# irish ferries (new version)



## Capaill (29 Nov 2005)

*Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Excuse my ignorance in asking this question but why is there such a fuss over Irish Ferries outsourcing jobs?

My understanding is that these jobs are being outsourced to more competitive labour who will not be resident in this country.  As such Irish Ferries does not have to worry about paying Irish minimum wages.

Having worked in the IT industry and seeing, and experiencing, the impact of outsourcing jobs to cheaper economies I am getting sick to my teeth of people protesting over their right to a job for life.

C


----------



## ClubMan (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

I think that the fuss is due to the fact that management agreed a deal with the employees and are now reneging on this and ignoring the rulings of statutory bodies (e.g. the _Labour Court _etc.) on matters.


----------



## Humpback (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

I second that. For most other people in private business employment, such redundancy activities are a fact of life, and people get on with things.

These outsourced people will be earning the internationally accepted minimum wage for onboard employees, and won't have to pay any tax, and they're being paid bed and board as well.

And if they don't like their T's & C's, like everyone else, they're entitled to leave their job and go elsewhere. They don't  have to work for Irish Ferries.

It's unfortunate that the 10% of a the current Irish Ferries crew aren't happy with their redundancy package, but most people aren't. But again, they get on with things.

Lets see ESB shop employees shutting themselves into their stores to keep out Bank of Scotland management? Or First Active/Ulster Bank employees shutting out Royal Bank of Scotland management?

Redundancies are a fact of life, and most people realise this and manage it, somehow. I know a number of people who make a pretty good living out of redundancy payments.
I've been through it myself, and have sorted myself out after a period of time. I've no sympathy for those that won't bother doing this.


----------



## Humpback (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> I think that the fuss is due to the fact that management agreed a deal with the employees and are now reneging on this and ignoring the rulings of statutory bodies (e.g. the _Labour Court _etc.) on matters.



But wasn't this only an agreement on timing rather than the substance of the agreements?


----------



## RainyDay (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> It's unfortunate that the 10% of a the current Irish Ferries crew aren't happy with their redundancy package, but most people aren't. But again, they get on with things.


Don't assume that because 90% voted to accept the offer, they were actually happy with the offer. They weren't - the gun was put to their head - accept this offer or get nothing next time round.


----------



## Humpback (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> Don't assume that because 90% voted to accept the offer, they were actually happy with the offer. They weren't - the gun was put to their head - accept this offer or get nothing next time round.


 
I accept that this is the case being put forward by the unions, but to be honest, I don't believe it.

All redundancy offers are a take it or leave it offer. Irish Ferries is no different to any other company in that fashion. You take the offer, or leave it. 

Using the terms "gun to head" is very emotive, but a complete smoke screen by the unions. Every person everywhere has a gun to their head when their offered redundancy.

It's my opinion that on an initial examination of the offer, the staff that accepted were happy enough when they got it, but when the union found out, and wanted to make their big deal about it, this is when the "next time around" issue, and "gun to heads" issues were raised.

As was mentioned on Q&A last night by the economist, I do believe that this is an issue of union relevancy more than anything else.


----------



## onekeano (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> As was mentioned on Q&A last night by the economist, I do believe that this is an issue of union relevancy more than anything else.



Fully agree, I thought Dan "Deadpan" McLoughin was brilliant last night in disecting SIPTUs real agenda on this issue and how it would not become the norm in Ireland because of the minimum wage. 

Roy


----------



## RainyDay (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> I accept that this is the case being put forward by the unions, but to be honest, I don't believe it.
> 
> All redundancy offers are a take it or leave it offer. Irish Ferries is no different to any other company in that fashion. You take the offer, or leave it.
> 
> ...


Unions are driven by their members. It's the members who decide how big an issue to make of things, not the union officials.


----------



## elcato (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Getting back to the IF dispute, they have been going downhill badly for years now which surely must be down to bad management. Has management come out and say they are accepting eastern european wages ? (I actaully dont know but haven't heard any such talk). While the staff have to take some responibilty for this I feel they are the greater losers. No doubt a certain Micko is eyeing another business venture here.


----------



## zag (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

The passenger ferry routes between Ireland & Sctoland/England/Wales will never get back to the profitability (or load) levels of 10 and more years ago.

Not unless there is some catastrophic problem with low cost airlines and if that happens people will be worrying about more than the pay rates on the ferry.

The fact is that unless you happen to be conducting business in Holyhead/Pembroke/Fishguard/Liverpool you face a long trip after you arrive on what is a relatively slow transport.  Most times it is faster and cheaper to fly somewhere, hire a car and drive to your destination than to take the ferriy.

The ferries are grand for freight, but as a passenger transport they will only get more and more expensive and less and less profitable.

z


----------



## ubiquitous (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



> Has management come out and say they are accepting eastern european wages ?



What has this to do with anything?


----------



## Gordanus (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> What has this to do with anything?




One of the things that was reported near the beginning of this dispute, was that "Irish" Ferries had brought in management consultants well over a year ago to look at increasing their profitability.  The consultants recommended that senior management/directors take a pay cut as their salaries were not justified by the profits.   Management rejected this.

By the way, I assume the poor buggers coming from E Europe will have their bed-and-board deducted from their pay; and will have to pay the normal prices for everything, including travel home, should they want to spend time with their families and friends.   Sooner or later, they will realise that international minimum wages just don't cut it in expensive economies like W Europe.  It may be ok in Asia...........


----------



## Guest127 (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

if irish ferries succeed in this con of saying they have to make irish staff redundant and replace them with less well paid eastern european (eu citizens) whats to stop Cie doing the same next year. tell the train drivers that they cant afford them and replace them with lower paid train drivers also from the eu but on much less wages. ( the min rate?) Then where? the bottom has no limit. and all the people who now feel 'wealthy' because of the equity in their houses might not feel so comfortable when government taxes etc start to dry up as income tax receipts etc starts to fall and the minister for finance has to find the money somewhere to fund an ever expanding budget. I have absolutely nothing against eastern europen citizens of the eu working in ireland. As long as employers dont try and manipulate the situation and exploit both their current staff and potential staff.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



> "Irish" Ferries had brought in management consultants well over a year ago



Are you sure that this is true? I would guess that it was the unions or someone else who made this recommendation. 

Irish Ferries has to compete with other ferry companies who have a much cheaper and much more flexible workforce. They have no choice but to implement these changes or go out of business. 

I reckon the unions should be covered by the monopoly legislation. If they don't want to work, they should not be allowed to stop other people from working.

Brendan


----------



## Lemurz (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Seems to me this whole storm is back to basics - capitalism versus socialism!

Dell, Microsoft, Pfizer, Abbott and many other large employers wouldn't be in Ireland today if we favoured the socialist model.  We can't have it both ways.

