# Unions warn against ESB sale



## QED (6 Jul 2010)

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/unions-warn-against-esb-sale-464347.html

" Union representatives at ESB are warning the Government against any sale or break-up of the company. 
..... Brendan Ogle of Unite trade union said it is not acceptable
He is warning the Government they'll "*turn the lights out*" rather than let it happen. "​ 
This is absolutely maddening. Companies are bought and sold all of the time. There is adequate legal protection for workers in such a situation.​ 
When will we stand up and break the strangle hold that these Unions have over our country? ​ 
I am aware that parts of the ESB are very successful and I believe that selling off some sections may not be in our best interest, but this statement from the Trade Union has me fuming!! ​


----------



## The_Banker (6 Jul 2010)

Brendan Ogle has always been a firebrand. Once the workers are offered an ESOP with tax free lump sums each year (when they sell there shares) it will be voted through.

There will be plenty of 'fightin' talk ahead of any decision but so long as the wheels are greased there will be no problem with the ESB being sold off.


----------



## Mpsox (6 Jul 2010)

I presume that is the same Brendan Ogle of the ILDA from a few years back. He didn't acheive a whole lot back then and I doubt if he'll acheive a whole lot now. 

I thought the ESB had already started selling things off, like Tarbert to some Spanish company a couple of years back. Possibly that might be the approach taken, sell more of the assets of the company rather then the company itself


----------



## starlite68 (6 Jul 2010)

QED said:


> http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/unions-warn-against-esb-sale-464347.html
> 
> " Union representatives at ESB are warning the Government against any sale or break-up of the company.
> ..... Brendan Ogle of Unite trade union said it is not acceptable
> ...


 i wonder just how adequate that protection really is!


----------



## Deiseblue (6 Jul 2010)

This is merely the first salvo in what no doubt will be  protracted discussions on the merits and pitfalls of privatising the ESB.

I'm sure Brendan Ogle knows what effect his emotive comment re putting the lights out carries in terms of laying down a marker , far more effective then simply saying that he would prefer if privatisation didn't happen I would have thought.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Yes, straight away he has alienated most of the public, who don’t like being threatened. He has also branded himself as a militant and so diminished the credibility of any further comments he makes.

I am against the privatisation of the ESB. Primarily because the state is so incompetent when it comes to regulating anything and so we will end up with a power network that is in as bad a state as our telecoms one. I also object to how the same group of super rich insiders always seem to take the state to the cleaners whenever we try to sell anything off.

The ESB may be rotten with the cancer that is the trade union movement, it may be grossly inefficient with employees that are grossly overpaid but in a capital intensive industry that doesn’t matter so much. At least it delivers a reasonable network.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Brendan Ogle is using the same tactic employed by Eamon Devoy when Brian Lenihan suggested that semi state employees could suffer pay cuts akin to the PS pay cuts , the threat of turning out the lights removed that suggestion from the Government agenda for the time being at least.

If such tactics protect the terms and conditions of the employees and keep the ESB out of private hands then I have no problems with Mr. Ogle's forthright comments.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Brendan Ogle is using the same tactic employed by Eamon Devoy when Brian Lenihan suggested that semi state employees could suffer pay cuts akin to the PS pay cuts , the threat of turning out the lights removed that suggestion from the Government agenda for the time being at least.
> 
> If such tactics protect the terms and conditions of the employees and keep the ESB out of private hands then I have no problems with Mr. Ogle's forthright comments.



A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1985 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.

Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1885 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
> Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.
> 
> Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?


 
He worked from 1885 to 2002 when he took *early* retirement.  Must have had some pension!


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> He worked from 1885 to 2002 when he took *early* retirement.  Must have had some pension!



Believe it or not that was a typo.


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

Well, I didn't really believe he worked for more than 117 years


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> Well, I didn't really believe he worked for more than 117 years



Not in the ESB anyway


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1985 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
> Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.
> 
> Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?



Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give credence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give creedence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.



What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I am lying?
I know for an absolute fact that what he said is true.

If you are willing to sign a non disclosure agreement that I can email to you I will give you his name and work history.

The bearded brethren have a long and illustrious track record of ignoring the facts and presenting misinformation to the public. The truth rarely suits their self-serving agenda.


----------



## z104 (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give credence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.


