# Mandatory Trade Union recognition: How likely is leglislation?



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2011)

Across a number of threads the pro's and con's of mandatory Union recognition has been discussed.

Rather than arguing such pro's & con's  may I ask if there are posters out there who feel that the promised legislation will not be enacted & the reasons why ?


----------



## Shawady (9 Sep 2011)

I don't know much about the legislation but (rightly or wrongly) there is not a lot of sympathy out there for unions so I don't think there would be much fuss if it was not enacted. There are far more serious issue to be dealt with by the government.
In fact, looking at it politically Fine Gael may benefit from distancing itself from it. 

Why should it be mandatory?
I worked in a large irish company and there was no union. There was instead a staff assocation and everyone seemed happy with that arrangement. There were good pay and conditions too.


----------



## thedaras (9 Sep 2011)

Here is why I think it should not be enacted;

Labour costs in the multinational sector here are already high, the cost of doing business here is also high. Our selling points are as follows:

· Corporation tax – advantage being eroded by the competition (especially in Central/Eastern Europe), and by EU intentions re creation of a harmonized corporate tax base – and as looks likely, N.Ireland after they are ‘allowed’ to reduce corporation tax

· English language capability – not hugely important, especially as there are 60million English speakers on our doorstep

· Educated workforce – now, a bit of a joke really – we are rapidly sliding down the international rankings on key subjects

· Option not to recognize unions – statistics hide the fact that virtually all recent (last 10 years) FDI by US multinationals have been into ‘non-union’ operations. This is no mere ‘accident’. If reflects their (correct) belief, that in an Irish context, unions will eventually strangle the business – through excessive pay demands, and insistence on restrictive practices.


The single biggest concern of these companies, is the prospect of forced union recognition. So, the unions can rock on, the investment will move to mainland Europe or elsewhere, we will be left with tumble-weed


----------



## micmclo (9 Sep 2011)

The staff who need this the most are not in the multinationals

They are working in hotels, kitchens, cleaners and so on.
Abuse is rife and some companies treat staff very badly. Sure I'd say a lot of us have done these minimum wage jobs and were treated badly.

Instead I seem to hear more about unions fighting over bank time, privilege days and lecturing the government on social housing, mortgages and national policies. Things that have nothing to do with them

Unions have a crucial role in helping their members but seem to have forgotten why they were originally setup for and now some members earn over one hundred thousand while claiming to represent the _working man_

I think mandatory union recognition can help a lot of working people. 
But unions need to get back to basics first

Some multinationals deal with unions quite well, Procter and Gamble and SIPTU deal with over five hundred in Tipperary.
So it can work.
I expect IBEC to put out their dire doomsday warnings as usual


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2011)

I appreciate your views Thedaras as to why legislation granting mandatory Union recognition SHOULD not be enacted.

With all due respect , that is not the question I posed - do you believe that the legislation WILL be enacted ? -bearing in mind that the provision for such legislation is contained in the plan for Government & that furthermore ICTU are pursuing the matter via the ILO?


----------



## Mpsox (9 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I appreciate your views as to why legislation granting mandatory Union recognition SHOULD not be enacted.
> 
> With all due respect , that is not the question I posed - do you believe that the legislation WILL be enacted ? -bearing in mind that the provision for such legislation is contained in the plan for Government & that furthermore ICTU are pursuing the matter via the ILO?


 
Will if it's not, then it probably indicates that the stories about Eamonn Gilmore at the cabinet table are correct.
The fact that it's in the Govt Plan doesn't mean it will be implemented.

Personally, I believe the Govt has more interest in reducing quangos/state bodies involved in labour dispute resolution (which is a good idea) and perhaps simplyfing the procedures in those areas. That will take their priority. Even if they do bring in legislation, I'd fully expect it to be challanged in court by IBEC/SFA and by the likes of Ryanair so I think this will trundle on for a while yet


----------



## T McGibney (9 Sep 2011)

There are already far too many mandatory regulations and restrictions governing employment without adding another layer, especially when the country is on its knees. Any legislative measure that would make it harder for people to hire more staff would be likely to lead to more unemployment.  For these reasons, no sane government would go down this road at the present time.


----------



## Leper (9 Sep 2011)

While I am a former trades union activist and agree in principle that trades unions are important to the workforce, I think it should not be mandatory for somebody to be a part of something in which they don't believe. People have free will and should be left practice accordingly.


