# Jack o Connors qualifications



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

Does anyone know what qualifactions/degrees/diplomas/adult education/certs/courses etc, that JOC holds?

Im really curious about this as I have heard that he said in an interview that he left school at 15.

There would of course would be two ways of looking at this..

One : He is a very bright ,intelligent person whom didnt need to attend school or uni,and is a natural born leader,whose experience throughout the years is/was enough of an education for him to do what he does and like many people his age ,left school at a very young age and went on to be very succesfull..OR

Two; He left school at 15 and didnt bother to further his education,who had at the very least as an adult an opportuinity to do so but didnt or wouldnt.Which in itself is not the brightest idea..

If its case one; I will be relieved.

If its case two; How come someone with no education/qualifactions etc gets to sit with a government elected by the people to govern and make decisions on our behalf when no one gave him a mandate to do so?Who couldnt be bothered to educate himself and who is talking strike action at every hands turn .
He has been a full time branch secretary since 1980.So he hasnt even had a proper job for 29 years!! Ah no ,I must be wrong,that couldnt be right...

If it is true,is it any wonder that he " leads" the way he does.

It goes without saying that there are many educated people in government who are making a mess of things without his help,but at least they were elected to do so.
Ill await the onslaught...
Thoughts anyone??


----------



## z107 (3 Nov 2009)

Qualifications are irrelevant in a democracy.
Just how qualified are the elected members of government?

Brian Lenihan is a barrister and an ex-lecturer, yet his is minister for finance! - I would rather someone with a business, maths, finance or accounting background to much such important decisions.

No wonder the country is banjaxed.


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

Oh I think they are!! Would you like to be in an plane in a democracy if the pilot had no qualifactions?
As far as I am aware most of the goverment hold qualifactions (fat lot of good its doing us though )!!
Its really not his alleged lack of education,rather what that says about the man,that couldnt be bothered ..


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

He didnt do himself any favours tonight when Pat Kenny asked him what he considered a " Trophy home",his answer was ,your house Pat!
Now thats something you would hear in a street brawl after a lot of drink!
With the money he is on he could well afford what he considers a " Trophy home".

Usually you see personal attacks like the above in situations where there is a lack of education and someone cannot come up with something better than a snide remark.


----------



## z107 (3 Nov 2009)

> Oh I think they are!! Would you like to be in an plane in a democracy if the pilot had no qualifactions?


A plane is a dictatorship. None of the flights I've been on has the pilot been voted in.



> As far as I am aware most of the goverment hold qualifactions (fat lot of good its doing us though )!!
> Its really not his alleged lack of education,rather what that says about the man,that couldnt be bothered ..


Yes, they (probably) hold qualifications, but in fields irrelevant to their positions.


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Qualifications are irrelevant in a democracy.
> Just how qualified are the elected members of government?
> 
> Brian Lenihan is a barrister and an ex-lecturer, yet his is minister for finance! - I would rather someone with a business, maths, finance or accounting background to much such important decisions.
> ...


 
And what qualifactions would you rather someone in JOCs postion have?


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

umop3p!sdn said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*Is that better than zero qualifactions*?


----------



## demoivre (3 Nov 2009)

thedaras said:


> He didnt do himself any favours tonight when Pat Kenny asked him what he considered a " Trophy home",his answer was ,your house Pat!
> Now thats something you would hear in a street brawl after a lot of drink!
> With the money he is on he could well afford what he considers a " Trophy home".



I have never had any time for unions but it was the only answer that O Connor  gave last night that was worth hearing. Kenny left himself open for it and despite the inch of make up on him he couldn't hide the fact that he was seething - I thought it was hilarious. Kenny let himself down badly by saying he didn't have to take such crap, or words to that effect, instead of rubbishing O Connor's point about property tax in an intelligent way which is not difficult. O Connor was his usual clueless, deadpan boring self whose theories about Economics would qualify them for the Beano comic but Kenny lacked professionalism and impartiality last night imo.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Nov 2009)

thedaras said:


> Does anyone know what qualifactions/degrees/diplomas/adult education/certs/courses etc, that JOC holds?
> 
> Im really curious about this as I have heard that he said in an interview that he left school at 15.
> 
> ...


Well let's see , Jack O'Connor left school at 15 and despite or maybe because of that after  a long period of Trade Union activism rose to become General President of SIPTU in 2003 - so yes it looks very much that  it very much fits in neatly to the first scenario outlined by you - you must be very relieved !
Your comment that Mr. O'Connor has'nt had a real job for 29 years reveals your bias and suggests that you had made up your mind prior to posting your question - bit of a waste of time then surely !
May I further suggest that the comment regarding Mr. O'Connor not having worked for 29 years was extremely " snide " unlike Mr. O'Connor's comment about Pat Kenny's house which I thought was amusing !


