# Talk Talk, up to 600 jobs gone!



## thedaras (7 Sep 2011)

600 jobs have been lost at Talk Talk in Waterford..

This is devastating news to all concerned..

I didnt hear the reasons for the closure..does anyone know what happened?


----------



## potnoodler (7 Sep 2011)

Another big loss for Waterford  , young workers no jobs , future is bleak in this country


----------



## thedaras (7 Sep 2011)

Devastating..I watched reeling in the years about the 80s and it is so similar to 2011 ,with so much emigration etc,very sad.
Apart from the 600 jobs ,there will be so many others who will be indirectly affected by this.


----------



## becky (8 Sep 2011)

Was surprised talk talk employed so many people, such a big loss.  I too think the same when watching reeling back the years in the 80's, but think think these times are worse, way more personal debt.

At work I say about once a week "lord will it ever end", soon I hope, but in my head I think we have another 5 years to go.


----------



## JP1234 (8 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> 600 jobs have been lost at Talk Talk in Waterford..
> 
> This is devastating news to all concerned..
> 
> I didnt hear the reasons for the closure..does anyone know what happened?



The reason given is that the calls to the call centre have dropped off by around 40% as more people use the on line facility. That doesn't really explain why they are shutting the whole thing down.

It's a profitable company.  As someone said to me last night, the IDA grant must have run out....

I know a couple of people who work(ed) there.  Devastated, crushed, despondent.

I could weep. I have been out of work since March and I know too well there is no hope once you lose your job. There simply aren't any jobs to go out and find.


----------



## Shawady (8 Sep 2011)

All the employees inteviewed on the news last night were young. They were all understandibly upset.
Devestating news.


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2011)

The bottom line is that Talk Talk will continue to provide this service, be it through a sub-contractor or directly, but they will do it for less money somewhere else.

We will all move to service providers that are cheaper than their competitors. That's the way things are and always have been. If Talk Talk's competitors move to a low-cost economy that gives them a competitive advantage. If Talk Talk don't do the same thing they will eventually go out of business.
If consumers in Europe put the location of manufacture/service provision ahead of price when they bought a product or service then the jobs would stay in Europe. The fact is that they (we) don't so the jobs go where costs are lowest. That's isn't going to change any time soon.


----------



## Sunny (8 Sep 2011)

Purple said:


> If consumers in Europe put the location of manufacture/service provision ahead of price when they bought a product or service then the jobs would stay in Europe. The fact is that they (we) don't so the jobs go where costs are lowest. That's isn't going to change any time soon.


 
It's a good point. I was involved in outsourcing back office functions including some customer service roles for a UK financial institution to India. It was an unmitigated disaster. Customers hated it and complained in their droves. They moved everything back to the UK very quickly. I have heard the same with other financial institutions as well.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Terrible news for the City , County & the South East generally.

The local radio station , WLR , has stated that unemployment levels in the City could be as high as 30 % !

I really fear for Waterford's future - Waterford was a great place to grow up in but was always a tough City ( partially related to it's history as a major port ) but with such huge unemployment levels I think the law & order structure may come under increasing pressure & I certainly get the impression that there is a view locally that Waterford has been abandoned by successive Governments & the IDA leading to a palpable level of anger.


----------



## jhegarty (8 Sep 2011)

Purple said:


> The bottom line is that Talk Talk will continue to provide this service, be it through a sub-contractor or directly, but they will do it for less money somewhere else.




This assumes that quality doesn't matter.

They will suffer from the quality issues that are inherent from outsourcing to asia.


----------



## thedaras (8 Sep 2011)

Sunny said:


> It's a good point. I was involved in outsourcing back office functions including some customer service roles for a UK financial institution to India. It was an unmitigated disaster. Customers hated it and complained in their droves. They moved everything back to the UK very quickly. I have heard the same with other financial institutions as well.