----------



## hastalavista (9 Sep 2011)

micmclo said:


> The staff who need this the most are not in the multinationals
> 
> They are working in hotels, kitchens, cleaners and so on.
> Abuse is rife and some companies treat staff very badly. Sure I'd say a lot of us have done these minimum wage jobs and were treated badly.
> ...



Well said  except for the IBEC bit


----------



## Delboy (9 Sep 2011)

Leper said:


> While I am a former trades union activist and agree in principle that trades unions are important to the workforce, I think it should not be mandatory for somebody to be a part of something in which they don't believe. People have free will and should be left practice accordingly.



surely they're not making it mandatory for everyone to join unions, just mandatory for organisations to allow them if someone there wants to join?
I've worked in some of the most unionised org's in this country and would'nt join them if they paid me (like ESB and Mr.Ogle kinda!!!). 

There is more than enough EU and Irish law out there to protect workers...mandatory union recognition will put jobs at risk and potentially harm future investment. 
Will it happen with this current Govt....hard to know. FG probably have zero interest in bringing it in. But as a a bargaining chip to get Labour to lay off on something else such as lower dole payments etc, I could see it getting through


----------



## thedaras (9 Sep 2011)

Delboy,I think that if someone has a choice (mandatory for the company to regocnise unions) to join a union and chooses not too,will cause unimaginable problems.
Take for example electricians,there are many who dont want to join a union,but they wont get the work if their not members.This gives the unions even more power.so altough not mandatory to join a union,it would be next to impossible not too.
Also from personal experience I know how  some union members are very antagonistic towards those who dont join up.
Its,to my mind not at all about workers rights,its about getting a vicegrip on people,and power ..


----------



## Delboy (10 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> Delboy,I think that if someone has a choice (mandatory for the company to regocnise unions) to join a union and chooses not too,will cause unimaginable problems.
> Take for example electricians,there are many who dont want to join a union,but they wont get the work if their not members.This gives the unions even more power.so altough not mandatory to join a union,it would be next to impossible not too.
> Also from personal experience I know how  some union members are very antagonistic towards those who dont join up.
> Its,to my mind not at all about workers rights,its about getting a vicegrip on people,and power ..



true. I've seen it myself, people move into a new role and their 'obliged' to join a union as the role is deemed to be unionised


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2011)

Delboy said:


> surely they're not making it mandatory for everyone to join unions, just mandatory for organisations to allow them if someone there wants to join?
> I've worked in some of the most unionised org's in this country and would'nt join them if they paid me (like ESB and Mr.Ogle kinda!!!).
> 
> There is more than enough EU and Irish law out there to protect workers...mandatory union recognition will put jobs at risk and potentially harm future investment.
> Will it happen with this current Govt....hard to know. FG probably have zero interest in bringing it in. But as a a bargaining chip to get Labour to lay off on something else such as lower dole payments etc, I could see it getting through



Just to point out that FG as part of their pre election promises undertook to bring in legislation in this matter & subsequently included same in the plan for Government - Leo Varadkar was the spokesman who confirmed this to the media.

I spoke to Mr. Varadkar prior to the election & he basically told me that FG felt they had little option but to play nice with the Unions in this matter as the party felt that to attempt to block such legislation would not withstand concerted pressure from the unions.

In fairness to Mr. Varadkar his preference was to see staff associations becoming more effective .


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2011)

In the interest of balance I would also out that I raised the matter with 2 FG candidates in Waterford pre election who were far more enthusiastic about the putative legislation than Mr. Varadkar , both of them suggested that despite the pressure on all political parties by the Lisbon Treaty & European Court decisions to introduce legislation FG as a party felt that there were genuine reasons to do so in any event.


----------



## Leper (10 Sep 2011)

The Talk Talk company debacle in Waterford has taught us that trade union recognition is very important.  I believe that if you ask the employees of Talk Talk if union recognition should be mandatory by any employer the vast majority would be in favour. Obviously, I see that they are at the receiving end of their own labours and did not see that the light at the end of the tunnel was an express train roaring towards them and no refuge was at hand.

Let's look at our Garda Force.  There was a time when they had no representation other than talk to the station sergeant who brought matters to the Superintendent who in turn off loaded the problem to the Chief Superintendent and so on.  The Gardaí were treated very badly and the Garda Representative Body was born.  You can say the same of our Nurses, the Army (remember they had to set up an organisation for their wives to defend them).

