eircom ESOP

[Purple]

Perjorative language Purple. Tsk Tsk. Its called The Partnership Approach.

Yes, be those with their feet under the table and by the pressure groups that they represent.

I was referring to the origins of the union movement in this country, to which the very independence of this State is inextricably linked.

The union movement today has almost nothing in common with the union movement of the early years of the last century.

Fact is, they're still there and they're still influential. I'm quite prepared to accept however that the waning of union power in the US is parralleled by the waning of democracy in that nation. A worrying illustration of my exact point.

So social partnership, i.e. the democratically elected government allowing un-elected self interest groups like SIPTU and IBEC set government policy is strengthening democracy? The only group that had a mandate from the people to run the country is the Dail.

Go ahead so, knock yourself out, pick your own list of succesful African COUNTRIES then and prove me wrong. There's only ONE which has had ANY economic stability - and guess what? Yep, South Africa has Unions.

So Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia etc are not economically stable? But South Africa, who's economy was built up during the Apartheid era and is still controlled by the white minority is the shining light? I think you need to look at that again.

As to China - what is 'less poverty'? Less than who? India?

Yes.

 

[RainyDay]

So social partnership, i.e. the democratically elected government allowing un-elected self interest groups like SIPTU and IBEC set government policy is strengthening democracy? The only group that had a mandate from the people to run the country is the Dail.

Wasn't the continuation of social partnership a significant part of the Govt manifesto, and therefore part of the mandate from the people?

 

[shnaek]

I certainly don't blame the employees for looking after their own interests, and I don't blame the unions for looking after their interests - I blame the government for not looking after the interests of the Irish people.

We now have appalling telecoms infrastructure. Our local loops are controlled by a private company solely interested in profit. Broadband availability is terrible. Employees who have a huge say in what happens in Eircom will sell (as they did to Tony O'Reilly instead of Dennis O'Brien) to the buyer who offers them the most money. Nobody is looking after the interests of the Irish public. That is my point. In fairness it is not the unions job to look after the Irish public. Their job is to look after the vested interests which they represent. That is their purpose. That and ensuring their own survival of course. The government should be looking after the Irish public but we have seen that it supports vested interests of it's own.

 

[Meccano]

Yes, be those with their feet under the table and by the pressure groups that they represent.

So JOIN A UNION!

The union movement today has almost nothing in common with the union movement of the early years of the last century.

Certainly. The whole political and social landscape has changed - the labour movement has moved with the times. And by the way, that doesn't change the facts of History.

So social partnership, i.e. the democratically elected government allowing un-elected self interest groups like SIPTU and IBEC set government policy is strengthening democracy?

"Wasn't the continuation of social partnership a significant part of the Govt manifesto, and therefore part of the mandate from the people?" - Well said.

So Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia etc are not economically stable?

Correct. Their emmigration statistics bear that out. They are poverty stricken basket cases.

still controlled by the white minority

Thats so funny I almost laughed out loud.

Shnaek - whose fault is it that our Telecomms are in the hands of profiteers and carpet baggers? Only the Irish Government and its failed Right Wing policies are to blame.

Aside from all this esoteric chat about Democracy and Labour, the best reason of ALL for the existence of Unions is the lying bullying treacherous behaviour of most employers when presented with a clear field. Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets. There are plenty of examples in recent Irish news to back that up. You know well what I'm talking about.

 

[cerberos]

The main item is the hypocracy of the unions.
Give the chance they will rip off the tax payer as fast as the capitalists
They are much too influential with the Goverment(s) (for example, ESOP, Air Lingus, Bench Marking - taking money from the ATM).

If the money made by the 3 bandits (Unions, V Capitalists and Eircom management) had been used for infrastructure, health, etc., we (taxpayer and those too poor to pay tax) would have benefited.

Its a sad disgrace and, yes, I agree the Goverment has failed the people.

 

[Purple]

Wasn't the continuation of social partnership a significant part of the Govt manifesto, and therefore part of the mandate from the people?

Yes it was but that just shows the inability of this government to govern, it doesn't make social partnership a democratic process.

Certainly. The whole political and social landscape has changed - the labour movement has moved with the times. And by the way, that doesn't change the facts of History.

In general terms I agree.

Thats so funny I almost laughed out loud.