 

I've heard similiar stories from ESB people who worked in Ardnacrusha


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2010)

Remember the uproar when air traffic controllers decided to hold the Country to ransom. The unions in ESB will do well to learn from the fiasco. This is not the 1980's.


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2010)

Sell it off once the upgraded interconnector with Britain is in place. Then if they go on strike we can get our electricity from the UK. Remember that ESB no longer runs the grid, so going on strike will not lead to power cuts if alternative suppliers are available.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I am lying?
> I know for an absolute fact that what he said is true.
> 
> If you are willing to sign a non disclosure agreement that I can email to you I will give you his name and work history.
> ...


 
Read my post again , I never suggested that you were lying.

I said you obviously believed your relations version of events , I do not - as far as I'm concerned it is hearsay.

If the case history was compiled by a disinterested party and contains details of union/management negotiations ( if any ) and Labour Court involvement ( again if any ) I would of course be interested in establishing the facts.

If the case history was not compiled by such a non biased party then really it's of no interest.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

On reflection if I signed a non disclosure form and then felt that on reading the case history there were other arguments to pursue then surely I am precluded from doing so ?

To avoid this perhaps you could post the main thrust of both your relations case , both the management and Union cases and the Labour Court's involvement ( if any )


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> On reflection if I signed a non disclosure form and then felt that on reading the case history there were other arguments to pursue then surely I am precluded from doing so ?
> 
> To avoid this perhaps you could post the main thrust of both your relations case , both the management and Union cases and the Labour Court's involvement ( if any )



I have no intension of doing so. 
I simply posted an example of an individual who worked in the ESB for 35 years. For the first 10 odd years he worked in various positions and was then trained as a control room operator. In 1985 his function was computerised and he was moved to an office in Dublin city centre. He refused to be re-trained for other duties and his union backed him. From 1985 ‘till he took early retirement almost did no. 

The above is factually accurate and correct.
 The person involved is a close relation whom I know very well and see regularly. There is no chance that he is misinforming me. 

If you choose not to believe me because it doesn’t suit your agenda or preconceptions that’s your choice.


----------



## QED (7 Jul 2010)

Wasn't there also a case where some employees in the midlands refused to move to a new power station so they were paid to remain employed in the old de-commissioned station - again with (and because of) their union backing. There was very little or no work for them to do but it was easier for the ESB to give into them than to take on the Unions.

Deiseblue - I can't find any link to an article so don't believe me if you don't want to but it definitely happened.


----------



## TarfHead (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> The person involved is a close relation whom I know very well and see regularly. There is no chance that he is misinforming me.


 
+1

I too have a 'relative' who joined ESB a few years ago. The things he told me about allowances and cash payments and overtime payment and the work practices of senior management, shocked me. When I asked him about the oft-quoted €80K '_average annual income of ESB workers_', he laughed and said he doubted it was that low.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

QED said:


> Wasn't there also a case where some employees in the midlands refused to move to a new power station so they were paid to remain employed in the old de-commissioned station - again with (and because of) their union backing. There was very little or no work for them to do but it was easier for the ESB to give into them than to take on the Unions.
> 
> Deiseblue - I can't find any link to an article so don't believe me if you don't want to but it definitely happened.


 
I remember the case myself , it was well publicised at the time , the issue was resolved in 2003 after protracted and bitter negotiations when employees and management agreed a voluntary severance scheme.

In this case the facts were available for all to see , what I find difficult to accept as fact is anecdotal , second hand information, information garnered  by one person from another concerning matters of which the first person has no direct experience.


----------



## csirl (7 Jul 2010)

> the issue was resolved in 2003 after protracted and bitter negotiations when employees and management agreed a voluntary severance scheme.


 
Why should there be any negotiations? These people should have accepted a new position at the new power station or been made redundant full stop. The fact that "bitter and protracted" negotiations even took place shows that these employees and their union were being obstructive.


----------



## DB74 (7 Jul 2010)

2 cases actually, both in Offaly - one in Rhodes and one in Ferbane

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/esb-staff-reject-talks-on-rhode-plant-closure-301453.html


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

csirl said:


> Why should there be any negotiations? These people should have accepted a new position at the new power station or been made redundant full stop. The fact that "bitter and protracted" negotiations even took place shows that these employees and their union were being obstructive.