Though some would think, we are not a third world country.  Employers have IBEC to represent them (probably the biggest trade union in Ireland).  I see nothing wrong with workers having  a trades union representing them.  However, I don't think it mandatory for an employer to recognize unions, but I think any employer who has respect for the staff should have the decency in recognizing workers union representatives.


----------



## horusd (10 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Across a number of threads the pro's and con's of mandatory Union recognition has been discussed.
> 
> Rather than arguing such pro's & con's may I ask if there are posters out there who feel that the promised legislation will not be enacted & the reasons why ?


 
I liked micmclo 's post above, many very good points. I wonder if the legislation will be long-fingered because of a visceral dislke of unions in FG and little public demand for change. Especially now.  Overly powerful unions have done little to advance their causes. They overstep the mark so much and so often, the public have little appetite for increasing their power. 


Likewise people are wary of dodgey employers and reckless financal institutions with little regulation or obvious accountability.  The lessons of the last few years surely are that* no* vested interests should trump the will of the people or hold too much power. People should be able to join unions but unions should concern themselves only with employee issues and not try to extend their influence in the political sphere.


----------



## Sunny (10 Sep 2011)

The legislation won't be passed. It would be almost impossible to implement it in the middle of the EU/IMF bailout. They won't chance introducing anything that risks jobs. This is nothing to do with being anti union. The simple fact is that a lot of this Country's biggest employers do not deal nor do they want to deal with trade unions just like they never wanted anything to do with the pay deals that came out of social partnership. 

The only way the legislation might be introduced is if the trade unions made huge compromises in other areas like the minimum wage and wage agreements. There seems to be this idea that Europe would force us to recognise unions but that is not the case. We will introduce it when Britain introduces it i.e. Never.


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2011)

The idea that we have to introduce legislation to comply with the Lisbon Treaty & recent European Court decisions has been accepted by all parties & indeed Richard Bruton has accepted this.

Equally if ICTU's complaint to the ILO is successful ( that Ireland is in breach of Convention by failing to legislate for collective bargaining ) then the introduction of such legislation will become an imperative.


----------



## DonDub (10 Sep 2011)

horusd said:


> I liked micmclo 's post above, many very good points. I wonder if the legislation will be long-fingered because of a visceral dislke of unions in FG and little public demand for change. Especially now.  Overly powerful unions have done little to advance their causes. They overstep the mark so much and so often, the public have little appetite for increasing their power.
> 
> 
> Likewise people are wary of dodgey employers and reckless financal institutions with little regulation or obvious accountability.  The lessons of the last few years surely are that* no* vested interests should trump the will of the people or hold too much power. People should be able to join unions but unions should concern themselves only with employee issues and not try to extend their influence in the political sphere.



The public should indeed have little appetite. Proponents of unions trot out the same old tired justification again and again i.e. that dodgy employers need to kept in line to protect low paid vulnerable workers. This is a mere smoke-screen, unions are mainly all about protecting higher paid workers, especially in the public sector.

The reasons most multinational firms are anti-union are founded on very sound analysis of what unions will do, once recognised. For example, take a company that needs to quickly adapt to changes in the market place - perhaps by retraining workers so that the company can produce a new product to compete with a new-product launched by a competitor.

In a non-union company,management meet employees - share information as to the challenge faced, and explain what needs to be done to protect market share. Employees would most likely make required changes, to protect theirs and the company's interests.

If unionized, the company could not approach employees directly about the issue. They would have to negotiate any changes with the union, who would demand payment for change. Eventually, agreement would be reached, however, costs would be increased and the time lost negotiating would have given the competitor an advantage. Thus the company's competitive position is eroded.

You may think this is an exaggeration - it isn't. My personal experience as a manager,is, when forced to deal with unions, that, absolutely everything is negotiable, even very very trivial things. And, that no amount of logical argument will move unions off completely irrational positions.

Furthermore, in Ireland, unlike most other countries in Europe, unions can negotiate on absolutely anything they wish - there are no limits. In most other countries they may only bargain on a limited range of issues.

Also, there is no binding step in Irish industrial relations (except in very limited circumstances) - which means, that even after months of negotiations, culminating in a recommendation from the Labour Court, that unions can refuse to accept the outcome, which they often do.

So, the multinationals are absolutely right to be against forced recognition. And, lets be clear, they will not accept it. Their opposition will be silent.....they just wont come here.......


----------



## ajapale (10 Sep 2011)

Leper said:


> While I am a former trades union activist and agree in principle that trades unions are important to the workforce, I think it should not be mandatory for somebody to be a part of something in which they don't believe. People have free will and should be left practice accordingly.



