Fas, 70 days off, pre retirement

[thedaras]

Does anyone recognise the fact that management hands are well and truly tied?

I cannot see a situtaion where a manager would push for a conclusion with the threat of a strike/withdrawal of services etc over their heads.Unless and this is the important bit,unless they get the back up of those at a higher level!
Most of us know that when push comes to shove ,none of the ministers will want to upset the unions /have a strike on their watch/lose thousands of votes..

I think it is naive to suggest that a manager makes these decisions and that the decision is based on logic..

How can it be,when their hands are tied,the unions are on their backs,the minister wont want trouble on his watch,the staff are threatening to strike etc..to me they are the fall guys..the ones who everyone can easily blame for not making the tough decisions,when in fact most of us are aware that their strings are being pulled by so many vested interests.

A manager is only as good as his "Superior" will allow them to be!
They need back up from those at a higher level,and they dont/wont/cant get it.
Some day some minister may actually take them on..but until we get someone with some back bone,I cant see that happening..
Leo Varakar said lets be unfair to everyone in equal measures and I think that sums it up..its not about being fair to everyone any longer ,its about unfairness in equal measures.because it has to be ..IMHO

 

[Delboy]

your not far off the mark there thedaras. No minister wants a strike on his watch...so bizarre agreements are entered into by Mgmt and Unions to ensure peace.
And the problem with a lot of these agreements is that they then sit alongside or on top of previous agreements.....so you have 'precedent'. And that is where even the top minds on this planet would struggle to understand or make sense of.

1 example springs to mind...I presonally questioned the terms and conditions of 1 batch of employees in an organisation I worked in. I could'nt understand the basis for their high expenses or their then outstanding claim for even more.
So I looked into it and after much searching and asking of questions, I found that some of the reasons dated back to an agreement in the 50's for a couple of employees at the grade at that time!!! I actually found the typed documents from then in a file of a long retired staff member!!! I got a headache trying to join the dots up to the present day via all the agreements since then. Had to give up as if it went to the LRC, we all knew who'd win
Crazy system....designed to confuse and cloud every scenario so that it can be interpreted in several ways. And of course, it keeps the LRC in work as well as a troop of bearded 'worker' bees in Liberty hall !!!

I suspect some ministers would like a fight...but the cabinet and the Taoiseach will over rule every time

 

[Mpsox]

I suspect some ministers would like a fight...but the cabinet and the Taoiseach will over rule every time

Personally I think the Govt would love to see FAS go on strike over this. The employees have no moral high ground to back them up, would get no support from elsewhere in the public or private sector, they work for a body that is going to close anyway and Enda could show what a big set of liathroidi he has by facing them down. Govt couldn't loose if FAS went out on this one.

 

[Deiseblue]

Personally I think the Govt would love to see FAS go on strike over this. The employees have no moral high ground to back them up, would get no support from elsewhere in the public or private sector, they work for a body that is going to close anyway and Enda could show what a big set of liathroidi he has by facing them down. Govt couldn't loose if FAS went out on this one.

A strike over this matter - not a chance !

This matter may very well drag on for some time but will ultimately be negotiated away with the help of the Labour Court.

 

[Sunny]

They can't go on strike because not all the employees get the perk so there wouldn't be any support. That's why FAS should just scrap the perk and stick to their original offer of a couple extra days holidays. The Unions can sing for a 'buyout' or whatever. The majority of people in FAS are probably as disgusted at the perk as everyone else.

 

[Deiseblue]

They can't go on strike because not all the employees get the perk so there wouldn't be any support. That's why FAS should just scrap the perk and stick to their original offer of a couple extra days holidays. The Unions can sing for a 'buyout' or whatever. The majority of people in FAS are probably as disgusted at the perk as everyone else.

FAS removed this condition last May but were instructed to reinstate same by the Labour Court who accepted that FAS had breached industrial relations procedure by removing the condition without negotiation.

 

[Sunny]

FAS removed this condition last May but were instructed to reinstate same by the Labour Court who accepted that FAS had breached industrial relations procedure by removing the condition without negotiation.

FAS doesn't have to listen to the Labour Court. If the Union wants industrial action on the issue then let them.

 

[Deiseblue]

FAS doesn't have to listen to the Labour Court. If the Union wants industrial action on the issue then let them.

A State body ignoring the State body charged with dealing with the country's industrial relations mechanisms - unlikely in the extreme - as evidenced by FAS reinstating the disputed condition.

I'm sure the Labour Court are aware that the sanctioning of arbitrarily removing conditions ( no matter how controversial ) would set an extremely disturbing precedent .

 

[Sunny]

A State body ignoring the State body charged with dealing with the country's industrial relations mechanisms - unlikely in the extreme - as evidenced by FAS reinstating the disputed condition.

I'm sure the Labour Court are aware that the sanctioning of arbitrarily removing conditions ( no matter how controversial ) would set an extremely disturbing precedent .

Just like the IBOA saying they are looking to ignore a Labour Court ruling in relation to Irish Nationwide?

Not every stupid thing has to end up in the Labour Court. Employees are not being exploited. They are not losing their jobs. They are not being redeployed. They are not being asked to take a pay cut. They are not losing pensions. They are being asked to lose a 'perk' that the majority of their colleagues don't enjoy. Where is the solidarity?

 

[Complainer]

your not far off the mark there thedaras. No minister wants a strike on his watch...so bizarre agreements are entered into by Mgmt and Unions to ensure peace.

There are several Ministers who would be quite happy to see a strike over something silly like this. It would do their macho credentials a world of good.