Why?
Are the shantytowns gone? Are there many major businesses now run by black South Africans? Is AIDS now no longer an almost exclusively black disease in South Africa? Has there been any substantial redistribution of land from the white minority? Are black South Africans no longer far more likely to go to prison? What's so funny?

Correct. Their emmigration statistics bear that out. They are poverty stricken basket cases.

There is a major brain drain of graduates from Africa in general. An even bigger problem is the small proportion of those who study in the west who return to Africa. A good measure of how will a country is developing is the coherence, effectiveness and stability of it’s civil service. By this measure South Africa is by no means out on it’s own.
Look, you need to read a few history books. Africa's problems have nothing to do with unions or lack of them.

Aside from all this esoteric chat about Democracy and Labour, the best reason of ALL for the existence of Unions is the lying bullying treacherous behaviour of most employers when presented with a clear field. Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets.

So workers rights are high on the agenda in North Korea and China and were high on the agenda in soviet Russia?
Any group that can exercise power in a disproportionate and unchecked manner will abuse that power, be they unions, employers or governments.
Do remember that unions can and have been used as a tool to oppress democratic movements. For example the failed attempt by the coal miner’s union to quash pro-democracy demonstrations in Russia.
In a free market employees can move from one job to another and so in a sellers market companies have to offer good pay and conditions to attract staff. Whether it is a seller's or buyer's market is the most relevant issue here.
I do agree that employee’s rights are very important and that the union movement has played a critical historical role in arriving at the current level of protection that we have. I also believe that unions are still necessary in many areas, especially in the public sector. What gets me it the 1920's style rhetoric that some of them still trot out and which you Meccano seem to agree with. You are applying black and white ideology to complicated issues and I think you are doing your arguments no favours by doing so.
Your last comment is a case in point; you talk in absolutes which invalidates a point that if tempered would hold much merit.

 

[Meccano]

Last time I visited S.Africa almost every white-man I met was getting kicked out of his job. Most of them were emigrating - many of them to Ireland. The white-man no longer has his hands on the levers of power in S.Africa - I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make by that assertion. Its a total Red Herring.

So workers rights are high on the agenda in North Korea and China and were high on the agenda in soviet Russia?

Where did you get THAT idea from?

Any group that can exercise power in a disproportionate and unchecked manner will abuse that power, be they unions, employers or governments.

My point EXACTLY. Its all about Checks and Balances.

Do remember that unions can and have been used as a tool to oppress democratic movements. For example the failed attempt by the coal miner’s union to quash pro-democracy demonstrations in Russia.

And what about "Solidarity" - the Coal Miners UNION which brought about the downfall of the Polish Communist regime and helped bring down the Soviet Union!

In a free market employees can move from one job to another and so in a sellers market companies have to offer good pay and conditions to attract staff. Whether it is a seller's or buyer's market is the most relevant issue here.

Thats the theory. In practice however most people are not as 'FREE' to move around as your theory baldly asserts. People are tied to localities, homes, relatives, friends, schools, long accumulated seniority, pension rights etc etc. In practice people have little or no choice but to take whatever their employer throws at them because they have no options to improve their condition by simply walking out.

I do agree that employee’s rights are very important and that the union movement has played a critical historical role in arriving at the current level of protection that we have. I also believe that unions are still necessary in many areas, especially in the public sector. What gets me it the 1920's style rhetoric that some of them still trot out and which you Meccano seem to agree with. You are applying black and white ideology to complicated issues and I think you are doing your arguments no favours by doing so.

I don't agree with much of what SIPTU does or says - I find them rather cringe-worthy on many an occasion. But (unlike YOUR Black and White terms!) I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water.

Your last comment is a case in point; you talk in absolutes which invalidates a point that if tempered would hold much merit.

You mean you don't think there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland? Would it convince you if I gave you an example - backed up by a High Court Judges comments?

 

[Purple]

Last time I visited S.Africa almost every white-man I met was getting kicked out of his job. Most of them were emigrating - many of them to Ireland. The white-man no longer has his hands on the levers of power in S.Africa - I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make by that assertion. Its a total Red Herring.

Pure conjecture.
You have offered no evidence to support you proposition that South Africa is what it is now has anything to do with trade unions or that there is a correlation between union membership and workers conditions in Africa in general.

Where did you get THAT idea from?