 
The alternative view is of course that management acted in a high handed fashion and the union simply backed the employees.

The fact that after the aforementioned negotiations management agreed to a relatively generous severance package would seem to support the above argument.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> In this case the facts were available for all to see , what I find difficult to accept as fact is anecdotal , second hand information, information garnered  by one person from another concerning matters of which the first person has no direct experience.




All information garnered from one person by another is, by it's nature, anecdotal. All information garnered by one person from another is second hand. Unless someone has observed the same events as the person that is relating them, which seems kind of pointless, then the person to whom the information is being imparted will have no first hand knowledge of said events.

I have related the facts as they have been related to me in many conversations over many years. I have questioned what I was told and have been furnished with satisfactory answers. I know that doesn't sit well with your biases but that's no reason for verbosity.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> The fact that after the aforementioned negotiations management agreed to a relatively generous severance package would seem to support the above argument.


That's a bit of a leap.
How about the management knew that the bearded brethren would kick up a major storm so the best think was to just buy the malingerers off?


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> All information garnered from one person by another is, by it's nature, anecdotal. All information garnered by one person from another is second hand. Unless someone has observed the same events as the person that is relating them, which seems kind of pointless, then the person to whom the information is being imparted will have no first hand knowledge of said events.
> 
> I have related the facts as they have been related to me in many conversations over many years. I have questioned what I was told and have been furnished with satisfactory answers. I know that doesn't sit well with your biases but that's no reason for verbosity.



Simply hammering home the point , I prefer to deal with facts rather than hearsay , nothing to do with any agenda or bias.

Naturally if you can substantiate your assertions then I would have to consider matters further but until then ----


----------



## shnaek (7 Jul 2010)

ESB have the country by the balls. They can do what they like and charge what they like ad infinitum. Nobody will take them on. Because nobody wants their lights to go out.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> That's a bit of a leap.
> How about the management knew that the bearded brethren would kick up a major storm so the best think was to just buy the malingerers off?



That's certainly another view which deserves as much consideration as others expressed on the topic.

Appalling management though if such was the case !


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Simply hammering home the point , I prefer to deal with facts rather than hearsay , nothing to do with any agenda or bias.
> 
> Naturally if you can substantiate your assertions then I would have to consider matters further but until then ----



This may come as a shock to you but you are not the reason I post here. I am sure that I am not unique in that. Garnering your attention so that you may consider a matter further is, I suspect, not at the top of anyone's agenda here. 

By it's nature an internet forum will be full of people's experiences, direct and indirect. You seem to have no problem with such sources except when it clashes with your own biases. I am not talking about a story I heard from a bloke “down the pub”, I am relating information gained from a close family member over a period of decades. Therefore it is not an ascertion as it is supported by first hand information.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Appalling management though if such was the case !


 I agree; they should never have given in to such bullying.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> This may come as a shock to you but you are not the reason I post here. I am sure that I am not unique in that. Garnering your attention so that you may consider a matter further is, I suspect, not at the top of anyone's agenda here.
> 
> By it's nature an internet forum will be full of people's experiences, direct and indirect. You seem to have no problem with such sources except when it clashes with your own biases. I am not talking about a story I heard from a bloke “down the pub”, I am relating information gained from a close family member over a period of decades. Therefore it is not an ascertion as it is supported by first hand information.


 
Of course I don't think that I am the reason you post here.

Your assertations re your relatives work situation fall into the "Ripleys believe it or not" category.

I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.

If you have substantiating facts - post them.

The Company at the very least must have gone to the Labour Court , any ruling from them ?

Any info on the Unions case in this matter ?


----------



## QED (7 Jul 2010)

Back on Topic - although this is Letting Off Steam so I think diversions are understandable!

My basic point is that:
- Owners should decide what to do with their company.
- Employees of all levels should work for the owners and do what they are requested to do (within reason and with the protection of Irish and EU legislation).

This is not specific to the ESB or Public Sectors.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> Of course I don't think that I am the reason you post here.


 Good.



Deiseblue said:


> Your assertations re your relatives work situation fall into the "Ripleys believe it or not" category.


 Now you are being childish. I have related information. It doesn’t suit your agenda or biases and you choose not to accept that. That’s fine, but leave out the silliness.