A strike over this matter - not a chance !

Correct.

 

[Mpsox]

A strike over this matter - not a chance !

.

I agree it's unlikely unless there are other skeletons in the T&Cs of Fas employees and given what has emerged about FAS over the last few years, nothing would surprise anyone at this stage.

 

[Delboy]

There are several Ministers who would be quite happy to see a strike over something silly like this. It would do their macho credentials a world of good.

are you telling me that the likes of Varadkar would'nt go in studs first a lot of the time if he thought he'd have the back up of Kenny et al. He'd be in like Flynn with CIE and the rest under his watch.
But the cabinet will not allow one minister to go rogue....not everyone at that table wants to upset the unions!

 

[Deiseblue]

Just like the IBOA saying they are looking to ignore a Labour Court ruling in relation to Irish Nationwide?

Not every stupid thing has to end up in the Labour Court. Employees are not being exploited. They are not losing their jobs. They are not being redeployed. They are not being asked to take a pay cut. They are not losing pensions. They are being asked to lose a 'perk' that the majority of their colleagues don't enjoy. Where is the solidarity?

Labour Court recommendations , while generally accepted , are not binding on either party.

FAS however were in breach of industrial relations procedures hence the dictat from the LC - reinstate the condition pending negotiation .

I totally agree that the majority of contentious matters should not end up in the LC as they are far better resolved at local level , when this condition was however arbitrarily removed it was destined for the LC.

As FAS currently has 2000 employees & it is envisaged that Solas will have a complement of 300 staff the vast majority of current staff will be redeployed carrying forward all current terms & conditions of employment .

Ireland as a country is probably slightly unusual in that there is a history of people doing the same job albeit on wildly differing contracts.

 

[Delboy]

Labour Court recommendations , while generally accepted , are not binding on either party.
FAS however were in breach of industrial relations procedures hence the dictat from the LC - reinstate the condition pending negotiation

therefore, as previous posters have said, FAS should just have ignored it and implemented the changes as they saw fit and proper

Ireland as a country is probably slightly unusual in that there is a history of people doing the same job albeit on wildly differing contracts.

Slightly unusual!!! Why do you think this is?
I reckon it is to confuse all and sundry thereby keeping the Labour court going and justifying the small army working in Liberty Hall.....keep union officials at local level busy at meetings most of the time and away from the work they were employed to do... etc etc

 

[Complainer]

But the cabinet will not allow one minister to go rogue....not everyone at that table wants to upset the unions!

Everyone at the Cabinet table would be quite happy to upset the unions on this particular issue - it is indefensible.

 

[T McGibney]

Ireland as a country is probably slightly unusual in that there is a history of people doing the same job albeit on wildly differing contracts.

A sure sign of a culture of nepotism, favouritism and petty corruption.

 

[Deiseblue]

therefore, as previous posters have said, FAS should just have ignored it and implemented the changes as they saw fit and proper



Slightly unusual!!! Why do you think this is?
I reckons it is to confuse all and sundry thereby keeping the Labour court going and justifying the small army working in Liberty Hall.....keep union officials at local level busy at meetings most of the time and away from the work they were employed to do... etc etc

The point is moot at this stage - the matter is now with the Labour Court.

FAS breached Industrial relations procedures & were forced to reinstate the pre retirement leave condition pending negotiations.

I don't understand your point regarding contracts - contracts are drawn up by employers & there doesn't seem to be standardised contracts for similar jobs in any sector , irrespective of whether Unions are involved or not.

 

[Delboy]

I don't understand your point regarding contracts - contracts are drawn up by employers & there doesn't seem to standardised contracts in any sector.

You made the point that people doing the same job in an organisation can be on wildly different contracts. And that we're slight unusual in Ireland to have this.

Any new person taken on in a semi-state or civil service job is not only bound by the contract he signs....they are also subject to a dizzying array of deals, agreements, LRC rulings etc etc that have been entered into over an extended period of time by unions and Mgmt.
Usually brought in for a specific incidence at a certain time...but then carried forward, looming large over current terms and conidtions indeifinitely. And usually entered into to avoid disputes/strikes and just to ensure peace until the next 'crisis' blows up

 

[Deiseblue]

You made the point that people doing the same job in an organisation can be on wildly different contracts. And that we're slight unusual in Ireland to have this.

Any new person taken on in a semi-state or civil service job is not only bound by the contract he signs....they are also subject to a dizzying array of deals, agreements, LRC rulings etc etc that have been entered into over an extended period of time by unions and Mgmt.
Usually brought in for a specific incidence at a certain time...but then carried forward, looming large over current terms and conidtions indeifinitely. And usually entered into to avoid disputes/strikes and just to ensure peace until the next 'crisis' blows up

Freely negotiated changes to terms & conditions then ? - I certainly have no difficulties with that no matter what sector is involved.

Surely this is the essence of good industrial relations ?

Anyway , this discussion is going around in circles - the matter is now with the Labour Court , let's await their findings.

 

[thedaras]

Everyone at the Cabinet table would be quite happy to upset the unions on this particular issue - it is indefensible.

It isnt indefensible to the staff involved nor the unions who are representing them though!
Bearing in mind they have refused an offer of 3 extra days leave. both the unions and the staff are looking for a buy out of it..they are trying to defend their postition..

http://www.herald.ie/news/staff-wont-move-on-fas-70day-leave-2839877.html

Fas is understood to have made two separate offers to staff, including a "buyout" of three extra days holidays over three years, but this was rejected by the union.

cfeehan@herald.ie