# eircom ESOP



## TarfHead (7 Jul 2006)

In the context fo banging on about the Aer Lingus flotation, Senator Shane Ross was making reference to the eircom ESOP, on Newstalk 106 yesterday.

I wasn't sure if I heard him correctly but what I though he said was that each member of the ESOP gets a tax-free payment of €12,500 per annum.

Is this correct ? If not, when does a member of the eircom ESOP get a payout from membership ?


----------



## MB05 (8 Jul 2006)

I work for eircom and there is always an awful lot of rubbish in the media about our ESOP shares.  We have a set amount of shares that are distributed to us in a tax efficient way.  The ESOP done a deal with the Revenue Commissioners so that we can get up to €12700 (10000 punts) a year tax free per annum until the shares are gone.

The papers are always quoting crazy figures in relation to our ESOP but we haven't received anything like the money they quote(80k+) In total since 2002 we have received about 35-40k.  We haven't received the full 12.7k every year.  They have to pay off the loans etc or reinvest our money so some years we only got 6k.  The papers would have you believe we got all of this for nothing too.  We got shares in exchange for drastic changes in work practices like reductions in travel & expenses, 50/50 time in lieu instead of overtime and we had to give up our annual bonuses and pay our own pension (eircom paid for it previously) etc. and we borrowed money to buy some of the shares etc.  ESOP owes millions in loans.  

This year we will get 8k.


----------



## kirvos (8 Jul 2006)

Hi, I can't imagine any contributor to AAM, or anyone for that matter, who would consider 'rubbish' of €35 to €40k to date (for turning up for work) and a similar amount to come and more, as anything but a gravy train. BTW, it's the rest of us who are stumping up this largesse for you privilaged lot. 

For those of us who work in  the precarious private sector, with no hand-outs, employment or salary guarantees, this kind of nonsense just sends us into apoplexy. 

It just highlights the 'two tier' economy, the can't be fired, pensionable, benchmarked and guaranteed national pay agreement public sector, ---and us idiots (as least that's how we're treated) who toil in the can be fired, pay your own pension, no benchmarking (vis-a-vis public sector) and inability to pay claim by our employers scenario.

How neat of the Government (on the taxpayers' behalf) to agree a tax free deal for the ESOT. Thanks Bertie, a lot done amd more to do, but not for the paying public. K


----------



## dam099 (8 Jul 2006)

kirvos said:
			
		

> For those of us who work in the precarious private sector, with no hand-outs, employment or salary guarantees, this kind of nonsense just sends us into apoplexy.


 
I actually agree with you that the Eircom ESOP was an overly generous deal for the workers at the expense of the taxpayers but I would point out Eircom is also a private sector company now (albeit one with a dominant market position).


----------



## Calina (8 Jul 2006)

I don't think the second poster considered the money that he received from his or ESOT as rubbish, merely the figures bandied about by the newspapers. Having read Shane Ross's writing on some of the figures relating to my pension, I can fully sympathise. They bear little or no relation to reality. 

The way ESOTS operate is such that anyone who states simplistically that someone gets X amount tax free per annum is not being strictly speaking accurate. As such I would bear in mind that when newspapers are quoting figures, they are also quoting angles. Of all the business writers around, Shane Ross is the least balanced in my opinion. 

I'm not a fan of Eircom per se, I think their management has, since privatisation, left a shocking amount to be desired. But they are a private company and there is a sufficient amount of evidence surrounding the various sale and resales and removal from the Stock market and reflotation not withstanding the massive fall in their share price from day one to suggest that they are at the vagary of the market now.


----------



## TarfHead (10 Jul 2006)

MB05 said:
			
		

> .. We got shares in exchange for drastic changes in work practices like reductions in travel & expenses, 50/50 time in lieu instead of overtime and we had to give up our annual bonuses and pay our own pension (eircom paid for it previously) etc. and we borrowed money to buy some of the shares etc. ESOP owes millions in loans.


 
Thanks for the informed reply.

While the changes involved my have been drastic to many eircom employees, they would seem to be the status quo to many private sector employees.
The potential €12700 dividend is a significant perk and that is something not available to many in the private sector.

For the first time in many years, I have to admire the work of a trade union  .


----------



## bearishbull (10 Jul 2006)

TarfHead said:
			
		

> Thanks for the informed reply.
> 
> While the changes involved my have been drastic to many eircom employees, they would seem to be the status quo to many private sector employees.
> The potential €12700 dividend is a significant perk and that is something not available to many in the private sector.
> ...


many of the union leaders involved with the eircom deal made millions in shares etc. it was taxpayers assets/money that the cwu workers received their money/shares from. even worse things happen in the likes of esb where the AVERAGE wage is 80k and workers have received gret deals on pensions and potential privatisation etc.once again public sector screwing the private PAYE worker.