I hear what you are saying but it doesnt nessarsaily mean we get the best service from our own either ,the reason I say that ,is I read this thread on AAM ;http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=104283&highlight=talktalk

Deiseblue  ;





> Terrible news for the City , County & the South East generally.
> 
> The local radio station , WLR , has stated that unemployment levels in the City could be as high as 30 % !
> 
> I really fear for Waterford's future - Waterford was a great place to grow up in but was always a tough City ( partially related to it's history as a major port ) but with such huge unemployment levels I think the law & order structure may come under increasing pressure & I certainly get the impression that there is a view locally that Waterford has been abandoned by successive Governments & the IDA leading to a palpable level of anger.


Why has that happened? Why is Waterford being so badly affected?
Was there a union in Talk Talk?
If it is true that the company closed in Waterford because it could outsouce for cheaper,how come they havnt closed the UK offices of which there are many?
I know you may not know the answers ,Im just pondering the whys...

It is absolutely devastating for all those involved.


----------



## Mpsox (8 Sep 2011)

Talk Talk were not unionised(not that that makes a blind bit of difference if a multi-national decides to pull out of a country). From what I heard they're closing a number of call centres and consolidating the work into the remainder

Problem with companies like Talk Talk are that the jobs are "yellow pack" jobs with no real added value, they don't make anything, they're not supporting the local market or customers, no real skill involved in what they do (unlike say high end IT or manufacturing jobs) and therefore, the jobs are easy to relocate

We shouldn't really give out about companies relocating to India etc, after all, people in other countries have often lost their jobs when the company relocated to Ireland


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Quite correct , Talk Talk were non unionised - a fact now being bemoaned by quite a number of employees being interviewed on various media outlets - they are of the view that their redundancy terms would be enhanced if a Union was in situ.


----------



## Sunny (8 Sep 2011)

Mpsox said:


> We shouldn't really give out about companies relocating to India etc, after all, people in other countries have often lost their jobs when the company relocated to Ireland


 
Absolutely. Hopefully some use can be made of the facilities in place and some jobs can be saved.

We need to stop looking to the IDA and multinationals to come in and solve this. It is not going to happen. The days of huge job announcements for the regions are gone. We are going to have to solve this ourselves. Time to start offering grants and very generous taxbreaks to Irish businesses and especially to start up companies.


----------



## Sunny (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Quite correct , Talk Talk were non unionised - a fact now being bemoaned by quite a number of employees being interviewed on various media outlets - they are of the view that their redundancy terms would be enhanced if a Union was in situ.



Why? It's closing down. What would they have done? Picketed outside a deserted building.


----------



## thedaras (8 Sep 2011)

I suppose at the end of the day,that this is the reality in the real world..you can be made redundant at the flick of a switch...


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Sunny said:


> Why? It's closing down. What would they have done? Picketed outside a deserted building.



Because across all sectors it is quite clear that traditionally & generally where Unions have been involved employees have received better redundancy terms than non unionised employees - I would reference the Public Sector & the Banks as most recent examples.

It is also true to say that the larger Union organisation worldwide has access to all forms of media & as such large Multinationals are conscious of bad press.

It is apparent from the soundbites from some Talk Talk employees that they share this view.

This is of course a peripheral discussion - the main point is that 575 people have received dreadful news - my sympathies to all.


----------



## Mpsox (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Because across all sectors it is quite clear that traditionally & generally where Unions have been involved employees have received better redundancy terms than non unionised employees - I would reference the Public Sector & the Banks as most recent examples.
> 
> .


 
True, but in those cases, they were usually for voluntary redundancy pacakages which management want staff to accept, and the unions have the threat of strike to bargain with.. In the case of Talk Talk, staff have no bargaining chip and if management in the UK are quite prepared to put 600 people on the dole, they won't care about a bit of bad publicity.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Mpsox said:


> True, but in those cases, they were usually for voluntary redundancy pacakages which management want staff to accept, and the unions have the threat of strike to bargain with.. In the case of Talk Talk, staff have no bargaining chip and if management in the UK are quite prepared to put 600 people on the dole, they won't care about a bit of bad publicity.