The only difference I see between manufacturing and shipping is that the ship docks in Ireland everyday.  Fair play to Dan McLoughin on Q&A the other night - he spoke sense to a totally biased panel/audience.  Definitely gets my vote for common sense.  Just is case you missed you can see it here.  Best Q&A I've watched to date!

[broken link removed]


----------



## RainyDay (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				Brendan said:
			
		

> Irish Ferries has to compete with other ferry companies who have a much cheaper and much more flexible workforce. They have no choice but to implement these changes or go out of business.


They had plenty of choices. They had the choice not to enter a multi-year agreement with their workforce which they are now walking away from. They had the choice not to heavily invest in additional capacity for the Irish Sea when every observer could see the low-cost airlines tearing away at their market. Who's paying the price for management incompetence now?



			
				Brendan said:
			
		

> I reckon the unions should be covered by the monopoly legislation. If they don't want to work, they should not be allowed to stop other people from working.



Welcome back Maggie - Where have you been all these years?



			
				Lemurz said:
			
		

> Seems to me this whole storm is back to basics - capitalism versus socialism!
> 
> Dell, Microsoft, Pfizer, Abbott and many other large employers wouldn't be in Ireland today if we favoured the socialist model.  We can't have it both ways.


Far too simplistic. Remember that it was Ruairi Quinn (Labour) as Minister for Finance who brought into the low corporation tax rate. And it was Mary Harney (PD) who brought in the minimum wage. Labels aren't helping get to the bottom of this issue.

Is there any good reason why minimum-wage legislation shouldn't apply to ferry companies, just like every other business in Ireland?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

RainyDay said:




> Welcome back Maggie - Where have you been all these years?


and just six short lines or cogent argument later...



> Labels aren't helping get to the bottom of this issue.



Unless, of course, the labels support the socialist point of view!  

Brendan


----------



## RainyDay (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

It's a fair cop - Just couldn't resist bringing the Maggie pic into the debate - must be a bit of a supressed dominatrix fetish, I reckon.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				cuchulainn said:
			
		

> if irish ferries succeed in this con of saying they have to make irish staff redundant and replace them with less well paid eastern european (eu citizens) whats to stop Cie doing the same next year.


The only reason that Irish Ferries can do this is because they can re-flag in any other EU country. This was allowed under one of the EU treaties, I think it was Maastricht but it could have been Nice. Under international law shipping companies are governed by the laws of the country that they are registered in, not the countries that they operate to and from. Therefore the case that this is the start of the “race to the bottom” does not stack up. 


			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> Is there any good reason why minimum-wage legislation shouldn't apply to ferry companies, just like every other business in Ireland?


 For the same reasons outlined above. In law they are not, or will not be, operating in Ireland. They will be operating in Cyprus but running ships from Ireland.
Before anyone gets up on their high horse about this remember that we are doing the same thing in a much more blatant way in international finance. The IFSC was founded and continues to operate by stealing jobs from other economies and as if that wasn’t bad enough we steal the corporation taxes from the economies where the income was actually generated as well. What have SIPTU or the ICTU got to say about that?  

Ferry companies have traditionally been sheltered from the cutthroat competition that exists in international freight shipping but this whole issue comes down to Zag’s point; there is no real future in passenger ferries. Therefore Irish Ferries has to become a freight company and adjust their cost base accordingly.

The ICTU is now calling for a 70’s style “national day of protest” on the 9th of this month. Why are they seeking to damage the economy and jeopardise more of the high risk, low paid jobs in this country? Would it be because most of the people working in the exposed sector of the economy do not belong to unions and have no time for them? Why not have their day of protest on a Saturday?
Are the unions making a big fuss about this because Irish Ferries used to be B&I lines which was government owned and unions are really only interested in the public sector (or former public sector) now days?

There is a lot wrong with the way the management of Irish Ferries have behaved but the unions are ignoring reality in a small economy that has been built on international trade and competition. Why don’t the boys and girls from the ICTU and the top floor of Liberty hall all line up on the beach and try and stop the tide from coming in?


----------



## Humpback (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				cuchulainn said:
			
		

> if irish ferries succeed in this con of saying they have to make irish staff redundant and replace them with less well paid eastern european (eu citizens) whats to stop Cie doing the same next year. tell the train drivers that they cant afford them and replace them with lower paid train drivers also from the eu but on much less wages. ( the min rate?) Then where? the bottom has no limit.



The limit is minimum wage legislation, fought for by the unions, and one of the highest in Europe, I understand. This arguement is bogus. It's a fact of life in every business - the alternative employees don't have to be coming from eastern europe, they could be your next door neighbour if they're qualified to do your job as well, but are willing to do your job and are offered a lower rate of pay.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Hi Ronan,
It is illegal for an Irish company to sack or make a person redundant simply to replace them with a lower paid worker doing the same job. Irish Ferries are able to do what they are doing only because of the unique situation that exists under international maritime law. That is why the union assertion that this is the start of the race to the bottom is bogus. Our Celtic tiger economy was built by doing the same thing to German and American workers. The US multinationals didn’t “create” jobs in Ireland they relocated them here. That’s how we got the jobs so we can’t complain when poorer countries do the same to us. That’s life, harsh and all that it is for those at the coalface. The hypocrisy shown by the unions would be breath  taking if it wasn’t so expected.


----------



## jem (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Great post purple.
Reading this tread there is a very obvious split- the unionised/labour supporters v the self employed/those who live in the real world .
Unions WERE very important back in history however their day has come and gone in their present format. In reality they have become more of a hinderance rather than a help trying to justify their own well paid union jobs, I can see a major strike comming for this reason- cie, an post esb one of these.See the attempt to go on strike over extra carriages on luas eventually common sense prevaled because they realised they had no support and it would damage what little respect that they retain.


----------



## RainyDay (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> The limit is minimum wage legislation, fought for by the unions, and one of the highest in Europe, I understand. This arguement is bogus. .


I wouldn't bet my house on our current minimum wage levels, which could be cut with the stroke of a pen, should our Govt so choose.



			
				jem said:
			
		

> Great post purple.
> Reading this tread there is a very obvious split- the unionised/labour supporters v the self employed/those who live in the real world .
> Unions WERE very important back in history however their day has come and gone in their present format. In reality they have become more of a hinderance rather than a help trying to justify their own well paid union jobs, I can see a major strike comming for this reason- cie, an post esb one of these.See the attempt to go on strike over extra carriages on luas eventually common sense prevaled because they realised they had no support and it would damage what little respect that they retain.


So what about non-unionised Labour supporters who live in the real world and work for US multi-nationals? Which of your convenient pigeonholes would you fit me into?