----------



## Purple (10 Jul 2006)

bearishbull said:
			
		

> again public sector screwing the private PAYE worker.


 As it was then, is now and ever shall be... and no government will ever change it so just accept that the world is not a fair place and get on with it.


----------



## Delboy (17 Jul 2006)

MB05 said:
			
		

> We got shares in exchange for drastic changes in work practices like reductions in travel & expenses, 50/50 time in lieu instead of overtime and we had to give up our annual bonuses and pay our own pension (eircom paid for it previously) etc.


 
eircom still pays most of the pension you'll find, about 10.4% with the workers paying 4.6%. And those on definet benefit pensions, whilst contributing the 4.6%, will still get a defined benefit pension.
As for drastic changes in work practices - eircom workers now do what most would consider a 'normal day's' work. Pre-84 civil servants with eircom still get 2 'privilege' days a year off on top of their holidays. 
Flexi-time still applies to a lot of workers who had it before in the 1st floatation.
And there are numerous and very generous voluntary leave programmes held every year.
So I don't think a whole lot has been given up for what will turn out to be a minium 80k tax free pay-out to eligible staff, most of whom no longer work for eircom.


----------



## cerberos (20 Jul 2006)

"The union conspired with venture capitalists to asset strip something the Irish taxpayer invested in over many years"

At least the venture capitalists don't not pretend to have anybody's elses interest in mind (poor, weak, social justice, etc). It show the Unions as a bunch of begrudgers who will hop into bed with anyone to hijact a state asset)

It was a disgrace, the money belonged to the country and I consider it stolen from the people. (else sell it and build shelters, schools,etc) and tpo cap it off the Revenue did a deal to give them 12700 tax free per annum.  (Whats that Gross??)

Who else can get that deal from Revenue?


----------



## Meccano (21 Jul 2006)

kirvos said:
			
		

> BTW, it's the rest of us who are stumping up this largesse for you privilaged lot.
> 
> For those of us who work in the precarious private sector, with no hand-outs, employment or salary guarantees, this kind of nonsense just sends us into apoplexy.


 
My question to you Kirvos is - why are you in the private sector?
If you think the public sector is where the money is - why don't you just join them instead of bitching?

The talk about Eircom staff shares is just a distraction. The ammounts are PIDDLING when held up against the millions already made by the fat-cats who were handed a state assett on a plate by the government. A state assett which has been assett stripped and run into the ground to allow the carpet baggers to make their fast buck. 

The result is a country with one of the worst telecomms systems in europe. Even basket cases like Portugal have better BroadBand penetration than us.

Its also laughable to read criticism of the unions at Eircom claiming they "conspired" with the venture capitalists, while Aer Lingus unions are being lambasted for resisting a sell-off.

If I was in Eircom or Aer Lingus, I'd screw every last penny I could from this kind of deal. The new owners certainly will.
So would you, if you were honest enough to admit it.


----------



## shnaek (21 Jul 2006)

cerberos said:
			
		

> "The union conspired with venture capitalists to asset strip something the Irish taxpayer invested in over many years"
> 
> At least the venture capitalists don't not pretend to have anybody's elses interest in mind (poor, weak, social justice, etc). It show the Unions as a bunch of begrudgers who will hop into bed with anyone to hijact a state asset)
> 
> ...




Hear hear. This is exactly it. And to suggest the unions at Aer Lingus will do anything different is nonsense. Their resistance is more to do with positioning so they can get as much money for themselves and their members as possible. It has long been the case that we don't really have a democracy at all, just some puppets to be manipulated by the unions and civil servants that really run the country. We see where this mentality has landed France and Germany. Be certain it will land us in the same place.


----------



## Meccano (21 Jul 2006)

Thats utter tosh shnaek. We're the second richest country in the world according to the latest statistics! The unions were part of that success. 

Looking at the Big Picture - those countries with strong unions are often the most succesful (Ireland, US, UK etc), while those without unions are often economic basket cases riven by poverty (S.America, India, Africa etc)

Unions are usually present in LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES, where there is fairness and equal opportunity in society. People have the incentive to work.

Without fairness in society there is none of the stability that business needs to flourish. The result is all-round impoverishment and social strife. 

We had it in Ireland and the unions played a lead role in the social change that had to happen to create todays Celtic Tiger.

I know France very well, and while an out and out Capitalist might despise their unions and laid back life-style, that is a choice the French have made for themselves. The French are fully conscious of this choice.