Unions have proved far more effective in enhancing redundancy payments whether such redundancies are voluntary or otherwise in Ireland - a fact that has not escaped Talk Talk employees.


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Unions have proved far more effective in enhancing redundancy payments whether such redundancies are voluntary or otherwise in Ireland - a fact that has not escaped Talk Talk employees.



Talk Talk may not have located here in the first place if they had to deal with a union.


----------



## Mpsox (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Unions have proved far more effective in enhancing redundancy payments whether such redundancies are voluntary or otherwise in Ireland - a fact that has not escaped Talk Talk employees.


 
Even where the redundancies were compulsary, the union needs a bargaining chip and any union in Talk Talk has nothing to negotiate with. I'm sure Talk Talk in the UK would love the staff to go on strike as it would save then paying another 30 days wages


----------



## Firefly (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Because across all sectors it is quite clear that traditionally & generally where Unions have been involved employees have received better redundancy terms than non unionised employees - I would reference the Public Sector & the Banks as most recent examples.



The two examples you cite are being funded by state borrowings which future taxpayers, ie our children, will have to pay. The individual employees are up, but the state is down..


----------



## jhegarty (8 Sep 2011)

Purple said:


> Talk Talk may not have located here in the first place if they had to deal with a union.



Exactly.

They would have pulled out the second the staff started to unionise.


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2011)

Firefly said:


> The two examples you cite are being funded by state borrowings which future taxpayers, ie our children, will have to pay. The individual employees are up, but the state is down..



Or to put it another way; unions are good at pushing the government around but not so good at doing it to people who are spending their own money.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Mpsox said:


> Even where the redundancies were compulsary, the union needs a bargaining chip and any union in Talk Talk has nothing to negotiate with. I'm sure Talk Talk in the UK would love the staff to go on strike as it would save then paying another 30 days wages



The question is moot - there is no Union in Talk Talk - employee reps are consulting with Management on redundancy terms - some employees have simply pointed out that they feel they would be better represented & more likely to achieve better terms if a Union was involved rather than fellow workers with no experience of negotiating such redundancies .

I'm sure that Talk Talk would be appalled if the staff went on strike as the bad publicity would be immense & God help them if they then ever decide to enter the Irish Market - no company wants to be seen as a pariah .

Purple raises the interesting point as to whether TT would have come here if they had to deal with a Union - Multinationals /FDI Co's. seem to have no problems operating out of European Countries where Trade Union recognition is mandatory - a sense of pragmatism applies , if they have to deal with Trade Unions they will , if they don't they won't.

With the promised upcoming legislation on mandatory Trade Union legislation in this Country hopefully the same degree of pragmatism will apply.

I am aware that this discussion has branched off from the original thread & perhaps the various posts relating to this matter should be moved ?


----------



## Purple (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> With the promised upcoming legislation on mandatory Trade Union legislation in this Country hopefully the same degree of pragmatism will apply.




I almost hope that happens now; I'd hate to think of how devastated you'll be if it doesn't happen


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Purple said:


> I almost hope that happens now; I'd hate to think of how devastated you'll be if it doesn't happen



I know that you are going to find this hard to believe but as a Trade Union activist & organiser I & the various Unions I've been involved with have been disappointed before on a variety of matters 

However , surely this time given the promises made by all political parties ( not only FG & Labour ) allied to ICTU's complaint to the International Labour Organisation we are not going to be disappointed again - Say it ain't so Joe !


----------



## Leper (8 Sep 2011)

I hadnt realised that Talk Talk was a non unionised company.  600 people in fairly low paying jobs.  Now, they are screaming for sympathy and disappointed that they learned of their fate on RTE radio news instead of through the company in which they had so much faith. There's got to be a moral there somewhere.