----------



## Delboy (3 Nov 2009)

i thought the comment about Pat kenny was terrible (it may be right but ina rational discussion...) and shows O'Connor up for what he is....limited,militant,condescending. How the union elected him at a time when they need as much good PR as possible is beyond me. His delivery style is deadpan and boring, he speaks over people and continues to speak over the interviewer with the most benal crap while everyone else has moved on to the next question. 
David Begg may not be anyones favourite either but at least he's articulate and trys to be courteous and respectful in interviews/discussions. O'Connor is winning the union no friends at all and probably turning even more people in the real world against them


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2009)

delboy said:


> i thought the comment about pat kenny was terrible (it may be right but ina rational discussion...) and shows o'connor up for what he is....limited,militant,condescending. How the union elected him at a time when they need as much good pr as possible is beyond me. His delivery style is deadpan and boring, he speaks over people and continues to speak over the interviewer with the most benal crap while everyone else has moved on to the next question.
> David begg may not be anyones favourite either but at least he's articulate and trys to be courteous and respectful in interviews/discussions. O'connor is winning the union no friends at all and probably turning even more people in the real world against them



+1


----------



## Sunny (3 Nov 2009)

Actually I quiet enjoyed someone like Pat Kenny who earns a 7 figure salary from the taxpayer and then uses squatters rights law to claim land off a neighbour and who stands there pretending he represents the common man been put back in his box. O' Connor like most union leaders are devoid of any genuine workable ideas. Their excuse that they don't have access to figures to see what a 54% tax rate will bring in is laughable. They could ask one of their Labour Party Commrades to ask a parlimentary question to get the info before spouting the idea in public and suggesting that there is an easy way out of this crisis.


----------



## DerKaiser (3 Nov 2009)

Delboy said:


> i thought the comment about Pat kenny was terrible and shows O'Connor up for what he is....limited,militant,condescending.


 
Absolutely. I was shocked that somone in a position of such influence would attempt to intimidate an interviewer live on air.

Pat certainly put him in his box.


----------



## Latrade (3 Nov 2009)

Occasionally, even someone on the ropes gets a last second chance for a cheap shot. It was a cheap shot, but to be honest I still thought it was funny. I know it's supposed to be a serious debate about "the issues" but c'mon Kenny left himself wide open for that one. 

I wouldn't be outraged or incensed by it, you just say touché and carry on. Kenny's experienced and he should have been able to get over it.

It's a bit like Dunphy crying on the Late Late at the plight of his bretheren losing their homes. Nice to feel such apathy from a comfortable position. No harm in reminding Kenny occasionally that he does have a certain level of comfort. 

Anyway, O'Connor's qualifications aren't an issue. He doesn't come up with the policies or plans or anything else, he's just the public face for them. Just like Ministers don't always have the requisite qualifications for their portfolio, they have team behind them who do and it's these people who would advise O'Connor.


----------



## Caveat (3 Nov 2009)

Anyone know what O'Connor's house is like? I hope for his sake it's a 2 up 2 down in the Liberties or something.

Surely to jaysus even he wouldn't be so stupid as to make a comment like that if he had a 'fancy' house himself too.

Surely...


----------



## secman (3 Nov 2009)

Jack O'Connor spoke in  "Riddles" last night, I thought at one time he was auditioning for a new Batman Movie, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately wept The Riddler ! His snide remark about Trophy homes really showed his true colours.

 However what he forgets is that many, many  thousands of ordinary working people have bought holiday homes, having worked hard all their lives, paid the high taxes in the Eighties, paid the high stamp duty, had their mortgages paid on their Principal Residence, had the audacity to buy a second home, on their hard earned taxable incomes ! The cheek of him, he speaks in double language, who exactly is he pupporting to represent ? I actually know of people who never ever contributed to this country in any form or shape, a first cousin of mine is a prime example, Never had a job of any description, puts his hand out every Wed to collect the dole, he's about 58 years old now, has a bleedin opinion on everything, a complete know all, a socialist, backs unions all the way........... a complete Tosser. 

Sorry for the Rant but ...............


Secman


----------



## csirl (3 Nov 2009)

He has a beard. Isnt this the most important qualfication for a left wing union official?


----------



## csirl (3 Nov 2009)

As I said on another thread, if he'd come straight out and said that the public sector unions would prefer a cut in numbers to an across the board cut in wages to achieve the paybill savings, then he would have been taken seriously.