I think the question relates to mandatory TU recognition (by employers) and not mandatory TU membership. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your post.

OP can you link to any proposals to make TU recognition mandatory? I'd like to read them to assess how far along the leglislation is. This would allow posters form a view on your question: How likely is TU recognition leglislation to be passed into law?


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2011)

I know of course that pre election promises are easy to make & are often discarded when election is secured.

However the following extract from the Programme for Government is pretty unequivocal , the Government undertake to " reform the current law on employee's rights to engage in collective bargaining , so as to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. "

I have emailed all TD's recently in my constituency & contacted Mr. Bruton's office in an attempt to find out when the legislation is to be enacted - I only did this recently & hopefully I will receive some replies in the coming week !

Now FG may indeed deem it politic to prevaricate on introducing the promised legislation but I think ICTU have cut the ground from under them by lodging a complaint with the ILO.

For further extensive details I would refer posters to www.ictu.ie - under press office - there is a list of News , press releases & speeches from Congress .

When you have finished reading the speeches - I would refer you to bullet points 5 & 9 which outlines ICTU's stance & arguments in favour of mandatory recognition.


----------



## ajapale (10 Sep 2011)

Thanks DB,

The following from the ICTU site is interesting.



> In a recent Supreme Court Ruling concerning IMPACT and Ryanair, the  Supreme Court made the observation that the Oireachtas has no power to  introduce a law granting the right to union recognition.


So it would appear that to introduce leglislation in the absence of a favourable constitutional ammendment such leglislation would in all likelhood be struck down in the event of a Superme court challenge.





ajapale said:


> How likely is TU recognition leglislation to be passed into law?


 Unlikely in my opinion.

aj


----------



## Deiseblue (10 Sep 2011)

The Supreme Court shares it's authority with the European Court of Human Rights - legislation is required to enact mandatory Trade Union recognition - no constitutional amendment or referendum is required , a situation accepted by all political parties.

Interestingly ILO conventions are binding on the State AND the judiciary.

The Irish Times published an illuminating article on ICTU's complaint to the ILO on the 4th July last - forgive me I can't post a link - simply google " Irish Times state in dock " & the article pops up.


----------



## Complainer (10 Sep 2011)

Shawady said:


> Why should it be mandatory?


The 'mandatory' bit refers to recognition of the union by employers, not membership of the union for employees.


----------



## ajapale (12 Sep 2011)

Unfortunately discussion of Talk Talk is beyond the topic of this thread. Feel free to start a new thread for that discussion. Ive moved the two posts here:Would Talk Talk have benefitted from TU membership/ manditory TU recognition?

Keep this thread to discuss   Mandatory Trade Union recognition: How likely is leglislation? The OP specifically mentioned that he wanted to keep the pros and cons to a minimum and to just discuss the likelihood of leglislation being implemented.

aj
moderator


----------



## Chris (12 Sep 2011)

Sunny said:


> The legislation won't be passed. It would be almost impossible to implement it in the middle of the EU/IMF bailout. They won't chance introducing anything that risks jobs. This is nothing to do with being anti union. The simple fact is that a lot of this Country's biggest employers do not deal nor do they want to deal with trade unions just like they never wanted anything to do with the pay deals that came out of social partnership.
> 
> The only way the legislation might be introduced is if the trade unions made huge compromises in other areas like the minimum wage and wage agreements. There seems to be this idea that Europe would force us to recognise unions but that is not the case. We will introduce it when Britain introduces it i.e. Never.



I agree. The other thing we haven't heard much about yet is the opposition from companies. I have no doubt that many companies, especially international ones have either plans in place to move their operations or at the very least have put expansion plans in Ireland to a halt. The government could certainly postpone any necessary legislation without any backlash from the public.

If mandatory trade union recognition is introduced then at the same time employers should be empowered to deal with strikes as breaches of contract. If a company's workforce threatens to strike unless certain demands can be met, then the employer should have the right to see if other workers can be found that would work under the prevailing conditions. This would only be fair.


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Sep 2011)

Perhaps FG may be tempted to prevaricate , although the unequivocal wording in the programme for government would indicate otherwise.

The Labour Party however must surely be anxious to see the promised legislation introduced sooner rather than later ?

Equally ICTU's complaint to the ILO must increase the pressure on Government particularly as it is hoped that the complaint will be heard before years end.

