This is getting ridiculous!!

More madness from the unions.

More jobs saved, better redundancy packages for the ones being laid off, and still they come out with veiled threats like "cannot give any assurance of the co-operation of the workforce".
When will they (and their subscribers) learn ? It's everybody works or nobody works, is that it ?

Linky

I think the Unions are the biggest drag on Ireland's future.

I am not particularly right-wing in my views, but I despair for economic recovery with the attitude of certain unions.

ringledman said:

I think the Unions are the biggest drag on Ireland's future.

Click to expand...

If recent developments a la Devins and Scanlon are to be examined then the biggest drawback could be lack of political support for the cuts contain in the report by ABSN.

mathepac said:

I am not particularly right-wing in my views, but I despair for economic recovery with the attitude of certain unions.

Click to expand...

My despair for the economic recovery lies in the behaviour of the Bankers and Developers whose conduct to date has placed us in such a low recessionary starting point to climb from.

Deiseblue said:

My despair for the economic recovery lies in the behaviour of the Bankers and Developers whose conduct to date has placed us in such a low recessionary starting point to climb from.

Click to expand...

And those who fuelled the demand for property and land development. No demand, no need for the developers and banks to do what they did. No demand, no need to the government to put all its eggs in one basket with taxes.

There's too many factors to use the banks and developers as a reason why Unions would be taking the stances they are. It's also laughable considering many of these same officials didn't do too badly on their own or from their nomination to various posts under Social Partnership.

But as to the current actions, it's the sign that social partnership has ended and Unions seem to be heading down the individual bargaining path. I just don't get the math behind it though. Recent example from a friend who is now out of a job: staff called in and taken through financial situation, options were 10% pay cut or lay offs. Only my friend and a couple voted for pay cuts, everyone else refused under union advice. Week later redundancies announced and also working week reduced to 3 days.

But as 20 people were laid off, the Union has just lost 18 paid up subscribers. They do realise that people can't and wont pay subs if they've no income.

If there is a move to go down the individual bargaining route (always seems popular in times of strife, I think they need to go and do some research on UK economic history... start with the Heath government and the Union's rejection of a move to social partnership/collective bargaining and then what happened to the Union movement after this. One word: Thatcherism. How'd that turn out again?)

Latrade said:

Thatcherism. How'd that turn out again?)

Click to expand...

It was nasty and cruel and had a massive social cost but it saved Britain from economic ruination.
The 25 years or so of socialism and limp-risted conservatism that proceeded it saw Britain go from one of the great manufacturing power-houses of the world to a second rate basket case.

Thatcherism - its biggest victory was New Labour .. apparently.

I dont know much of the detail of the bould Maggie's ways, but I suppose one harsh reality is that you cant hold back the tide of economic reality. If we're too expensive to be a 'basic manufacturing' economy then, gut wrenching and all as it is, arent basic manufacturing jobs on the long slide into the abyss ??

Unions dont seem to be the ones to correct this, its la la land protectionism and a big payoff for the lads exiting. Some people would actually like to work hard and make their company work.

Problem is that we have multi-seat STV PR in this country, which means that no politician (FF / FG and certainly not the unreconstructed socialists in Labour or the Greens) will ever have the guts to stand up to the unions or the public sector.

Ireland needs a Maggie Thatcher to take Ireland out of the dark ages.

Can anyone name any politician that may have the intelligence and courage to go about this in a a way that could actually work, and get the public (and, by extension, other TDs) behind him/her ? Richard Bruton ?

BeanPole said:

which means that no politician (FF / FG and certainly not the unreconstructed socialists in Labour or the Greens) will ever have the guts to stand up to the unions or the public sector.

Click to expand...

Is there any post where you don't mention the Public sector?

Latrade said:

And those who fuelled the demand for property and land development. No demand, no need for the developers and banks to do what they did. No demand, no need to the government to put all its eggs in one basket with taxes.

Click to expand...

Dead right. And of course, a large part of the demand was fuelled by those damned banksters again, who were in a ´no lose´situation. The more they give out on loans, the higher the prices go. And when the bubble bursts, the bonus has been spent and the taxpayer bails them out.

When you are on the outside looking in Unions get bad press. But if it was you personally who was loosing their job you would be thankful for a union to fight your corner.

There have been redundancies in my place and people who have been working for almost two years were let go with no redundancy payments. Those who were tere for over 2 years just got the minimal statutory payments. Some of them even relocated to the Australia office and after just 3 months they have been let go with no redundancy. Now they have to pack up and change their life again.

On the other hand some of my friends in another company are on the verge of being made redundant but there is a union in that place. They are fighting their case and have straight off managed to increase the redundancy on offer while also fighting to reduce the numbers affected etc. They have been offered 5 weeks full pay per year worked, which is not bad. The company, like my own place, is profitable and will be.

Purple said:

It was nasty and cruel and had a massive social cost but it saved Britain from economic ruination.
The 25 years or so of socialism and limp-risted conservatism that proceeded it saw Britain go from one of the great manufacturing power-houses of the world to a second rate basket case.

Click to expand...