I assumed that you understood sarcasm. My apologies. I was pointing out that your assertion that "Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets" does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

And what about "Solidarity" - the Coal Miners UNION which brought about the downfall of the Polish Communist regime and helped bring down the Soviet Union!

Agreed. I was just pointing out that unions can and have been used to oppress and well and promote democracy.

Thats the theory. In practice however most people are not as 'FREE' to move around as your theory baldly asserts. People are tied to localities, homes, relatives, friends, schools, long accumulated seniority, pension rights etc etc. In practice people have little or no choice but to take whatever their employer throws at them because they have no options to improve their condition by simply walking out.

Rubbish. There are all sorts of laws (rightly) protecting workers rights. The notion that they are locked into their jobs and have to take whatever is thrown at them is fallacious, the only area where this might be the case in the public sector. The reason it is not the case is because of strong unions and the fact that the government is the employer.
Job mobility is part of the reason that union membership is so low in the private sector.

I don't agree with much of what SIPTU does or says - I find them rather cringe-worthy on many an occasion. But (unlike YOUR Black and White terms!) I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water.

Can you explain what you mean here? Where do I suggest that we "throw the baby out with the bath water"? I am in favour of unions in many circumstances but I see them as just another interest group no better or worse than IBEC or ISME. They do not have the interests of the public in general at heart, just those of their members, and that's as it should be.

You mean you don't think there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland? Would it convince you if I gave you an example - backed up by a High Court Judges comments?

Of course there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland. The best case in recent years is the case of the Turkish Gamma workers. Remember that the unions failed utterly in this incident and it was Joe Higgins excellent work that brought the issue to light. What I disagree with is your assertion that most employers would bully and abuse their workers if they got the chance.
As I said the sweeping and absolute slant to your points undermines your argument.

 

[Guest127]

getting way off track here. Basically eircom employees in the esot scored all the goals because others wanted to make a fast buck, including a former minister for finance. the more people who wanted to make this fast buck the better for the eircom employees. Denis O'Brien made a lot of easy money in this country. ( not eircom I know) Where is he now and where does he pay his taxes? Where does Tony O'Reilly reside and where does he pays his taxes. (if he pays any). Where do the majority of eircom employees live and where do the pay their taxes? Good luck to them. Wish I was in an employment coveted by the rich trying to get richer by doing sod all. and just in case anyone thinks I am an eircom employee etc I am with BT for broadband and line rental not eircom. (Different fat cat )

 

[Meccano]

Pure conjecture.
You have offered no evidence to support you proposition that South Africa is what it is now has anything to do with trade unions....

"The African National Congress (ANC) is a social-democratic political party, and has been South Africa's governing party supported by a tripartite alliance between itself, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP) since the establishment of majority rule in May 1994."
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress

I assumed that you understood sarcasm. My apologies. I was pointing out that your assertion that "Exploitation and abuse of working people is the almost UNIVERSAL result of liberal labour markets" does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

Although the internationally recommended minimum age for work is 15 years (ILO Convention No. 138) and the number of child workers under the age of 10 is far from negligible, almost all the data available on child labour concerns the 10-to-14 age group. Combining various official sources, the ILO estimates that more than 73 million children in that age group alone were economically active in 1995, representing 13.2 per cent of all 10-to-14 year olds around the world.
The greatest numbers were found in Asia - 44.6 million (13 per cent) followed by Africa - 23.6 million (by far the highest rate at 26.3 per cent) and Latin America - 5.1 million (9.8 per cent). Estimates by country showed the following rates of economic activity among children 10-to-14:
Bangladesh (30.1 per cent), China ( I 1.6), India (14.4), Pakistan (17.7), Turkey (24), Cote d'lvoire (20.5), Egypt ( 11.2), Kenya (41.3), Nigeria (25.8), Senegal (31.4), Argentina (4.5), Brazil (16.1), Mexico (6.7), Italy (0.4), Portugal (1.8).
[broken link removed]

Rubbish. There are all sorts of laws (rightly) protecting workers rights. The notion that they are locked into their jobs and have to take whatever is thrown at them is fallacious, the only area where this might be the case in the public sector. The reason it is not the case is because of strong unions and the fact that the government is the employer.
Job mobility is part of the reason that union membership is so low in the private sector.

