[quote=“myboyblue”]We’ll see how this one plays out Rocko, I think there’s fuck all the Unions can do, that is in this day and age they’re completely neutered and only have their own self interests at heart (ie the head boys own pay checks, as opposed to the ordinary worker).
Strike action has definitely not been averted though, only postponed until after this weekends talks. Its good to see them all back at the table, but whats to be got out of it, time will tell.[/quote]
They are going to get a hell of a lot more relevant. Unless we believe this pie-in-the-sky bullshit about the economy picking up by early next year industrial action is going to be the order of the day. Perhaps even rightly so. This country has lost control of it’s senses. Was sickened to see some IBEC fuckwit talking about union influence being undemocratic. The fucking neck of those lads!
i dont see what they have to offer in their current make up. i cant see them going backwards i don’t think they are programmed that way.
going to their members and telling them they have negotiated a pay freeze on their behalf could possibly eventually render them irrelevant, for that is the future for those with jobs. Unions or no unions there is no money out there and a dose of reality mixes with a union leader like oil does with water.
if you simply think that industrial action makes them relevant then you are not seeing the bigger picture.
[quote=“HBV*”]i dont see what they have to offer in their current make up. i cant see them going backwards i don’t think they are programmed that way.
going to their members and telling them they have negotiated a pay freeze on their behalf could possibly eventually render them irrelevant, for that is the future for those with jobs. Unions or no unions there is no money out there and a dose of reality mixes with a union leader like oil does with water.
if you simply think that industrial action makes them relevant then you are not seeing the bigger picture.[/quote]
No but they can go to members with the deal of a pay freeze and a guarantee of pay increases once GDP improves or something and a guarantee that there will be further talks before next year’s budget so there is consultation on any new levies.
Workers want to see that they’re being represented. They’re not expecting wage hikes from the talks but they do want to know that someone’s protecting them from the suspicion that they’ll be a long time recovering from what they surrender today.
[quote=“therock67”]No but they can go to members with the deal of a pay freeze and a guarantee of pay increases once GDP improves or something and a guarantee that there will be further talks before next year’s budget so there is consultation on any new levies.
Workers want to see that they’re being represented. They’re not expecting wage hikes from the talks but they do want to know that someone’s protecting them from the suspicion that they’ll be a long time recovering from what they surrender today.[/quote]
sure the strike was in response to (among other things) some companies in the private sector refusing to comply with the national wage agreement from late last year.
The national wage agreement from late last year was… a pay hike.
[quote=“HBV*”]sure the strike was in response to (among other things) some companies in the private sector refusing to comply with the national wage agreement from late last year.
The national wage agreement from late last year was… a pay hike.[/quote]
Indeed. The Unions made much of rampant inflation when they wanted to renegotiate the previous deal, yet whe we have deflation they don’t seem to think that a quid pro quo should apply.
[quote=“HBV*”]sure the strike was in response to (among other things) some companies in the private sector refusing to comply with the national wage agreement from late last year.
The national wage agreement from late last year was… a pay hike.[/quote]
No it was a reaction to the unilateral decision to reverse the pay agreement from last year with no negotiated settlement. There are numerous quotes from ICTU recognising the need for a wage freeze and even recognising the need for the pension levy etc.
What they have argued is that:
The changes must be structured to protect the lower earners which is not something that has been done so far (either in the last budget or in the reforms since)
There should be a negotiated solution that the unions can sign up to that addresses future requirements also.
The unions are not arguing for wage hikes, they’re arguing for the revocation of those agreed hikes to be on an agreed and planned basis.
The same point again - they’re not arguing against income and pension levies. They’re arguing against how those measures were unilaterally applied and how they seem to be just thrown out there wih not even a hint of a strategic plan underpinning them that would allow this economy to recover.
To be honest the clearest planning on a recovery so far has come form ICTU’s ten point plan. It may not be perfect but at least they’ve formulated a strategy. They are trying to avoid the situation where the government apply universal taxes to people who can’t afford to pay them - as happened with medical cards and income levy in the last budget. A negotiated settlement would have worked out far better for the government that time.
[quote=“therock67”]No it was a reaction to the unilateral decision to reverse the pay agreement from last year with no negotiated settlement. There are numerous quotes from ICTU recognising the need for a wage freeze and even recognising the need for the pension levy etc.
What they have argued is that:
The changes must be structured to protect the lower earners which is not something that has been done so far (either in the last budget or in the reforms since)
There should be a negotiated solution that the unions can sign up to that addresses future requirements also.
The unions are not arguing for wage hikes, they’re arguing for the revocation of those agreed hikes to be on an agreed and planned basis.[/quote]
i beg to differ, however it is open to interpretation a little.
had the agreement (pay hike) been honoured across the board there would be no talk of action or no talk of 10 point plans.
Turn up for “work” at about 9am or 9.30am.
Show a bunch of la la’s how to tie their laces and peel their banana’s.
Finish “work” at about 2.30pm or 3.00pm. The rest of the day is yours.
All weekend off, every weekend.
3 months off during the summer, 2 weeks at Xmas, 2 weeks at Easter, 1 week at Halloween. The odd the day or two off here or there for service days and striking. :mad:
Starting wage of at least €40k a year straight out of college.
Permanent job for the rest of your life depite how incompetent you may or may not be.
Generous pension when you retire.
[quote=“The Dunph”]> Turn up for “work” at about 9am or 9.30am.
Show a bunch of la la’s how to tie their laces and peel their banana’s.
Finish “work” at about 2.30pm or 3.00pm. The rest of the day is yours.
All weekend off, every weekend.
3 months off during the summer, 2 weeks at Xmas, 2 weeks at Easter, 1 week at Halloween. The odd the day or two off here or there for service days and striking. :mad: > Starting wage of at least 40k a year straight out of college.
Permanent job for the rest of your life depite how incompetent you may or may not be.
Generous pension when you retire.
Seriously what are they striking over?[/quote]
I agree but that bits a lie more like 30k that increases each year.
Other than that well said Dunph. They should all fuck off and retire if they dont like it.
The strikes last year and some level of public support (only a little bit granted) but I think they will find that people are in no mood for their shit this time around. They will be heckled in the streets and have tomatoes thrown at them.
It was noted in the media how little support the Frontline Alliance received during their protest last week. The few civil servants I know would rather these strikes weren’t going ahead, they would rather keep their heads down and get on with things but as they are union members they have no choice in the issue.