View Full Version : ICTU Day of Action
Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0323/breaking10.htm)
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) has called for a nationwide “day of strikes” on March 30th in companies which have not paid wage increases set out under the national deal negotiated last autumn or put in place some alternative arrangement.
“We have to take this action because of the failure of the Government and the employer bodies to heed the national day of protest on February 21st," TEEU general secretary designate Eamon Devoy said. This day of protest in Dublin was attended by over 150,000 people.
Mr Devoy said 90 per cent of the union’s 45,000 members voted in favour of the ICTU plan and 80 per cent voted for industrial action. He said strike action would not take place in businesses which have honoured the terms of the agreement.
Can someone explain to me what ICTU hope to achieve with this? To me is seems will only encourage public v private sector divide as reports suggest many private sector employees are voting against.
Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0323/breaking10.htm)
Can someone explain to me what ICTU hope to achieve with this? To me is seems will only encourage public v private sector divide as reports suggest many private sector employees are voting against.
What reports pete? (Not doubting you, just haven't read any)
Presumably the action is more of a marker before the April budget than anythign else.
Can someone explain to me what ICTU hope to achieve with this?
As they've stated many times, the reopening of meaningful social partnership talks, with their 10 point plan as the basis.
as reports suggest many private sector employees are voting against.
Any links to these reports? The largest Trade Union in the country is mainly private sector, so that would be news. I haven't heard one or the other yet how the ballot went in my employment.
Lionel Ritchie
23/03/2009, 10:04 AM
Ballot in my union went 67-33 in favour of industrial action. A super majority by definition but I still wouldn't think it was the ringing endorsement they were after.
Ballot in my union went 67-33 in favour of industrial action. A super majority by definition but I still wouldn't think it was the ringing endorsement they were after.
Approching 70% would be deemed pretty good in my experience.
What reports pete? (Not doubting you, just haven't read any)
Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0321/1224243201364.html)
It wasn't on the IT site so had to do some digging.
ONE OF the country’s largest trade unions, Unite, has said that ballots in the private sector on the planned nationwide day of strikes scheduled for Monday week are in general “on a knife edge”, with workers in some cases voting not to take part.
A spokesman for Unite said that in many company ballots the result had been a close call and that in some cases workers had decided not to take part. Unite has not disclosed details of the number of workplaces where members voted against participation. It is to announce further details of where strikes will take place.
I don't know if Dublin Airport staff are classified as public or private but either way they have fairly secure jobs.
IMO the lack of Social Partnership is not a reason to strike as it is not an employment right. Striking due to no pay increase is bizarre.
[QUOTE=pete;1127902IMO the lack of Social Partnership is not a reason to strike as it is not an employment right. Striking due to no pay increase is bizarre.[/QUOTE]
Striking none compliance with a previously negotiated agreement, without a negotiated replacement, would be the basis of a lot of industrial disputes.
OneRedArmy
23/03/2009, 12:08 PM
Striking none compliance with a previously negotiated agreement, without a negotiated replacement, would be the basis of a lot of industrial disputes.Striking in favour of honoring an agreement whose terms are so generous that they verge on wreckless shows how out of touch some of the unions are.
I think the next couple of months will be a seminal moment for the union movement in Ireland. They are moving away from collective opinion and risk a future of militant obstructionism on behalf of a smaller membership base unless they change course.
Good to see IMPACT go against the strike, if only by the smallest margin.
Striking none compliance with a previously negotiated agreement, without a negotiated replacement, would be the basis of a lot of industrial disputes.
Non compliance by the government in current circumstances is hardly a normal situation. I don't see the logic of a new agreement when the government doesn't even know if it can pay its bills next month let alone next year.
Non compliance by the government in current circumstances is hardly a normal situation. I don't see the logic of a new agreement when the government doesn't even know if it can pay its bills next month let alone next year.
To formulate a plan to get us out of this mess. As happened in the 80's.
Dodge
23/03/2009, 12:41 PM
IMPACT vote went 65% yes to striking. Apparently they need 66%
Bit of a blow to the ICTU I'd imagine
OneRedArmy
23/03/2009, 1:13 PM
To formulate a plan to get us out of this mess. As happened in the 80's.I'm no defender about the Government but surely the disagreement is over the content of the plan (pension levy, tax increases, throw out national agreement).
Saying there is no plan is a smokescreen. Whether it's enough to get us out of the recession is another question, but that question is for the electorate, not the unions.
This "we're striking for the greater good" is disingenuous and dishonest spin.
IMPACT vote went 65% yes to striking. Apparently they need 66%
Bit of a blow to the ICTU I'd imagine
True. Not sure who their members are but seems to be a lot of professions across the public sector (based on their website info) & they are the second largest union in the country apparently.
They're mainly staff in county and city councils. I know staff at the lowest clerical level are in IMPACT
I'm no defender about the Government but surely the disagreement is over the content of the plan (pension levy, tax increases, throw out national agreement).
Saying there is no plan is a smokescreen. Whether it's enough to get us out of the recession is another question, but that question is for the electorate, not the unions.
This "we're striking for the greater good" is disingenuous and dishonest spin.