Do I gather from your post that when you refer to " necessary legislation " you accept that the such legislation will be introduced - it's simply a matter of when ?


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Sep 2011)

Apologies - posted twice


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Nov 2013)

It's been over 2 years since I started this thread.

Progress at last however , as someone who participated in preparing a submission to the body charged by the Government to procure & consider such submissions from all interested parties I have been advised that the new legislation on collective bargaining promised in the Programme for Government is due to be considered by the cabinet shortly.


----------



## Sunny (27 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> It's been over 2 years since I started this thread.
> 
> Progress at last however , as someone who participated in preparing a submission to the body charged by the Government to procure & consider such submissions from all interested parties I have been advised that the new legislation on collective bargaining promised in the Programme for Government is due to be considered by the cabinet shortly.



And the cabinet will announce a committee to examine the proposed legislation in greater detail. See you in two years time!!!!


----------



## Deiseblue (27 Nov 2013)

Sunny said:


> And the cabinet will announce a committee to examine the proposed legislation in greater detail. See you in two years time!!!!



Getting there slowly but surely , I can wait 2 years - as long as the legislation is enacted during the current term of this Government as promised then I'm happy.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> Getting there slowly but surely , I can wait 2 years - as long as the legislation is enacted during the current term of this Government as promised then I'm happy.



Does this mean that if only one employee is in a union then the employer has to engage with the union?


----------



## blueband (27 Nov 2013)

of course, if the employee is a union member the have to be represented..


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2013)

blueband said:


> of course, if the employee is a union member the have to be represented..



I know some small business owners who would rather close than deal with a union.


----------



## blueband (27 Nov 2013)

would these be the same type of business owners that are happy to take free labour under the slavebridge scam perhaps???


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2013)

blueband said:


> would these be the same type of business owners that are happy to take free labour under the slavebridge scam perhaps???



If you are referring to Job Bridge then I don't see the link between the two.

Employers are concerned that Unions will close their businesses. The is, perhaps, because Unions have a long history of closing businesses due to their ignorance and an ideology that is destructive and hostile.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Nov 2013)

blueband said:


> would these be the same type of business owners that are happy to take free labour under the slavebridge scam perhaps???



Don't blame businesses for the JobBridge scheme. It is a State scheme, the State and its agencies both actively promote & encourage its use, and use it themselves.


----------



## Sunny (28 Nov 2013)

This is what Richard Bruton said a couple of years ago on this amazing pledge that was in the programme of government. This Government or any other Government will not pass legislation forcing companies like Ryaniar and multinational companies to recognise and deal with trade unions. They will pass some piece of legislation to try and sell to labour supporters but it will fall far short of formal union recognition. 

The commitment in the programme for government reads: “We will reform the current law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining (the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2011), so as to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights.”
Mr Bruton said: “There is not any commitment to recognise unions but to deal with a setback for what was a system put in place to deal with unresolved disputes in employments. 


​


----------



## Sunny (28 Nov 2013)

And a recent Dail question on the subject. Once again, compulsory union recognition is not on the table. 

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas...ck.nsf/takes/seanad2013110500055?opendocument


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2013)

Sunny said:


> This is what Richard Bruton said a couple of years ago on this amazing pledge that was in the programme of government. This Government or any other Government will not pass legislation forcing companies like Ryaniar and multinational companies to recognise and deal with trade unions. They will pass some piece of legislation to try and sell to labour supporters but it will fall far short of formal union recognition.
> 
> The commitment in the programme for government reads: “We will reform the current law on employees’ right to engage in collective bargaining (the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2011), so as to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights.”
> Mr Bruton said: “There is not any commitment to recognise unions but to deal with a setback for what was a system put in place to deal with unresolved disputes in employments.
> ...





Sunny said:


> And a recent Dail question on the subject. Once again, compulsory union recognition is not on the table.
> 
> http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas...ck.nsf/takes/seanad2013110500055?opendocument



That's excellent news.
There is already a comprehensive state infrastructure in place to deal with disputes. The only reason the Union commissars are pushing for this is to generate more revenue to pay their own bloated salaries.


----------



## Deiseblue (28 Nov 2013)

Sunny said:


> And a recent Dail question on the subject. Once again, compulsory union recognition is not on the table.
> 
> http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas...ck.nsf/takes/seanad2013110500055?opendocument



The crux of the matter is , of course , the fact that Ireland have signed up to & are bound by both the ILO Conventions & ECHR judgements.