Deiseblue said:


> I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.
> 
> If you have substantiating facts - post them.


 Do you really expect me to post personal details about a relative on an internet forum?
You can question my honesty, that’s your prerogative and I’m a big boy; I won’t lose any sleep over it, but just come out and say what you mean.




Deiseblue said:


> The Company at the very least must have gone to the Labour Court , any ruling from them ?


 Nope, as long as he didn’t cause any problems and kept out of the way they were happy to white-wall him. Ditto for his boss.



Deiseblue said:


> Any info on the Unions case in this matter ?


 The Union actually pushed him quite a bit in private to accept re-training and re-deployment but he refused. In fairness to them they are there to represent his interests to him employer so they were just doing their job.


----------



## markpb (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.



If you don't believe it, fine, don't believe it but don't feel you have to post it repeatedly (or at all).


----------



## Firefly (7 Jul 2010)

QED said:


> - Owners should decide what to do with their company.
> - Employees of all levels should work for the owners and do what they are requested to do (within reason and with the protection of Irish and EU legislation).
> 
> This is not specific to the ESB or Public Sectors.


 
+1. I always find it funny when a company decides to layoff people or close employees give out that they gave the company X years. You don't hear about the company winging when its employees leave to work for someone else! Fact is a company should owe its employees nothing and vice versa. A day's pay for a day's work.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Firefly said:


> +1. I always find it funny when a company decides to layoff people or close employees give out that they gave the company X years. You don't hear about the company winging when its employees leave to work for someone else! Fact is a company should owe its employees nothing and vice versa. A day's pay for a day's work.


 It's a *fair* days pay for a *fair* days work, comrade. (Spoken with a flat Dublin accent)


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> Good.
> 
> Now you are being childish. I have related information. It doesn’t suit your agenda or biases and you choose not to accept that. That’s fine, but leave out the silliness.
> 
> ...


 
At last we're getting somewhere.

The union pressed both employees to re-train and re-deploy but both refused and when they failed to do so represented them , which as you correctly say is their job.

Unbelievably Management then failed to grasp the nettle and simply let sleeping dogs lie for 17 years !

No referring the matter to the Labour Court or even to the ESB's own Industry Council.

The brunt of the blame would appear to rest with the employees and the cowardice displayed by Management , did they really think that the Labour Court would have reached any other decision than instructing re-training and re-deployment ?

The only ones who appear to have behaved with any degree of propriety in this unimaginable scenario would appear to have been the union who at least made an effort to redress the situation.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2010)

Deiseblue said:


> At last we're getting somewhere.
> 
> The union pressed both employees to re-train and re-deploy but both refused and when they failed to do so represented them , which as you correctly say is their job.
> 
> ...



This is like discussing evolution with a creationist; you have a preconception based on a dogma (socialism). It seems in your view the more socialist someone is the more right they are.

Despite the view held by the union that what their member was doing was wrong they continued to represent him and would have continued that support all the way to industrial action if necessary. So much for principles. I am sure that the two people I know about weren’t the only employees of the ESB that behaved in this way.

By the way, the person involved was a union rep; as long as he didn't cause any trouble the management were happy to let him be. Oh, and the matter was referred to the internal industrial council but not the labour court.

I agree that the management in the ESB is a joke; they have allowed the union tail to wag the dog for decades.


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2010)

Maybe it's time to get the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies up and running again just in case.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> This is like discussing evolution with a creationist; you have a preconception based on a dogma (socialism). It seems in your view the more socialist someone is the more right they are.
> 
> Despite the view held by the union that what their member was doing was wrong they continued to represent him and would have continued that support all the way to industrial action if necessary. So much for principles. I am sure that the two people I know about weren’t the only employees of the ESB that behaved in this way.
> 
> ...


 
It appears to me that the Union endeavoured to persuade two extremely stubborn employees to re-train and re-deploy as they were surely aware that given the details you outlined if management took their case to the Labour Court then the recommendation to re-train and re-deploy would surely have issued and let me say that I believe the Labour Court would have been quite justified in reaching such a conclusion.

Nor do I think that any Union would take industrial action in support of these two employees.

The fact that management unbelievably bottled matters meant that the union really did'nt have to take any further action particularly as the internal industrial council obviously did not find against the employees.

Total management failure.


----------

