard at what they do.  CPSU represents low grades in the Civil Service.  SIPTU represents others. IMPACT has input also but occasionally fails to remember where its membership actually is.  CPSU (formerly CPSSU) was ignored for years until a few years ago it became a little bit militant and gained some respect.  SIPTU knocks away but probably has lost most of its nursing membership who scurried to Nurses and Midwives union and I don't blame them. IMPACT is becoming almost irrelevant unless you work in the airline industry. 

Why is trade unionism strong in the Public Service/Civil Service?  We have to go back to the 1970's.  Nurses were treated like 2nd class citizens.  Our Gardaí were treated similiarly - remember Government Ministers openly threatening transfers to obscure places west of the Shannon even on live television.  The unions representing the nurses and Gardaí circled the wagons and fought back.  They are not going to concede the ground they have gained recession or no recession.  The CPSU who were openly laughed at by management and treated with disdain by other unions also circled their wagons and fought back.  They have rightly dug in also.

The likes of SIPTU and IMPACT have become largely irrelevant in the Public Service and are losing members by the minute and when they waste their time looking around instead of in the mirror they are oblivious to what is really happening.

Back in the 1980's we Public Servants/Civil Servants looked on in awe at the banks and what gains they made wages wise and every otherwise. The banks staff lorded it over everybody.  They thought they would never see a poor day.  But, that poor day came and they with their greedy management brought the whole country down with them.

So, we are coming out of the Doldrums . . . well according to our politicians . . . and the trades unions members are looking for some restoration of what was stolen (use any word you wish, but stolen is the correct word) from their members.  I stress it is restoration is what we are talking about not new salary increases.

So, let's see how our trades unions perform.  Let's see what kind of restoration happens.


----------



## Firefly (30 Apr 2015)

Leper said:


> Back to the unions, but first Firefly have another look at Mrs Firefly's HSE pension.  It is impossible that her pension is worth more than her HSE fulltime working hours. It may be that she left the HSE and is employed by an agency and combined agency wages + pension = greater amount that her full HSE wages.



Hi Leper,

You're probably right. My point is that Mrs Firefly will be due her pension a long time from now. I would expect the salary for her grade (a senior medical grade) to be quite higher at that point to when it was when she was working and as a result the pension from that higher amount to be quite generous. Obviously there will be inflation / cost of living increases as well though.. 

Firefly.


----------



## Leper (30 Apr 2015)

Firefly said:


> Hi Leper,
> 
> You're probably right. My point is that Mrs Firefly will be due her pension a long time from now. I would expect the salary for her grade (a senior medical grade) to be quite higher at that point to when it was when she was working and as a result the pension from that higher amount to be quite generous. Obviously there will be inflation / cost of living increases as well though..
> 
> Firefly.



Hi Firefly, before you start thinking of investing in that Manhattan apartment overlooking Central Park here is how you can get a good idea of what Mrs Firefly's HSE pension will be.  Remember wages have fallen at least 14% in the HSE and it will be a long time before restoration takes place.  We are talking wages here and not add-ons.  So just calculate how many full years your wife worked in the HSE.  Multiply here basic salary by the amount of full years worked and divide your answer by 80 = your wife's HSE pension at 65 years of age.


----------



## Firefly (1 May 2015)

Thanks Leper, we might have to settle for Youghal!!

Firefly.


----------