The actual ballot was over the non implementation of the national wage agreement. Employments that have paid it, weren't ballotted. I don't know about other unions, but SIPTU also balloted on support for the ICTU 10 point plan at the same time. From the get go, ICTU have said recommencement of meaningful talks and the strike is off. The smoke screen is being thrown up by those trying to make it about the pension levy, and the public sector in general (the same old, same old divide and conquer).
True. Not sure who their members are but seems to be a lot of professions across the public sector (based on their website info) & they are the second largest union in the country apparently.
IMPACT represent technical grades mainly (not all professionals). Assuming it has the support, ICTU will call it an all out strike and get McLoone off the hook.
OneRedArmy
23/03/2009, 2:26 PM
1) Do you honestly believe it's in the best interest of the country to follow through with last years agreement?
2) the ICTU "plan" is nothing of the sort. It's 10 vague principles with zero detail or anything that is in any way measurable. It was simply a stalling move to make the union movement look constructive. It's unfortunate that the media didn't push the unions for detail as the emperor has no clothes.
As for driving a wedge between public and private sector, it's a bit too late, that's been done already. The semi-states might still be siding with the public sector, but the level of union representation in the true private sector is so low and fractured, that a united front, whatever ICTU might try to portray, was always going to be an illusion.
Next Monday is about the public sector and the semi-states. ICTU will try and make it appear inclusive, but the average private sector worker is a million miles away.
1) Do you honestly believe it's in the best interest of the country to follow through with last years agreement?
Employers could (as with every other national agreement) plead inability to pay. There is no reason why those companies that could afford to pay shouldn't (and in fairness some have). If it needed renegotiating, then it should be renogotiated, rather than unilateral breaking it.
This was signed in September. Any of the parties could've rejected it at that stage, including the Government.
2) the ICTU "plan" is nothing of the sort. It's 10 vague principles with zero detail or anything that is in any way measurable. It was simply a stalling move to make the union movement look constructive. It's unfortunate that the media didn't push the unions for detail as the emperor has no clothes.
It's their starting point for negotiating a plan. It's based on the swedish model, which worked ok for them. Any other plans on the table? And btw, you must have missed the constant attacks by the media on ICTU over the plans lack of detail. As I've said before, in the abscence of any other coherent plan then it's the best there is!
As for driving a wedge between public and private sector, it's a bit too late, that's been done already. The semi-states might still be siding with the public sector, but the level of union representation in the true private sector is so low and fractured, that a united front, whatever ICTU might try to portray, was always going to be an illusion.
I guess we'll see on the day of action. The largest union in the country is mainly private sector. Semi states would be public sector, and would be counted in public sector numbers, wouldn't they? I've never seen them split off before anyway. Density may have been falling, but nominal numbers in Trade Unions has actually been increasing.
OneRedArmy
23/03/2009, 11:20 PM
Democracy IMPACT-style seems to involve reviewing your rulebook to see if you can overturn a democratic vote and if that fails, state the vote was irrelevant in any case as you couldn't expect members to cross picket lines manned by members of other unions...
Democracy IMPACT-style seems to involve reviewing your rulebook to see if you can overturn a democratic vote and if that fails, state the vote was irrelevant in any case as you couldn't expect members to cross picket lines manned by members of other unions...
I would've thought the democratic problem with the IMPACT rule book was having a two thirds majority. I personally don't think it's too democratic that a 65% vote isn't enough for a decision.
As far as I've heard, it's been other unions saying they'd be surprised if IMPACT members pass the pickets, especially with a 65% vote. IMPACT wouldn't say it as that would be unofficial action. As I've said, Congress will call it as all out in the public sector, and then IMPACT members will be protected anyway.
OneRedArmy
24/03/2009, 8:18 AM
Two thirds majority are generally there to protect against low turnouts.
I understand turnout was around 60%.
But as you say it's all meaningless if it's an all-out strike.
IMO next Monday will weaken unions in the private sector, permanently. I still can't believe people are striking for a real wage increase of 6-8% (2.5% + 4.5-5.5% deflation). It's so far out of kilter with what's going on in the rest of the economy as to be outrageous.
There's normally rules on the turnout as well, the IMPACT rule book seems very tight in that regard.
People are striking for either implementation of the agreed deal, or a new one. IBEC seem to be open to that, so that leaves the Government as the one's who won't deal with the social partners.
I understand turnout was around 60%.
53% apparently. 20k odd voted in favour out of 60k or so membership.
Dodge
24/03/2009, 10:15 AM
And of course 8k or so voted against it ;)
53% apparently.
About the same as the last national referendum then - not enough to actually respect a decision.
mypost
24/03/2009, 2:45 PM
Democracy IMPACT-style seems to see if you can overturn a democratic vote ...
That appears to be a common theme these days....
The strike next week will only serve to worsen the country's economic standing, in terms of lost productivity, and lost revenue from cancelled flight bookings. Everybody in employment must take on board the financial situation the country faces, and remember that they are lucky to have a job in the current climate, regardless of how little they feel it pays.