France may not be YOUR idea of a capitalist nirvana, but they have a far higher standard of living than many parts of europe (including Ireland) and they don't want to be on the kind of treadmill that the American model brings. 
Thats their choice, and I say - good for them. 

Meanwhile the Irish fall over themselves to sample the French Joie De Vivre. Its the Number 1 tourist destination in the world. 

You believe the unions have wrecked this country? I forecast that if the unions were gone this country could slide down the drain into social unrest. The seeds are already there with the impossible cost of housing for young people. 

The solution to the Aer Lingus crisis is simple - call off the sale, then no union members get anything. That'll learn 'em.


----------



## cerberos (21 Jul 2006)

Germany


----------



## Purple (21 Jul 2006)

Meccano said:
			
		

> The unions were part of that success.


 Why do you say that? Is it because they agreed not to hold the country to Ransom for a few years as long as they called the shots?




			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Looking at the Big Picture - those countries with strong unions are often the most successful (Ireland, US, UK etc), while those without unions are often economic basket cases riven by poverty (S.America, India, Africa etc)


 That is a nonsensical proposition. It's so sweeping as to be meaningless. Africa is not a country and to suggest that it can be treated as a single entity for any comparison is ludicrous.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Unions are usually present in LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES, where there is fairness and equal opportunity in society. People have the incentive to work.


 India is a liberal democracy and has vast inequality, China is a police state and has far less absolute poverty.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Without fairness in society there is none of the stability that business needs to flourish. The result is all-round impoverishment and social strife.)


 Like China and Singapore?



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> We had it in Ireland and the unions played a lead role in the social change that had to happen to create todays Celtic Tiger.


What did they do?



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> I know France very well, and while an out and out Capitalist might despise their unions and laid back life-style, that is a choice the French have made for themselves. The French are fully conscious of this choice.
> 
> France may not be YOUR idea of a capitalist nirvana, but they have a far higher standard of living than many parts of europe (including Ireland) and they don't want to be on the kind of treadmill that the American model brings.
> Thats their choice, and I say - good for them.


 That's why they have race riots and one of the worst records in supporting states that abuse human rights? 





			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the Irish fall over themselves to sample the French Joie De Vivre. Its the Number 1 tourist destination in the world.


 What has that got to do with anything? People go for the climate and the historical heritage they accumulated when they were an aggressive imperialist power. 



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> You believe the unions have wrecked this country? I forecast that if the unions were gone this country could slide down the drain into social unrest.


 Like France?



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> The solution to the Aer Lingus crisis is simple - call off the sale, then no union members get anything. That'll learn 'em.


 Why is that the solution? Will the company suddenly have a future as a small state owned airline on the periphery of Europe or will it continue to be run by trade unions and former school teachers?


----------



## shnaek (21 Jul 2006)

Meccano said:
			
		

> Thats utter tosh shnaek. We're the second richest country in the world according to the latest statistics! The unions were part of that success. .


According to a very debatable publication from a vested interest.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Looking at the Big Picture - those countries with strong unions are often the most succesful (Ireland, US, UK etc), while those without unions are often economic basket cases riven by poverty (S.America, India, Africa etc).


The US has strong unions? That is news to me. I was under the impression that since Reagan the power of the unions in the US is considerably less than it is here and in Europe. The US values flexibility of labour.

Unions certainly had a part to play in the past, where corruption was rife - as it does in the very poor areas you mention. But here in Ireland, and to a greater extent in Europe, unions are only looking after their own self interest and the self interest of the public sector. They don't give a damn about the ordinary working folk. 





			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> We had it in Ireland and the unions played a lead role in the social change that had to happen to create todays Celtic Tiger.



The unions played a role, but not a lead role. They collaborated with goverment and other social partners, and fair play to them. But these days all I see is unions with short term views, looking for short term gain. Where are the visionary trade unionists - or is this an oxymoron?



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> I know France very well, and while an out and out Capitalist might despise their unions and laid back life-style, that is a choice the French have made for themselves. The French are fully conscious of this choice.


No body could argue against a laid back life style - unless you are out of work. What incentives do employers have to employ people in a country where the cost of labour is so high?
I have French friends both working in France and working here. Some of them have spent years unemployed because of the lack of flexibility in the labour market. That lack of flexibility protects those with jobs, but does nothing for those looking for work. 



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> France may not be YOUR idea of a capitalist nirvana, but they have a far higher standard of living than many parts of europe (including Ireland) and they don't want to be on the kind of treadmill that the American model brings.
> Thats their choice, and I say - good for them. .


I'll thank you to keep your personal comments to yourself. Just because I express an opinion on something doesn't mean you've got me all sussed out. Stick to the points and keep things objective. 