----------



## jhegarty (8 Sep 2011)

Leper said:


> I hadnt realised that Talk Talk was a non unionised company.  600 people in fairly low paying jobs.  Now, they are screaming for sympathy and disappointed that they learned of their fate on RTE radio news instead of through the company in which they had so much faith. There's got to be a moral there somewhere.



The only moral I see is that jobs would have been gone years ago if they had unionised.


----------



## Sunny (8 Sep 2011)

Leper said:


> I hadnt realised that Talk Talk was a non unionised company.  600 people in fairly low paying jobs.  Now, they are screaming for sympathy and disappointed that they learned of their fate on RTE radio news instead of through the company in which they had so much faith. There's got to be a moral there somewhere.



What on the earth is the moral? 600 people have lost their jobs and fully deserve my sympathy. You seem to be implying that they deserve what happened because they weren't unionised or something. Pitiful post.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Sep 2011)

Sunny said:


> What on the earth is the moral? 600 people have lost their jobs and fully deserve my sympathy. You seem to be implying that they deserve what happened because they weren't unionised or something. Pitiful post.



Totally agree with you - abject comments - the word " moral " seems incongruous in such a post.


----------



## DonDub (8 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I know that you are going to find this hard to believe but as a Trade Union activist & organiser I & the various Unions I've been involved with have been disappointed before on a variety of matters
> 
> However , surely this time given the promises made by all political parties ( not only FG & Labour ) allied to ICTU's complaint to the International Labour Organisation we are not going to be disappointed again - Say it ain't so Joe !



I share the disquiet expressed by many about the manner in which Talk Talk have handled this matter - especially the very short notice period given.
However, I am absolutely certain that a decision to force union recognition will lead to a catastrophic decline in FDI into Ireland. I know (for a fact) that this is a 'red-line' issue for US multinationals - who invest a hugely disproportionate amount of their dollars into Ireland,precisely because of, lower taxes, and the freedom to choose not to be unionized.
I fear there will be very many more Talk Talk like outcomes if union recognition is forced.....


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2011)

DonDub said:


> I share the disquiet expressed by many about the manner in which Talk Talk have handled this matter - especially the very short notice period given.
> However, I am absolutely certain that a decision to force union recognition will lead to a catastrophic decline in FDI into Ireland. I know (for a fact) that this is a 'red-line' issue for US multinationals - who invest a hugely disproportionate amount of their dollars into Ireland,precisely because of, lower taxes, and the freedom to choose not to be unionized.
> I fear there will be very many more Talk Talk like outcomes if union recognition is forced.....



Mandatory Trade Union recognition has not stopped US Multinationals operating out of European countries where such recognition is mandatory , it should also be noted that a large number of MNC's are unionised although US companies are less likely to be unionised than those from other countries.

The Government in their plan for government recognise that to comply with European Court decisions legislation must be enacted here to ensure mandatory union recognition ( it is not a question of if but when ), ICTU have realised that they can hasten the process by raising a complaint with the ILO & have duly done so .

Our low rate of corporation tax is the attraction for FDI's & as such will outweigh any concerns about unions in the workplace - I know for a fact that the " red line " for such MNC's is profit.


----------



## Leper (9 Sep 2011)

While many find my above post distasteful I will bet that if any of the Talk Tak lemployees are lucky enough to get another job, the first thing they will do is join a trades union.

Please dont let anybody think I have no sympathy with the TT employees.  They have all my sympathy and were duped into working there without union representation.  All was great, until of course the company decided to flick-the-switch.  Ironically, the TT employees were victims of their own success. 

For the record also, I believe that if somebody doesn't want to be a member of something they are entitled to remain outside of that something.  But, the consequences come with the decision.

Yesterday,  I listened to several Waterford Well-Knowns speaking from the heart about what tragedy was there for Waterford.  Nearly all these Well Knowns have or had a background in trade-unionism.  The country does not fare well either because there are at least 600 people who will not be contributing PAYE, PRSI, USC etc and will be drawing unemployment assistance.  The whole issue rebounds on everybody here especially those who pay tax and run businesses.


