# How many electricians does it take to change a lightbulb?



## dereko1969 (31 Oct 2007)

thought we'd got away from all this type of stuff
[broken link removed]
how does it require an electrician to change a lightbulb, and why are they acting in direct opposition to a labour court recommendation?


----------



## Sherman (31 Oct 2007)

People should look to this kind of rubbish as well as to political incompetence when giving out about the health system. Stuff like this is rife in the public sector.

I wonder will the electricians still get their benchmarking  

Oh, and as an aside, why on earth does the HSE even employ electricians directly? Surely this is the kind of thing that could / should be outsourced?


----------



## shanegl (31 Oct 2007)

Heard both sides argue their case on Newstalk. Apparently this disagreement over lightbulbs has been going on for 18 months. Its an absolute farce, this kind of bureacracy sickens me, its such a waste of money.


----------



## greenfield (31 Oct 2007)

http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations
- before it got to a labour court hearing there would have been local meetings, conciliation meetings etc. ao how many hours and effort has gone into this - makes you tired just thinking about what it must be like to deal with this

Sorry, should have said search under bulb - HSE and TEEU


----------



## ClubMan (31 Oct 2007)

> Efforts to contact a TEEU spokesman this morning were unsuccessful.


They probably need an _LRC _ruling to decide who can answer the phone...


----------



## Pique318 (31 Oct 2007)

It must be great to be unionised...

"You can't touch me, I'm part of a union.....till the day I die"


----------



## bazermc (31 Oct 2007)

It's the HSE!

Are we really that surprised!


----------



## rmelly (31 Oct 2007)

Should we not also be getting electricians in to turn on and off the lights as well? the TEEU slipped up on that one.


----------



## Jock04 (31 Oct 2007)

How many elecricians.............?

Well, if it's a screw fitting bulb, and the electrician's from Cork - only one.

He just holds up the bulb & the world revolves around him.


(allegedly   )


----------



## Protocol (31 Oct 2007)

I always feel that one cause of health sector problems is the trade unions.

Not lack of money.

But trade union practices.

By that, I include the consultant's union.


----------



## Sn@kebite (31 Oct 2007)

dereko1969 said:


> thought we'd got away from all this type of stuff
> [broken link removed]
> how does it require an electrician to change a lightbulb, and why are they acting in direct opposition to a labour court recommendation?


Depends on where the bulb is. If it's in an Operating room it must be done right.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2007)

Protocol said:


> I always feel that one cause of health sector problems is the trade unions.
> 
> Not lack of money.
> 
> ...


I agree but don't say a bad word about nurses or doctors, you'll be ripped appart!


Sn@kebite said:


> Depends on where the bulb is. If it's in an Operating room it must be done right.


 OK, so show a janitor how to do it, it's no big deal. The rest of the light bulbs, say in a desk lamp; what about them? Should an electrician be called out in the middle of the night to change that light bulb or are there better things to spend two or three hundred euro on?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Nov 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> Depends on where the bulb is. If it's in an Operating room it must be done right.


Is this actually the case? Why exactly does replacing an operating theatre bulb require more expertise than any other lightbulb? Just curious.


----------



## Sn@kebite (1 Nov 2007)

Purple said:
			
		

> say in a desk lamp; what about them? Should an electrician be called out in the middle of the night to change that light bulb or are there better things to spend two or three hundred euro on?


I agree that would be rediculous that an electrician is required to change a bulb in a desk lamp.


ClubMan said:


> Is this actually the case? Why exactly does replacing an operating theatre bulb require more expertise than any other lightbulb? Just curious.


I know, it probably doesn't on second thought.
I don't know what the "actual" case is. But it's rather an assumption/theory of mine that if a bulb blew during an operation (probably very unlikely) and a qualified person put it in, there would be a much lesser chance of a court case for compensation being filed/won against the hospital. 
It was just a quick thought of mine.


----------



## greenfield (1 Nov 2007)

Per the Labour Court recommendation the dispute concerns the following.... 
"As part of work reorganisation the hospital authorities directed that small non essential electric light *bulb*s could be replaced as required by non electrician staff. The Union objected, maintaining that this was electricians work and should remain so. Management contended that this would add considerably to the HSE costs as it would require an electrician to attend on overtime to change a *bulb* in a bedside lamp for example.