			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the Irish fall over themselves to sample the French Joie De Vivre. Its the Number 1 tourist destination in the world.


 Nothing to do with unions. More to do with food, wine, coastline, scenery, weather, Paris, skiing.....



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> The seeds are already there with the impossible cost of housing for young people.


 What are the unions doing about that? Ensuring their own members can afford them no doubt. I haven't heard any unions call for stricter regulations on lending for example.


----------



## GeneralZod (21 Jul 2006)

Calina said:
			
		

> ...not withstanding the massive fall in their share price from day one



The share price didn't fall from day one. A few lucky/clever people realised that the Government had priced the flotation too high and got out early with a nice profit. The subsequent global tanking of telco & telecomms shares was beyond the power of anyone to stop and the Government can't be blamed for the scale of the fall in value.


----------



## Guest127 (21 Jul 2006)

I dont work for Eircom never did and never will. So I will never and have never shared in this esop thingy. BUT I dont begrudge the workers whatever share of the company they have managed to attain by whatever means was open to them. Contrast Tony O'Reilly and his gang who were only ever in Eircom to see what they could get out of it and then make a hasty exit and workers who might work up to 40 years and DO have the interest of the company at heart. Because I dont have something doesn't mean I begrudge others who have.


----------



## Meccano (22 Jul 2006)

Well said cuchulainn, my point exactly.

As to the other two blasts of agression - cool it, I'm not going to get hot under the collar about something that doesn't bother me all that much. I'll just respond in a nice friendly manner, which you can try later for yourselves.



> According to a very debatable publication from a vested interest.


Which publication are you referring to? The UN HDR? "_The 2005 Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Programme yesterday, found Irish people to be the second wealthiest in the world, with a GDP per head of $37,738 (€30,384)."_



> Why do you say that [_The unions were part of that success_].
> ? Is it because they agreed not to hold the country to Ransom for a few years as long as they called the shots?


Perjorative language Purple. Tsk Tsk. Its called The Partnership Approach.



> The unions played a role, but not a lead role. They collaborated with goverment and other social partners, and fair play to them.


I was referring to the origins of the union movement in this country, to which the very independence of this State is inextricably linked.



> The US has strong unions? That is news to me. I was under the impression that since Reagan the power of the unions in the US is considerably less than it is here and in Europe.


This is way to complex to deal with in a few lines. 
Unions in the States have certainly been under attack (read anything on the subject by Noam Chomsky for some real analysis), but they are still as strong or stronger than in europe. 
Here's a short list: [broken link removed] 

Fact is, they're still there and they're still influential. I'm quite prepared to accept however that the waning of union power in the US is parralleled by the waning of democracy in that nation. 
A worrying illustration of my exact point.



> But here in Ireland, and to a greater extent in Europe, unions are only looking after their own self interest and the self interest of the public sector. They don't give a damn about the *ordinary working folk*.


Errr...people in Unions ARE the 'ordinary working folk'! I don't know many corporate accountants, multi-national CEO's or millionaire property developers in the unions. They don't need 'em, do they!


> Africa is not a country and to suggest that it can be treated as a single entity for any comparison is ludicrous.


Sigh...I was just trying to be brief. 
Go ahead so, knock yourself out, pick your own list of succesful African COUNTRIES then and prove me wrong. There's only ONE which has had ANY economic stability - and guess what? Yep, South Africa has Unions.


> India is a liberal democracy and has vast inequality, China is a police state and has far less absolute poverty.


Thats more nonsense. For a start, India may be a DEMOCRACY, but it is not LIBERAL. In fact India has been more like a Marxist state until very recently. Unions were not permitted, and I'm not sure they are yet. As to China - what is 'less poverty'? Less than who? India? Wow...thats really saying something then, eh? According to the UNHDR - 16.6% of the Chinese population live on less than $1 a day, and at $2 the figure jumps to over 46%. See here: [broken link removed]

Regarding France.
The recent protests/riots against the proposed changes to worker legislation were not led by unions - but by students and young people teeing up for their first venture into the labour market. They don't want to be steam-rollered onto a capitalist treadmill. Thats their choice - they know the consequences.

The race riots in les banlieus were exactly that - RACIAL riots. 
France has a major problem in some cities with immigrant youth who cannot integrate into French society. Muslim anger and growing Islamic fundamentalism has a lot more to do with the problem than lack of jobs.

All those things the Irish love about France, the food, the wine, the laid back lifestyle - would be far less FRENCH if they follow the British/Irish/American model. If Paris was more like Detroit, who'd want to go there?
As to the weather - you don't blame the unions for that too?