----------



## Niall M (3 Nov 2009)

That was funny, no paycuts or reductions in numbers, but he can still reduce the paybill!!!! is the programme repeated on line anywhere, i missed alot of it?


----------



## S.L.F (3 Nov 2009)

Ye Gods he was awful last night.

The unions should have put someone who could make sense on last night rather than him.

If I was a member of SIPTU I'd be  embarassed

Terrible


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2009)

I don't think his education, or lack of it, is the issue. There are plenty of smart people who left school early but learned their trade/business hands on.


----------



## Deiseblue (3 Nov 2009)

csirl said:


> He has a beard. Isnt this the most important qualfication for a left wing union official?


Don't let Patricia King catch you saying that !!


----------



## Delboy (3 Nov 2009)

Niall M said:


> That was funny, no paycuts or reductions in numbers, but he can still reduce the paybill!!!! is the programme repeated on line anywhere, i missed alot of it?



it'll be on rte.ie on their I-Player.

It kille em that the unions get so much media attention in this country...they are on the radio/tv and in the papers every day without fail. They represent 20% of all workers (prob more now given the private sector people has lost 200k jobs)...they're no more representative of the country's workers as a whole than the Seanad. And given the amount of EU/National laws on working conitions etc, is there a need for them in the modern age to the degree they now try to influence the state???
And if they are going to be all over the media, can they not get someone who the public might take to....i.e. not Liam Doran/Jack O'Connor/any of the disgraced FAS directors

Arthur Scargill on the right hook last week- as left wing, communist even, as you'll get. Asked several times by Ger Gilroy (another leftie but fair play to him, he kept going after Scargill), did he think union leaders were overpaid in Ireland. He even cited 1 of the teachers unions here where the leader gets 170k and has something like 60k member, while his equivalent in England gets 220k stg and has over 1 million members. 
All Scragill kept repeating is that it's up to the members of the union to set the wages for the head of the union...now I may be wrong but is it not a remuneration committee or something similar that would set the wages, the average union member would'nt vote as such on something like this. So just like the banks, a few colleagues who you work closely with every day set your wages!!!!
And having worked in the public sector myself for years, I can only imagine the expenses the union heads would be on in addition to their salaries...(and no, I don't get expenses)


----------



## Howitzer (3 Nov 2009)

I thought Pat Kenny did a fantastic job last night and Jack O'Connor was absolutely clueless, and was exposed as such.

When pushed on the numbers he invariably had to fall back on "I don't know the exact numbers", "I'm not qualified to say", and when they did start working out the details of where they'd find the 4 billion they got up to about half a billion and then ... poof, nothing - the plan appears to be we stop everything in October of every year, hide in a hole with our eyes closed and our hands over our ears until January rolls around and they can start spending again.


----------



## Caveat (3 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> I don't think his education, or lack of it, is the issue. There are plenty of smart people who left school early but learned their trade/business hands on.


 
Exactly.

Bottom line is, as a minimum 'qualification' for the job this guy should be reasonably intelligent, articulate and well informed and he fails badly in all these areas IMO.


----------



## Staples (3 Nov 2009)

I can understand the antipathy towards Jack O'Connor but you have to remember that's he's representing the interests of those who pay his salary.  

The idea that he should be required to speak rationally and act in the best interests of the State is not really consistent with his job spec.  The social partnership concept has been shown up to the white elephant it (nearly) always was.  Union leaders ultimately serve their members, not the state.

I suspect that in reality he's an intelligent man and that he know's well the writing is on the wall for his members.  He can't come out and say it though.  He's obliged to stay in the ring and slug it out for as long as he can.  His members pay him to do just that.  The requirement to make sense is secondary.


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Bottom line is, as a minimum 'qualification' for the job this guy should be reasonably intelligent, articulate and well informed and he fails badly in all these areas IMO.


 Exactly..


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

Purple said:


> I don't think his education, or lack of it, is the issue. There are plenty of smart people who left school early but learned their trade/business hands on.


 
I dont think his education or lack of it is the issue either,however I do think that it says something about the man.
I would also question how Smart the man is who leads in such an appalling manner..


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> Anyone know what O'Connor's house is like? I hope for his sake it's a 2 up 2 down in the Liberties or something.
> 
> Surely to jaysus even he wouldn't be so stupid as to make a comment like that if he had a 'fancy' house himself too.
> 
> Surely...


