i wonder just how adequate that protection really is!http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/unions-warn-against-esb-sale-464347.html
" Union representatives at ESB are warning the Government against any sale or break-up of the company.
..... Brendan Ogle of Unite trade union said it is not acceptable
He is warning the Government they'll "turn the lights out" rather than let it happen. "
This is absolutely maddening. Companies are bought and sold all of the time. There is adequate legal protection for workers in such a situation.
Brendan Ogle is using the same tactic employed by Eamon Devoy when Brian Lenihan suggested that semi state employees could suffer pay cuts akin to the PS pay cuts , the threat of turning out the lights removed that suggestion from the Government agenda for the time being at least.
If such tactics protect the terms and conditions of the employees and keep the ESB out of private hands then I have no problems with Mr. Ogle's forthright comments.
A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1885 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.
Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?
He worked from 1885 to 2002 when he took early retirement.Must have had some pension!
Well, I didn't really believe he worked for more than 117 years
A relation of mine worked in the ESB. He was a control room operator. In 1985 his job was computerised. From then 'till he took early retirement in 2002 he did no work. He was provided with his own office and computer and he went in every day but he had no job. For that he got paid around three times the average industrial wage. His boss from the control room days was in the same position.
Whenever they were asked to re-train they just said no and their union backed them up.
Are these the terms and conditions you want to protect?
Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give creedence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.
Of course not , but in this instance whereas you obviously give credence to your relations version of events I certainly do not.
What does that mean? Are you suggesting that I am lying?
I know for an absolute fact that what he said is true.
If you are willing to sign a non disclosure agreement that I can email to you I will give you his name and work history.
The bearded brethren have a long and illustrious track record of ignoring the facts and presenting misinformation to the public. The truth rarely suits their self-serving agenda.
On reflection if I signed a non disclosure form and then felt that on reading the case history there were other arguments to pursue then surely I am precluded from doing so ?
To avoid this perhaps you could post the main thrust of both your relations case , both the management and Union cases and the Labour Court's involvement ( if any )
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?