Mandatory Trade Union recognition: How likely is leglislation?

Sunny said:
And a recent Dail question on the subject. Once again, compulsory union recognition is not on the table.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas...ck.nsf/takes/seanad2013110500055?opendocument
Click to expand...

The crux of the matter is , of course , the fact that Ireland have signed up to & are bound by both the ILO Conventions & ECHR judgements.

The Minister is trying to engineer a compromise agreement in the face of overwhelming evidence that the right to organise & collectively bargain is contained in such judgements , are ICTU simply going to sit back & accept any fudge given that the rights sought are the norm in most European countries including Britain ?
 
Purple said:
I know some small business owners who would rather close than deal with a union.
Click to expand...
+ 1

Let's call a spade a spade, it's pure blackmail, whether it's bus drivers or ESB workers - if we don't get what we want, when we want it, we'll shut you down.

Union leaders need to understand how business works and we already have so many laws protecting the rights of workers.

The business of unions seeking payment on behalf of their workers to use a new and more efficient piece of equipment is something that should be confined to history.
 
The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members .

In the case of the ESB , the members of the group of unions voted overwhelmingly to mandate their Unions to issue strike notice on the parent company as to my mind they have every right to have their pension rights categorised as defined benefit & not defined contribution.

Should be interesting at today's meeting between the company & the group of Unions.
 
Deiseblue said:
... as to my mind they have every right to have their pension rights categorised as defined benefit & not defined contribution.
..
Click to expand...

The whole concept of defined benefit schemes is highly questionable, particularly in collapsed firms, the wholesale and indiscriminate beggaring of the pension benefits of serving workforce to pay full pension benefits to those who have already retired. I can't fathom how this can be legal or constitutional, as it offends every principle of equality.
 
Deiseblue said:
The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members .
Click to expand...

Exactly....which is why their powers to strike in essential services and monopolies should be severely restricted by law. The 'members' a re a small minority within the country as a whole.

Because to achieve this 'primary function' is more often than not as a result of inflicting pain on the majority within society, usually through higher costs and an inferior quality of service to the public or via the occasional strike.

As Delgirl said above, and as I'm tired of saying, we have more than enough legislation (both European and National) to protect workers currently in place.
 
Deiseblue said:
The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members
Click to expand...
Unions hurt the economy by forcing companies to pay wages and maintain unreasonable work practices, which their members may like, but that make companies uncompetitive.

I personally know of businesses which have had to close, sell the company or close and re-open to rid themselves of union members who were on ridiculous salaries and conditions achieved over years of strike threats and work-to-rule actions by militant unions. These employees found themselves out of a job due to their attitude.

There has to be a connection between the rate of pay and the employee / union member's performance.
 
Deiseblue said:
The primary function of Trade Unions is to protect & enhance ( if possible ) the terms & conditions of it's members
Click to expand...

If that was the case then they would ensure that the pay rates and terms and conditions that they seek do not make their members employer uncompetitive as that damages the medium to long term interests of those members. Unfortunately Unions have a long history of not understanding that.
 
Excellent news for the Group of Unions & the employees.

The Irish Times has reported that the Government confirmed yesterday that the responsibility for any shortfall rests solely on the shoulders of the ESB.

Mr.Ogle welcomed this clarification , hopefully such clarification will be of assistance in the negotiations ahead.

It's a terrible pity that the Unions had to invoke a doomsday scenario to bring the company to the table - thankfully this is one major stumbling point clarified.
 
I think there's a place for trade unions / employment law at the lower end to protect workers from what can go on in the absence of same. However given our employment laws I think the vast majority of unions are now only protecting those terms & conditions that are largely unavailable in the free market. Defined pensions being an example that comes to mind. (on a side note, if the ESB (with 4k workers) are having problems with their pension fund given their profits, industry & market position, how are the rest of the public defined pensions going to be financed (eg HSE with 100k workers) ?)

As someone who has moved be between permanent and contracting positions for over 10 years I must say that I think the odds are tipped on the employee side too much. As a permanent employee I can hand in my notice to my employer by giving them one month's notice. There's nothing they can do. I can do so for any grounds, even discriminatory if I want to. I can leave because I've found an employer willing to pay me more or give me better conditions. Reverse the roles though and my employer has an awful lot of work to do to make me redundant. It would be practically impossible for them to let me go because they want to hire someone else for the role who might be cheaper/better than I am. Why is it OK for the employee to so easily sever the relationship but so difficult for the employer? This probably explains, in part, why contact rates are so much higher in my own industry than salaries...employers want the freedom to let contractors go when they want to, contractors wish to price in employment volatility.

