# Court rules against JLC's



## Shawady (7 Jul 2011)

Don't know if this is the correct forum but I thought it was worth posting this item. The court has ruled that the JLC system is un-constitutional. The are 5 or 6 other cases like this in the pipeline. The electrian contractors group is one taking such a case.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0707/jlc.html


----------



## Sunny (7 Jul 2011)

The judges strike back!


----------



## Shawady (7 Jul 2011)

It puts FG in a strong position with the Labour party to push through their JLC reforms .


Mods, i just noticed the Employment forum. This thread is probably better suited there.


----------



## Purple (7 Jul 2011)

Excellent news! 
Anything that takes the government out of our day to day lives is a good thing.


----------



## Chris (8 Jul 2011)

Indeed Purple, the big worry left now though is whether employers will be forced to recognise Unions. I think this is the bigger problem. But anyway, every little helps to encourage employment.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Jul 2011)

I think that between the Government's pledge to introduce legislation on collective bargaining rights & ICTU's recent complaint to the International Labour Organisation mandatory Trade Union recognition is just around the corner.

Ireland is in breach of it's obligations under ILO conventions & ICTU are hopeful that their complaint will be heard later this year.

An ILO convention is an international treaty binding the state.

Perhaps ICTU's complaint will force the Government's hand in terms of honouring their pre election pledge in the short rather than longer term ?

Prior to the election I asked Leo Varadkar for assurances that collective rights legislation would be introduced by FG , he  said that it would on the basis that FG like all the major parties realised that if the Unions took legal action then such legislation would have to be enacted in any event - it was simply a question of " playing nice ".

In fairness to Mr. Varadkar his preferred option in terms of collective bargaining rights enhancements was via workers groups / employees association rather than Unions.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I think that between the Government's pledge to introduce legislation on collective bargaining rights & ICTU's recent complaint to the International Labour Organisation mandatory Trade Union recognition is just around the corner.
> 
> Ireland is in breach of it's obligations under ILO conventions & ICTU are hopeful that their complaint will be heard later this year.


 
Yes, we don't want to get on the wrong side of the ILO! Didn't the Supreme court decide that the Government did not have power to introduce legislation to force employers to recognise Trade Unions. All very well to endorse ILO conventions but if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. The ILO can say what it wants but it can't do anything. Suppose we could have yet another referendum.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Yes, we don't want to get on the wrong side of the ILO! Didn't the Supreme court decide that the Government did not have power to introduce legislation to force employers to recognise Trade Unions. All very well to endorse ILO conventions but if something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. The ILO can say what it wants but it can't do anything. Suppose we could have yet another referendum.



 The Supreme Court's decision was based on current legislation.

The Supreme Court however did not rule that a sitting Government could not introduce legislation to force employers to recognise Trade Unions.

This is further evidenced by the fact that all the major parties pre the last election promised to introduce legislation which as well as enhancing collective bargaining rights also meant that for the first time ever employers would have to recognise Trade Unions.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The Supreme Court's decision was based on current legislation.
> 
> The Supreme Court however did not rule that a sitting Government could not introduce legislation to force employers to recognise Trade Unions.
> 
> This is further evidenced by the fact that all the major parties pre the last election promised to introduce legislation which as well as enhancing collective bargaining rights also meant that for the first time ever employers would have to recognise Trade Unions.


 
Not according to the ICTU.

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


----------



## Complainer (8 Jul 2011)

Shawady said:


> Don't know if this is the correct forum but I thought it was worth posting this item. The court has ruled that the JLC system is un-constitutional. The are 5 or 6 other cases like this in the pipeline. The electrian contractors group is one taking such a case.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0707/jlc.html


It's a moot point anyway, now that employers can get their cheap labour for free (at the State's expense of course) via the http://www.jobbridge.ie/ programme.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> It's a moot point anyway, now that employers can get their cheap labour for free (at the State's expense of course) via the http://www.jobbridge.ie/ programme.


 
Is that the scheme that the *Labour* Minister for social welfare said 

_"The Scheme will ensure that people can enhance their current skills and develop new ones. It will provide a real alternative to people who find themselves without work. It will also give young people the opportunity to gain valuable experience as they move between study and the beginning of their working lives"_

Who would have guessed that labour would help evil employers exploit vunerable people. 

Presume you made your feelings known at the last party meeting.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Not according to the ICTU.
> 
> _'In a recent Supreme Court Ruling concerning IMPACT and Ryanair, the Supreme Court made the observation that the Oireachtas has no power to introduce a law granting the right to union recognition'_



I stand corrected !