Management acknowledged that some *bulb* replacement in certain specified areas, would need to be carried out by electricians. 

The Union are not prepared to consider any changing of any *bulb*s by non electricians. On the basis of the refusal of the Union the HSE has withheld payment outstanding under the parallel benchmarking agreement."


----------



## shanegl (1 Nov 2007)

Shocking, isn't it?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Nov 2007)

shanegl said:


> Shocking, isn't it?


----------



## Jock04 (1 Nov 2007)

shanegl said:


> Shocking, isn't it?


 
Indeed, thanks for shedding light on a current issue.


----------



## bullbars (1 Nov 2007)

> Shocking, isn't it?


If only the HSE had some bright sparks like you.


----------



## Protocol (1 Nov 2007)

These union staff sound very petty, like teenage girls squabbling.

Why do they fear change?

I am in SIPTU, and support trade unions, but not this sort of behaviour.


----------



## Caveat (1 Nov 2007)

bullbars said:


> If only the HSE had some bright sparks like you.


 
Ohm my God - more bad jokes on the way!


----------



## Jock04 (1 Nov 2007)

I suppose in their own little world, they feel they are looking after the interests of their members.

Janitors changing light bulbs today could be wiring plugs tomorrow, changing fuses next week, wiring in spur sockets next month. An erosion of the tradesmans' role.

Sadly, common sense seems to have been pushed to the side. Did these guys learn their craft at British Leyland in the 70's?


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2007)

Protocol said:


> These union staff sound very petty, like teenage girls squabbling.
> 
> Why do they fear change?
> 
> I am in SIPTU, and support trade unions, but not this sort of behaviour.



What they are doing now is very damaging to trade unions. They have provided a stick for anyone who wishes to beat them with.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Nov 2007)

Nothing new there then...


----------



## Caveat (1 Nov 2007)

Are unions even particularly relevant these days?  In previous decades practices/laws were more lax, it was an employer's market and employers undoubtedly took advantage.  

But surely almost everything of real concern is covered by employment law these days - no?


----------



## RainyDay (1 Nov 2007)

I'm surprised at how easily otherwise intelligent AAM readers are swallowing the HSE spin on this story. There are two sides to every issue. The TEEU's dispute with the HSE is not about 'changing light-bulbs'. The dispute has its roots in the HSE's refusal to abide by Labour Relations Commission protocols and working documents. So bad is it that HSE has forbidden local managers from negotiating with the union. One crucial aspect is that the HSE is outsourcing work at below the registered employment rates (which is in breach of national agreements) to contractors, some of whom the union has claimed, are unqualified. Ultimately, this is about management refusal to negotiate, the harrassement of trade union members, and the imposition of new practices without agreement. It should be noted that union members are providing emergency cover - in some cases without pay.

If you want more details on what is really going on (including details of the damage being done by unqualified staff), see http://www.teeu.ie/news/show.asp?id=211


----------



## ClubMan (1 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> I'm surprised at how easily otherwise intelligent AAM readers are swallowing the HSE spin on this story.


Are you implying that the _HSE _writes reports for the Irish Times?


----------



## RainyDay (1 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Are you implying that the _HSE _writes reports for the Irish Times?


I am implying that many lazy journalists in many lazy media outlets are only too happy to regurgitate press releases without any analysis, investigate or balanced comment. This really doesn't surprise me. It does surprise me that many AAM readers have swallowed this stuff so easily.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> I am implying that many lazy journalists in many lazy media outlets are only too happy to regurgitate press releases without any analysis, investigate or balanced comment.


Does that include the specific article/journalist in question here? If so you might want to give a defamation lawyer a quick call.


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> I am implying that many lazy journalists in many lazy media outlets are only too happy to regurgitate press releases without any analysis, investigate or balanced comment. This really doesn't surprise me. It does surprise me that many AAM readers have swallowed this stuff so easily.


 Are you suggesting that the TEEU is more balanced than the Irish Times, itself a left wing newspaper?
It is fascicle that in this day and age the HSE employ any electricians directly. They should have a service contract for their boilers and a maintenance contract for the hospitals, which is tendered for every few years.