The Minister is trying to engineer a compromise agreement in the face of overwhelming evidence that the right to organise & collectively bargain is contained in such judgements , are ICTU simply going to sit back & accept any fudge given that the rights sought are the norm in most European countries including Britain ?


----------



## delgirl (28 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> I know some small business owners who would rather close than deal with a union.


+ 1

Let's call a spade a spade, it's pure blackmail, whether it's bus drivers or ESB workers - if we don't get what we want, when we want it, we'll shut you down.

Union leaders need to understand how business works and we already have so many laws protecting the rights of workers.

The business of unions seeking payment on behalf of their workers to use a new and more efficient piece of equipment is something that should be confined to history.


----------



## Deiseblue (28 Nov 2013)

The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance  ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members .

In the case of the ESB , the members of the group of unions voted overwhelmingly to mandate their Unions to issue strike notice on the parent company as to my mind they have every right to have their pension rights categorised as defined benefit & not defined contribution.

Should be interesting at today's meeting between the company & the group of Unions.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> ... as to my mind they have every right to have their pension rights categorised as defined benefit & not defined contribution.
> ..



The whole concept of defined benefit schemes is highly questionable, particularly in collapsed firms, the wholesale and indiscriminate beggaring of the pension benefits of serving workforce to pay full pension benefits to those who have already retired. I can't fathom how this can be legal or constitutional, as it offends every principle of equality.


----------



## Delboy (28 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance  ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members .



Exactly....which is why their powers to strike in essential services and monopolies should be severely restricted by law. The 'members' a re a small minority within the country as a whole.

Because to achieve this 'primary function' is more often than not as a result of inflicting pain on the majority within society, usually through higher costs and an inferior quality of service to the public or via the occasional strike.

As Delgirl said above, and as I'm tired of saying, we have more than enough legislation (both European and National) to protect workers currently in place.


----------



## delgirl (28 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members


Unions hurt the economy by forcing companies to pay wages and maintain unreasonable work practices, which their members may like, but that make companies uncompetitive. 

I personally know of businesses which have had to close, sell the company or close and re-open to rid themselves of union members who were on ridiculous salaries and conditions achieved over years of strike threats and work-to-rule actions by militant unions.  These employees found themselves out of a job due to their attitude.

There has to be a connection between the rate of pay and the employee / union member's performance.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance  ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members



If that was the case then they would ensure that the pay rates and terms and conditions that they seek do not make their members employer uncompetitive as that damages the medium to long term interests of those members. Unfortunately Unions have a long history of not understanding that.


----------



## Deiseblue (28 Nov 2013)

Excellent news for the Group of Unions & the employees.

The Irish Times has reported that the Government confirmed yesterday that the responsibility for any shortfall rests solely on the shoulders of the ESB.

Mr.Ogle welcomed this clarification , hopefully such clarification will be of assistance in the negotiations ahead.

It's a terrible pity that the Unions had to invoke a doomsday scenario to bring the company to the table - thankfully this is one major stumbling point clarified.


----------



## Firefly (28 Nov 2013)

I think there's a place for trade unions / employment law at the lower end to protect workers from what can go on in the absence of same. However given our employment laws I think the vast majority of unions are now only protecting those terms & conditions that are largely unavailable in the free market. Defined pensions being an example that comes to mind. (on a side note, if the ESB (with 4k workers) are having problems with their pension fund given their profits, industry & market position, how are the rest of the public defined pensions going to be financed (eg HSE with 100k workers) ?)

As someone who has moved be between permanent and contracting positions for over 10 years I must say that I think the odds are tipped on the employee side too much. As a permanent employee I can hand in my notice to my employer by giving them one month's notice. There's nothing they can do. I can do so for any grounds, even discriminatory if I want to. I can leave because I've found an employer willing to pay me more or give me better conditions. Reverse the roles though and my employer has an awful lot of work to do to make me redundant. It would be practically impossible for them to let me go because they want to hire someone else for the role who might be cheaper/better than I am. Why is it OK for the employee to so easily sever the relationship but so difficult for the employer? This probably explains, in part, why contact rates are so much higher in my own industry than salaries...employers want the freedom to let contractors go when they want to, contractors wish to price in employment volatility. 

In most cases I believe unions (and labour laws) have a negative impact on the wider economy. They protect the few but in doing so they restrict employment. Although it has not be said publicly, you would have to wonder if the defined benefit pensions at Bord Gais Energy have resulted in the low offers received by the government from interested parties recently?