The same union leadership who you see fit to denigrate played a major role in preventing the DART drivers dispute turning into a strike which would inconvenience customers.


----------



## Humpback (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> The same union leadership who you see fit to denigrate played a major role in preventing the DART drivers dispute turning into a strike which would inconvenience customers.


 
But in the "real world" most employees who may have been asked to drive (use term loosely) a train where there is no difference to their work load or responsibilities when they're driving four trains instead of three wouldn't have made such a big deal about it in the first place. 

It was *because* they had union backup that they could make a big deal about absolutely nothing.


----------



## jem (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> So what about non-unionised Labour supporters who live in the real world and work for US multi-nationals? Which of your convenient pigeonholes would you fit me into?.



Labour supporters 



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> The same union leadership who you see fit to denigrate played a major role in preventing the DART drivers dispute turning into a strike which would inconvenience customers.


And it wasn't the union that was going on strike. It was only when they realised public opinion was so much against them that they decided against it.In one way it would have been good had they gone on strike as IMHO it would have been the straw that broke the unions back once and for all.
If we go into a +/- of unions we could break the longets tread record(we propably hold it already in the old FFv LAb tread on ezboard or the very old tread from marrion and G> on teachers. I would remind you that it is unions that are stoping more people being employed in the prision service as it will affect overtime.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> I wouldn't bet my house on our current minimum wage levels, which could be cut with the stroke of a pen, should our Govt so choose.


I would bet my house, indeed my life, that this would not happen.

Do you not accept that it is utterly hypocritical for unions on the one hand to celebrate the relocation of jobs from the US and western continental Europe to Ireland  (stealing jobs from our international labour brethren), and on the other hand giving out about the same thing happening to us? This is the positive trickle down effect of globalisation on poorer economies. 

Relocation of jobs to the Far East has lead to more freedom and helped to lift millions out of poverty. I would hope the same thing would happen in Africa in time to come. My company is affected more than most by this phenomenon but I support it 100%. We have destroyed poor economies by dumping our subsidised agricultural goods while putting up trade barriers for goods coming in the other direction. Do you think that we should give them nothing back after destroying their economies? Are those from poorer countries not entitled to sit at our table or should we keep the door closed and keep building our economy on the heads of others?
What is IBEC's stance on this?


----------



## elcato (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

In response to  


> Has management come out and say they are accepting eastern european wages ?


 ubi wrote


> What has this to do with anything?


 I'm not arguing any union position here at all so I dont fall into either category of Purples post above. I do, however, believe in the old adage of 'you should not expect someone you are in charge of to do something you are not willing to do yourself'. It has been known for years that IF were in trouble but now the blame appears to be apportioned to the staff as oppose to management. The state of their boats leave a lot to be desired. As usual though its the lowest rung that takes the brunt of the blame.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

This issue is obviously dividing people into 2 camps, both here and elsewhere. Rather than putting contentious labels on each side, I think it is more useful to describe the debate as being about the acceptable limits of free enterprise. 

In the past, I have had very bad experiences of dealing with Irish Ferries as a customer, and as such I would have a very jaundiced view of the company as a whole (but not of their staff). However I do think that the management are right to take whatever measures are necessary to adapt to their changing marketplace. Otherwise there is an obvious risk that the company will go under and in that scenario everyone will lose out. 

Of course the unions are right to argue their corner on this but this should not extend to the sort of anti-enterprise vitriol that we have been hearing from union leaders, and (shamefully) from policitians, recently. Profit is not a dirty word and it is dangerous to pretend that the whole environment for investment and enterprise in this country will not be damaged if reputable established companies are treated as ogres for restructuring their cost bases when they face difficulty.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



> I do, however, believe in the old adage of 'you should not expect someone you are in charge of to do something you are not willing to do yourself'. It has been known for years that IF were in trouble but now the blame appears to be apportioned to the staff as oppose to management. The state of their boats leave a lot to be desired. As usual though its the lowest rung that takes the brunt of the blame.



Fair enough but I fail to see how Irish Ferries' interests can be protected by cutting their pay rates to management. Any company like Irish Ferries will not prosper if they are unable to retain and attract the services of good-quality managements. If they pay less than market rates, then the only managers they will attract will be those who are not skilful or competent enough to attract market rates elsewhere.

There is, admittedly, an obvious imbalance here between management staff (who cannot feasibly be replaced by lower-paid equivalents) and operational employees (who, for better or worse, can).  There is also an uncomfortable truism that, in any scenario of business disruption, those at the bottom of the ladder will suffer disproportionately in comparison to those higher up. 

However these are facts of life and it is futile to develop business or social policy on some sort of fantasy that they don't exist in the real world.


----------



## RainyDay (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> There is, admittedly, an obvious imbalance here between management staff (who cannot feasibly be replaced by lower-paid equivalents) and operational employees (who, for better or worse, can


I would bet my house that Irish Ferries could find cheaper managers in Eastern Europe or overseas who wouldn't have driven the company into the ground by increasing capacity in a shrinking market.


----------



## jem (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

And I am sure they are like turkeys voting for christmas. 
CAn you pick one company where anyone decided to sack themselves


----------



## RainyDay (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				jem said:
			
		

> And I am sure they are like turkeys voting for christmas.
> CAn you pick one company where anyone decided to sack themselves


But isn't it the duty of the board to ensure shareholder value? If they can get cheaper managers elsewhere (possibly managers who don't buy additional capacity to respond to a shrinking market), shouldn't the board (as opposed to the managers themselves) be making this happen?


----------



## Humpback (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				jem said:
			
		

> CAn you pick one company where anyone decided to sack themselves


 
Well, technically, anyone who accepts a redundancy offer is voting to sack themselves.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

A spokesman for Irish Ferries said on the radio on Tuesday that the number of managers had been reduced by one third over the last few years so they have taken some pain as well. The reality is that as a group the wages of the managers is irrelevant in comparison to those of the crew. 
90% of the crew have accepted the terms of the deal and 10% are screwing things up for everyone. That’s not very democratic, but since when have unions been interested in democracy?


----------



## Gordanus (30 Nov 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				zag said:
			
		

> The ferries are grand for freight, but as a passenger transport they will only get more and more expensive and less and less profitable.
> 
> z




As the passenger numbers go down, they will need less staff.  They need to attract more of the freight business.  I presume this is what they wanted to do when they hired the Philipina hairdresser at E1 per hour?   The lorry drivers were just desperate for a hairstyling session - and maybe a massage, a facial,  and a bit of a day spa on the trip?


