The person involved is a close relation whom I know very well and see regularly. There is no chance that he is misinforming me.
Wasn't there also a case where some employees in the midlands refused to move to a new power station so they were paid to remain employed in the old de-commissioned station - again with (and because of) their union backing. There was very little or no work for them to do but it was easier for the ESB to give into them than to take on the Unions.
Deiseblue - I can't find any link to an article so don't believe me if you don't want to but it definitely happened.
the issue was resolved in 2003 after protracted and bitter negotiations when employees and management agreed a voluntary severance scheme.
Why should there be any negotiations? These people should have accepted a new position at the new power station or been made redundant full stop. The fact that "bitter and protracted" negotiations even took place shows that these employees and their union were being obstructive.
In this case the facts were available for all to see , what I find difficult to accept as fact is anecdotal , second hand information, information garnered by one person from another concerning matters of which the first person has no direct experience.
That's a bit of a leap.The fact that after the aforementioned negotiations management agreed to a relatively generous severance package would seem to support the above argument.
All information garnered from one person by another is, by it's nature, anecdotal. All information garnered by one person from another is second hand. Unless someone has observed the same events as the person that is relating them, which seems kind of pointless, then the person to whom the information is being imparted will have no first hand knowledge of said events.
I have related the facts as they have been related to me in many conversations over many years. I have questioned what I was told and have been furnished with satisfactory answers. I know that doesn't sit well with your biases but that's no reason for verbosity.
That's a bit of a leap.
How about the management knew that the bearded brethren would kick up a major storm so the best think was to just buy the malingerers off?
Simply hammering home the point , I prefer to deal with facts rather than hearsay , nothing to do with any agenda or bias.
Naturally if you can substantiate your assertions then I would have to consider matters further but until then ----
I agree; they should never have given in to such bullying.Appalling management though if such was the case !
This may come as a shock to you but you are not the reason I post here. I am sure that I am not unique in that. Garnering your attention so that you may consider a matter further is, I suspect, not at the top of anyone's agenda here.
By it's nature an internet forum will be full of people's experiences, direct and indirect. You seem to have no problem with such sources except when it clashes with your own biases. I am not talking about a story I heard from a bloke “down the pub”, I am relating information gained from a close family member over a period of decades. Therefore it is not an ascertion as it is supported by first hand information.
Good.Of course I don't think that I am the reason you post here.
Now you are being childish. I have related information. It doesn’t suit your agenda or biases and you choose not to accept that. That’s fine, but leave out the silliness.Your assertations re your relatives work situation fall into the "Ripleys believe it or not" category.
Do you really expect me to post personal details about a relative on an internet forum?I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.
If you have substantiating facts - post them.
Nope, as long as he didn’t cause any problems and kept out of the way they were happy to white-wall him. Ditto for his boss.The Company at the very least must have gone to the Labour Court , any ruling from them ?
The Union actually pushed him quite a bit in private to accept re-training and re-deployment but he refused. In fairness to them they are there to represent his interests to him employer so they were just doing their job.Any info on the Unions case in this matter ?
I don't believe it and will not be persuaded by hearsay.
- Owners should decide what to do with their company.
- Employees of all levels should work for the owners and do what they are requested to do (within reason and with the protection of Irish and EU legislation).
This is not specific to the ESB or Public Sectors.
It's a fair days pay for a fair days work, comrade. (Spoken with a flat Dublin accent)+1. I always find it funny when a company decides to layoff people or close employees give out that they gave the company X years. You don't hear about the company winging when its employees leave to work for someone else! Fact is a company should owe its employees nothing and vice versa. A day's pay for a day's work.
Good.
Now you are being childish. I have related information. It doesn’t suit your agenda or biases and you choose not to accept that. That’s fine, but leave out the silliness.
Do you really expect me to post personal details about a relative on an internet forum?
You can question my honesty, that’s your prerogative and I’m a big boy; I won’t lose any sleep over it, but just come out and say what you mean.
Nope, as long as he didn’t cause any problems and kept out of the way they were happy to white-wall him. Ditto for his boss.
The Union actually pushed him quite a bit in private to accept re-training and re-deployment but he refused. In fairness to them they are there to represent his interests to him employer so they were just doing their job.
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?