----------



## Observer (23 Jul 2006)

cerberos said:
			
		

> ........and tpo cap it off the Revenue did a deal to give them 12700 tax free per annum. (Whats that Gross??)
> 
> Who else can get that deal from Revenue?


 
Actually I hate to confuse such a well thought out argument with mere facts, but the "deal" from Revenue is available to ANYONE. Yes, any employer can set up an approved profit share scheme (APSS) and any employee can benefit to the tune of €12,700 (£10,000 in old money) per annum in a tax efficient manner.  The APSS concept has been part of tax law for many years and long predates the eircom ESOP. The eircom ESOP is essentially no more than a facility to hold shares in trust for employees which are subsequently distributed through a standard APSS scheme. 

Some special tax benefits were conferred on Employee Share Ownership Schemes in 1998. These do no more than allow an ESOP to hold shares in trust, to borrow in order to acquire shares, to receive dividends etc. and to do these things in a tax efficient manner.  They are relatively minor in comparison to the tax efficiency of an APSS.  Again, of course, these benefits are available to all employers and employees even though the eircom ESOP was the trigger for their introduction.


----------



## Purple (24 Jul 2006)

Meccano said:
			
		

> Perjorative language Purple. Tsk Tsk. Its called The Partnership Approach.


 Yes, be those with their feet under the table and by the pressure groups that they represent.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> I was referring to the origins of the union movement in this country, to which the very independence of this State is inextricably linked.


 The union movement today has almost nothing in common with the union movement of the early years of the last century.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Fact is, they're still there and they're still influential. I'm quite prepared to accept however that the waning of union power in the US is parralleled by the waning of democracy in that nation. A worrying illustration of my exact point.


 So social partnership, i.e. the democratically elected government allowing un-elected self interest groups like SIPTU and IBEC set government policy is strengthening democracy? The only group that had a mandate from the people to run the country is the Dail.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Go ahead so, knock yourself out, pick your own list of succesful African COUNTRIES then and prove me wrong. There's only ONE which has had ANY economic stability - and guess what? Yep, South Africa has Unions.


 So Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia etc are not economically stable? But South Africa, who's economy was built up during the Apartheid era and is still controlled by the white minority is the shining light? I think you need to look at that again. 



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> As to China - what is 'less poverty'? Less than who? India?


 Yes.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Jul 2006)

Purple said:
			
		

> So social partnership, i.e. the democratically elected government allowing un-elected self interest groups like SIPTU and IBEC set government policy is strengthening democracy? The only group that had a mandate from the people to run the country is the Dail.


Wasn't the continuation of social partnership a significant part of the Govt manifesto, and therefore part of the mandate from the people?


----------



## shnaek (25 Jul 2006)

I certainly don't blame the employees for looking after their own interests, and I don't blame the unions for looking after their interests - I blame the government for not looking after the interests of the Irish people. 

We now have appalling telecoms infrastructure. Our local loops are controlled by a private company solely interested in profit. Broadband availability is terrible. Employees who have a huge say in what happens in Eircom will sell (as they did to Tony O'Reilly instead of Dennis O'Brien) to the buyer who offers them the most money. Nobody is looking after the interests of the Irish public. That is my point. In fairness it is not the unions job to look after the Irish public. Their job is to look after the vested interests which they represent. That is their purpose. That and ensuring their own survival of course. The government should be looking after the Irish public but we have seen that it supports vested interests of it's own.


----------



## Meccano (26 Jul 2006)

> Yes, be those with their feet under the table and by the pressure groups that they represent.


So JOIN A UNION!


> The union movement today has almost nothing in common with the union movement of the early years of the last century.


Certainly. The whole political and social landscape has changed - the labour movement has moved with the times. And by the way, that doesn't change the facts of History.


> So social partnership, i.e. the democratically elected government allowing un-elected self interest groups like SIPTU and IBEC set government policy is strengthening democracy?


"_Wasn't the continuation of social partnership a significant part of the Govt manifesto, and therefore part of the mandate from the people?" -_ Well said.


> So Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia etc are not economically stable?


Correct. Their emmigration statistics bear that out. They are poverty stricken basket cases.


> still controlled by the white minority


Thats so funny I almost laughed out loud.

Shnaek - whose fault is it that our Telecomms are in the hands of profiteers and carpet baggers? Only the Irish Government and its failed Right Wing policies are to blame.

Aside from all this esoteric chat about Democracy and Labour, the best reason of ALL for the existence of Unions is the lying bullying treacherous behaviour of most employers when presented with a clear field. Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets. There are plenty of examples in recent Irish news to back that up. You know well what I'm talking about.