It all hinges on your definition of the word 'LOCKED' doesn't it. There are LOCKS and there are locks.
It is legal in this country to LOCK workers into their employment by use of a system of financial bonding. Its common in fact. When an employee doesn't like the job - they can leave - by paying the bond!
IMHO that amounts to legalised slavery.
Then again there are more subtle locks which some unscrupulous employers know they can use against their employees. I work in one such industry and I feel LOCKED to my employer, like it or not. I would be comitting professional suicide by threatening to leave and they know it. Fortunately - I'm in a good union.

Can you explain what you mean here? Where do I suggest that we "throw the baby out with the bath water"? I am in favour of unions in many circumstances but I see them as just another interest group no better or worse than IBEC or ISME. They do not have the interests of the public in general at heart, just those of their members, and that's as it should be.

I think you've explained it yourself. Some Unions are better than others, and just because certain of them are bad - you cannot write the whole Labour movement off. I have demonstrated numerous times now how they are usually a tremendous force for good in society - from Irish Independence, to the overthrow of Communism and the Apartheid regime.

Of course there are abusive and bullying employers in Ireland. The best case in recent years is the case of the Turkish Gamma workers. Remember that the unions failed utterly in this incident and it was Joe Higgins excellent work that brought the issue to light. What I disagree with is your assertion that most employers would bully and abuse their workers if they got the chance.

Yes, I think they would. Its human nature - and in modern Ireland GREED IS GOOD. Only the bottom line counts.

 

[nt00deep]

What I disagree with is your assertion that most employers would bully and abuse their workers if they got the chance

Yes, I think they would. Its human nature

Lads, ye should be on Joe Duffy.

 

[Purple]

It is legal in this country to LOCK workers into their employment by use of a system of financial bonding. Its common in fact. When an employee doesn't like the job - they can leave - by paying the bond!

Got any more details on that? (PM me)

Lads, ye should be on Joe Duffy.

Yes, it's heading that way.
Meccano, we are not going to agree on this. It is more a discussion to have over a pint than on a public forum so I think we should leave alone and let this thread get back on topic.

As for the Eircom ESOP, it's a great deal for the members but it's no where near as good a deal as the owners seem to get every time it changes hands.

 

[shnaek]

Anyone want to chip in and buy it?

 

[Meccano]

Got any more details on that? (Indentured Labour)

Yes indeed I do.

This is from the Irish Times on July 13th (sorry I can't link to it - you need an account).

High Court rejects Ryanair bullying claim

A High Court judge has rejected claims by Ryanair that its pilots or their unions had engaged in bullying, intimidation or isolation of other pilots over conditions imposed by Ryanair relating to training on new aircraft.

The only evidence of bullying was by Ryanair itself, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth stated yesterday.

He described as "most onerous and bordering on oppression" a condition requiring pilots to pay Ryanair €15,000 for training on new aircraft in 2004.
The €15,000 was payable by pilots if they left the company within five years or if Ryanair was required to engage in collective bargaining within the same period.

Thats the proof you requested, not only of monetary bonding - but also of institutional bully-boy behaviour.

Now the lying (remember - these are the comments of a High Court Judge)

The judge also made a finding of false evidence (!) in relation to two members of Ryanair management who had given evidence at the hearing. He held that, when Ryanair set up an investigation to find out who was behind the website, the real purpose of that investigation was to "break the resolve" of pilots to seek better terms and conditions. There was no warrant for Ryanair's action in seeking assistance from gardaí on the matter, he added.
He rejected as "baseless and false" the evidence of Ryanair director of personnel Eddie Wilson in relation to the setting up the investigation. The judge also said there was no conspiracy in relation to the setting up of the (Ryanair pilots)website and it was not engaged in anything unlawful. There was "no actionable wrong", he held, and dismissed Ryanair's application.

Ryanair was subsequently hit for Costs of 1 Milion euro.

Here's an opinion piece on the issue, from Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independant. It makes interesting reading: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1654269&issue_id=14357

Meccano, we are not going to agree on this. It is more a discussion to have over a pint than on a public forum so I think we should leave alone and let this thread get back on topic.

I don't expect you to agree with me Purple - all the evidence in the world just won't open some eyes. However, maybe someone else reading this might realise there are actually two sides to this issue and thats good enough for me.