 
Wonder what he spends all his huge salary on ,if thats the case..
And if he did live in a two up two down,others may consider that a trophy house,espically those who have lost their homes.
He may end up eating those words..


----------



## z101 (3 Nov 2009)

Staples said:


> I can understand the antipathy towards Jack O'Connor but you have to remember that's he's representing the interests of those who pay his salary.
> 
> The idea that he should be required to speak rationally and act in the best interests of the State is not really consistent with his job spec. The social partnership concept has been shown up to the white elephant it (nearly) always was. Union leaders ultimately serve their members, not the state.


 
Lest we forget this. Problem is he should be thinking of the country and it's greater good. In the current climate, if he has any i.q, he must realise he has responsibilities to the country. If someone has a role to be played they have responsibilities to do what is right. Maybe it's just his own salary he is thinking of saving and believes he has to be seen to be saying this nonsense to protect it. He is no economist thats for sure.


----------



## Latrade (3 Nov 2009)

Ceatharlach said:


> Lest we forget this. Problem is he should be thinking of the country and it's greater good. In the current climate, if he has any i.q, he must realise he has responsibilities to the country. If someone has a role to be played they have responsibilities to do what is right. Maybe it's just his own salary he is thinking of saving and believes he has to be seen to be saying this nonsense to protect it. He is no economist thats for sure.


 
In fairness to him though, in his official capacity he doesn't have a remit to think of the country or greater good. He is there to represent his members. 

For all we know he may actually agree with many statements on the greater good and the national need, but in public at least he has to put forward the representations of his members.


----------



## Delboy (3 Nov 2009)

great picture of him in today's Irish Times, front page....very Stalinesque!!!


----------



## sunrock (3 Nov 2009)

What do you expect from an elected representative of his union.He is not very articulate and goes in for the rambling time wasting blather so beloved of our elected political representatives. His educational qualifications are
completely irrelevant...nobody asks our politicians this question.
The real question people should be asking is why RTE didn`t put someone like joe higgins ther to defend workers rights.
The point that jack o connor was trying to say in his round about way ...was that public sector workers wouldn`t take a pay cut but would  be amenable to tax increases.Of course this wouldn`t work because the tax increases would effect the private sector also.
I though that jacko connors answer to pat kennys question about trophy homes was very funny and Pat kenny shouldn`t have been so offended...after all it is common knowledge that he has a fine house!


----------



## Sunny (3 Nov 2009)

And he wants to introduce a higher band of tax??

50% of income earners don't pay any tax? I am shocked at that I have to say

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/1103/exchequer.html


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> > What do you expect from an elected representative of his union.
> 
> 
> To lead in a responsible manner?
> ...


----------



## thedaras (3 Nov 2009)

Delboy said:


> great picture of him in today's Irish Times, front page....very Stalinesque!!!


 
Just had a look at that,looks like a trophy suit hes wearing..


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2009)

Delboy said:


> great picture of him in today's Irish Times, front page....very Stalinesque!!!


 
You know, I'm starting to get a bit disappointed with this thread. There's so much rope in terms of what O'Connor is saying to hang him on that we don't need to resort to the personal attacks.

He's just doing his job, he has a mandate from his members and their subscriptions pay for him to represent their views at a national level. Are the views out of touch and unreasonable? Well to me yes. Are the solutions "back of fag packet pub economics"? Again: yes. However, what's the point in questioning his education, etc?

I know the above quote seems a pretty minor observation, but I'm minded of the 80s when The Sun wanted to run a picture of Scargill that caught him in a moment with his hand raised. It of course looked like a Nazi Salute. However, the printers refused to run the picture and fair play to them the paper ran without a front page picture.

The thing is, the more those opposed to these measures and actions attack the individuals presenting them, the more you cement their support and the action. 

Stick to the flaws in their plan and stick to the urgent need to introduce measures, not defer them indefinitely.

Though speaking of personal attacks, I still the the Kenny house quip was funny.


----------



## Shawady (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> And he wants to introduce a higher band of tax??
> 
> 50% of income earners don't pay any tax? I am shocked at that I have to say
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/1103/exchequer.html


 
Aggreed. A figure of 800,00 was mentioned last week of the number of low earners that pay no income tax at all. This does not seem sustainable in an economy.
Maybe there will be no change in tax rates but movement of the tax bands to bring more people in to the tax net.


----------



## thedaras (4 Nov 2009)

An apology for the Trophy house remark,was apparently left with a researcher by JackO


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> You know, I'm starting to get a bit disappointed with this thread. There's so much rope in terms of what O'Connor is saying to hang him on that we don't need to resort to the personal attacks.
> 
> He's just doing his job, he has a mandate from his members and their subscriptions pay for him to represent their views at a national level. Are the views out of touch and unreasonable? Well to me yes. Are the solutions "back of fag packet pub economics"? Again: yes. However, what's the point in questioning his education, etc?
> 
> ...