----------



## bullbars (1 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> They should have a service contract for their boilers and a maintenance contract for the hospitals, which is tendered for every few years.


 
This is the only way forward to avoid these kind of disputes, Whats next plumbers will be the only ones permitted to turn taps on & off?!


----------



## shanegl (1 Nov 2007)

Rainyday, I don't care where the dispute has arisen from, the fact is that the Union has refused to allow non-electricians to change non-essential light bulbs. Do you have any information that contradicts that? If not then I think most people here will maintain their current opinion of this ridiculous situation.


----------



## RainyDay (1 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that the TEEU is more balanced than the Irish Times, itself a left wing newspaper?


Firstly, your claim about the Irish Times being left wing is about 3 years out of date. Madam Kennedy has been pushing it steadily to the right, with contributors like Marc Coleman, Waters and that other guy who makes Norman Tebbit look like Derek Hatton - was it Stien or Stein or similar. Granted it might appear to be left-wing by comparison the the Independent or the Mail, but it really cannot be considered to be left-wing any more.

But as is clear from my original post which read 'There are two sides to every story', No, I'm not suggesting that the TEEU is more balanced than the IT. 

I am suggesting that the IT article was not balanced at all. It omitted key points of information




Purple said:


> It is fascicle that in this day and age the HSE employ any electricians directly. They should have a service contract for their boilers and a maintenance contract for the hospitals, which is tendered for every few years.


Maybe this service should be outsourced. Or maybe not. I'm not an expert on facilities management in hospitals, which have unique requirements about continuity of service. Unlike others on this thread, I won't purport to have all the answers on things that I know very little about.



shanegl said:


> Rainyday, I don't care where the dispute has arisen from, the fact is that the Union has refused to allow non-electricians to change non-essential light bulbs. Do you have any information that contradicts that? If not then I think most people here will maintain their current opinion of this ridiculous situation.


If you want to base your current opinions on misleading and out-of-context claims, then be my guest. If you want to see the big picture, do a bit more reading & research.


----------



## Protocol (2 Nov 2007)

Another example of trade unions preventing hospital reforms.

53 hspital porters are employed in 1 hospital.

3 on long-term sick leave.
11 on sick-leave
8 called in sick on the day concerned

plus ongoing problems with absenteeism

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1102/hospital1.html


Here's a solution: 5k bonus to every worker with no or very little absenteeism.  That would sort it.


----------



## Purple (2 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Firstly, your claim about the Irish Times being left wing is about 3 years out of date. Madam Kennedy has been pushing it steadily to the right, with contributors like Marc Coleman, Waters and that other guy who makes Norman Tebbit look like Derek Hatton - was it Stien or Stein or similar. Granted it might appear to be left-wing by comparison the the Independent or the Mail, but it really cannot be considered to be left-wing any more.


 It is still left wing, just a little less than it was. 



RainyDay said:


> But as is clear from my original post which read 'There are two sides to every story', No, I'm not suggesting that the TEEU is more balanced than the IT.
> I am suggesting that the IT article was not balanced at all. It omitted key points of information


 It looked to me that it just didn't try to defend the indefensible.





RainyDay said:


> Maybe this service should be outsourced. Or maybe not. I'm not an expert on facilities management in hospitals, which have unique requirements about continuity of service. Unlike others on this thread, I won't purport to have all the answers on things that I know very little about.


 That's right; basic management and cost control principles don't apply to the health service because it's just too complicated  




RainyDay said:


> If you want to base your current opinions on misleading and out-of-context claims, then be my guest. If you want to see the big picture, do a bit more reading & research.


 ...and you will come to the same conclusion


----------



## shnaek (2 Nov 2007)

Protocol said:


> Here's a solution: 5k bonus to every worker with no or very little absenteeism.  That would sort it.



Trouble is, you'd have to give it to everyone, because that's how things work there. And sick days would not be counted as absenteeism etc etc. 

In fact, I thought I wasn't going to be able to type here at all as the person employed to type is out sick, and the person employed to turn on the monitor is on a fag break. Luckily I found some substitutes.


----------



## Caveat (2 Nov 2007)

shnaek said:


> And sick days would not be counted as absenteeism etc etc.