However as ICTU also point out " We are also aware of the EU charter of Fundamental Rights which provides for the Rights ( not the option ) to negotiate & conclude collective agreements.
Most significantly , there is the recent case law from the European Court of Human rights.
Most of us are aware of the Wilson Judgement which precludes victimisation of Trade Unionists. "

Richard Bruton has accepted that based on the EU Charter & European Court judgements that the Government must enact legislation to reflect both the charter & judgements.

Surely based on pre election promises , a Labour Party sharing power , the complaint to the ILO & the above statement by ICTU then Trade Unionists can expect mandatory Trade Union recognition shortly ?


----------



## ashambles (8 Jul 2011)

> now that employers can get their cheap labour for free (at the State's expense of course) via the http://www.jobbridge.ie/ programme.


Isn't this spending that's financed from the decision to confiscate 2.4% of private sector pensions? (Same with the VAT reductions)

True enough that our savings are now being regarded as state funds though.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I stand corrected !
> 
> However as ICTU also point out " We are also aware of the EU charter of Fundamental Rights which provides for the Rights ( not the option ) to negotiate & conclude collective agreements.
> Most significantly , there is the recent case law from the European Court of Human rights.
> ...


 
Not without changing the constitution by the sounds of it.


----------



## Complainer (8 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Is that the scheme that the *Labour* Minister for social welfare said
> 
> _"The Scheme will ensure that people can enhance their current skills and develop new ones. It will provide a real alternative to people who find themselves without work. It will also give young people the opportunity to gain valuable experience as they move between study and the beginning of their working lives"_


Yes, that's the one all right. Not sure why you would be confused - were there other jobbridge internship schemes launched recently?


Sunny said:


> Who would have guessed that labour would help evil employers exploit vunerable people.
> 
> Presume you made your feelings known at the last party meeting.


If you want to know what happens at meetings, you'll need to join up. See www.labour.ie for more details.



ashambles said:


> Isn't this spending that's financed from the decision to confiscate 2.4% of private sector pensions? (Same with the VAT reductions)
> 
> True enough that our savings are now being regarded as state funds though.


Yes, that's the one all right. Corporate welfare, at its best.

So now we'll have residential childcare workers working for free

[broken link removed]

Topaz petrol station staff, working for free

[broken link removed]

Hotel bar staff, working for free

[broken link removed]

Architects working for free

[broken link removed]

Web developers working for free

[broken link removed]

Outrageous.


----------



## Shawady (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer, your link says the succesful applicants will receive €50 per week on top of their social welfare entitlements.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Not without changing the constitution by the sounds of it.



The Government obviously feel that constitutional change is not required to effect the legislation to ensure that the State conforms to the European Court judgements as Eurpean law has broad supremacy over the constitution.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> The Government obviously feel that constitutional change is not required to effect the legislation to ensure that the State conforms to the European Court judgements as Eurpean law has broad supremacy over the constitution.


 
Well according to IBEC

Loughlin Deegan, a solicitor in IBEC’s employment law unit, who delivered the conference paper on the topic, said: “The notion that the Charter creates an obligation to introduce compulsory collective bargaining is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, Irish industrial relations laws do not implement EU law and are therefore outside the scope of the Charter. Article 51 specifies that the provisions of the Charter are only for Member States when they are implementing EU law. 
“Secondly, Ireland has extremely robust legal provisions, including those enshrined in the Constitution which deal with both freedom of association and its corollary of freedom not to associate. Article 28 of the Charter gives flexibility to member states to act within national laws and practices. Ireland has well developed mechanisms which fully comply with the provisions of Article 28 and exert considerable control over how collective bargaining and strike action are regulated.  
“Nothing in Article 28 (or elsewhere in the Lisbon Treaty) can be read as requiring Ireland to make any provision for mandatory trade union recognition or as undermining the fundamental constitutional right of an employer not to recognise a trade union,” concluded Mr Deegan.


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Yes, that's the one all right. Not sure why you would be confused - were there other jobbridge internship schemes launched recently?


 
Just a point of interest, my company and others began an intern programme within the last quarter of 2010. Within 2 months 50% of the interns positions here were made full time. Within 4 months 80% were given full time positions. The 20% that weren't given full time work all except 1 (who wanted to go travelling anyway) were fully assisted in finding full time positions elsewhere once their internship was to end. 

I'm not saying that finding can be completely applied to this full programme, but just for us and others we know who took part in the scheme, the caliber of the interns was high enough that we soon took them on full time. 

Now ask those here whether after 12 months of constant rejection and failure to secure work, a few months on social welfare and working "for free" was worth the entry into slavery.


----------



## Shawady (8 Jul 2011)

I graduated from college in the mid-90's. I was offered a six month contract with a guy starting up his own business through an IDA sponsered scheme. He was given a grant of £100 a week to employ someone to work for him. The dole at the time was approx £70.

Even though I was not earning much more than the dole I was happy with the work experience and it led directly to me getting a very good job with a large irish company.