----------



## demoivre (4 Nov 2009)

thedaras said:


> An apology for the Trophy house remark,was apparently left with a researcher by JackO



He apologised to Kenny on air shortly after he made the remark. For €900k or so a year I would have expected the host to be able to handle the comment  more professionally.


----------



## thedaras (4 Nov 2009)

And for the salary that JOC is on I would have expected him not to act so unprofessionally..


----------



## thedaras (4 Nov 2009)

Regarding any comment I make re Jack O Connor,I can say that they are all in relation to the office he holds and when someone is in a position of power and has the wherewithall to bring the country to a stop,I dont see why people would not have an interest in that persons backround.

No matter whom holds the office I would still feel that I should be allowed to question their qualifactions/backround.

I think it is a cheap shot to say that the man himself is being attacked,and a clever way of stopping a disscusion..

This is all about opinions and people differ.

If for example Brian cowen had left school at 15,hadnt bothered to educate himself at a later date ,to me that would smell of someone who must be in control and doesnt like authority.I do not feel that this would be a personal attack,but a way of understanding the person whom holds the office,where they are coming from,and may even explain their behavior and regardless of whom they are, I would feel the same.

Compare it to an article written by a journalist,I would imagine that one would need to know where the person is coming from,to see how balanced their article is.

I know for a fact that in many private companys union reps are given a lot of time off to attend meetings they are paid by the private companys and yet do not hold down the real job that they were originally employed for ,but hold down a full time union rep job,This is what I mean about a "real job",however I cannot speak for how others view this.
Also it is important to remember that he may well have five degrees 5 masters for all we know...


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Nov 2009)

thedaras said:


> Regarding any comment I make re Jack O Connor,I can say that they are all in relation to the office he holds and when someone is in a position of power and has the wherewithall to bring the country to a stop,I dont see why people would not have an interest in that persons backround.
> 
> No matter whom holds the office I would still feel that I should be allowed to question their qualifactions/backround.
> 
> ...


I must correct you , Jack O'Connor does not have the power to initiate strike action , SIPTU can only initiate strike action if mandated to do so by it's members , again you are attempting to individualise matters.
All you really need to know is that Mr. O'Connor is the democratically elected Genral President of SIPTU.
His background and education are not issues.
I was a union rep for many years in a private company and attended many meetings in and out of office hours and still managed to do my job as did all the other reps I knew.
Indeed Management were only too happy to have reps trained as it suited both parties to be able to deal swiftly and centrally with IR issues.


----------



## Staples (4 Nov 2009)

sunrock said:


> The point that jack o connor was trying to say in his round about way ...was that public sector workers wouldn`t take a pay cut but would be amenable to tax increases.Of course this wouldn`t work because the tax increases would effect the private sector also.


 
It would work for the public servants he represents.  

The point was made on the programme, though, that the levels of additional tax required to balance the books would be such that the burden on public servants would be as bad.  I don't know how true this would be actually be given that the tax burden on private sector workers would also increase.


----------



## thedaras (4 Nov 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> > I must correct you , Jack O'Connor does not have the power to initiate strike action , SIPTU can only initiate strike action if mandated to do so by it's members , again you are attempting to individualise matters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sunny (4 Nov 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> All you really need to know is that Mr. O'Connor is the democratically elected Genral President of SIPTU.
> .


 
Thats the point. He was elected by members of SIPTU. Last time I looked they don't represent the majority of workers in this Country (nor does the whole trade union movement) and yet they think it is their place to try and bring the Country to a standstill to try and bully a democratically elected Government into accepting their demands with regard to the Country's fiscal policies so that the interests of their members are protected at the expense of everyone else.


----------



## thedaras (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Thats the point. He was elected by members of SIPTU. Last time I looked they don't represent the majority of workers in this Country (nor does the whole trade union movement) and yet they think it is their place to try and bring the Country to a standstill to try and bully a democratically elected Government into accepting their demands with regard to the Country's fiscal policies so that the interests of their members are protected at the expense of everyone else.


 
Couldnt agree with you more...


----------



## Deiseblue (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Thats the point. He was elected by members of SIPTU. Last time I looked they don't represent the majority of workers in this Country (nor does the whole trade union movement) and yet they think it is their place to try and bring the Country to a standstill to try and bully a democratically elected Government into accepting their demands with regard to the Country's fiscal policies so that the interests of their members are protected at the expense of everyone else.


