Unions warn against ESB sale

Wasn't there also a case where some employees in the midlands refused to move to a new power station so they were paid to remain employed in the old de-commissioned station - again with (and because of) their union backing. There was very little or no work for them to do but it was easier for the ESB to give into them than to take on the Unions.

Deiseblue - I can't find any link to an article so don't believe me if you don't want to but it definitely happened.
 
Purple said:
The person involved is a close relation whom I know very well and see regularly. There is no chance that he is misinforming me.
Click to expand...

+1

I too have a 'relative' who joined ESB a few years ago. The things he told me about allowances and cash payments and overtime payment and the work practices of senior management, shocked me. When I asked him about the oft-quoted €80K 'average annual income of ESB workers', he laughed and said he doubted it was that low.
 
QED said:
Wasn't there also a case where some employees in the midlands refused to move to a new power station so they were paid to remain employed in the old de-commissioned station - again with (and because of) their union backing. There was very little or no work for them to do but it was easier for the ESB to give into them than to take on the Unions.

Deiseblue - I can't find any link to an article so don't believe me if you don't want to but it definitely happened.
Click to expand...

I remember the case myself , it was well publicised at the time , the issue was resolved in 2003 after protracted and bitter negotiations when employees and management agreed a voluntary severance scheme.

In this case the facts were available for all to see , what I find difficult to accept as fact is anecdotal , second hand information, information garnered by one person from another concerning matters of which the first person has no direct experience.
 
the issue was resolved in 2003 after protracted and bitter negotiations when employees and management agreed a voluntary severance scheme.
Click to expand...

Why should there be any negotiations? These people should have accepted a new position at the new power station or been made redundant full stop. The fact that "bitter and protracted" negotiations even took place shows that these employees and their union were being obstructive.
 
csirl said:
Why should there be any negotiations? These people should have accepted a new position at the new power station or been made redundant full stop. The fact that "bitter and protracted" negotiations even took place shows that these employees and their union were being obstructive.
Click to expand...

The alternative view is of course that management acted in a high handed fashion and the union simply backed the employees.

The fact that after the aforementioned negotiations management agreed to a relatively generous severance package would seem to support the above argument.
 
Deiseblue said:
In this case the facts were available for all to see , what I find difficult to accept as fact is anecdotal , second hand information, information garnered by one person from another concerning matters of which the first person has no direct experience.
Click to expand...


All information garnered from one person by another is, by it's nature, anecdotal. All information garnered by one person from another is second hand. Unless someone has observed the same events as the person that is relating them, which seems kind of pointless, then the person to whom the information is being imparted will have no first hand knowledge of said events.

I have related the facts as they have been related to me in many conversations over many years. I have questioned what I was told and have been furnished with satisfactory answers. I know that doesn't sit well with your biases but that's no reason for verbosity.
 
Deiseblue said:
The fact that after the aforementioned negotiations management agreed to a relatively generous severance package would seem to support the above argument.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a leap.
How about the management knew that the bearded brethren would kick up a major storm so the best think was to just buy the malingerers off?
 
Purple said:
All information garnered from one person by another is, by it's nature, anecdotal. All information garnered by one person from another is second hand. Unless someone has observed the same events as the person that is relating them, which seems kind of pointless, then the person to whom the information is being imparted will have no first hand knowledge of said events.

I have related the facts as they have been related to me in many conversations over many years. I have questioned what I was told and have been furnished with satisfactory answers. I know that doesn't sit well with your biases but that's no reason for verbosity.
Click to expand...

Simply hammering home the point , I prefer to deal with facts rather than hearsay , nothing to do with any agenda or bias.

Naturally if you can substantiate your assertions then I would have to consider matters further but until then ----
 
ESB have the country by the balls. They can do what they like and charge what they like ad infinitum. Nobody will take them on. Because nobody wants their lights to go out.
 
Purple said:
That's a bit of a leap.
How about the management knew that the bearded brethren would kick up a major storm so the best think was to just buy the malingerers off?
Click to expand...

That's certainly another view which deserves as much consideration as others expressed on the topic.

Appalling management though if such was the case !
 
Deiseblue said:
Simply hammering home the point , I prefer to deal with facts rather than hearsay , nothing to do with any agenda or bias.

Naturally if you can substantiate your assertions then I would have to consider matters further but until then ----
Click to expand...

This may come as a shock to you but you are not the reason I post here. I am sure that I am not unique in that. Garnering your attention so that you may consider a matter further is, I suspect, not at the top of anyone's agenda here.