----------



## cerberos (26 Jul 2006)

The main item is the hypocracy of the unions. 
Give the chance they will rip off the tax payer as fast as the capitalists
They are much too influential with the Goverment(s) (for example, ESOP, Air Lingus, Bench Marking - taking money from the ATM).

If the money made by the 3 bandits (Unions, V Capitalists and Eircom management) had been used for infrastructure, health, etc., we (taxpayer and those too poor to pay tax) would have benefited.

Its a sad disgrace and, yes, I agree the Goverment has failed the people.


----------



## Purple (27 Jul 2006)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Wasn't the continuation of social partnership a significant part of the Govt manifesto, and therefore part of the mandate from the people?


 Yes it was but that just shows the inability of this government to govern, it doesn't make social partnership a democratic process.


			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Certainly. The whole political and social landscape has changed - the labour movement has moved with the times. And by the way, that doesn't change the facts of History.


 In general terms I agree.


			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Thats so funny I almost laughed out loud.


 Why?
Are the shantytowns gone? Are there many major businesses now run by black South Africans? Is AIDS now no longer an almost exclusively black disease in South Africa? Has there been any substantial redistribution of land from the white minority? Are black South Africans no longer far more likely to go to prison? What's so funny? 


			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Correct. Their emmigration statistics bear that out. They are poverty stricken basket cases.


 There is a major brain drain of graduates from Africa in general. An even bigger problem is the small proportion of those who study in the west who return to Africa. A good measure of how will a country is developing is the coherence, effectiveness and stability of it’s civil service. By this measure South Africa is by no means out on it’s own. 
Look, you need to read a few history books. Africa's problems have nothing to do with unions or lack of them. 


			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Aside from all this esoteric chat about Democracy and Labour, the best reason of ALL for the existence of Unions is the lying bullying treacherous behaviour of most employers when presented with a clear field. Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets.


 So workers rights are high on the agenda in North Korea and China and were high on the agenda in soviet Russia? 
Any group that can exercise power in a disproportionate and unchecked manner will abuse that power, be they unions, employers or governments. 
Do remember that unions can and have been used as a tool to oppress democratic movements. For example the failed attempt by the coal miner’s union to quash pro-democracy demonstrations in Russia. 
In a free market employees can move from one job to another and so in a sellers market companies have to offer good pay and conditions to attract staff. Whether it is a seller's or buyer's market is the most relevant issue here. 
I do agree that employee’s rights are very important and that the union movement has played a critical historical role in arriving at the current level of protection that we have. I also believe that unions are still necessary in many areas, especially in the public sector. What gets me it the 1920's style rhetoric that some of them still trot out and which you Meccano seem to agree with. You are applying black and white ideology to complicated issues and I think you are doing your arguments no favours by doing so. 
Your last comment is a case in point; you talk in absolutes which invalidates a point that if tempered would hold much merit.


----------



## Meccano (27 Jul 2006)

Last time I visited S.Africa almost every white-man I met was getting kicked out of his job. Most of them were emigrating - many of them to Ireland. The white-man no longer has his hands on the levers of power in S.Africa - I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make by that assertion. Its a total Red Herring.


> So workers rights are high on the agenda in North Korea and China and were high on the agenda in soviet Russia?


Where did you get THAT idea from?


> Any group that can exercise power in a disproportionate and unchecked manner will abuse that power, be they unions, employers or governments.


My point EXACTLY. Its all about Checks and Balances.


> Do remember that unions can and have been used as a tool to oppress democratic movements. For example the failed attempt by the coal miner’s union to quash pro-democracy demonstrations in Russia.


And what about "Solidarity" - the Coal Miners UNION which brought about the downfall of the Polish Communist regime and helped bring down the Soviet Union!


> In a free market employees can move from one job to another and so in a sellers market companies have to offer good pay and conditions to attract staff. Whether it is a seller's or buyer's market is the most relevant issue here.


Thats the theory. In practice however most people are not as 'FREE' to move around as your theory baldly asserts. People are tied to localities, homes, relatives, friends, schools, long accumulated seniority, pension rights etc etc. In practice people have little or no choice but to take whatever their employer throws at them because they have no options to improve their condition by simply walking out.


> I do agree that employee’s rights are very important and that the union movement has played a critical historical role in arriving at the current level of protection that we have. I also believe that unions are still necessary in many areas, especially in the public sector. What gets me it the 1920's style rhetoric that some of them still trot out and which you Meccano seem to agree with. You are applying black and white ideology to complicated issues and I think you are doing your arguments no favours by doing so.


I don't agree with much of what SIPTU does or says - I find them rather cringe-worthy on many an occasion. But (unlike YOUR Black and White terms!) I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. 


> Your last comment is a case in point; you talk in absolutes which invalidates a point that if tempered would hold much merit.