Unions exist to protect and enhance where possible the terms and conditions of it's members.
Governments govern and unions respond or not as mandated by their members.


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2009)

thedaras said:


> I think it is a cheap shot to say that the man himself is being attacked,and a clever way of stopping a disscusion..
> 
> This is all about opinions and people differ.


 
It's not stopping debate, I expressed a discomfort with how it was progressing because the focus on JOC as an individual was to me preventing debate, diluting the debate and taking focus away from the more important issue: the substance (or lack of) in his demands.

This has nothing to do with his house, education, suit or resemblance to Joseph Stalin. 

My post was about bringing the debate back to where it should be focussed. However, we now have supposition on how expensive his suit is, whether or not he holds a real job and the issue of union officials acting as per the Constitutional and legal rights. And so we no longer discuss the issue at hand of what is the most practicable method of cutting the public sector spending while trying to ensure a standard of service.

And I'd agree, everyone has opinions but I wouldn't say that's always a good thing. No opinion whatsoever is so sacred that if there's no logic or reasoning to it, someone can't disagree and point of the flaws of the argument.


----------



## Sunny (4 Nov 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> Unions exist to protect and enhance where possible the terms and conditions of it's members.
> Governments govern and unions respond or not as mandated by their members.


 
Exactly so why do they spout all their rubbish about fairness and a 'just society' when all they care about is protecting their members terms and conditions.


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> Thats the point. He was elected by members of SIPTU. Last time I looked they don't represent the majority of workers in this Country (nor does the whole trade union movement) and yet they think it is their place to try and bring the Country to a standstill to try and bully a democratically elected Government into accepting their demands with regard to the Country's fiscal policies so that the interests of their members are protected at the expense of everyone else.


 
I can't believe I'm defending unions...but...

Employees have a right to representation through membership of a union. The social partnership set up (which despite its faults in the last years of the Celtic Tiger had a significant impact on getting us to the boom years in the first place) gives employees (via congress) to give their views on social and economic policy. 

However, in this case that is irrelevant. It is no different to any other industrial dispute where cuts are to be discussed. The employees affected are the public and civil service and it is their unions who are representing their views to their employer. It just so happens that first, their employer is the State and that their views (though mixed) is generally: "keep your hands off my pay you damned dirty ape".

This is outside social partnership and is between employer and employee. It just so happens that if the employees engage in industrial action it means the withdrawl of certain public services and it just so happens that the employer is the State.


----------



## Sunny (4 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> I can't believe I'm defending unions...but...
> 
> Employees have a right to representation through membership of a union. The social partnership set up (which despite its faults in the last years of the Celtic Tiger had a significant impact on getting us to the boom years in the first place) gives employees (via congress) to give their views on social and economic policy.
> 
> ...


 
I have nothing against union representation if that is what is people want. This is not a normal despute between employer and employee though because the Union movement is openly suggesting (with the threat of strike action janging over our heads) on how the Government should tax every citizen of this Country to protect their members.

Trade Unions don't go into a private company and annouce they are not suffering cuts and therefore the company should raise the price of the product that they sell to pay for it because they know it wouldn't work.  

Social Partnership worked before the Celtic Tiger but in the end it destroyed this Country. The only reason it survived was that Bertie Ahern bought off the Unions at every turn. Now we have to pay the price.


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> I have nothing against union representation if that is what is people want. This is not a normal despute between employer and employee though because the Union movement is openly suggesting (with the threat of strike action janging over our heads) on how the Government should tax every citizen of this Country to protect their members.
> 
> Trade Unions don't go into a private company and annouce they are not suffering cuts and therefore the company should raise the price of the product that they sell to pay for it because they know it wouldn't work.
> 
> Social Partnership worked before the Celtic Tiger but in the end it destroyed this Country. The only reason it survived was that Bertie Ahern bought off the Unions at every turn. Now we have to pay the price.


 
A minority of unions are suggesting the tax increase, it is by no means a universal view.

But it really is a typical industrial dispute, it's just the parties involved affect more people than a standard private sector one. 

As for tactics used to get the best protection for employees. Look, what you go in with before the discussion and what you're prepared to settle for are two vastly different things and that's on both sides of the table. While private sector employees generally do not have the ability to hold a country to ransom, they do still make sometimes unreasonable demands to an organisation prior to any discussion on cuts. Many will not entertain any notion in cuts no matter how desperate the circumstances.