It's hard to not be polarised on thatcher's Britain, but manufacturing downturn was as much related to global aspects rather than single government policies.

The irony on collective over individual bargaining is that Heath put together the model for social partnership and the unions rejected it. That of course led to even worse economic conditions, more job losses and ultimately Thatcher. Her policies and actions were a direct response to the actions of the unions which wouldn't have existed under a social partnership model.

I know mentioning SP now is like rubbing tin foil over fillings, but the model is sound, again it was the application that became flawed. The idea is to reach common agreement. You have 20 urgent points of action and all sides agree on a common, greater good, approach. Instead it became "We'll let the unions have their way on these 10 and the employers their way on these 10". Utter tripe.

Ultimately, unions wont exist if they move to individual bargaining. More jobs will be lost, more members lost. But ultimately the UK showed that frustration with dealing with the unions leads to their downfall. That's another irony about manufacturing loss in the UK, it wasn't socialism, that happened at a time when unions were at their weakest, so socialist policies and overly protective unions can't be blamed for that. Outside of the civil and public sector, there really isn't any union as we know it aside from the annual pay review and handling compensation claims.

ICTU seems to be leading the charge towards individual bargaining and they really need to just to a small bit of research on recent political history to see if they really want to open that can of worms.

aristotle25 said:

When you are on the outside looking in Unions get bad press. But if it was you personally who was loosing their job you would be thankful for a union to fight your corner.

There have been redundancies in my place and people who have been working for almost two years were let go with no redundancy payments. Those who were tere for over 2 years just got the minimal statutory payments. Some of them even relocated to the Australia office and after just 3 months they have been let go with no redundancy. Now they have to pack up and change their life again.

On the other hand some of my friends in another company are on the verge of being made redundant but there is a union in that place. They are fighting their case and have straight off managed to increase the redundancy on offer while also fighting to reduce the numbers affected etc. They have been offered 5 weeks full pay per year worked, which is not bad. The company, like my own place, is profitable and will be.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Companies will look to cut their losses as simply and cheaply as possible. But, all this does is demonstrate there is a right way of handling these negotiations and that there is a point where a fair deal is reached for all parties. From the perspective of both employers and employees, we never hear of these in the media. All we do hear are the extreme ends.

However, short-sighted action for the sake of action is more harmful than good. As in the example of my friend, this isn't unique.

I agree with all of that except this part;

Latrade said:

That's another irony about manufacturing loss in the UK, it wasn't socialism, that happened at a time when unions were at their weakest, so socialist policies and overly protective unions can't be blamed for that.

Click to expand...

The unions in British Steel and the (virtual) nationalisation of most of the car industry had socialism written all over it. The unions in British Leyland and Ford were legendary.
The cost of the Second World War and the fact that Germany was starting with a clean slate meant that it can be argued that the British car industry was at a disadvantage from a production perspective but they had the market share, the economies of scale and the experience so it doesn’t explain the demise of the second biggest car producer in the world in a period of 3-4 decades.
For me the answer was their inability to change when Japanese competition entered the market.
Change requires good management and a workforce that understand and accept what’s needed.
In my opinion both were absent.

The most important thing to do is to find someone else to blame.
Someone got SSIA money funded by the Taxpayer
Someone got tax cuts
Someone got benchmarking
Someone thought they were proeprty specualtors and went off buying holidays homes in Bulgaria off the plans by mortgaging their own primary residence.
Someone got two or three credit cards and maxed them out in New York on four day trips to shopping malls.

But they are not to blame. Lets blame the bankers/politiicans or the public service or the British.

Latrade said:

And those who fuelled the demand for property and land development. No demand, no need for the developers and banks to do what they did. No demand, no need to the government to put all its eggs in one basket with taxes.

There's too many factors to use the banks and developers as a reason why Unions would be taking the stances they are. It's also laughable considering many of these same officials didn't do too badly on their own or from their nomination to various posts under Social Partnership.

But as to the current actions, it's the sign that social partnership has ended and Unions seem to be heading down the individual bargaining path. I just don't get the math behind it though. Recent example from a friend who is now out of a job: staff called in and taken through financial situation, options were 10% pay cut or lay offs. Only my friend and a couple voted for pay cuts, everyone else refused under union advice. Week later redundancies announced and also working week reduced to 3 days.

But as 20 people were laid off, the Union has just lost 18 paid up subscribers. They do realise that people can't and wont pay subs if they've no income.

If there is a move to go down the individual bargaining route (always seems popular in times of strife, I think they need to go and do some research on UK economic history... start with the Heath government and the Union's rejection of a move to social partnership/collective bargaining and then what happened to the Union movement after this. One word: Thatcherism. How'd that turn out again?)

Click to expand...

I can give you another example , a friend of mine in a largely unionised workforce was called in with his colleagues and again the financial situation was outlined by the company who were looking for significant pay cuts and a number of redundancies - the union were then called in by the employees.
The financial figures supplied by the company were forensically examined and proved to be incorrect , all proposed pay cuts and redundancies have been shelved .
I quite agree that social partnership seems to be dead in the water and as such the only alternative is individual bargaining , something that neither Unions or Companies want.