 
This is my personal favourite.  Almost every public sector employee I have met regards this sick day "allowance" as an extension of their holidays and think absolutely nothing of using it to calculate annual leave - they are completely open about it.


----------



## shanegl (2 Nov 2007)

Don't forget bank time for cheques they don't receive anymore!


----------



## oldtimer (2 Nov 2007)

I worked for 43 years and had only one week sick leave in all that time. When I retired I got no special thanks but didn't mind - was just grateful I was blessed with excellent health. Most of the younger staff just commented '' you were some fool not to go sick.'' Its a matter of concience. Protocol, if you ever get a campaign going for 5K for those with little or no sick leave would you make sure it is backdated to the late fifties.


----------



## Crugers (2 Nov 2007)

oldtimer said:


> I worked for 43 years and had only one week sick leave in all that time. When I retired I got no special thanks but didn't mind - was just grateful I was blessed with excellent health. Most of the younger staff just commented '' you were some fool not to go sick.'' Its a matter of concience. Protocol, if you ever get a campaign going for 5K for those with little or no sick leave would you make sure it is backdated to the late fifties.


 
Sorry Oldtimer, but unless you were a TD/Minister backdating entitlements just won't happen...


----------



## Crugers (2 Nov 2007)

greenfield said:


> The Union are not prepared to consider any changing of any *bulb*s by non electricians. On the basis of the refusal of the Union the HSE has withheld payment outstanding under the parallel benchmarking agreement."


 
Hmmmm! 
So when it comes to the next round of benchmarking, how or who will they benchmark the electricians against.
Managers (they might change light bulbs!)
Consultants (they might change light bulbs!)

Or even more interesting might be how / who will they benchmark Managers / Consultants against
Electricians (they change bulbs too!)


----------



## RainyDay (2 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> That's right; basic management and cost control principles don't apply to the health service because it's just too complicated


You know well that this is a misrepresentation of what I said. Perhaps you should consider working for the Irish Times?


----------



## jem (4 Nov 2007)

i belive that this is just another example of the reasons why the days of unions are numbered and why their  "special" place in Irish society must end. I wonder  is it possible that they could be done on the cartel rules.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Nov 2007)

jem said:


> i belive that this is just another example of the reasons why the days of unions are numbered and why their  "special" place in Irish society must end. I wonder  is it possible that they could be done on the cartel rules.



Would the same apply to the 'special place' of IBEC (given their recent flip-flopping over Aer Lingus/Shannon, for example) and the 'special place' of the IFA (given their underhand manoeuvres in 2000 to avoid a court injunction regarding picketing of beef plants) etc etc?


----------



## ubiquitous (5 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Would the same apply to the 'special place' of IBEC (given their recent flip-flopping over Aer Lingus/Shannon, for example) and the 'special place' of the IFA (given their underhand manoeuvres in 2000 to avoid a court injunction regarding picketing of beef plants) etc etc?



I can't speak for jem but I myself would shed no tears if the unions, IBEC, IFA and all the other so-called "social partners" lose all the privileges conferred on them by the social partnership process.


----------



## Hoagy (5 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I can't speak for jem but I myself would shed no tears if the unions, IBEC, IFA and all the other so-called "social partners" lose all the privileges conferred on them by the social partnership process.


 
A side effect of social partnership, which has been around now for twenty years or more, is that there is hardly anyone left on either side of disputes who has any experience of actual bargaining.
I have a little experience of JIC from the employers' association side and deals were often hammered out in the pub across the road because the individuals on both sides knew each other and could trust each other.
We seem to go straight to industrial action now without having negotiated properly at all.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2007)

Those interested in the reality of life in the HSE maintenance service should read the article titled 'The board's live wire' in the  'My working day' series in Health Supplement in Tuesday's Irish times. Those who prefer to base their world view on Daily Mail type headlines should avoid this article like the plague.


----------



## Sunny (7 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Those interested in the reality of life in the HSE maintenance service should read the article titled 'The board's live wire' in the 'My working day' series in Health Supplement in Tuesday's Irish times. Those who prefer to base their world view on Daily Mail type headlines should avoid this article like the plague.