----------



## Sunny (29 Nov 2013)

So nothing really changes. Isn't it funny that even the leader of the Labour Party has to admit that they have to balance meeting their obligations and protecting job creation. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the trade unions. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...gotiate-with-workers-under-new-plan-1.1611099


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2013)

Sunny said:


> So nothing really changes. Isn't it funny that even the leader of the Labour Party has to admit that they have to balance meeting their obligations and protecting job creation. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the trade unions.
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...gotiate-with-workers-under-new-plan-1.1611099



I find it funny that your link talks about the introduction of an anti-bullying code to protect employees who engage in union activity when the real problem is the very serious and often sinister bullying of non-union members (or even members who have the audacity to think for themselves) by union activists in heavily unionised workplaces.


----------



## Sunny (29 Nov 2013)

Purple said:


> I find it funny that your link talks about the introduction of an anti-bullying code to protect employees who engage in union activity when the real problem is the very serious and often sinister bullying of non-union members (or even members who have the audacity to think for themselves) by union activists in heavily unionised workplaces.



Very true. I have heard some stories about the ASTI recently that beggars belief.


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Nov 2013)

Sunny said:


> So nothing really changes. Isn't it funny that even the leader of the Labour Party has to admit that they have to balance meeting their obligations and protecting job creation. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the trade unions.
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...gotiate-with-workers-under-new-plan-1.1611099



A bit of a fudge but a step in the right direction , the onus is now on the Unions 
to recruit members in all companies in the state whilst also continuing to apply pressure on the ECHR & by continuing their complaints to the ILO to ensure mandatory Trade Union recognition - slowly but surely we're getting there.

The fact that IBEC are unhappy is generally quite a good barometer !


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2013)

Deiseblue said:


> A bit of a fudge but a step in the right direction , the onus is now on the Unions
> to recruit members in all companies in the state whilst also continuing to apply pressure on the ECHR & by continuing their complaints to the ILO to ensure mandatory Trade Union recognition - slowly but surely we're getting there.


I find the Unions in general to be insidious parasitic organisations who are destructive to the common good and to the working poor in particular. The do little good and much harm and have long ago betrayed the spirit of the people who started the labour movement in Ireland.  



Deiseblue said:


> The fact that IBEC are unhappy is generally quite a good barometer !


 That says it all.


----------



## RainyDay (1 Dec 2013)

delgirl said:


> + 1
> 
> Let's call a spade a spade, it's pure blackmail, whether it's bus drivers or ESB workers - if we don't get what we want, when we want it, we'll shut you down.


Yes, that's right - their main objective is to shut employers down, and as they ALL are of subnormal intelligence, they haven't worked out what happens to them once they shut their employers down.




T McGibney said:


> The whole concept of defined benefit schemes is highly questionable, particularly in collapsed firms, the wholesale and indiscriminate beggaring of the pension benefits of serving workforce to pay full pension benefits to those who have already retired. I can't fathom how this can be legal or constitutional, as it offends every principle of equality.



There may be something in your broad point, and there is definitely something in your point about the inequity of treatment of members when schemes (not necessarily employers) collapse. However, the fact remains that for those people, this is a contractual entitlement. It is written into their contract of employment. It is bizarre that some people seem to think that employees should just walk away from contractual entitlements arising from years or decades or service.


----------



## T McGibney (2 Dec 2013)

RainyDay said:


> There may be something in your broad point, and there is definitely something in your point about the inequity of treatment of members when schemes (not necessarily employers) collapse. However, the fact remains that for those people, this is a contractual entitlement. It is written into their contract of employment. It is bizarre that some people seem to think that employees should just walk away from contractual entitlements arising from years or decades or service.



It's not exactly unprecedented for the terms of an employment contract to be forcibly set aside by the courts when they are found to be inherently discriminatory and thus unsustainable.


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2013)

T McGibney said:


> It's not exactly unprecedented for the terms of an employment contract to be forcibly set aside by the courts when they are found to be inherently discriminatory and thus unsustainable.



I'm not sure that I've come across many cases of courts setting aside provisions of employment contracts. And the 'discriminatory' issue has nothing to do with the provisions of each employment contract - it has to do with the legal provisions that deal with insolvent schemes.

But regardless, this isn't a case of a court setting aside anything. This is a case of an attempt at a one-sided setting aside, by a large business that had access to the best expert advice before it produced such contracts.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2013)

RainyDay said:


> This is a case of an attempt at a one-sided setting aside, by a large business that had access to the best expert advice before it produced such contracts.