----------



## Latrade (8 Jul 2011)

Shawady said:


> I graduated from college in the mid-90's. I was offered a six month contract with a guy starting up his own business through an IDA sponsered scheme. He was given a grant of £100 a week to employ someone to work for him. The dole at the time was approx £70.
> 
> Even though I was not earning much more than the dole I was happy with the work experience and it led directly to me getting a very good job with a large irish company.


 
Yup, let's judge the worthiness of the scheme once it has failed. Though I'm not confident the scheme managers have established a specific measurable criteria to judge its success.

If someone isn't receiving a specific wage, does that mean they can't pay union subs and become members?


----------



## JP1234 (8 Jul 2011)

Latrade said:


> Now ask those here whether after 12 months of constant rejection and failure to secure work, a few months on social welfare and working "for free" was worth the entry into slavery.



Speaking for myself only then yes I would agree with this.  I have only been out of work for 4 months and would gladly work for "free" ( have done it before)

I don't think anyone who has never been unemployed understands how truly soul-destroying it is dealing with the rejections and feeling that you are worthless and not wanted, that most would jump at the chance to prove themselves and save ones own sanity.


----------



## Complainer (8 Jul 2011)

My concern with these intern schemes is that they will make it MORE difficult for people to get work in the future, because employers will exploit the schemes to get free labour. So the short term gain of a few months work for dole+€50 is more than negated by the long term loss of a decent job. When you see large retailers etc using these schemes, they don't look to me to be genuine internships.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> Well according to IBEC
> 
> Loughlin Deegan, a solicitor in IBEC’s employment law unit, who delivered the conference paper on the topic, said: “The notion that the Charter creates an obligation to introduce compulsory collective bargaining is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, Irish industrial relations laws do not implement EU law and are therefore outside the scope of the Charter. Article 51 specifies that the provisions of the Charter are only for Member States when they are implementing EU law.
> “Secondly, Ireland has extremely robust legal provisions, including those enshrined in the Constitution which deal with both freedom of association and its corollary of freedom not to associate. Article 28 of the Charter gives flexibility to member states to act within national laws and practices. Ireland has well developed mechanisms which fully comply with the provisions of Article 28 and exert considerable control over how collective bargaining and strike action are regulated.
> “Nothing in Article 28 (or elsewhere in the Lisbon Treaty) can be read as requiring Ireland to make any provision for mandatory trade union recognition or as undermining the fundamental constitutional right of an employer not to recognise a trade union,” concluded Mr Deegan.


 
Subsequent European Court judgements have rendered this lone voice argument irrelevant.

Minister Bruton accepts that legislation needs to be enacted that guarantees mandatory Trade Union recognition to comply with the aforementioned judgements

Whether it is done voluntarily or forced upon the Government is really the only question now .


----------



## Purple (9 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> My concern with these intern schemes is that they will make it MORE difficult for people to get work in the future, because employers will exploit the schemes to get free labour. So the short term gain of a few months work for dole+€50 is more than negated by the long term loss of a decent job. When you see large retailers etc using these schemes, they don't look to me to be genuine internships.



The cost of training new employeess can be huge. I don't knoe any employers who think a high staff turnover is a good thing.


----------



## Complainer (12 Jul 2011)

Nice to see hard-pressed hedge funds availing of this scheme to get some free slave labour;

[broken link removed]


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Nice to see hard-pressed hedge funds availing of this scheme to get some free slave labour;
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
It's a fund administration company, not a hedge fund. Secondly, the funds industry is one part of the economy where there are job opportunities for people with experience. There are actually staff shortages in the area. So if a funds company is willing to give someone a 6 months introduction to the industry and allow them to gain some experience, why are you knocking them? Unless you are saying that you have knowledge that this particular company is exploiting the scheme. Actually considering the link you provided names the company and you have accused them of using slave labour, you are already on very dodgy ground.

I should point out that I am not a big fan of these schemes but my pension was raided by the Government to pay for it so it had better make a difference.


----------



## Complainer (13 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> It's a fund administration company, not a hedge fund. Secondly, the funds industry is one part of the economy where there are job opportunities for people with experience. There are actually staff shortages in the area. So if a funds company is willing to give someone a 6 months introduction to the industry and allow them to gain some experience, why are you knocking them?


Because they are not paying the employee? Are you seriously suggesting that these fund companies genuinly shouldn't pay an entry level or trainee wage for the initial period? Why should the State be subsidising their industry? Isn't it funny how when it comes to public servants, people are very quick with the 'we just can't afford it' response, but those responses can't be heard when it comes to corporate welfare like this?