 
I read it and haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Nobody ever doubted that electricians and maintenance staff play an important role in the Health Service and do more than change light bulbs but nowhere in the article did it deny the accusation they are involved in a dispute about out dated work practices that have no place in a modern health service.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I can't speak for jem but I myself would shed no tears if the unions, IBEC, IFA and all the other so-called "social partners" lose all the privileges conferred on them by the social partnership process.


 I agree completely. I no more like the idea of IBEC with it's legs under the table of government than SIPTU or anyone else that was not elected by the people.


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> You know well that this is a misrepresentation of what I said. Perhaps you should consider working for the Irish Times?


So what did you mean when you said; 





RainyDay said:


> Maybe this service should be outsourced. Or maybe not. I'm not an expert on facilities management in hospitals, which have unique requirements about continuity of service. Unlike others on this thread, I won't purport to have all the answers on things that I know very little about.


To me that implied that anyone offering a solution was open to being shot down as not understanding the "unique requirements about continuity of service" and was just "purport[ing] to have all the answers on things that I[they] know very little about".
That's been the standard line of BS trotted out be unions for years when anyone attempted to confront them with reality. It just doesn’t wash any more.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> So what did you mean when you said; "Maybe this service should be outsourced. Or maybe not. I'm not an expert on facilities management in hospitals, which have unique requirements about continuity of service. Unlike others on this thread, I won't purport to have all the answers on things that I know very little about."
> To me that implied that anyone offering a solution was open to being shot down as not understanding the "unique requirements about continuity of service" and was just "purport[ing] to have all the answers on things that I[they] know very little about".
> That's been the standard line of BS trotted out be unions for years when anyone attempted to confront them with reality. It just doesn’t wash any more.


I think it's fairly obvious that I said what I meant. Perhaps you should concentrate on what I said, rather than on anything I may or may not have implied.


----------



## Protocol (7 Nov 2007)

There seems to be no doubt but that *widespread restrictive practices across the public sector* are preventing or slowing reforms to boost efficiency.

One example: teacher unions wouldn't allow PT meetings after school.

The list goes on and on...............


----------



## MOB (8 Nov 2007)

I have had a brief look at the Labour Court website, from which the following emerge:

1.  The dispute which was referred to the Labour Court was the issue of allowing non-essential bulbs (such as bedside lamps) to be changed by non-electricians.  The parties may well have other areas of disagreement, but this is the issue which went to the Labour Court.   The court made a finding against the Union; that in my opinion should be the end of that particular issue.

2.  Some of the union-supported claims brought before the court are quite extraordinary.   Here is an extract from a not particularly unusual one (APPEAL DECISION NO. AD0634):

"UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
As a result of the transfer and the rostering arrangement in the new location, the worker incurred a loss of overtime earnings and Sunday/ Unsocial hours premium.

Management Argument:
1.The worker requested that he be transferred to the new location as it was nearer to his home. He was fully aware of the rostering arrangements in the new location. The worker also received compensation for transferring to the new location.

2. It is unacceptable that the worker would request a transfer to be nearer his home and then claim loss of earnings as a result of the transfer. Management have made every effort to accomodate the worker by offering weekend work whenever requested.


DECISION :

The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, does not see merit in the Union's claim, particularly in the light of LCR 17419"

I do see a need for Unions in the private sector, but it seems clear that the state sector has a real union problem.   I think that we need to get some clearer thinking on this issue.  If you have a state sector job, effectively with job security for life (the exceptions are too few to be meaningful) I think there is no moral justification for industrial action in connection with the sort of issues that most private sector people would regard as fairly petty gripes.


----------



## Sunny (8 Nov 2007)

If a Union brings stupid cases like this and the labour court throws them out, do the Union end up liable for the company's costs??


----------



## Purple (8 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> I think it's fairly obvious that I said what I meant. Perhaps you should concentrate on what I said, rather than on anything I may or may not have implied.


  I'm still not sure what you meant so perhaps you could answer the question.
You're a smart guy, I am sure that you are aware that comments have t be seen and read in context. I'm not sure what the context was when you made a broad unspecific statement about other posters.


----------



## shnaek (8 Nov 2007)

Interesting post, MOB. They live in their own world, don't they?!