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2011)

As an advocate of Trade Unionism I would ideally like to see every workplace in Ireland unionised , however I realise that currently such is not the case nor ever likely to be.

Employers currently  (   ) do not have to engage with Trade Unions & many choose not to do so - to suggest therefore that somehow employees are duped into joining such companies without union representation is somewhat baffling , of course employees can join a Union but there is really no point as employers do not have to recognise such unions.


----------



## Firefly (9 Sep 2011)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems from some posters that they think Talk Talk actually owe their workers something...why should they? It's a simple two-way contract between employer and employee. The employee works and gets paid. There's no problem when an employee hands in their notice and moves on and this happens to businesses all over the country (often leaving them without key personnel), so why should it be different when the company hands in its notice?

The same happened in Cork yesrs ago with Ford and Dunlop...you had people bleating on about "I gave my life to that company"....rubbish....they paid their workers along the way and the same workers could have left at anytime you wanted. 

Whilst I sympathise with the TT workers, that's the nature of work I'm afraid.


----------



## Sunny (9 Sep 2011)

Firefly said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems from some posters that they think Talk Talk actually owe their workers something...why should they? It's a simple two-way contract between employer and employee. The employee works and gets paid. There's no problem when an employee hands in their notice and moves on and this happens to businesses all over the country (often leaving them without key personnel), so why should it be different when the company hands in its notice?
> 
> The same happened in Cork yesrs ago with Ford and Dunlop...you had people bleating on about "I gave my life to that company"....rubbish....they paid their workers along the way and the same workers could have left at anytime you wanted.
> 
> Whilst I sympathise with the TT workers, that's the nature of work I'm afraid.


 
It is nothing like that. The impact of a company closing down with the loss of 600 jobs is a lot greater to workers, the local community and the economy than the impact on a company of an individual handing in their notice. (Companys can also insist on longer minimum notice periods than 30 days for key personnel)

Nobody is saying that the company owes their employees anything. They are perfectly free to do business where they want. They should show respect though. No company of that size decides to close down in 30 days unless contingency plans have been put in place months before hand. They should have had the decency to inform the IDA and the employees that this was happening rather than just tell people they will have no jobs in 30 days. It's not like they went bankrupt overnight. At least Bank Of America/MBNA announced their intention to leave Ireland even if no firm decisions have been made.


----------



## Firefly (9 Sep 2011)

Sunny said:


> It is nothing like that. The impact of a company closing down with the loss of 600 jobs is a lot greater to workers, the local community and the economy than the impact on a company of an individual handing in their notice. (Companys can also insist on longer minimum notice periods than 30 days for key personnel)



That's very true, but at the end of they day it's a contract for work = wages. The employee and the employer are quite free to cancel the contract with minimum notice at any time. Granted a large company such as TT in a relatively small economy like Waterford has more clout and could be seen as a "safe" employer, but we all know that large multinationals come and go. It's unfortunate for the workers and the economy in general.



Sunny said:


> Nobody is saying that the company owes their employees anything. They are perfectly free to do business where they want. They should show respect though. No company of that size decides to close down in 30 days unless contingency plans have been put in place months before hand. They should have had the decency to inform the IDA and the employees that this was happening rather than just tell people they will have no jobs in 30 days. It's not like they went bankrupt overnight. At least Bank Of America/MBNA announced their intention to leave Ireland even if no firm decisions have been made.



I take your point...they could have handled it better by giving more notice to the IDA and their workers.


----------



## thedaras (9 Sep 2011)

The UK minimum wage rate for 18- to 21-year-olds is  €5.50, and a pound or €1 .10 approx, for over 21 year olds. 

In Ireland its €8.65 plus all the out of hours bonuses. 

 550 employees on a 40 hour week in the UK at  €6 an hour (half over 21) the  wage bill would be  €132000 a week. 

