TEEU reject Labour Court recommendation for a 7.5pc cut in pay rates

[Howitzer]

TEEU General Secretary Eamon Devoy [broken link removed] but I don't get the central point.

Competitive issues do not arise to any great extent as all construction companies operating here must comply with the existing Registered Employment Agreement.

These people have made themselves unemployable. Competitive issues do arise - you are trying to sell your services into the market, the market cannot afford the rates of pay you are asking.

 

[Latrade]

I think his is basically saying: tough. Competition doesn't come into it because you signed a REA during the boom and that's that. Bad times, unable to get work, going out of business not nice, but you signed this and you have to put up with it.

His points are valid on using Northern contractors, but what's driving that? In part it's that they can do the job at a fraction of the price because labour costs are cheaper. But I'd also agree with his view that blind eyes are being turned to the use of these subbies in some cases. The Irish firm provides all the paperwork to meet the tender, but then the Northern company often doesn't have the same in place.

Is cost the only issue? No on that he's right, but it's a big enough one that the Labour Court recommend a 7.5pc pay cut. Let's face it, the LC tends to err on the side of compromise and it's pretty unique that such a large cut would be recommended.

And what kind of stink would have been kicked up if it was the otherway round and the employers rejecting a recommendation?

 

[Howitzer]

Well that's the thing, it's the Labour Court recommendation that's been rejected. I can accept that I may have prejudices that may give me a one eyed view of the arguments but it's the job of the Labour Court to weigh those arguments and come to a fair compromise.

Making arguments like these after the Labour Court has made it's decision, what's the point? Who are they trying to convince?