----------



## Gordanus (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

From yesterday's Irish Times (not everyone has a subscription):
Irish Continental Group (owner of Irish Ferries) Board:

Executive directors:
E Rothwell E687,000 in 2004, up from E652,000 in 2003
G O'Dea E321,000 in 2004, up from E283,000
A Kelly E224,000 in 2004, same as 2003

Non-exec directors:
J McGuckian  E73,000 in 2004, up from E35,000 in 2003
P Crowley E40,000 in 2004, up from E9,000 in 2003
B Somers E33,000 in 2004

Profits before tax were E9.2million, down for E17.7million the previous year (2003).

hmmmmmm.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

This levels of salaries would not be untypical for the board members of a  public limited company.


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Hi Gordanus, that's a total increase of €142'000 for the board. It's nothing in the scheme of things. The biggest proportional increases were given to the non-exec directors. Do you know if their workload increased in 2005? Non-executive directors can do anything from a few days a year to a few days a week so their pay level can vary hugely.


----------



## MOB (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

I am sorry to go off on a tangent, but:

Q.  What's the difference between a non-exec director and a shopping trolley?

A.  A shopping trolley has a mind of its own, and there's a limit to how much food you can pack into it.


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Very good MOB, you cynic you.


----------



## Gordanus (1 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> Hi Gordanus, that's a total increase of €142'000 for the board. It's nothing in the scheme of things.




Even when the profits are so reduced?

"It's nothing in the scheme of things"

Obviously am in the wrong sector........money is obviously more important than say, running major hospitals and being personally liable for things going wrong, like Senior Consultants/Clinical Directors. But that's another thread.

How does one get to be a non-executive director? Should I post this in the Careers Forum?


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				Gordanus said:
			
		

> money is obviously more important than say, running major hospitals and being personally liable for things going wrong, like Senior Consultants/Clinical Directors.
> QUOTE]
> This is off topic but how many Senior Consultants/Clinical Directors have been held personally liable to the extent of loosing their job over the last 10 years. Incidentally only the top two people in the company earn more than the average hospital consultant. Senior consultants earn more than any of them. So why not apply for one of those jobs while you are at it.
> 
> The point is that top jobs pay well. What matters is how the top people perform and for me the big issue is how those charged with running Irish Ferries managed to get to this stage, why didn't they do something sooner?


----------



## Gordanus (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

From the Irish Ferries annual report published last April, quoted in Saturday's Irish Times:
"....good corporate citizenship, conducting its business with integrity and respect for others......offer a positive employment environment ........ respect the environment and communities within which it operates.....positive employment policies that provide equal and  opportunities for all existing and potential employees...........we have collective agreements in place with a significant proportion of our employees and if and when disputes arise we are committed to following the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in these agreements"

This report also states "the Directors have a reasonable expectation the Company and the Group have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future."

Personally, I  feel the Irish Ferries dispute is the celtic Tiger showing its claws.  Ever since we accepted that companies can operate without trade unions here in Ireland - remember that McDonalds dispute in the 80s? - conditions were bound to go backwards for workers.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Does anyone have figured for what proportion of those working on board the ferries operated by other companies on the Irish Sea are employed directly? 
It struck me that if Stenna etc contract out the restaurants and cleaning etc on board and the logistics etc on land to low cost labour at the moment then they can say that they will not do the same thing to their staff as Irish Ferries but in reality they would be doing so at the moment.
Are Irish ferries actually operating at a competitive disadvantage at the moment and if not why can the other Ferry companies continue to operate at a profit with the same cost base? 
Is it true that they have better conditions than any other ferry workers (e.g. one week on, one week off)?
Something doesn’t stack up and I haven’t seen any real analyses in the media examining the veracity of the claims made by either side.


----------



## ubiquitous (5 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



> This report also states "the Directors have a reasonable expectation the Company and the Group have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future."


This is a standard "going concern" declaration that the directors of all companies are required to make in their annual accounts. In general if the directors are unable or unwilling to make such a declaration, this is generally understood as a sign that a company is insolvent or in imminent danger of collapse. The term "foreseeable future" in this context covers the period of 12 months from the date when the accounts are signed off. There are specific procedures that a company must follow in relation to the way its accounts are presented when a negative declaration is made in this regard. 

I didn't read the Irish Times article to which you refer but it is utterly misleading to infer that the long-term profitability outlook of any company can be assured as a result of such a declaration appearing in the accounts. 



> Ever since we accepted that companies can operate without trade unions here in Ireland - remember that McDonalds dispute in the 80s? - conditions were bound to go backwards for workers.



If we had accepted the opposite principle and made it compulsory for employers to accept trade union representation for their employees, how many of our biggest and best employers such as Dell, Intel or Microsoft would have established themselves here? Forgive me if I'm deluded but I would have thought that working entitlements and conditions for employees have vastly improved on all fronts since the 80s.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



> _From RTE news web site today_ The announcement comes as 71 jobs are lost at a manufacturing plant in Rathnew, Co Wicklow. The gas equipment maker Harris Calorific is to close its plant before the end of the year and is to relocate to Eastern Europe. The company said rising labour costs had made it difficult to compete with rivals.
> 
> Separately, 85 jobs are to be lost in Indreabhán, Co Galway with the closure of Maysteel Teoranta. The company lost out on a major contract with IBM last week, and has failed to find another market for its computer components.Workers are to be briefed in a meeting with management this afternoon. It is expected the company will cease trading early in the New Year.


What is the difference between what Irish Ferries are doing and what is happening every day in the open part of the economy, i.e. outsourcing to a lower cost economy but continuing to sell their products in Ireland?
Why do the unions not care about the above?
Why are they asking workers in equally precarious positions to take the day off on Friday? 
What sort of a signal does that send to the corporate bean counters in the head offices of multi national companies who are looking at our high labour costs and asking themselves if things would not be better in Poland or India?
Given the above why not have their day out on Saturday?


----------



## CCOVICH (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> What is the difference between what Irish Ferries are doing and what is happening every day in the open part of the economy, i.e. outsourcing to a lower cost economy but continuing to sell their products in Ireland?
> Why do the unions not care about the above?


 
It's been the same in Donegal over the last few years, many more jobs have been lost than what is at stake in Irish ferries, and there hasn't been too much said by Bertie or the unions.  I guess the difference is that Irish Ferries have are not leaving the country (just reflagging) and are and Irish company as opposed to a multinational.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Donegal has been hit harder than anywhere else in the country from what I can see. But that's life in the real world. The unions don't comment on it since they don't have to live in it.


----------



## RainyDay (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> What is the difference between what Irish Ferries are doing and what is happening every day in the open part of the economy, i.e. outsourcing to a lower cost economy but continuing to sell their products in Ireland?