Compare that to the Irish wage bill of  €190,000 a week, 3 million euro a year more to operate at the Irish minimum wage than the UK minimum wage...

So someone must have looked at the figures and decided that the Irish plant was the one to go..


----------



## jhegarty (9 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> The UK minimum wage rate for 18- to 21-year-olds is  €5.50, and a pound or €1 .10 approx, for over 21 year olds.
> 
> In Ireland its €8.65 plus all the out of hours bonuses.
> 
> ...



Except we all know most of these jobs (with the exception of 80) will end up in Asia , not the UK.

Some unless you are suggesting a 50 cent minimum wage, I don't see any point here.


----------



## Purple (9 Sep 2011)

jhegarty said:


> Except we all know most of these jobs (with the exception of 80) will end up in Asia , not the UK.
> 
> Some unless you are suggesting a 50 cent minimum wage, I don't see any point here.


The point is that when choosing which of their high-cost plants to close they will choose the highest cost plant.


----------



## thedaras (9 Sep 2011)

The point is why would a company choose to pay more than it has too?

And if your point re Asia is true,then the presumption is that all the UK jobs at TT will also move there,which at the moment doesn't appear to be the case..( I heard that they are moving the call centre to Scotland)?


----------



## Chris (9 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Our low rate of corporation tax is the attraction for FDI's & as such will outweigh any concerns about unions in the workplace - I know for a fact that the " red line " for such MNC's is profit.


Absolutely right, and profits will be lower when a company has to employ people to deal with unions and has to factor in wage demands that are higher than the productive value of employees, ultimately resulting in less profits and less jobs.



Firefly said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems from some posters that they think Talk Talk actually owe their workers something...why should they? It's a simple two-way contract between employer and employee. The employee works and gets paid. There's no problem when an employee hands in their notice and moves on and this happens to businesses all over the country (often leaving them without key personnel), so why should it be different when the company hands in its notice?
> 
> The same happened in Cork yesrs ago with Ford and Dunlop...you had people bleating on about "I gave my life to that company"....rubbish....they paid their workers along the way and the same workers could have left at anytime you wanted.
> 
> Whilst I sympathise with the TT workers, that's the nature of work I'm afraid.



I absolutely agree, but the company could have and should have handled the whole thing better. It is beyond me how anyone can argue that companies owe their workers something.


----------



## thedaras (9 Sep 2011)

US MNCs are not ‘less likely’ to be unionized – they simply won’t come here.

 If they have to……better to be based in Germany (80million customers), if forced to be unionized, than on the edge of Europe in a tiny market with the higher wage costs that unions would certainly drive………..


----------



## Deiseblue (9 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> US MNCs are not ‘less likely’ to be unionized – they simply won’t come here.
> 
> If they have to……better to be based in Germany (80million customers), if forced to be unionized, than on the edge of Europe in a tiny market with the higher wage costs that unions would certainly drive………..


 
Our low rate of corporation Tax of 12.5% ( Germany's rate is 15% ) seems to be our biggest selling feature - U S MNC's have no problem dealing with Unions in other European Countries & when the legislation is introduced here they will adopt the same pragmatic approach - as of 2007 61% of MNC's had some form of engagement with Unions so it's not as if the new legislation is going to come as a terrible shock to everyone.

Chris ; Companies will surely use the offices of their existing HR Departments to deal with Unions , furthermore I believe that a number of companies find it easier to deal with wage demands on a collective basis.


----------



## jhegarty (9 Sep 2011)

Purple said:


> The point is that when choosing which of their high-cost plants to close they will choose the highest cost plant.



Waterford wasn't first. They have already downsized from (I think) 21 to 14 centres.


----------



## thedaras (9 Sep 2011)

So why do you think they closed Waterford?


----------



## jhegarty (9 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> So why do you think they closed Waterford?



To move the jobs to Asia.

Why Waterford was 7th of the list to close , I don't know.

