Is there anyone out there being affected by this? In the wake of all of the talk about Irish Ferries, I find it hard to believe that this is hardly mentioned in the papers. A relative of mine is about to be "outsourced" and their options seem to be, keep job and lose all benefits so basically end up working for less and for God knows who or take redundancy (worth nothing after tax) and have no job..........I was just wondering if anyone else was in same boat?
BOI Outsourcing
- Thread starter Danmo
- Start date
Relating to your topic heading at least, the BOI situation was completely different. (Did it actually go ahead in the end, or did BOI pull back on it?)
The IT people in BOI were going to be transferred to HP. My understanding was that they'd be doing same job, same pay and conditions, and pretty much even same locations as well. Just that they'd be working for HP rather than BOI.
And again, the issue here would be that in HP they wouldn't be unionised (or if they were, being union members wouldn't do much for them) compared to the influence the unions would have had in BOI.
The IT people in BOI were going to be transferred to HP. My understanding was that they'd be doing same job, same pay and conditions, and pretty much even same locations as well. Just that they'd be working for HP rather than BOI.
And again, the issue here would be that in HP they wouldn't be unionised (or if they were, being union members wouldn't do much for them) compared to the influence the unions would have had in BOI.
BOI are currently outsourcing all HR and Facilities staff. 2100 jobs to go. The IT staff that were sold out to HP had their benefits bought out and their terms and conditions only guaranteed for 2 years.
You are right about the Unions - doing nothing for BOI workers
You are right about the Unions - doing nothing for BOI workers
Danmo,
I'm not sure what you are complaining about ? Do you think that a job in the bank is a job for life ? AFAIK the BoI staff are being offered a decent package of 6 weeks per year of service plus statutory redundancy - I think this is a pretty good package when compared to other redundancies (I don't have any empirical evidence so I am open to correction on this) and I don't think that it will be reduced to nothing after tax - one's statutory redundancy is tax free plus additional tax free allowances depending on pension options.
Unfortunately, redundancy does happen as business models change and revenue and cost centres change.
I'm not sure what you are complaining about ? Do you think that a job in the bank is a job for life ? AFAIK the BoI staff are being offered a decent package of 6 weeks per year of service plus statutory redundancy - I think this is a pretty good package when compared to other redundancies (I don't have any empirical evidence so I am open to correction on this) and I don't think that it will be reduced to nothing after tax - one's statutory redundancy is tax free plus additional tax free allowances depending on pension options.
Unfortunately, redundancy does happen as business models change and revenue and cost centres change.
There's no such thing as a job for life anymore - I know that. I don't even work at BOI - I had the good sense to get out years ago. - what I am complaining about is that they made 1.2 billion last year or thereabouts - this is a cyncial move to just make even more profit - nobody has any loyalty to their staff anymore. It's morally wrong. Call me naieve if you want.
Danmo said:
But they have responsibilities and loyalties to their shareholders.
I would say that it's not morally wrong. Everyone today should be fully aware of what they're getting themselves into when they're taking a job anywhere.
They should be aware of the risks of employment, and be fully awake to the fact that
a> they owe nothing more to the company than a fair days work for a fair days pay, and they're free to leave whenever they want if they want to better themselves, or pursue alternative careers
b> the company owes them only a fair days pay in return for a fair days work, and that should they become surplus to requirements, then they'll let them go.
The converse of your comments is the employees should be bound to work for employers. Employees moving on to another job with higher pay and better prospects is a "cynical move" to make even more money for themselves. You wouldn't claim that this is "morally wrong", would you?
If people in employment aren't aware of these basic facts of employment in todays world (public service aside), they they're naive.
quarterfloun
Registered User
- Messages
- 117
Unfortunately I agree with Ronan and I'm not the banks best friend! These days employment should be seen as nothing more than transactional.
You have one life, enjoy it as much as you can and view work as a tool to getting what you and your family need to sustain and develop your personal growth.
If you needed a screwdriver instead of a hammer to put a screw in...you would put down the hammer and pick up the screwdriver. That is all companies do.
You have one life, enjoy it as much as you can and view work as a tool to getting what you and your family need to sustain and develop your personal growth.
If you needed a screwdriver instead of a hammer to put a screw in...you would put down the hammer and pick up the screwdriver. That is all companies do.
Well, Irish Ferries are in a position where they can legally pay somebody less to do the same job - so if people are willinging to work for lower, yet still legal, pay rates then Irish Ferries are mad not to take them.
This is the reality of competition in the labour market - the existing Irish Ferries workers have effectively priced themselves out of the market
Danmo said:
And if it's c**p, and you don't like it, don't work there. And if eastern europeans don't like it, they don't have to work there either. If it's so bad for everyone, no one will work there, and Irish Ferries will either cease operations or they'll offer better wages.
Facts of life. Supply and demand. Nothing to get worked up about.
RainyDay said:
Please don't develop my argument into a direction I wasn't going. You're argument regarding asbestos in the context you provide is disingenuous.
I did not make any comments regarding the rights or wrongs of the minimum wage or of regulations of any kind. I have no opinions on these which I want to go into here.
My point was that given a specific situation that one may be aware of before going into that situation (a minimum wage of €x or of the dangers of asbestos), if one choses still to enter that situation, then one can have no complaints as one entered into that situation willingly knowing the relevant information up front.
The ultimate logical conclusion of this approach is no protection for employees - no H&S legislation, no minimum wage, no unfair dismissals protection, no anti-discrimination legislation, no equal access for people with disabilities - This truly is the 'race to the bottom'.ronan_d_john said:
I really don't think that this is where most Irish people want to go.