----------



## RainyDay (10 Nov 2007)

MOB said:


> I have had a brief look at the Labour Court website, from which the following emerge:
> 
> 1.  The dispute which was referred to the Labour Court was the issue of allowing non-essential bulbs (such as bedside lamps) to be changed by non-electricians.  The parties may well have other areas of disagreement, but this is the issue which went to the Labour Court.   The court made a finding against the Union; that in my opinion should be the end of that particular issue.
> 
> ...


Some very selective quoting of the Labour Court there - you omitted some of the following;


> 3.1 The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 and the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations, 1993 support the non devolution of core work principle for the reasons outlined in the Regulations.
> 
> 2. The withholding of the retrospection, pay increases and bonus payments to the workers concerned is totally unacceptable. The Union contends that the workers have fully complied with the local agreement and national agreements, in spirit, intent and application.
> 
> ...





Purple said:


> I am sure that you are aware that comments have t be seen and read in context. I'm not sure what the context was when you made a broad unspecific statement about other posters.



The context was quite simply the context of this thread. THe only think I know for sure is that I don't know enough about the detail of this issue to come to overall judgement. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped other posters from a rush to judgement based on tabloid headlines.


----------



## MOB (10 Nov 2007)

"Some very selective quoting of the Labour Court there - you omitted some of the following;......"

In fairness, not really;  The 'omitted' text to which you refer is from the Union Argument, (as summarised on the Labour Court website).  I quoted from neither the Union Argument nor from the Management Argument - so I was quite even handed about it.  

The findings of the Labout Court (as summarised on their site) are quite clear, and the court clearly found against the union.


----------



## RainyDay (10 Nov 2007)

MOB said:


> In fairness, not really;  The 'omitted' text to which you refer is from the Union Argument, (as summarised on the Labour Court website).  I quoted from neither the Union Argument nor from the Management Argument - so I was quite even handed about it.
> 
> The findings of the Labout Court (as summarised on their site) are quite clear, and the court clearly found against the union.



Are you confident that the case you quote AD0634 is representative of the 145 Labour Court recommendations involving the HSE?


----------



## Purple (11 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Some very selective quoting of the Labour Court there - you omitted some of the following;


 You have presented these quotes in a way that implies that they were actual Labour Court findings, that's a total misrepresentation of the facts. Maybe you should be working for the Irish Times 



RainyDay said:


> The context was quite simply the context of this thread. The only think I know for sure is that I don't know enough about the detail of this issue to come to overall judgement. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped other posters from a rush to judgement based on tabloid headlines.


 So what are you saying? What is your opinion? Do you think the public is entitled to form an opinion or should they just do as the unions say 'cause they are the experts?


----------



## RainyDay (11 Nov 2007)

Purple said:


> You have presented these quotes in a way that implies that they were actual Labour Court findings, that's a total misrepresentation of the facts. Maybe you should be working for the Irish Times


I genuinely didn't intend to misrepresent anyone, though I can see how the context may not have been clear.


Purple said:


> So what are you saying? What is your opinion?


OK, I'll try it a 3rd time as you didn't seem to get it the first two times. The only think I know for sure is that I don't know enough about the detail of this issue to come to overall judgement.


Purple said:


> Do you think the public is entitled to form an opinion or should they just do as the unions say 'cause they are the experts?


All the answers to these important questions are in my earlier posts. I never suggested that the public is not entitled to form an opinion. I did suggest that it is a little silly to base those opinions on tabloid headlines. I never suggested that anyone should 'do as the unions say'. I simply pointed out that there are two sides to every story. It really is that simple.


----------



## rabbit (11 Nov 2007)

Jock04 said:


> How many elecricians.............?
> 
> Well, if it's a screw fitting bulb, and the electrician's from Cork - only one.
> 
> ...


 
I thought here in Ireland it was four - one to change the bulb and three to sing about the auld one ?


----------



## ajapale (11 Nov 2007)

I might be wrong but I seem to remember that craft workers (fitters, electricians etc) in the Public Service were not part of the benchmarking arrangement.


----------



## Purple (12 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> I genuinely didn't intend to misrepresent anyone, though I can see how the context may not have been clear.


It's not like you to do so, so fair enough.


----------

