Public Service - day of strike


It was your choice to leave the Union. Now you seem to feel it is unfair that they are going on strike and putting you in an awkward position. If you've been allowed take a day's leave what are you worried about?
As for your claim that people are working from 10-4 with a 2 hr lunch. Are you actually on flexi time yourself? If you are you would be aware that you have to work an average of 7 hours a day spread over a 4 week period. If they are only working 4 hourssome days they would have to make up the time on other days. Unless some people are 'fiddling' their flexi which is a serious disciplinary matter, as is taking sick leave when you're not ill. Are you implying that this is union supported practice???
 
Unions (like health insurance companies, and other insurers indeed) don't want people who only want to be members when they are in trouble. Car insurance would not be sustainable if you only took out insurance for those days when you are going to crash. Unions have to protect their existing members against cherry-picking, those who choose to join & pay only when they have a problem.

And just to throw a little petrol on the fire, it is almost certain that you won't be allowed take a days leave on the strike day.
 

If this is how you feel, is that not a reason why you should pass the picket?
To be honest, I don't really understand your initial post. On the one hand you're saying you wnat to rejoin the union because you don't believe in passing pickets and because you agree lower paid public servants shouldn't lose any more pay, and on the other you seem to be saying that the whole strike is unreasonable, and people are being hypocritical.
 
Just pass the picket. Your not a union member so you have nothing to worry about. Go in a do your job as normal , let the guys on the picket do all the protesting to try to help protect your work conditions and wages. Then when its all over, thank them for sticking up for you and your colleagues. You are probably fearful of being called a scab. Alternatively you could join the picket as a non member to show your individual support for what they are trying to do. Funny how you want to use a leave day to avoid this, because these are the type of things your union would have negotiated and lobbied for in the past. Leave, maternity, overtime, health and safety, and most things related to your welfare in work and your enjoyment of life outside work.
 
I understand how you feel Tarad, I recently joined a new union, having previously being a member of a union which lost me somewhere in Liberty hall. The new union had a vote in March for strike action should any threat be made to our pay and conditions. Needless to say, I was not aware of this when I joined the new union and feel that a vote should have been taken more recently.

Now, we are told by our union that strike notice has been served on our place of work for Tuesday but that they will understand if we don't want to picket, we are just not to turn up for work that day. In addition, we are NOT to tell our employer if we are not turning up for the day - that, apparently would be akin to dancing with the devil. Let them find out for themselves is the attitude but we run a public office. If we don't turn up the public are effected!

I do not want to strike on Tuesday. Apart from losing a days pay it is the public who will suffer and not the government. I didn't vote to strike, I don't agree with the strike, I can't stand Jack O'Connor or David Beggs and the rest of the Socialist Brotherhood. I simply joined the union because should conditions change with the economy and we face closure then I thought it best to have someone represent me. Now I regret it.
 
So then just resign from the union - simple solution.
 
I don't see why you don't just resign from the union with immediate effect. My understanding is that you don't need to tell your employer because the union will do that for you.
 
And just to throw a little petrol on the fire, it is almost certain that you won't be allowed take a days leave on the strike day.
Click to expand...
This aside leads us to the question of who's not allowing the workers to take a holiday on the strike day?

Surely it's in the employers interest to allow workers who want to take a holiday on a day that no work will be done anyway to do so.

This sounds suspiciously like a union demand via a complicit management to bully workers into a position where they either have to cross the picket or or take the day unpaid.

I think most of us in the private sector would be outraged if we were not allowed to take a day's holiday entitlement whenever we want as long as sufficient notice was given and there was no need for us to be there that particular day.

Why should a public servant have to put up with such treatment either from their employers or unions? It's needless nasty bullying. Is it even legal?
 
In your rush for conspiracy theories and yet another attempted attack on the public service, you have missed the obvious answer. The management of the organisation will not allow annual leave because they will want to have 'all hands on deck' to provide the best service that they can manage in the circumstances.
 
The management of the organisation will not allow annual leave because they will want to have 'all hands on deck' to provide the best service that they can manage in the circumstances.
Click to expand...
That's not the case in general. In many cases no service at all will be provided on Tuesday (universities and the like), there's no point in having any "hands on deck". In these cases there won't be emergency cover or any cover whatsoever provided.

You should remember management are unionized as well, so it's not a typical private sector strike where management will be doing their best to provide a normal service, in this case as often than not they'll be doing their best to stop normal service.

In the case where there's no benefit of a handful on employees turning up to work, in makes economic and compassionate sense to allow them to take holidays.

The unions would have been completely embedded in these discussions on how to treat employees who wanted to take a holiday day and leave the militants to themselves. This is most certainly a union agreed and quite likely driven policy.
 
On a more practical level, does anyone know how much money will be saved by this? Probably more to follow too.
 
Well it would represent a half percent pay cut to anyone who strikes (assuming a 200 working day year).
 
ashambles said:
Why should a public servant have to put up with such treatment either from their employers or unions? It's needless nasty bullying. Is it even legal?
Click to expand...
As a friend of mine in the public sector said recently, "There's no bullying like union bullying".
 
Do you know what cracks me up about all these strikes and the people who come on to radio and TV programmes like Frontline moaning about how childrens hospitals haven't got beds for operations to be performed and other things that show this country needs attention?

Well HOW EXACTLY do they expect the Gov to raise the money to fix these problems if they don't make cuts in the MASSIVE outlay in the public sector?

These people can't see that the Gov MUST SAVE MONEY if this country is to SURVIVE and these problems are to be fixed.

Don't moan about bad hospitals and poor services if you strike as soon as the Gov tries to save some money to sort out the country.
 


Which is why Private Sector workers are queueing up to pay more tax, hand over child benefit, insist on paying university fees for their kids and so on. Public Servants are striking over unfair, across the board cuts, and at being specifically targetted. And also to make it clear that the Government cannot keep coming back to Public Servants in every single budget between now and God knows when as a handy lucky dip every time they need to save money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register