I suspect it's only a matter of time of all their call centres.


----------



## Mpsox (9 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Our low rate of corporation Tax of 12.5% ( Germany's rate is 15% ) seems to be our biggest selling feature - U S MNC's have no problem dealing with Unions in other European Countries & when the legislation is introduced here they will adopt the same pragmatic approach - as of 2007 61% of MNC's had some form of engagement with Unions so it's not as if the new legislation is going to come as a terrible shock to everyone.
> 
> Chris ; Companies will surely use the offices of their existing HR Departments to deal with Unions , furthermore I believe that a number of companies find it easier to deal with wage demands on a collective basis.


 
In fairness, I work for a US MNC that will recognise unions when there arewhat we consider a valid reason to do so. An example is when staff are outsourced to us under TUPE. We have recognition agreements with a number of unions

My own experience is that a union is only as good as it's full time officials, some are paranoid and believe employers are out to get "the workers", some are superb and have a common sense approach and recognise that employers have a business to run, and some are a complete waste of space who might write back to us 6 months after we've had a meeting. I've seen union reps walk people into cases and issues that legally the member never had a hope of winning, likewise, I've seen them tell members to cop themselves on and get on with their jobs and be glad to have them.

Unions are like any other business, they need members to stay in business, so they advertise/promise things like any other company. Some deliver great service, some are rubbish. Therefore if anyone is interested in joining a union, make sure you've shopped around for an appropriate one first


----------



## Bronte (12 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> And if your point re Asia is true,then the presumption is that all the UK jobs at TT will also move there,which at the moment doesn't appear to be the case..( I heard that they are moving the call centre to Scotland)?


 
Not sure if that's a wise move. It's often hard to understand someone from India but some Scottish accents are incomprehensible.


----------



## Chris (12 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Chris ; Companies will surely use the offices of their existing HR Departments to deal with Unions , furthermore I believe that a number of companies find it easier to deal with wage demands on a collective basis.



I do not believe that a standard worker in HR would be qualified to deal with trade union officials and demands, especially when these are mandated. Companies find it easiest to implement their own form of salary reviews that suits their needs. If they thought that dealing with salary demands was easier through collective bargaining then why are companies not asking their employees to join unions?
Dealing with unions costs money and drives up costs, it is simply untrue to claim otherwise. Given a choice a company will place itself where it is not forced to deal with a union. Ford's recent announcement to build a plant in India with 5000 jobs is a perfect example.


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Sep 2011)

On the contrary I believe that any HR person worth their salt would have no problem in dealing with Unions - their knowledge of the nuances of industrial relations & their knowledge of the appropriate legislation should equally enable them to deal with Unions as well as individuals or non unionised employees.

61% of MNC's have some degree of contact with Unions & a large portion of our larger indigenous Irish firms are unionised , such large firms find it easier to deal with pay on a collective basis.


----------



## Chris (12 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> On the contrary I believe that any HR person worth their salt would have no problem in dealing with Unions - their knowledge of the nuances of industrial relations & their knowledge of the appropriate legislation should equally enable them to deal with Unions as well as individuals or non unionised employees.


Before you posted this I decided to pop over to our HR department, a large MNC, and find out what they thought of mandatory union recognition. Their immediate reaction was that it would result in initial hiring of consultants to deal with unions and train HR staff, so that blows that theory out of the water.



Deiseblue said:


> 61% of MNC's have some degree of contact with Unions & a large portion of our larger indigenous Irish firms are unionised , such large firms find it easier to deal with pay on a collective basis.


And they only deal with unions when they want to, not when they are forced to do so for every possible matter. Companies do not need unions to help them find the right levels of pay for their staff, this is pure nonsense.