----------



## Sunny (13 Jul 2011)

I agree with you but the government introduced the scheme. It's not the companies driving it so still not sure why you accused this particular company of slave labour. Business did not go looking for this scheme and they certainly didn't ask for private pensions to be raided to pay for it. Having said all that, schemes like this are very successful for young people in countries like Germany and France. They just have to be 
managed properly.


----------



## Latrade (14 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Because they are not paying the employee? Are you seriously suggesting that these fund companies genuinly shouldn't pay an entry level or trainee wage for the initial period? Why should the State be subsidising their industry? Isn't it funny how when it comes to public servants, people are very quick with the 'we just can't afford it' response, but those responses can't be heard when it comes to corporate welfare like this?


 
I don't think too many disagree with you, but that it's too early to say whether or not the scheme has been effective. I share the same concerns largely that there is no focus to the scheme and so no means of accurate measurement. I think there should have been some specific criteria (I'm not aware of any) relating to anyone advertising a position that shows a value to the state and applicants before companies can take on an "intern". At the moment it appears to be simply that any work is better than no work. 

Again though, another poster also indicated this, has anyone spoken to those on the scheme? do they feel like "slaves"? I've seen a small sample of this scheme work and work very very well. 

Once the data is in let's compare that to the record of FAS and then see which was the biggest waste of money.


----------



## Complainer (14 Jul 2011)

Sunny said:


> I agree with you but the government introduced the scheme. It's not the companies driving it so still not sure why you accused this particular company of slave labour. Business did not go looking for this scheme and they certainly didn't ask for private pensions to be raided to pay for it.


I look forward to using the 'we didn't ask for it' defence the next time public sector salaries/pensions/spending is attacked here on AAM. I'm sure it will go down a bomb with the usual suspects.



Sunny said:


> Having said all that, schemes like  this are very successful for young people in countries like Germany and  France. They just have to be
> managed properly.


By what measure of success? If you look at is as 'the intern got a job', that is not a real measure of success. If the underlying economics were there to support a job, then the 9 months intern salary didn't have a major impact on this. It was just a handy subsidy for the employer. Does the State pay the intern's salary in Germany & France? How many of these jobs would have been created anyway, without the internship programme?



Latrade said:


> Again though, another poster also indicated this, has anyone spoken to those on the scheme? do they feel like "slaves"? I've seen a small sample of this scheme work and work very very well.


I presume that in your 'small sample', the interns were paid something by the employer? If I was in there shoes, I might feel the same way, but that ignores the big picture. The real question is whether these jobs/posts would exist anyway, without the State subsidy.


----------



## Sunny (14 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> I look forward to using the 'we didn't ask for it' defence the next time public sector salaries/pensions/spending is attacked here on AAM. I'm sure it will go down a bomb with the usual suspects.
> 
> 
> By what measure of success? If you look at is as 'the intern got a job', that is not a real measure of success. If the underlying economics were there to support a job, then the 9 months intern salary didn't have a major impact on this. It was just a handy subsidy for the employer. Does the State pay the intern's salary in Germany & France? How many of these jobs would have been created anyway, without the internship programme?
> ...


 
I have no idea why you are bringing public sector pay into the discussion.

You are accusing a named company of exploiting the scheme and engaging in slave labour without knowing anything about it. I have no idea if the post would have existed without the scheme or not. Just like you don't. But I presume proper controls have been put in place by the Government.  Just because you don't agree with the scheme does not give you the right to come on this site and accuse a specific company of exploiting people. You are the first person to jump down peoples throats when wild accusations with no proof are made. 

I think the €50 supplement on top of social welfare is ridiculous but the idea of the scheme itself has merit. I just don't trust the Government to run it (see FAS). To be honest, I am amazed that you are accusing a Labour Minister of Social Welfare of running an exploitative scheme that benefits businesses at the expense of employees.


----------



## Sunny (14 Jul 2011)

According to ICTU:

"Properly implemented this scheme can secure a better deal for young and other unemployed people that need quality work experience. It can help people augment or upgrade their skills and work experience and can really work to their advantage - but it must be properly monitored and controlled to avoid abuse," Ms Lunch said

Don't think anyone can argue with that.


----------



## Latrade (14 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> I presume that in your 'small sample', the interns were paid something by the employer? If I was in there shoes, I might feel the same way, but that ignores the big picture. The real question is whether these jobs/posts would exist anyway, without the State subsidy.


 
I presume you take the bulk of a post that pretty much backs up your concerns and agrees with you to just pick on one aspect.

But you actually presume wrong in this case. As per my post where I detailed what had happened late last year, it is the same as how the system is operating now. There was no payment from the employer (some gave free lunches). 

The last part of the question is no, they probably wouldn't. But again, this is a matter of employer's realising in many cases that they do need the extra staff, that that the current workforce has been trimmed to such an extent that they need to start bringing in resources again. 

I think that once again, it's just too early to judge the merits of the programme.


----------

