Is industrial action the only way of setting pay disputes?

The state? No one is proposing the state!

Civil disputes are resolved all the time by courts, Ombudsmen and other authorities like the planning authority or RTB.

Turning your argument on its head, employers should not have surrendered their right to fire people at will.

As I said in my opening post, the right to strike was essential to protect workers in the past. But it's not needed now with all the protections in place.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The state? No one is proposing the state!

Civil disputes are resolved all the time by courts, Ombudsmen and other authorities like the planning authority or RTB.
Click to expand...
All organs of the State.
Brendan Burgess said:
Turning your argument on its head, employers should not have surrendered their right to fire people at will.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t something they did willingly. It was the result of legislation on which they had an opportunity to contribute.
Brendan Burgess said:
As I said in my opening post, the right to strike was essential to protect workers in the past. But it's not needed now with all the protections in place.
Click to expand...
Nobody strikes on a whim. It’s very much a last resort and is in nobody’s interests. Ireland has a very low rate of days lost as a result of industrial action, certainly compared with previous decades.

I don’t agree with the pilots’ dismissal of the LC recommendation but neither do I think that doing so should preclude them from taking industrial action if they feel strongly enough. If they’re willing to incur the wrath of the traveling public, that’s their prerogative.
 
mathepac said:
What about private hospitals or does the ubiquitous "HSE contract" apply there as well?
Click to expand...

For non-consultant doctors there are relatively few private hospital jobs, we are talking low single digits percentage of all non-consultant jobs in the country. Many/most private hospitals pay non-consultant doctors somewhere on or close to the HSE scale, but some do pay more.

Private hospitals generally do not hire consultants directly - the consultants are effectively freelancers who are paid via claims they make to the insurance companies. So if you have your hip replaced in Beacon, the consultant will bill VHI for the procedure, Beacon doesn't pay her anything.
 
There are thousands of doctors with no specialist training working an General Practice and making a very good living. If you want to work in a hospital then yes, by the nature of the place your employer will be large and monolithic, but there are plenty of jobs for doctors in private practice and industry if they don't want to work in the the State funded sector.

Consultants can work for the private sector while still having a public sector job. The new consultant contract only requires that they do their job in the Public sector before they bugger off to their private sector side hustle.

My ex is a GP. She works hard and is good at her job but she makes around €350-€400k a year. I find it hard to have too much sympathy for the bleating's and poor-mouthing from the high earners in the medical industry.
 
But there are relationships of issues.

It has been well-reported that there is a growing shortage of GPs, especially in rural areas and deprived areas of both Dublin and rural areas. Caseloads of existing GPS are too heavy, forcing them to close their new patient list.

“In an Irish College of General Practitioners survey last year, three-quarters of GP practices had closed their lists, meaning they are refusing to take on new patients. Dr Murphy’s practice was among them.

"All of this means that there's an unmet need for patients," he said.

"There are delayed diagnosis, leading to overcrowded A&E, which in turn leads to GP burnout."

The patients that do make it past the GP waiting list can have other delays in receiving the healthcare that they need.

A GP can make a referral for a patient to see a consultant, but those waiting lists can be years long.

Meanwhile, the patient with a worsening health issue goes back to their GP.”
 
We know that's nonsense since about half of the doctors working in General Practice are not GP trained. Those doctors work shorter hours. There is no shortage of doctors, there is a shortage of doctors who are willing to work full time.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is more dishonest and skilled at misrepresenting the facts as the medical industry.
Anyway, the reason we've capacity issues in the Healthcare Industry is because it's actually the sickness care industry. It looks after sick people rather than trying to stop people getting sick. With an aging population that means there will never be enough supply of money or people. In other words it's because those who work in it are bad at their job in that they are doing the wrong thing. 100 years ago that sector prevented illness (vaccines, public health, sanitation etc) now they just treat sickness.

And then, when they are overwhelmed by the results of their ineptitude they go on strike. You couldn't make it up.
 
Sophrosyne said:
I'm not convinced of any basis for these assertions.
Click to expand...
A little over 50% of all physicians working in Ireland are what are called Generalists. That means they have no specialist training or are working in an area for which they have no specialist training. There are just over 20,000 physicians in Ireland. Only one physician in a GP practice has to be GP trained. The rest can be locums of generalists.
 
To bring it back to Brendan's original point, and speaking as someone what has sat on the employers side, 9 times out of 10, there is a deal to be done between both sides. I've been in situations where the full time Union rep and head guy has slammed a notebook down on the table in a meeting in front of the staff reps and stormed out. As I walked him to the door, he told me where he'd be in an hours time and could we meet for a coffee and we hammered out the framework of a deal over coffee and a scone in peace and quiet. A lot of this is optics. Unions are businesses as well and if they are not seen to be delivering, their customers (members) leave.

I would never want to go into binding arbitration as you don't know where it will take you and if you get the wrong arbitrator, it could be a disaster for a business.
 
AS the State sector and all State employees are Unionised it follows that Binding Arbitration will just give more power to the Unions. Therefore the less State interference in these matters the better.
 
Sophrosyne said:
I'm not convinced of any basis for these assertions.
Click to expand...

It is a recurring rant any time doctors are mentioned. Even if you give a point-by-point rebuttal with references you will get nowhere.

thedaddyman said:
I would never want to go into binding arbitration as you don't know where it will take you and if you get the wrong arbitrator, it could be a disaster for a business.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think this is true - an independent body would probably bankrupt the state from the health service budget increase alone.
 
arbitron said:
It is a recurring rant any time doctors are mentioned. Even if you give a point-by-point rebuttal with references you will get nowhere.
Click to expand...
No, it's a presentation of the facts. I know the sector very well. You may not like the facts but they are true nonetheless. You have never presented a rebuttal, point by point or otherwise.
arbitron said:
Unfortunately I think this is true - an independent body would probably bankrupt the state from the health service budget increase alone.
Click to expand...
I agree. The less State involvement in the productive sectors of the economy the better.
 
Purple said:
AS the State sector and all State employees are Unionised it follows that Binding Arbitration will just give more power to the Unions.
Click to expand...
Ah I think it’s wrong to draw that conclusion.

Unions are present in the Civil Service (where any related policy decisions would be made) but it would be wrong to assume that union membership itself influences policy decisions.

The proportion of civil servants who are union members continues to fall. Those who are members are simply that - members, not activists.

Speaking as a former HR Manager in a large government department, I was glad of the ineffectiveness of the local branch committees across four different unions. Reps are appointed under protest and are more concerned with their own interests than of those of the wider membership.

While the union movement at its highest level certainly has an input to government policy, it is no more or less than equivalent employer bodies.

But it would be very wrong to characterise civil servants as table-thumping Trotskyites whose underlying objective is to undermine progressive change.
 
Fair points but it is at the high levels, at policy level etc, that the structure and ethos of such an organisation would be set. When I see the ridiculous decisions made at the WRC I assume that any such arbitration body would be similar.
 
Purple said:
Fair points but it is at the high levels, at policy level etc, that the structure and ethos of such an organisation would be set. When I see the ridiculous decisions made at the WRC I assume that any such arbitration body would be similar.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your opinion but in my experience (and I’ve had a bit) of interacting with people at the top of public sector organisations, union influence is non-existent. They couldn’t care less about how any actions might be perceived.

On the WRC issue, I think there are different reasons why decisions seem to favour employees but that’s perhaps the subject of a separate thread.
 
Salvadore said:
I appreciate your opinion but in my experience (and I’ve had a bit) of interacting with people at the top of public sector organisations, union influence is non-existent. They couldn’t care less about how any actions might be perceived.
Click to expand...
That's good to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register