You mean you don't think there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland? Would it convince you if I gave you an example - backed up by a High Court Judges comments?


----------



## Purple (27 Jul 2006)

Meccano said:
			
		

> Last time I visited S.Africa almost every white-man I met was getting kicked out of his job. Most of them were emigrating - many of them to Ireland. The white-man no longer has his hands on the levers of power in S.Africa - I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make by that assertion. Its a total Red Herring.


Pure conjecture. 
You have offered no evidence to support you proposition that South Africa is what it is now has anything to do with trade unions or that there is a correlation between union membership and workers conditions in Africa in general.


			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Where did you get THAT idea from?


 I assumed that you understood sarcasm. My apologies. I was pointing out that your assertion that "Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets" does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> And what about "Solidarity" - the Coal Miners UNION which brought about the downfall of the Polish Communist regime and helped bring down the Soviet Union!


 Agreed. I was just pointing out that unions can and have been used to oppress and well and promote democracy.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Thats the theory. In practice however most people are not as 'FREE' to move around as your theory baldly asserts. People are tied to localities, homes, relatives, friends, schools, long accumulated seniority, pension rights etc etc. In practice people have little or no choice but to take whatever their employer throws at them because they have no options to improve their condition by simply walking out.


 Rubbish. There are all sorts of laws (rightly) protecting workers rights. The notion that they are locked into their jobs and have to take whatever is thrown at them is fallacious, the only area where this might be the case in the public sector. The reason it is not the case is because of strong unions and the fact that the government is the employer.
Job mobility is part of the reason that union membership is so low in the private sector.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> I don't agree with much of what SIPTU does or says - I find them rather cringe-worthy on many an occasion. But (unlike YOUR Black and White terms!) I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water.


  Can you explain what you mean here? Where do I suggest that we "throw the baby out with the bath water"? I am in favour of unions in many circumstances but I see them as just another interest group no better or worse than IBEC or ISME. They do not have the interests of the public in general at heart, just those of their members, and that's as it should be.



			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> You mean you don't think there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland? Would it convince you if I gave you an example - backed up by a High Court Judges comments?


 Of course there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland. The best case in recent years is the case of the Turkish Gamma workers. Remember that the unions failed utterly in this incident and it was Joe Higgins excellent work that brought the issue to light. What I disagree with is your assertion that most employers would bully and abuse their workers if they got the chance.
As I said the sweeping and absolute slant to your points undermines your argument.


----------



## Guest127 (27 Jul 2006)

getting way off track here. Basically eircom employees in the esot scored all the goals because others wanted to make a fast buck, including a former minister for finance. the more people who wanted to make this fast buck the better for the eircom employees. Denis O'Brien made a lot of easy money in this country. ( not eircom I know) Where is he now and where does he pay his taxes? Where does Tony O'Reilly reside and where does he pays his taxes. (if he pays any). Where do the majority of eircom employees live and where do the pay their taxes? Good luck to them. Wish I was in an employment coveted by the rich trying to get richer by doing sod all.  and just in case anyone thinks I am an eircom employee etc I am with BT for broadband and line rental not eircom. (Different fat cat )


----------



## Meccano (27 Jul 2006)

Purple said:
			
		

> Pure conjecture.
> You have offered no evidence to support you proposition that South Africa is what it is now has anything to do with trade unions....


"The *African National Congress* (ANC) is a social-democratic political party, and has been South Africa's governing party supported by a tripartite alliance between itself, the *Congress of South African Trade Unions** (COSATU)* and the South African Communist Party (SACP) since the establishment of majority rule in May 1994." 
Wikipedia -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress



> I assumed that you understood sarcasm. My apologies. I was pointing out that your assertion that "Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets" does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.


*Although the internationally recommended minimum age for work is 15 years (ILO Convention No. 138) and the number of child workers under the age of 10 is far from negligible, almost all the data available on child labour concerns the 10-to-14 age group. Combining various official sources, the ILO estimates that more than 73 million children in that age group alone were economically active in 1995, representing 13.2 per cent of all 10-to-14 year olds around the world. *
*The greatest numbers were found in Asia - 44.6 million (13 per cent) followed by Africa - 23.6 million (by far the highest rate at 26.3 per cent) and Latin America - 5.1 million (9.8 per cent).   Estimates by country showed the following rates of economic activity among children 10-to-14: *
*Bangladesh (30.1 per cent), China ( I 1.6), India (14.4), Pakistan (17.7), Turkey (24), Cote d'lvoire (20.5), Egypt ( 11.2), Kenya (41.3), Nigeria (25.8), Senegal (31.4), Argentina (4.5), Brazil (16.1), Mexico (6.7), Italy (0.4), Portugal (1.8). *
[broken link removed]



> Rubbish. There are all sorts of laws (rightly) protecting workers rights. The notion that they are locked into their jobs and have to take whatever is thrown at them is fallacious, the only area where this might be the case in the public sector. The reason it is not the case is because of strong unions and the fact that the government is the employer.
> Job mobility is part of the reason that union membership is so low in the private sector.


