How many electricians does it take to change a lightbulb?

[Crugers]

The Union are not prepared to consider any changing of any bulbs 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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;

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[RainyDay]

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"

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.

3. The Unions contends that it is important to note that this is not and never was an issue of the merits of who may or may not be involved in changing light bulbs but rather an adherence in good faith to the principles of what has been signed up to regarding the Benchmarking Agreement signed in Connolly Hall, Cork on the 18th November, 2005.

4. Local Management singling out the Electricians in the Cork University Hospital in this regard is in breach of the M.T.M.G. Agreement and is totally unacceptable.

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]

"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]

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]

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

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?