----------



## thedaras (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> I have nothing against union representation if that is what is people want. This is not a normal despute between employer and employee though because the Union movement is openly suggesting (with the threat of strike action janging over our heads) on how the Government should tax every citizen of this Country to protect their members.
> 
> Trade Unions don't go into a private company and annouce they are not suffering cuts and therefore the company should raise the price of the product that they sell to pay for it because they know it wouldn't work.
> 
> Social Partnership worked before the Celtic Tiger but in the end it destroyed this Country. The only reason it survived was that Bertie Ahern bought off the Unions at every turn. Now we have to pay the price.


Very well said..


----------



## Sunny (4 Nov 2009)

Latrade said:


> A minority of unions are suggesting the tax increase, it is by no means a universal view.


 
It's an ICTU position so not sure you can say it is the minority of unions! Are you sure you don't want to defend them!


----------



## Latrade (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> It's an ICTU position so not sure you can say it is the minority of unions! Are you sure you don't want to defend them!


 
I'm defending again, but technically this is incorrect. You stated:


> the Government should tax every citizen of this Country to protect their members


. 
ICTU are saying increase taxes but only for the "rich" or "high earners". It was suggested that everyone should pay more tax and keep current levels in the PS and CS the same. However, this isn't the view of most unions (or even union members). 

Indeed, the ICTU position isn't unversally accepted hence seeing different unions voicing their own opinion.


----------



## DonDub (4 Nov 2009)

Sunny said:


> I have nothing against union representation if that is what is people want. This is not a normal despute between employer and employee though because the Union movement is openly suggesting (with the threat of strike action janging over our heads) on how the Government should tax every citizen of this Country to protect their members.
> 
> Trade Unions don't go into a private company and annouce they are not suffering cuts and therefore the company should raise the price of the product that they sell to pay for it because they know it wouldn't work.
> 
> Social Partnership worked before the Celtic Tiger but in the end it destroyed this Country. The only reason it survived was that Bertie Ahern bought off the Unions at every turn. Now we have to pay the price.


 
I agree, the private sector has an in-built corrective mechanic i.e. bad managenment and/or militant unions will ultimately lead a business to a point where it must radically change if it is to survive. Where this doesnt happen, the business will almost certainly fail - and close. In the PS, bad management and militant unions have had free reign - and there have (to date) been no negative consequences for those involved, no matter how unreasonable their demands/actions.
The ultimate blame lies with government, as they have spent the last 20 years in 'bed' with the unions, and are not prepared to make the hard calls required.

On JOC, if his education did indeed end at 15, I think it absolutely reasonable to question his openess to ideas and concepts beyond the confines of his union remit. Perhaps, he is well-read, perhaps not. If it turns out that a person with his influence is not educated (either formally or informally), I for one reserve the right to question his suitability for high office.


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Nov 2009)

Jack O'Connor's suitability for high office was democratically decided upon by the members of SIPTU who elected him General President.


----------



## Caveat (5 Nov 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> Jack O'Connor's suitability for high office was democratically decided upon by the members of SIPTU who elected him General President.


 
So what does that tell you?


----------



## Deiseblue (5 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> So what does that tell you?


  I have no interest in exchanging views with anyone who asked in another thread for information on the standard sentence for an assault on a trade union official.
Even with an accompanying  it was most offensive.


----------



## Caveat (5 Nov 2009)

How convenient.

As you chose not to answer a simple direct question a few weeks ago anyway, I'll take your current 'stance' with a large pinch of salt I think.


----------



## Latrade (5 Nov 2009)

DonDub said:


> On JOC, if his education did indeed end at 15, I think it absolutely reasonable to question his openess to ideas and concepts beyond the confines of his union remit. Perhaps, he is well-read, perhaps not. If it turns out that a person with his influence is not educated (either formally or informally), I for one reserve the right to question his suitability for high office.


 
Yes you would if he were representing a public office. However, he isn't. His position is the decision of the executive council of the union. They would have had to consider him the best candidate for the job (which would also have had to have been advertised externally).

All we know is that he left school at 15. Well you know what? So did my dad. And he's still someone who has a great deal of business, management and economic sense and more importantly common sense.


----------



## Sunny (5 Nov 2009)

And future nobel prize winning economists almost brought the Financial System to it's knees in the 1990's. I couldn't care less what his education is like. I judge him by what he says and what his actions are and that is where I have a problem. I don't think he is stupid or ignorant. I just fundamentally disagree with most of the things that he stands for.


----------



## ashambles (5 Nov 2009)

> Jack O'Connor's suitability for high office was democratically decided upon by the members of SIPTU who elected him General President.