Irish Ferries aren't outsourcing to a lower cost economy. They are outsourcing to lower cost staff within the same economy. No other employer in Ireland has fired staff and replaced them directly in situ with cheaper staff (and tried to get the state to subsidise their termination costs via redundancy support & tax relief).

But as it happens, I agree with you about holding the demo on Saturday.


----------



## daithi (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

if Irish Ferries are in such dire straits, maybe the management should be outsourced....daithi


----------



## markowitzman (6 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

I think outsourcing is a defacto part of all modern industry. It has been happening in the states for ages. Irish Ferries mode of action though is comical.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> Irish Ferries aren't outsourcing to a lower cost economy. They are outsourcing to lower cost staff within the same economy.


Legally they are outsourcing to a lower cost economy, they are serving the
same economy. This is not the start of the race to the bottom that the unions and some left wing commentator’s claim since no land based company can re-flag. The equivalent for other companies is to up sticks and move the whole operation. My point is that this is happening every week and for the people who loose their jobs it matters not a whit where the new operation is based.



			
				RainyDay said:
			
		

> No other employer in Ireland has fired staff and replaced them directly in situ with cheaper staff (and tried to get the state to subsidise their termination costs via redundancy support & tax relief).


 No other company in Ireland can, unless they are a shipping company.

I think what Irish Ferries is doing is regrettable but probably necessary. I think the way they have done it is disgraceful. 
What gets me most is the hypocrisy of those who complain about this and ignore the fact that the Irish economy has been built by having a parasitic relationship with richer countries.


----------



## jem (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

if it was back in the 1980's and the other way around we would be over the moon. In fact that is what happened with companies closing else where and moving here for our low wages(at the time) /low taxes etc.
swings and roundabouts.
quite frankly IMHO anyone who misses work to attend this "rally"(extra days shopping) should be assumed to have walked out of their job and therefore have left same for good.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



> No other employer in Ireland has fired staff and replaced them directly in situ with cheaper staff (and tried to get the state to subsidise their termination costs via redundancy support & tax relief).



Wake up. This happens every day of the week. Literallly, thousands and thousands of Irish companies (large and small) have gone through processes of making cleaning or other low-level operational employees redundant and engaging contractors to take responsibility for hiring staff to do exactly the same work in exactly the same place, except at lower cost.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

I'd bet a pound (or Euro) to a pinch of you know what that over 90% of those at the "rally" will be public sector workers. The rest of us will just have to work a bit harder to cover their wages. As usual the unions have hijacked a difficult situation and are using it for their own selfish ends. They would be just as happy to feed the Irish Ferries workers to the wolves if it suited their public sector/ civil service agenda.


----------



## Humpback (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Moderators etc - can we have a poll set up regarding this "Day of Protest"? Determine those who would/will go, versus those who wouldn't.

For me, I'm not going. I wouldn't go. And I don't support it at all. I'd love to see the same gardai on patrol that worked the infamous May Day Protests


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

Internet polls are a joke as they are so easy to manipulate.


----------



## Humpback (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Internet polls are a joke as they are so easy to manipulate.


 
Fair enough. 

But disagree with your comment. Polls can be set up to accept only one vote from individual IP addresses to ensure that a person only votes once.


----------



## jem (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

We will try it on this occation if it is messed up it will be the last one.


----------



## Vanilla (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*

How do you vote?


----------



## jem (7 Dec 2005)

I have re done this tread with a new version of the poll.


----------



## Ham Slicer (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Moderators etc - can we have a poll set up regarding this "Day of Protest"? Determine those who would/will go, versus those who wouldn't.
> 
> For me, I'm not going. I wouldn't go. And I don't support it at all. I'd love to see the same gardai on patrol that worked the infamous May Day Protests



Agree totally.  If you supply the blue shirts I'll bring the batons


----------



## RainyDay (7 Dec 2005)

*Re: Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> But disagree with your comment. Polls can be set up to accept only one vote from individual IP addresses to ensure that a person only votes once.


It's easy enough to manipulate IP addresses. Dial-up & broadband users are likely to get different IP addresses each time they dial-up.


----------



## car (7 Dec 2005)

Im getting



> Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: *4*. You may not vote on this poll



Although mutiple IPs are easily used by same person, would they really be bothered?  Id guess theres same amount of people who voted once during the day for one option and cant wait to get home and vote from the their home pc as there are those who want to vote another.


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

car said:
			
		

> Although mutiple IPs are easily used by same person, would they really be bothered? Id guess theres same amount of people who voted once during the day for one option and cant wait to get home and vote from the their home pc as there are those who want to vote another.


 
In my boring boring job last year, I had great fun manipulating a poll that Fine Gael did on their website. Allowed multiple voting from same IP address. Did all that, told them I'd done it, and they still went public with the results. Do newspaper journalists do any research into what people tell them at all? Even something as simple as if you added the percentages of votes, it came to a total of 120%.

I wonder is this a forerunner to how they're planning to win the next election


----------



## Observer (8 Dec 2005)

Trying to vote - can't, not allowed. And I'm only trying to vote once - this isn't Northern Ireland, you know 

But if I could; Yes, I support the demo
Yes, I will be there
Yes, participants should be paid........but on the following basis only, which is what happens in my own employment: Trade unions should approach employers requesting co-operation in facilitating the attendance of a small delegation from each workplace, where this is practically possible without undue disruption to services. I believe decent employers should respond positively to this request on the basis that it is supportive of the social partnership/industrial peace consensus that has been of enormous benefit to both employers and workers in the economy. 

I don't suppose the Neanderthal school of industrial relations will agree, but it's a free country........


----------



## Cahir (8 Dec 2005)

I still can't vote but:

Employees shouldn't be paid
I wouldn't attend
I don't support the protest


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

Observer said:
			
		

> Trade unions should approach employers requesting co-operation in facilitating the attendance of a small delegation from each workplace, where this is practically possible without undue disruption to services.


 
What about teachers trade unions in secondary schools requesting principals that students be allowed leave school on Friday to attend the protest as well?

I think this is disgraceful. Saying that they should be allowed because it's their own future (the students) that's at stake in this whole issue.

I don't suppose being a sea-man on the Irish Sea is very high on the jobs that career guidance teachers are being asked about.

Scaremongering in its worst form.


----------



## jem (8 Dec 2005)

Observer said:
			
		

> Trying to vote - can't, not allowed. And I'm only trying to vote once - this isn't Northern Ireland, you know
> 
> But if I could; Yes, I support the demo
> Yes, I will be there
> ...



Why on earth should an employer pay for u to take off x no. of hours. Since u want to go why shouldn't you bear the cost?
I belive decent employees should pay their own way.


----------



## Observer (8 Dec 2005)

jem said:
			
		

> Why on earth should an employer pay for u to take off x no. of hours. Since u want to go why shouldn't you bear the cost?
> I belive decent employees should pay their own way.


