Is the real problem unions, not private vs public sector?

Z

z103

Guest
The whole private sector vs public sector thing has been done to death so I don't want to start up that old chestnut again.

There was a thread on here recently in 'Dealing with the Deficit' about unions, but I can't find it any more. In that thread it was suggested that the unions should be dissolved because they are hindering whatever slim chance Ireland has of recovery.

When people refer to 'public sector waste', much of this seems to have been instigated by the unions. For example;
- Christmas shopping time, Banking time, Rain allowance, Privilege day etc.
- 20% more pay in public sector than private sector
- 'job for life' status

... the list goes on and on. We've all read about all before. The issue is that all these perks seem to be untouchable, because of the unions. With this in mind, does it not seem reasonable that the unions, both private and public, are disbanded until (or rather, if,) Ireland gets back on its feet? The 'government' would then be able to make decisions without having to pander to a third party's unreasonable demands.

Any thoughts?
 
They are the number one problem but they require reform, not disbanding.
The problem is not that they represent their members but that they have an effective veto over government decisions.
 
Purple said:
The problem is not that they represent their members but that they have an effective veto over government decisions.
Click to expand...

So the root cause of the problem is the government for allowing this to be so?

I have a great dislike of unions - in particular the bully boy tactics that are often employed against non-unionised members in some sectors (the opposite happens as well of course) - but I don't blame them for talking their game.

But like you, I find myself frustrated when people that do not represent the public somehow end up with an effective veto over public representative decisions?
 
I would not agree with all your sentiments here. You tend to be tarring all unions with the same brush.

1) I have seen multiple changes in the civil service down the years where there has been no interference by unions such as IT implementation, work practice changes etc. Where there has been union action, it has sometimes improved customer service especially where management force through changes without prior analytical work to see if there is any net benefit. (so management can say that they effected changes)

2) A lot of union activity is resolving personal issues such as full implementation of agreements and regulations i.e. transfers, staffing levels, promotions (and sometimes demotions!), health and safety etc.

Not don't get me wrong I am not a blind supporter and do think that they get it wrong in certain areas and act like mini republics in others. But overall they do operate in other spheres than inhibiting progress.
 
My view is pretty simple. Unions historically protected workers from exploitation by their managers/ employers. This can still be necessary in private enterprise e.g. RTE Primetime on transport industry recently, but not always essential as many employers have realised the value of good worker goodwill towards their employer.

In the public sector (where I work), unions are only important to most employees if they feel undervalued at work, by management or the general public. The long history of very poor management in the public service is the problem. Staff are ignored, pooly communicated with, and given no sense of value by the multi-tiered management system. There can be a "them and us" mentality which is never addressed by management. Pay and conditions then become the only yardstick for measuring the employees value.
 
Last edited:
room305 said:
So the root cause of the problem is the government for allowing this to be so?
Click to expand...
Yes. In this context I have just as much of a problem with IBEC of CORI having a quasi-formal say in how the country is run. The government, which has been run by Fianna Fail for most of the period in question, hasn't had the balls to do their job. This isn't only evident in partnership but also in how they have left a legislative vacuum that the Supreme Court has had to fill whenever contentious issues have had to be dealt with. The proliferation of quangos is also a symptom of this political cowardice.
 
Unions historically protected workers from exploitation by their managers/ employers.
Click to expand...
I think it was Tim Harford in "The undercover economist" who argued that isn't the full picture. The original unions were not to protect workers from the people giving them jobs but from other people who'll do their job for less or who'll do it better. Same goes for professional bodies to protect the jobs of the likes of doctors, solicitors etc..

The public sector is systematically protected from people who'll do their job for less (not many non-Irish allowed into the civil service or teaching for instance) so the unions ended up with time on their hands for all sorts of expensive nonsense.
 
ashambles said:
I think it was Tim Harford in "The undercover economist" who argued that isn't the full picture. The original unions were not to protect workers from the people giving them jobs but from other people who'll do their job for less or who'll do it better. Same goes for professional bodies to protect the jobs of the likes of doctors, solicitors etc..

The public sector is systematically protected from people who'll do their job for less (not many non-Irish allowed into the civil service or teaching for instance) so the unions ended up with time on their hands for all sorts of expensive nonsense.
Click to expand...
Very good points.
 
leghorn said:
When people refer to 'public sector waste', much of this seems to have been instigated by the unions. For example;
- Christmas shopping time, Banking time, Rain allowance, Privilege day etc.
- 20% more pay in public sector than private sector
- 'job for life' status
Click to expand...

Rain allowance?!!
 
I have worked in a few public sector companies, as well as large private sector outfits. Some of the waste I have seen in the public sector is shocking...people sitting with absolutely nothing to do but yet you cannot get rid of them, and they refuse to take on work as it's not their jobs. Cant move them on to other sections as the mgmt there have heard or know about them and would'nt touch them.
Insane claims for extra payments, backedup by unions and rubber stamped by the labour relations court.

Unions believe that jobs exist to keep them in members, not to serve the greater public
 
Last edited:
If you have an enough work for 5 people and only 4 employees, the union wants you to pay overtime to the 4 for the additional work. The common good is to hire a fifth person.

The unions are there to serve their members and not the public. They couldn't care less about the person on the dole who is looking for a job.

I am convinced that in the coming months more and more companies will get in to labour disputes about this issue . It happened in the ESB in Poolbeg in the dark ol' days and it will happen again.
 
VOR said:
If you have an enough work for 5 people and only 4 employees, the union wants you to pay overtime to the 4 for the additional work. The common good is to hire a fifth person.

The unions are there to serve their members and not the public. They couldn't care less about the person on the dole who is looking for a job.

I am convinced that in the coming months more and more companies will get in to labour disputes about this issue . It happened in the ESB in Poolbeg in the dark ol' days and it will happen again.
Click to expand...


If you have two groups of 4 people and have enough work for 4.5 people in each group the unions want you to hire two extra people instead of sharing one.
If you usually need 4 people in each of your groups but for a few weeks every year you need 12 the unions want you to hire 12 fulltime staff in each group instead of using short term staff when they are actually needed.
 
leghorn said:
When people refer to 'public sector waste', much of this seems to have been instigated by the unions. For example;
- Christmas shopping time, Banking time, Rain allowance, Privilege day etc.
- 20% more pay in public sector than private sector
- 'job for life' status
Click to expand...
I too would love to hear more about the rain allowance! I'm somewhat facinated by the 'seems to have been instigated by unions' claim. Is there any basis for this?
leghorn said:
The issue is that all these perks seem to be untouchable, because of the unions. With this in mind, does it not seem reasonable that the unions, both private and public, are disbanded until (or rather, if,) Ireland gets back on its feet? The 'government' would then be able to make decisions without having to pander to a third party's unreasonable demands.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that any of these issues are untouchable. If there is a real issue here, why not sit down around the table and start discussions. The proposal for disbanding is quite ludicrous. The Govt has absolutely no mandate for this, and in the unlikely event that they sought a mandate, they would get their asses kicked. This is a classic attempt at a 'shock doctrine' - using hard times as an excuse to hit ordinary workers.

ashambles said:
(not many non-Irish allowed into the civil service or teaching for instance)
Click to expand...
Would you care to expand or give some examples of this?
VOR said:
If you have an enough work for 5 people and only 4 employees, the union wants you to pay overtime to the 4 for the additional work. The common good is to hire a fifth person.
Click to expand...
A smart union will also be keen to get a 5th paying member.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top