I think he ran unopposed last time round, unopposed elections stretch the definition of democracy especially when you've 200,000 members and not one of them thought they'd any alternative to offer. 

On the qualifications as far as I know he went back and eventually did the leaving after he'd been forced to give up school at 15 due to some difficult situation at home. Which is an impressive thing to do. 

Ordinarily a union leader needs more belligence then intelligence, if you're working on a factory floor you don't really want a barrister to speak for you. 

However when the government bring them in to help decide economic policy - we're in trouble as this is where you really need people who know what they're doing. Then you need to take into account the lack of qualifications. 

The government ministers though largely unskilled in economics will have a range of advisors behind them helping to see what's possible, the unions guys are pretty much on their own and have to try individually to inform themselves on a huge breadth of economic topics with the handicap (or useful shortcut) of being ideologues who've learnt to simply discard the majority of options.


----------



## Latrade (5 Nov 2009)

ashambles said:


> I think he ran unopposed last time round, unopposed elections stretch the definition of democracy especially when you've 200,000 members and not one of them thought they'd any alternative to offer.
> 
> On the qualifications as far as I know he went back and eventually did the leaving after he'd been forced to give up school at 15 due to some difficult situation at home. Which is an impressive thing to do.
> 
> ...


 
We have a President who was "elected" on the basis of being unopposed. 

Plus the unions aren't just a bunch of bearded guys in Farah slacks and Hush Puppies hacking out social policy. The officials also have a team of well educated advisors and executives. It's is analogous with a Minister in the sense that the spokesperson for the Union is presenting policy hashed out by an experienced and educated workforce behind them


----------



## thedaras (5 Nov 2009)

ashambles said:


> I think he ran unopposed last time round, unopposed elections stretch the definition of democracy especially when you've 200,000 members and not one of them thought they'd any alternative to offer.
> 
> On the qualifications as far as I know he went back and eventually did the leaving after he'd been forced to give up school at 15 due to some difficult situation at home. Which is an impressive thing to do.
> 
> ...


 
I have to say this is the most intelligent response I have read so far.


----------



## thedaras (5 Nov 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I have no interest in exchanging views with anyone who asked in another thread for information on the standard sentence for an assault on a trade union official.
> Even with an accompanying  it was most offensive.


 
Why are you individualising this to caveat?
It was quite clear that caveats post was meant in fun,to most of us who have a sense of humour.
If you have no interest in exchangeing views with someone who tries to lighten the mood ,why are you posting at all.
It is quite normal behaviour that people joke and I would have thought that looking at caveats track record ,there was no offense intented.


----------



## thedaras (5 Nov 2009)

Caveat said:


> How convenient.
> 
> As you chose not to answer a simple direct question a few weeks ago anyway, I'll take your current 'stance' with a large pinch of salt I think.


Couldnt agree with you more..
The childish nitpicking is quite nauseating.
Well done on finding the highlighted post.


----------



## thedaras (7 Nov 2009)

For those of you whom are interested,there is an interview with Jack O Connor written by Kathy Sheridan in the Irish Times November 7th and can be viewed online.

In particular have a look at what he says about not contuining his education..
Heres an extract:
O’Connor says he gave
 up because he couldn’t envisage himself being able to carry on to third level at that stage. “ *I had this idea that I would go to work and I would study at night and I would get the Leaving Cert. Meanwhile, I would have earned money and I would have been able to go on to third level. I had ideas of doing something like political science or history and economics or something like that. But the other reason, to be honest about it, was that I found the second-level environment very restrictive and I didn’t like it at all. Perhaps it was more my fault than theirs but I wasn’t amenable to regimentalisation in any way, and I didn’t identify with the ethos or the outlook.” And like all his decisions, the decisio*n was made only after careful reflection.
He had a job to go to, a pleasant, family-run horticultural business. “They were very nice people . . . I couldn’t ever claim I was exploited or anything.”
So nothing there to make him an angry young man? “No. But I don’t think I was anyway. I was perhaps an idealistic young man”. His future was being set through his political activism even as he worked in pipeline construction and as a bin man. The evening classes soon folded. “I never sat the exam because there were always more pressing issues to be attended to.” Has he regrets about that? *“I do believe that I could have done a better job if I had obtained a better education and I do think it would have opened doors for me that are otherwise inaccessible. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that someone who isn’t well educated is not as well equipped as someone who is, everything else being considered, but I have endeavoured through trade union studies and through my own self-directed studying and through* engagement with other people to educate myself.”.

Draw your own conclusions...


----------