 
Because the stable system of industrial relations we have in this country has been successful and has benefitted both sides of industry. Irish Ferries behaviour puts this at risk and hence poses a risk to employers as well as workers. I'm simply suggesting that, *where possible/practicable*, it is in the interest of decent employers to co-operate with the release of a *small* number of staff to attend the demo.

Same reason that when unions step out of line or depart from national norms, other unions and ICTU will put pressure on them to come back in line.  Happens all the time.


----------



## jem (8 Dec 2005)

So it is ok for the employer to be out of pocket for the employee taking an extra's days holidays but it isn't ok for the employee to be out of pocket.


----------



## Humpback (8 Dec 2005)

Observer said:
			
		

> Irish Ferries behaviour puts this at risk and hence poses a risk to employers as well as workers.


 
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, this is rubbish. 

While the manner in which Irish Ferries have acted is unfortunate, they are not doing anything that would risk any future industrial relations peace and tranquility by the basic facts of what they are doing - something which they are legally entitled to do by Irish and international laws.

It is the actions of the unions and their calls for reviews of whether or not they'd re-enter national negotiations for the next round that is jeopardising industrial relations in this country.

There is nothing that is being done by Irish Ferries that is going to "pose a risk to employers" - it is the actions of the unions that is doing this indirectly because of their threat not to involve themselves in future national negotiations.


----------



## Marie (8 Dec 2005)

*Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Fair enough but I fail to see how Irish Ferries' interests can be protected by cutting their pay rates to management. Any company like Irish Ferries will not prosper if they are unable to retain and attract the services of good-quality managements. If they pay less than market rates, then the only managers they will attract will be those who are not skilful or competent enough to attract market rates elsewhere.
> 
> There is, admittedly, an obvious imbalance here between management staff (who cannot feasibly be replaced by lower-paid equivalents) and operational employees (who, for better or worse, can). There is also an uncomfortable truism that, in any scenario of business disruption, those at the bottom of the ladder will suffer disproportionately in comparison to those higher up.
> 
> However these are facts of life and it is futile to develop business or social policy on some sort of fantasy that they don't exist in the real world.


 
The logic here appears to be (i) management, though they have failed in their task to make/keep IF viable and profitable are sacrosanct and "irreplaceable" so nothing must change there; (ii) their employees have done everything required of them but because of something imputed to be a law of nature (i.e. "the way of the world") they can lose their living because the individuals in (i) have been remiss in their responsibilities.

So this would be an inversion of that sensible New Testament injunction:- "Of him to whom much is given, much will be expected; and of him to whom little is given, little will be expected"..........which incidentally is Karl Marx's idea of fundamental social justice, of contribution to the common weal(th) according to ability and access to the common weal(th) in proportion to one's need in time of need.  

This is in my view fundamental respect for others. 

To the initial question of "why the fuss", perhaps this arises from recognition that this event and others which are not raised to national and international profile but which are occurring presently are (i) shifting the balance of power and wealth in such a manner that private individuals and shareholders of private enterprises (e.g. Rupert Murdoch, Warner/AOL, Disney Corporation) now hold more power and wealth than many nations and that (ii) this ushers in regression of conditions for the individual employee - in terms of insecurity and potential for exploitation - to those of the 1930's and 1940's when people died of starvation and families sold their children into "service" abroad because they could not feed them.

Lest we forget.


----------



## Marie (8 Dec 2005)

*Why such a fuss over Irish Ferries?*



			
				Purple said:
			
		

> I'd bet a pound (or Euro) to a pinch of you know what that over 90% of those at the "rally" will be public sector workers. The rest of us will just have to work a bit harder to cover their wages. As usual the unions have hijacked a difficult situation and are using it for their own selfish ends. They would be just as happy to feed the Irish Ferries workers to the wolves if it suited their public sector/ civil service agenda.


 
I suspect when the chickens of privatisation, so-called "public-private partnership", "outsourcing" and "contracting-out" come home to roost there may be some nostalgia for those bad bad folk who work in what is scathingly (and completely erroneously) perceived as an underworked, overpaid "public sector".

Ireland is rushing towards this at full tilt.  A more reasoned approach might be to research the hard evidence of the myth "public sector bad, private sector good" (Orwell's Animal Farm........and remember how _that_ cookie crumbled!)  To take just one instance - UK health services -  contracting-out has resulted in surgical procedures which regularly breach safety standards and leave patients severely impaired as well as traumatised, increasingly-infectious hospitals which themselves produce iatrogenous dangers, increased staff turnover, performance of critical work such as drug-prescribing by lesser-trained personnel to reduce budgets for medically-trained doctors,  _increased_ inefficiency and bureaucracy, _increased _(not decreased!) waste.


----------



## Observer (8 Dec 2005)

jem said:
			
		

> So it is ok for the employer to be out of pocket for the employee taking an extra's days holidays but it isn't ok for the employee to be out of pocket.


 I'm not saying it should be *compulsory* for employees to be paid - i'm merely saying that reasonable employers and unions might well reach *agreement* on paid release for a *small* delegation from a particular employment.  I don't see how this is unreasonable and its the sort of thing union and management negotiators can handle without difficulty where there is a history of positive relationships in the workplace.


----------



## Marion (8 Dec 2005)

Observer,

Your proposal is entirely reasonable and extremely balanced.

Marion


----------



## RainyDay (8 Dec 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> What about teachers trade unions in secondary schools requesting principals that students be allowed leave school on Friday to attend the protest as well?
> 
> I think this is disgraceful. Saying that they should be allowed because it's their own future (the students) that's at stake in this whole issue.
> 
> I don't suppose being a sea-man on the Irish Sea is very high on the jobs that career guidance teachers are being asked about.


I'd suggest that 5th year or 6th year pupils would learn more about life by participating (or even opposing) this protest for an afternoon than from reading their usual textbooks.


----------



## Humpback (9 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that 5th year or 6th year pupils would learn more about life by participating (or even opposing) this protest for an afternoon than from reading their usual textbooks.


 
Totally accept this RainyDay, but unfortunately, given who's getting them to leave school for the day to go to the protest, they're hardly likely to get a balanced description of what's actually going on.

A couple of hours reading AAM rather than being inducted into union activities for an afternoon would be far more worth while way of learning about life.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> What about teachers trade unions in secondary schools requesting principals that students be allowed leave school on Friday to attend the protest as well?
> 
> I think this is disgraceful. Saying that they should be allowed because it's their own future (the students) that's at stake in this whole issue.
> 
> ...


 I think this is a sinister move by teachers trade unions. Has anyone any info on how many/ any children went to the protests.