It all hinges on your definition of the word 'LOCKED' doesn't it. There are LOCKS and there are locks. 
It is legal in this country to LOCK workers into their employment by use of a system of financial bonding. Its common in fact. When an employee doesn't like the job - they can leave - by paying the bond! 
IMHO that amounts to legalised slavery.
Then again there are more subtle locks which some unscrupulous employers know they can use against their employees. I work in one such industry and I feel LOCKED to my employer, like it or not. I would be comitting professional suicide by threatening to leave and they know it. Fortunately - I'm in a good union. 




> Can you explain what you mean here? Where do I suggest that we "throw the baby out with the bath water"? I am in favour of unions in many circumstances but I see them as just another interest group no better or worse than IBEC or ISME. They do not have the interests of the public in general at heart, just those of their members, and that's as it should be.


I think you've explained it yourself. Some Unions are better than others, and just because certain of them are bad - you cannot write the whole Labour movement off. I have demonstrated numerous times now how they are usually a tremendous force for good in society - from Irish Independence, to the overthrow of Communism and the Apartheid regime.



> Of course there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland. The best case in recent years is the case of the Turkish Gamma workers. Remember that the unions failed utterly in this incident and it was Joe Higgins excellent work that brought the issue to light. What I disagree with is your assertion that most employers would bully and abuse their workers if they got the chance.


Yes, I think they would. Its human nature - and in modern Ireland GREED IS GOOD. Only the bottom line counts.


----------



## nt00deep (28 Jul 2006)

Purple said:
			
		

> What I disagree with is your assertion that most employers would bully and abuse their workers if they got the chance





			
				Meccano said:
			
		

> Yes, I think they would. Its human nature


 
Lads, ye should be on Joe Duffy.


----------



## Purple (28 Jul 2006)

> It is legal in this country to LOCK workers into their employment by use of a system of financial bonding. Its common in fact. When an employee doesn't like the job - they can leave - by paying the bond!


 Got any more details on that? (PM me)



> Lads, ye should be on Joe Duffy.


   Yes, it's heading that way.
Meccano, we are not going to agree on this. It is more a discussion to have over a pint than on a public forum so I think we should leave alone and let this thread get back on topic.

As for the Eircom ESOP, it's a great deal for the members but it's no where near as good a deal as the owners seem to get every time it changes hands.


----------



## shnaek (28 Jul 2006)

Anyone want to chip in and buy it?


----------



## Meccano (28 Jul 2006)

Purple said:
			
		

> Got any more details on that? _(Indentured Labour)_


Yes indeed I do.

This is from the Irish Times on July 13th (sorry I can't link to it - you need an account).



> *High Court rejects Ryanair bullying claim*
> 
> A High Court judge has rejected claims by Ryanair that its pilots or their unions had engaged in bullying, intimidation or isolation of other pilots over conditions imposed by Ryanair relating to training on new aircraft.
> 
> ...


Thats the proof you requested, not only of monetary bonding - but also of institutional bully-boy behaviour.

Now the lying (remember - these are the comments of a High Court Judge)



> The judge also made a finding of *false evidence* (!) in relation to two members of Ryanair management who had given evidence at the hearing. He held that, when Ryanair set up an investigation to find out who was behind the website, the real purpose of that investigation was to "break the resolve" of pilots to seek better terms and conditions. There was no warrant for Ryanair's action in seeking assistance from gardaí on the matter, he added.
> He rejected as *"baseless and false"* the evidence of Ryanair director of personnel Eddie Wilson in relation to the setting up the investigation. The judge also said there was no conspiracy in relation to the setting up of the _(Ryanair pilots)_website and it was not engaged in anything unlawful. There was "no actionable wrong", he held, and dismissed Ryanair's application.


Ryanair was subsequently hit for Costs of 1 Milion euro.

Here's an opinion piece on the issue, from Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independant. It makes interesting reading: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1654269&issue_id=14357



> Meccano, we are not going to agree on this. It is more a discussion to have over a pint than on a public forum so I think we should leave alone and let this thread get back on topic.


I don't expect you to agree with me Purple - all the evidence in the world just won't open some eyes. However, maybe someone else reading this might realise there are actually two sides to this issue and thats good enough for me.


----------