In most cases I believe unions (and labour laws) have a negative impact on the wider economy. They protect the few but in doing so they restrict employment. Although it has not be said publicly, you would have to wonder if the defined benefit pensions at Bord Gais Energy have resulted in the low offers received by the government from interested parties recently?
 

I find it funny that your link talks about the introduction of an anti-bullying code to protect employees who engage in union activity when the real problem is the very serious and often sinister bullying of non-union members (or even members who have the audacity to think for themselves) by union activists in heavily unionised workplaces.
 

Very true. I have heard some stories about the ASTI recently that beggars belief.
 

A bit of a fudge but a step in the right direction , the onus is now on the Unions
to recruit members in all companies in the state whilst also continuing to apply pressure on the ECHR & by continuing their complaints to the ILO to ensure mandatory Trade Union recognition - slowly but surely we're getting there.

The fact that IBEC are unhappy is generally quite a good barometer !
 
I find the Unions in general to be insidious parasitic organisations who are destructive to the common good and to the working poor in particular. The do little good and much harm and have long ago betrayed the spirit of the people who started the labour movement in Ireland.

Deiseblue said:
The fact that IBEC are unhappy is generally quite a good barometer !
Click to expand...
That says it all.
 
delgirl said:
+ 1

Let's call a spade a spade, it's pure blackmail, whether it's bus drivers or ESB workers - if we don't get what we want, when we want it, we'll shut you down.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's right - their main objective is to shut employers down, and as they ALL are of subnormal intelligence, they haven't worked out what happens to them once they shut their employers down.



There may be something in your broad point, and there is definitely something in your point about the inequity of treatment of members when schemes (not necessarily employers) collapse. However, the fact remains that for those people, this is a contractual entitlement. It is written into their contract of employment. It is bizarre that some people seem to think that employees should just walk away from contractual entitlements arising from years or decades or service.
 

It's not exactly unprecedented for the terms of an employment contract to be forcibly set aside by the courts when they are found to be inherently discriminatory and thus unsustainable.
 
T McGibney said:
It's not exactly unprecedented for the terms of an employment contract to be forcibly set aside by the courts when they are found to be inherently discriminatory and thus unsustainable.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I've come across many cases of courts setting aside provisions of employment contracts. And the 'discriminatory' issue has nothing to do with the provisions of each employment contract - it has to do with the legal provisions that deal with insolvent schemes.

But regardless, this isn't a case of a court setting aside anything. This is a case of an attempt at a one-sided setting aside, by a large business that had access to the best expert advice before it produced such contracts.
 
RainyDay said:
This is a case of an attempt at a one-sided setting aside, by a large business that had access to the best expert advice before it produced such contracts.
Click to expand...

Can anyone clarify what, specifically, the contractual disagreement is?
The unions say that the ESB is liable for the shortfall in the pension scheme. The ESB says it isn't.
What's the specific wording that they disagree on?
 
Purple said:
Can anyone clarify what, specifically, the contractual disagreement is?
The unions say that the ESB is liable for the shortfall in the pension scheme. The ESB says it isn't.
What's the specific wording that they disagree on?
Click to expand...


Good question. This is how the company describes the situation in their financial statements. The question is what did the employees think they have? The ESB are saying there was never any obligation on them to plug any deficit above their agreed contributions. It's page 110. To be fair to the ESB, I checked financial statements back to 2007 and although the accounting treatment has changed, they also said back then that the scheme was not a typical defined benefit scheme in that they didn't have to meet deficits. Maybe the union should be asking themselves why they didn't raise this in the middle of th Celtic Tiger. Bertie would have paid them off.

http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/zahra/esb_annualreport2012/index.php#/110

The really scary thing is how much money the ESB aka the taxpayer has put into the fund in recent years and our reward is the threat of no electricity in December. Classy.
 
Thanks for the link Sunny. It does seem that the Unions agreed to the change, if not why no outcry when the changes were made?
I wonder what the pay-off was as it seems very strange that such changes could be brought in without some major sweeteners for the employees... or did the unions just screw up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register