> I'm simply suggesting that, where possible/practicable, it is in the interest of decent employers to co-operate with the release of a small number of staff to attend the demo.


  Not one person in my company asked to go or took the day off to go. These sort of publicity stunts by the unions are treated with derision and contempt by most people working in private sector that I have talked to. 

All of the reasons why this is a red herring and is not the thin end of the wedge etc, has been outlined above by various posters. Those who do not see this choose not to see because reality doesn't fit in with their political beliefs. 
Irish trade unions sold out the poor years ago. They sold out low paid workers at the same time. They have no interest in really helping to keep low paid and/or manufacturing jobs in this country because doing so would require them to push for wage moderation and a more business friendly environment. 100 jobs a week are going in manufacturing, the traditional home of the trade union, and they are doing nothing about it because things like benchmarking and the realities of what that does to the cost base of the economy does not fit in with their real public sector agenda.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2005)

The pointlessness of Friday's exercise was underlined in stark terms this morning with the emergence of news of a grubby turf war between SIPTU and the Seamen's Union over who is going to represent the new Irish Ferries workforce.


----------



## Observer (12 Dec 2005)

Purple said:
			
		

> I think this is a sinister move by teachers trade unions. Has anyone any info on how many/ any children went to the protests.


Yes, I saw about 3 groups of students in uniform, about 40 to 50 in total I'd guess.  There may have been more...hard to see all parts of the demo.  They seemed to be in good spirits and enjoying the occasion like everybody else.  No sinister mind control by teachers was in evidence.  Anecdotally, I believe they were from schools that had closed early for the day.  AFAIK No schools/teachers brought or made arrangements for pupils to attend - insurance issues etc.



			
				purple said:
			
		

> Not one person in my company asked to go or took the day off to go.


fair enough..... presumably they're all delighted to have such an exemplary employer who treats them all with complete fairness and honesty all the time....hope it lasts 



			
				purple said:
			
		

> These sort of publicity stunts by the unions are treated with derision and contempt by most people working in private sector that I have talked to.


 Fair enough, I suppose your private sector acquaintances must not be representative of the tens of thousands of private sector workers on the march.



			
				purple said:
			
		

> All of the reasons why this is a red herring and is not the thin end of the wedge etc, has been outlined above by various posters. Those who do not see this choose not to see because reality doesn't fit in with their political beliefs.


 Or could it possibly be because they have an analysis of society and ethics that differs from yours?  This doesn't make them wrong, you know, just different.




			
				purple said:
			
		

> Irish trade unions sold out the poor years ago. They sold out low paid workers at the same time.


 Really?  Trade unions have fought for, and achieved, the highest minimum wage in Europe, lower taxes - particularly for the lower paid, and improved employee rights legislation.  The minimum wage in particular, didn't just fall like manna from heaven. It was negotiated through successive partnership agreements, largely by unions whose memberships would earn in excess of it anyway.  So much for selling out the poor!  



			
				purple said:
			
		

> They have no interest in really helping to keep low paid and/or manufacturing jobs in this country because doing so would require them to push for wage moderation and a more business friendly environment.


An extraordinary argument!!  Wage moderation helps the low paid, huh?  Jeez, how could trade unions have got it so wrong all these years looking for *increased* wages to offset poverty?  And all along, they just had to look for more moderation in wages, tut, tut, so simple   I must explain that one to the lads down in ICTU!!  And a more business friendly environment too? Presumably you mean less of that tiresome legislation that actually gives RIGHTS to the working classes.  Yes, far too good for the likes of them! I suppose that we can just trust the Gama/Irish Ferries of this world to offer secure employment to the poor if we lift the "burden" of state regulation off their backs?



			
				purple said:
			
		

> 100 jobs a week are going in manufacturing, the traditional home of the trade union, and they are doing nothing about it because things like benchmarking and the realities of what that does to the cost base of the economy does not fit in with their real public sector agenda.


The only "agenda" trade unions operate to is to increase the long term, sustainable, pay and conditions of employment of all their members, public and private sector. Nothing hidden about that!  I can assure you that private sector unions are every bit as effective as their public sector counterparts in doing this.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2005)

Observer, I have no problem with children attending the protest. I have a problem with teachers pushing their political agenda on their students, if it happened. 





> fair enough..... presumably they're all delighted to have such an exemplary employer who treats them all with complete fairness and honesty all the time....hope it lasts


 You have it in one. They also realise that we have to compete with companies all over the world.


> Fair enough, I suppose your private sector acquaintances must not be representative of the tens of thousands of private sector workers on the march.


 My private sector acquaintances have international competition. They live in a different world to the trade union sector and know that unionised work practices close them down. No one likes what Irish Ferries are doing but they realise that this has bugger all to do with Irish Ferries and lots to do with trade unions getting air time and page space in the media. 


> Really? Trade unions have fought for, and achieved, the highest minimum wage in Europe


 Which costs jobs in the internationally traded good and services sector, but screw them they aren’t in unions. Is that what you are saying?


> lower taxes -


 Rubbish


> The minimum wage in particular, didn't just fall like manna from heaven. It was negotiated through successive partnership agreements, largely by unions whose memberships would earn in excess of it anyway. So much for selling out the poor!


 But their pay rises have been relative to those whose wages went up with the minimum wage. The reality is that €7.5 an hour minimum wage has cost this country thousands of jobs. €5.50 an hour is better than no job. Unions see this but don’t care.


> And all along, they just had to look for more moderation in wages, tut, tut, so simple I must explain that one to the lads down in ICTU!!


 Are you trying to tell me that Benchmarking for civil servants made this country more competitive and will result in employment growth?!?


> Presumably you mean less of that tiresome legislation that actually gives RIGHTS to the working classes


 Who are the "working classes"? According to Tony Ben they are anyone who relies on their weekly wage, earned for the work they do, for an income. That means me and most everyone else who runs a business or is in a management position as well as those who fill other rolls on the economy. The modern trade union movement is a sick parody of the one that James Connelly and people like my great uncle founded in this country. A fat lot of good the unions were to the Gamma workers, the first read incident of blatant exploitation in about 30 years and they failed utterly. No soft government to push around so they crawled back into their hole with their tail between their legs.


> The only "agenda" trade unions operate to is to increase the long term, sustainable, pay and conditions of employment of all their members


 I agree, and damn the rest of us who have to pay the bill.


----------



## RainyDay (12 Dec 2005)

So just to clarify Purple - You're saying that the 100,000 people who marched last Friday are just too dumb to understand what's really going on - 100,000 people are being duped by their unions - Is that what you're telling us?


----------



## Observer (13 Dec 2005)

OK, purple, you say that the unions have "sold out" the poor, the minimum wage has cost "thousands of jobs" and that €5.50 an hour is better than no wage. 