Can anyone clarify what, specifically, the contractual disagreement is?
The unions say that the ESB is liable for the shortfall in the pension scheme. The ESB says it isn't. 
What's the specific wording that they disagree on?


----------



## Sunny (3 Dec 2013)

Purple said:


> Can anyone clarify what, specifically, the contractual disagreement is?
> The unions say that the ESB is liable for the shortfall in the pension scheme. The ESB says it isn't.
> What's the specific wording that they disagree on?


 

Good question. This is how the company describes the situation in their financial statements. The question is what did the employees think they have? The ESB are saying there was never any obligation on them to plug any deficit above their agreed contributions. It's page 110. To be fair to the ESB, I checked financial statements back to 2007 and although the accounting treatment has changed, they also said back then that the scheme was not a typical defined benefit scheme in that they didn't have to meet deficits. Maybe the union should be asking themselves why they didn't raise this in the middle of th Celtic Tiger. Bertie would have paid them off. 

http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/zahra/esb_annualreport2012/index.php#/110

The really scary thing is how much money the ESB aka the taxpayer has put into the fund in recent years and our reward is the threat of no electricity in December. Classy.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2013)

Thanks for the link Sunny. It does seem that the Unions agreed to the change, if not why no outcry when the changes were made? 
I wonder what the pay-off was as it seems very strange that such changes could be brought in without some major sweeteners for the employees... or did the unions just screw up?


----------



## orka (4 Dec 2013)

That's a very interesting link Sunny. 

It seems to be a very unusual scheme - defined benefit but with defined contributions... So people retire on defined benefits and if their lifetime contributions (including the employers' contributions) aren't enough, they get topped up by current contributions (which should be accruing for current employees). In hindsight, you can see that it's a pretty poor deal for newer and newer employees - almost like a ponzi scheme. It was fine as long as life expectancy was low, investment returns were high and there was an increasing workforce. What a mess. On the face of it, it looks like the ESB is contractually correct - if the scheme never obligated them to pay more than their agreed contribution level, how can the employees demand that now? It would be very interesting to see the wording of the employees' contracts.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2013)

orka said:


> ponzi scheme



The entire ESB (and more general DB) pension fiasco summed up in two words.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2013)

orka said:


> That's a very interesting link Sunny.
> 
> It seems to be a very unusual scheme - defined benefit but with defined contributions... So people retire on defined benefits and if their lifetime contributions (including the employers' contributions) aren't enough, they get topped up by current contributions (which should be accruing for current employees). In hindsight, you can see that it's a pretty poor deal for newer and newer employees - almost like a ponzi scheme. It was fine as long as life expectancy was low, investment returns were high and there was an increasing workforce. What a mess. On the face of it, it looks like the ESB is contractually correct - if the scheme never obligated them to pay more than their agreed contribution level, how can the employees demand that now? It would be very interesting to see the wording of the employees' contracts.


What exactly are the Unions complaining about?


----------



## Latrade (4 Dec 2013)

I may be way off, but I understood the Union complaint was that the switch to the DC scheme wasn't to the agreement and that the shortfall in the scheme, which is being used to justify the switch, isn't as great as reported.

I think that the shortfall is based on an old evaluation of share prices which is not the case today and so this move isn't as urgent.

Whether strike action is a justifiable action in these circumstances is another question.


----------



## Sunny (4 Dec 2013)

Purple said:


> What exactly are the Unions complaining about?


 
They are complaining because prior to 2010, the ESB always carried the pension defecit on their balance sheet as a liability. When in 2010, the ESB decided they wantd to raise money, they figured that the balance sheet would look better without that nasty looking figure and so changed the scheme to a defined contribution and removed the liability from the balance sheet. 

My understanding is that nothing has changed apart from the accounting treatment. The ESB always claimed that they were not liabile for any shortfall. They put in €500m and workers accepted changes that should make the scheme solvent in about five years. I think the Unions just felt more comfortable when the ESB had the liability laid out in their annual accounts. 

From what I see both sides have questions to answer. And so does the auditors who signed off on the removal of a huge liability from the balance sheet when it seems the issue was in dispute.


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2013)

So the Unions are threatening a strike over something that happened 3 years ago because now the money is running out. Is that it?
Has anyone from the Union side commented on whether they were aware of the change in 2010? If they were what's the aggrieved posturing for and if they weren't why on earth not, it was on the balance sheet and in the annual report.


----------