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Sep 2011)

Chris said:


> Before you posted this I decided to pop over to our HR department, a large MNC, and find out what they thought of mandatory union recognition. Their immediate reaction was that it would result in initial hiring of consultants to deal with unions and train HR staff, so that blows that theory out of the water.
> 
> 
> And they only deal with unions when they want to, not when they are forced to do so for every possible matter. Companies do not need unions to help them find the right levels of pay for their staff, this is pure nonsense.



Hardly , it may have been their immediate reaction but your HR Department must surely realise that if they are equipped to deal with employees either individually or en masse then they are equally equipped to deal with Trade Unions , they really should have more confidence in their ability - after all the legislation remains unchanged only the scenario differs.

Sounds to me more like a HR operation that simply fears the unknown.

I reiterate - a large number of companies prefer to deal with pay on a collective basis - far less hassle for them.


----------



## thedaras (12 Sep 2011)

Chris said:


> Before you posted this I decided to pop over to our HR department, a large MNC, and find out what they thought of mandatory union recognition. Their immediate reaction was that it would result in initial hiring of consultants to deal with unions and train HR staff, so that blows that theory out of the water.
> 
> 
> And they only deal with unions when they want to, not when they are forced to do so for every possible matter. Companies do not need unions to help them find the right levels of pay for their staff, this is pure nonsense.



I agree completely with this, I know several people in HR, and they ALL said dealing with the unions is extremely difficult.

They obstruct and delay and bring every little thing into a negotiation,they go way too far and are very militant.

Those who HAVE to deal with unions find them extremely difficult.


----------



## Mpsox (12 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> Those who HAVE to deal with unions find them extremely difficult.


 
You can't generalise, speaking as someone who deals with them on a regular basis, some are a complete waste of space for all concerned, some are superb and can make the companies life easier by managing staff expectations. It depends on the quality of the rep


----------



## thedaras (12 Sep 2011)

Mpsox, in case you misread what I posted;



> "*I know* several people in HR, and *they ALL* said dealing with the unions is extremely difficult"


----------



## Chris (12 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Hardly , it may have been their immediate reaction but your HR Department must surely realise that if they are equipped to deal with employees either individually or en masse then they are equally equipped to deal with Trade Unions , they really should have more confidence in their ability - after all the legislation remains unchanged only the scenario differs.
> 
> Sounds to me more like a HR operation that simply fears the unknown.


We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that the HR manager I talked to was merely being reactionary to a hypothetical scenario, it was more a preparation they have put in place in case this does happen.



Deiseblue said:


> I reiterate - a large number of companies prefer to deal with pay on a collective basis - far less hassle for them.


But those same companies will not be happy to be forced into mandatory union recognition. At the moment they can *choose *to deal with the union or an internal employee association on pay related issues; which one they probably don't care too much, as they know that they cannot be forced into any negotiations they don't want to.


----------



## orka (12 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> 61% of MNC's have some degree of contact with Unions & a large portion of our larger indigenous Irish firms are unionised , such large firms find it easier to deal with pay on a collective basis.


Do you have any stats on how many MNCs/indigenous firms find dealing with unions to be a positive experience?


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Sep 2011)

orka said:


> Do you have any stats on how many MNCs/indigenous firms find dealing with unions to be a positive experience?



Nope , nor do I have stats on how many MNC's/indigenous firms find dealings with Unions not to be a positive experience - do you ?


----------



## thedaras (12 Sep 2011)

Deiseblue..I dont think we need stats on how MNCs/indigenous firms find dealings with unions* not* to be a positive experience!Thats just nit picking...


----------



## T McGibney (12 Sep 2011)

I think it is time to shut this off-topic thread.


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Sep 2011)

thedaras said:


> Deiseblue..I dont think we need stats on how MNCs/indigenous firms find dealings with unions* not* to be a positive experience!Thats just nit picking...




No stats are obviously available on how MNC's view their dealings with Unions.

Simply pointing out the obvious.

You may consider it nit picking - I do not.


----------



## thedaras (13 Sep 2011)

Interesting opinion in todays Irish Times by Fintan O Toole;
[broken link removed]


----------