So how far do we carry your logic?  Isn't €4.50 an hour better than no wage?  €3.50/hr?  €3/hr?  €2/hr?  Do we go right down to 50c/hr?  After all, if the great god of "international competitiveness" must be appeased, that's all right then?  Would you be prepared to work for €5.50 yourself?  If not, then you have a damn cheek suggesting it's ok for others.  Can you not accept that there are standards below which we should not be prepared to let our society sink, no matter what the "economic imperative" dictates.  In other words, the market, on its own, does NOT solve all socio-economic problems and it is necessary to intervene, particularly around the edges, to ensure a somewhat fair society.

And you know what?  Every single intervention in the labour market, every single piece of employment protection legislation we've got was opposed, bitterly, by IBEC and their predecessors and cheerleaders.  Go right back to equal pay for women - not possible, we were told, would wreck the country, end of civilisation as we know it.  Maternity Leave?  Have you heard the whinging from ISME?  Minimum 20 days annual leave - serious loss of competitiveness.  The minimum wage - a serious disadvantage to job creation, according to IBEC (and purple)    

But!  We've got what is effectively full employment now.  In fact, the Irish population can't fill all the jobs on offer (at minimum wage or above) and we are seeing tens of thousands of immigrants per year take up the slack.  So if we've got full employment at the minimum wage, where are the tens of thousands of jobs lost by its introduction?

Or put it another way - reducing or abolishing the minimum wage will not bring more people into employment but it will mean that some of those in employment will earn less.  By and large, these will be the less well educated and unskilled and disadvantaged.  Is this what you want? You invoke Connolly and others of that era - I can't help but think that Connolly would nod approvingly at the minimum wage - granted perhaps as only a temporary stepping stone but that's a different story.....

I do agree with the Bennite definition of the working classes - ie those that derive their income from selling their labour rather than from investing their capital or employing the labour of others.  (OK, there are anomalies, but its a good enough working definition.)  Trade unions exist to maximise the share of national wealth that goes to "labour" rather than "capital" - that benefits all "workers", be they public sector or private sector, and of course, you and me.  Put simply, in national wage negotiations, the better deal negotiated by the unions benefits workers in unionised employment directly and automatically.  But the "headline" figure also inevitably "informs" and influences wage movement in the wider economy, thus benefitting almost all workers.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2005)

To be clear Observer, I am not saying that the unions sold out the poor over the minimum wage. IMHO, and I am no economist, benchmarking sold out the poor. The civil and public service unions pushed for benchmarking, or large pay increases for their members, but insisted that there was no increase in direct taxation to pay for it. The government was also pushing that policy so PAYE increases were never on the cards. Both government and unions alike knew that increases in indirect taxes were the only answer. So we got bin charges and increases in fees and other charges that we all had to pay. These charges affect poor people more than the better off. The cost was not just met with charges; it was met by not spending on social welfare etc.  The unions knew this and still went for it; they pushed a policy that redistributed wealth upwards. I   don’t think Connelly etc would have been chuffed by that. Personally I have no problem paying more tax in order to help those at the bottom. I do object to those at the bottom being squeezed to give more to those in the middle.



> Would you be prepared to work for €5.50 yourself?


Yes, I have worked for £1 an hour. I have been working for 15 years and have acquired a number of skills and qualifications over that time. I would not expect anyone in this country to work for less than €7.5 an hour in similar circumstances. I would expect anyone to start work on less than that if they were 17 and had no skills. What the minimum wage has done is wipe out the apprentice system in many industries because most young people don’t see the long term gain, they just see that they can get more money working in McDonalds.
I have no problem with the minimum wage, I have a problem with it being €7.50 an hour in an economy that is built on stealing jobs from higher cost economies where the only indigenous growth seems to be in the construction industry. Bubble anyone?
Our internationally traded goods and services sector is shrinking as a proportion of our overall economy. Do you think this is a good thing?

By the way equal pay for women in the civil and public service was given at the same time as the marriage bar was removed, both in 1973 in anticipation of the EU Equal Treatment Directive. As far as I remember the unions opposed this. Unions, like political parties, like to take credit for things that they had little to do with. 



> reducing or abolishing the minimum wage will not bring more people into employment but it will mean that some of those in employment will earn less. By and large, these will be the less well educated and unskilled and disadvantaged. Is this what you want?


   Reducing the minimum wage will bring more of the poorest people into employment and that’s exactly what I want. Having a job gives an income but it also give the opportunity to increase your skills and increase your earnings, it gives you a better chance of getting another job but most of all it gives you dignity and a sense of self worth. Very few people stay on their starting rate of pay for years. No one minds starting low as long as there is the opportunity to move up. There is no chance of a pay rise on the dole.  



> Trade unions exist to maximise the share of national wealth that goes to "labour" rather than "capital" - that benefits all "workers", be they public sector or private sector, and of course, you and me. Put simply, in national wage negotiations, the better deal negotiated by the unions benefits workers in unionised employment directly and automatically. But the "headline" figure also inevitably "informs" and influences wage movement in the wider economy, thus benefitting almost all workers.


I agree with the first bit but don’t accept your premise that pay raises in what are for the most part heavily protected sectors of the economy benefit “almost all workers”.
Unions, like ISME and IBEC, are pressure groups that represent their members. They have no social or moral agenda beyond that.


----------



## ubiquitous (13 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> So just to clarify Purple - You're saying that the 100,000 people who marched last Friday are just too dumb to understand what's really going on - 100,000 people are being duped by their unions - Is that what you're telling us?



The logical extension of this argument is that Arnold Schwartznegger was 100% correct to refuse clemency to death-row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams because the 100 million + Americans who support the death penalty couldn't all be wrong. And the London & Madrid bombings and the 911 attacks on the US were justified because the millions of Al Queda supporters around the globe couldn't all be wrong either...


----------



## RainyDay (13 Dec 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> The logical extension of this argument is that Arnold Schwartznegger was 100% correct to refuse clemency to death-row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams because the 100 million + Americans who support the death penalty couldn't all be wrong. And the London & Madrid bombings and the 911 attacks on the US were justified because the millions of Al Queda supporters around the globe couldn't all be wrong either...


That's a pretty breathtaking logical leap, which misses the fundamental point of the original premise - that the 100,000 just don't understand what is happening in Irish Ferries.


----------



## stuart (14 Dec 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> That's a pretty breathtaking logical leap, which misses the fundamental point of the original premise - that the 100,000 just don't understand what is happening in Irish Ferries.


 
To rob another members signature

the mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. Adolf Hitler.


----------



## podgerodge (14 Dec 2005)

this seems like an amicable agreement


----------