By it's nature an internet forum will be full of people's experiences, direct and indirect. You seem to have no problem with such sources except when it clashes with your own biases. I am not talking about a story I heard from a bloke “down the pub”, I am relating information gained from a close family member over a period of decades. Therefore it is not an ascertion as it is supported by first hand information.
 
Purple said:
This may come as a shock to you but you are not the reason I post here. I am sure that I am not unique in that. Garnering your attention so that you may consider a matter further is, I suspect, not at the top of anyone's agenda here.

By it's nature an internet forum will be full of people's experiences, direct and indirect. You seem to have no problem with such sources except when it clashes with your own biases. I am not talking about a story I heard from a bloke “down the pub”, I am relating information gained from a close family member over a period of decades. Therefore it is not an ascertion as it is supported by first hand information.
Click to expand...

Of course I don't think that I am the reason you post here.

Your assertations re your relatives work situation fall into the "Ripleys believe it or not" category.

I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.

If you have substantiating facts - post them.

The Company at the very least must have gone to the Labour Court , any ruling from them ?

Any info on the Unions case in this matter ?
 
Back on Topic - although this is Letting Off Steam so I think diversions are understandable!

My basic point is that:
- Owners should decide what to do with their company.
- Employees of all levels should work for the owners and do what they are requested to do (within reason and with the protection of Irish and EU legislation).

This is not specific to the ESB or Public Sectors.
 
Deiseblue said:
Of course I don't think that I am the reason you post here.
Click to expand...
Good.

Deiseblue said:
Your assertations re your relatives work situation fall into the "Ripleys believe it or not" category.
Click to expand...
Now you are being childish. I have related information. It doesn’t suit your agenda or biases and you choose not to accept that. That’s fine, but leave out the silliness.

Deiseblue said:
I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.

If you have substantiating facts - post them.
Click to expand...
Do you really expect me to post personal details about a relative on an internet forum?
You can question my honesty, that’s your prerogative and I’m a big boy; I won’t lose any sleep over it, but just come out and say what you mean.


Deiseblue said:
The Company at the very least must have gone to the Labour Court , any ruling from them ?
Click to expand...
Nope, as long as he didn’t cause any problems and kept out of the way they were happy to white-wall him. Ditto for his boss.

Deiseblue said:
Any info on the Unions case in this matter ?
Click to expand...
The Union actually pushed him quite a bit in private to accept re-training and re-deployment but he refused. In fairness to them they are there to represent his interests to him employer so they were just doing their job.
 
QED said:
- Owners should decide what to do with their company.
- Employees of all levels should work for the owners and do what they are requested to do (within reason and with the protection of Irish and EU legislation).

This is not specific to the ESB or Public Sectors.
Click to expand...

+1. I always find it funny when a company decides to layoff people or close employees give out that they gave the company X years. You don't hear about the company winging when its employees leave to work for someone else! Fact is a company should owe its employees nothing and vice versa. A day's pay for a day's work.
 
Firefly said:
+1. I always find it funny when a company decides to layoff people or close employees give out that they gave the company X years. You don't hear about the company winging when its employees leave to work for someone else! Fact is a company should owe its employees nothing and vice versa. A day's pay for a day's work.
Click to expand...
It's a fair days pay for a fair days work, comrade. (Spoken with a flat Dublin accent) ;):p
 
Purple said:
Good.

Now you are being childish. I have related information. It doesn’t suit your agenda or biases and you choose not to accept that. That’s fine, but leave out the silliness.

Do you really expect me to post personal details about a relative on an internet forum?
You can question my honesty, that’s your prerogative and I’m a big boy; I won’t lose any sleep over it, but just come out and say what you mean.


Nope, as long as he didn’t cause any problems and kept out of the way they were happy to white-wall him. Ditto for his boss.

The Union actually pushed him quite a bit in private to accept re-training and re-deployment but he refused. In fairness to them they are there to represent his interests to him employer so they were just doing their job.
Click to expand...

At last we're getting somewhere.

The union pressed both employees to re-train and re-deploy but both refused and when they failed to do so represented them , which as you correctly say is their job.

Unbelievably Management then failed to grasp the nettle and simply let sleeping dogs lie for 17 years !

No referring the matter to the Labour Court or even to the ESB's own Industry Council.

The brunt of the blame would appear to rest with the employees and the cowardice displayed by Management , did they really think that the Labour Court would have reached any other decision than instructing re-training and re-deployment ?

The only ones who appear to have behaved with any degree of propriety in this unimaginable scenario would appear to have been the union who at least made an effort to redress the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top