Unions warn against ESB sale

Q

QED

Registered User
Messages
222
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/unions-warn-against-esb-sale-464347.html

" Union representatives at ESB are warning the Government against any sale or break-up of the company.
..... Brendan Ogle of Unite trade union said it is not acceptable
He is warning the Government they'll "turn the lights out" rather than let it happen. "​

This is absolutely maddening. Companies are bought and sold all of the time. There is adequate legal protection for workers in such a situation.​

When will we stand up and break the strangle hold that these Unions have over our country? ​

I am aware that parts of the ESB are very successful and I believe that selling off some sections may not be in our best interest, but this statement from the Trade Union has me fuming!! ​
 
Brendan Ogle has always been a firebrand. Once the workers are offered an ESOP with tax free lump sums each year (when they sell there shares) it will be voted through.

There will be plenty of 'fightin' talk ahead of any decision but so long as the wheels are greased there will be no problem with the ESB being sold off.
 
I presume that is the same Brendan Ogle of the ILDA from a few years back. He didn't acheive a whole lot back then and I doubt if he'll acheive a whole lot now.

I thought the ESB had already started selling things off, like Tarbert to some Spanish company a couple of years back. Possibly that might be the approach taken, sell more of the assets of the company rather then the company itself
 
QED said:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/unions-warn-against-esb-sale-464347.html

" Union representatives at ESB are warning the Government against any sale or break-up of the company.
..... Brendan Ogle of Unite trade union said it is not acceptable
He is warning the Government they'll "turn the lights out" rather than let it happen. "​

This is absolutely maddening. Companies are bought and sold all of the time. There is adequate legal protection for workers in such a situation.​

​
Click to expand...
i wonder just how adequate that protection really is!
 
This is merely the first salvo in what no doubt will be protracted discussions on the merits and pitfalls of privatising the ESB.

I'm sure Brendan Ogle knows what effect his emotive comment re putting the lights out carries in terms of laying down a marker , far more effective then simply saying that he would prefer if privatisation didn't happen I would have thought.
 
Yes, straight away he has alienated most of the public, who don’t like being threatened. He has also branded himself as a militant and so diminished the credibility of any further comments he makes.

I am against the privatisation of the ESB. Primarily because the state is so incompetent when it comes to regulating anything and so we will end up with a power network that is in as bad a state as our telecoms one. I also object to how the same group of super rich insiders always seem to take the state to the cleaners whenever we try to sell anything off.

The ESB may be rotten with the cancer that is the trade union movement, it may be grossly inefficient with employees that are grossly overpaid but in a capital intensive industry that doesn’t matter so much. At least it delivers a reasonable network.
 
Brendan Ogle is using the same tactic employed by Eamon Devoy when Brian Lenihan suggested that semi state employees could suffer pay cuts akin to the PS pay cuts , the threat of turning out the lights removed that suggestion from the Government agenda for the time being at least.

If such tactics protect the terms and conditions of the employees and keep the ESB out of private hands then I have no problems with Mr. Ogle's forthright comments.
 
Deiseblue said:
Brendan Ogle is using the same tactic employed by Eamon Devoy when Brian Lenihan suggested that semi state employees could suffer pay cuts akin to the PS pay cuts , the threat of turning out the lights removed that suggestion from the Government agenda for the time being at least.

If such tactics protect the terms and conditions of the employees and keep the ESB out of private hands then I have no problems with Mr. Ogle's forthright comments.
Click to expand...

A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1985 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.

Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?
 
Purple said:
A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1885 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.

Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?
Click to expand...

He worked from 1885 to 2002 when he took early retirement. :eek: Must have had some pension!
 
Purple said:
A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1985 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.

Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?
Click to expand...

Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give credence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.
 
Deiseblue said:
Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give creedence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I am lying?
I know for an absolute fact that what he said is true.

If you are willing to sign a non disclosure agreement that I can email to you I will give you his name and work history.

The bearded brethren have a long and illustrious track record of ignoring the facts and presenting misinformation to the public. The truth rarely suits their self-serving agenda.
 
Deiseblue said:
Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give credence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.
Click to expand...


I've heard similiar stories from ESB people who worked in Ardnacrusha
 
Remember the uproar when air traffic controllers decided to hold the Country to ransom. The unions in ESB will do well to learn from the fiasco. This is not the 1980's.
 
Sell it off once the upgraded interconnector with Britain is in place. Then if they go on strike we can get our electricity from the UK. Remember that ESB no longer runs the grid, so going on strike will not lead to power cuts if alternative suppliers are available.
 
Purple said:
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I am lying?
I know for an absolute fact that what he said is true.

If you are willing to sign a non disclosure agreement that I can email to you I will give you his name and work history.

The bearded brethren have a long and illustrious track record of ignoring the facts and presenting misinformation to the public. The truth rarely suits their self-serving agenda.
Click to expand...

Read my post again , I never suggested that you were lying.

I said you obviously believed your relations version of events , I do not - as far as I'm concerned it is hearsay.

If the case history was compiled by a disinterested party and contains details of union/management negotiations ( if any ) and Labour Court involvement ( again if any ) I would of course be interested in establishing the facts.

If the case history was not compiled by such a non biased party then really it's of no interest.
 
On reflection if I signed a non disclosure form and then felt that on reading the case history there were other arguments to pursue then surely I am precluded from doing so ?

To avoid this perhaps you could post the main thrust of both your relations case , both the management and Union cases and the Labour Court's involvement ( if any )
 
Deiseblue said:
On reflection if I signed a non disclosure form and then felt that on reading the case history there were other arguments to pursue then surely I am precluded from doing so ?

To avoid this perhaps you could post the main thrust of both your relations case , both the management and Union cases and the Labour Court's involvement ( if any )
Click to expand...

I have no intension of doing so.
I simply posted an example of an individual who worked in the ESB for 35 years. For the first 10 odd years he worked in various positions and was then trained as a control room operator. In 1985 his function was computerised and he was moved to an office in Dublin city centre. He refused to be re-trained for other duties and his union backed him. From 1985 ‘till he took early retirement almost did no.

The above is factually accurate and correct.
The person involved is a close relation whom I know very well and see regularly. There is no chance that he is misinforming me.

If you choose not to believe me because it doesn’t suit your agenda or preconceptions that’s your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top