Everybody in employment must take on board the financial situation the country faces, and remember that they are lucky to have a job in the current climate, regardless of how little they feel it pays.
ffs, most annoying argument ever. So because we have a job we should take any crap that is thrown at us? Doff the cap to the bosses, like the good old victorian days... Total bull, the type of argument I'd imagine some old wan to be phoning into Joe Duffy to make. People are not precluded from wanting a better deal, or fairer pain because they have jobs. And if it is going to be so disasterous, all the Government has to do is open talks - IBEC have already said they'll reenter in the face of the strike.
mypost
24/03/2009, 3:07 PM
ffs, most annoying argument ever. So because we have a job we should take any crap that is thrown at us? Doff the cap to the bosses, like the good old victorian days....
You have a job, and when 350k+ people are out of work, possibly 450k before the end of the year, having a job is the most powerful asset you have at the moment. It's called taking the pain. Everyone in employment is going to have to put up with the situation.
The country is not able to afford it's wage agreements, it's not able to make financial projections as the budget estimates spiral out of control every month, there's been 3 budgets already to attempt to correct the situation, and it's something that's going to go on for several years. Striking and protesting is not going to make any difference. The measures, fair or not, have to be implemented in order to limit the damage to the state.
Last week, it was the taxi drivers, next week it's the unions, the week after it'll be someone else. It's all me, me, me, and me again. Too many talk the talk, but are not prepared to walk the walk in order to rescue the state from impending bankruptcy.
OneRedArmy
24/03/2009, 8:51 PM
Too many talk the talk, but are not prepared to walk the walk in order to rescue the state from impending bankruptcy.But leave social welfare at its current level which is about 4 times as much as in the UK...?
mypost
25/03/2009, 4:43 AM
But leave social welfare at its current level which is about 4 times as much as in the UK...?
That's the UK's issue.
Those on JA/JB here, are not able to contribute to the economic health of the country, and must be protected by the government. If 10% of the working population are among the victims from the government in 2 weeks time, I couldn't vote for that party again. Once they can do it once, they can do it any other time.
Back on topic:
As someone who has always worked in the private sector, it stinks to see people with job security protesting/striking because their pay is being affected, when 1,000 people are losing their jobs every day.
Judging by the Liveline ad on Morning Ireland this morning, I think My Post all ready "talked to Joe"....
For all the bull, it looks like the threat of action was enough to bring the Government back to the table. Now let's see the true colours of IBEC and Government when they say they want a fair deal to bring the country forward...
OneRedArmy
25/03/2009, 8:24 AM
A fair deal is likely to involve pay and job cuts.
I can't see the unions being able to sell that.
The starting position of the unions and employers is so far apart I wouldn't be optimistic.
OneRedArmy
25/03/2009, 12:47 PM
Strike deferred by ICTU.
IBEC's offer to talk saved their bacon.
Doesn't really change the core problem which is the expectations gap between public and private sectors.
IBEC's offer to talk saved their bacon.
Why would IBEC save ICTU's bacon? More like the threat of strike forced IBEC and Governments hand.
IBEC's offer to talk saved their bacon.
huh? ICTU said all along that the reason for strike action was to get back to talks.
Job done by the unions so...
OneRedArmy
25/03/2009, 1:33 PM
Why would IBEC save ICTU's bacon? More like the threat of strike forced IBEC and Governments hand.
Because next Monday's day of action was progressively losing credibility and support by the hour. The ICTU failed to present anything like a united front and their bluff really shoul've been called.
I'm actually disapponted IBEC caved in. Union militancy deserved to be met with employer militancy. As Eddie Hobbs said yesterday, it's nice that those with the most job security in the country were striking to improve their own personal situation, most of which will be funded by the 850k people who work in the SME sector who have no job security and worrying prospects.
But IBEC caved before most of the results were in. The unions got what they wanted.
You lost me when you got to Eddie Hobbs. That bitter little man is only on a self serving publicity drive at the moment - hasn't he a new book at the moment? And hows Brendan Investments doing? He's nothing but a €5000 an event hypocrite.
OneRedArmy
25/03/2009, 2:10 PM
But IBEC caved before most of the results were in. The unions got what they wanted.
You lost me when you got to Eddie Hobbs. That bitter little man is only on a self serving publicity drive at the moment - hasn't he a new book at the moment? And hows Brendan Investments doing? He's nothing but a €5000 an event hypocrite.I don't care much for Eddie Hobbs or his shady past, but the point is valid.
It's often said on here about the undestimation of the strength of feeling for action in the public sector. Well the same applies in the private sector. The strength of feeling against those looking for the national agreement to be honoured is huge.
The fact that wage increases are even being mentioned shows how far apart expectations are.
A realistic deal would tie a wage freeze (real wage increase due to deflation) into productivity increases and voluntary redundancies under agreed terms.
But whilst that might be the right deal, it wouldn't get union subs renewed.
I know a fair amount of civil servants who'd happily take voluntary redundancy if the offer was OK (and I'm not talking huge figures here)
I wouldn't speak for everyone but I'm not sure you're right about union member feelings on that one
The strike was for either the National Wage Agreement or a negotiated replacement. I haven't heard wage increases mentioned in any of the meetings I've been in.
I've no doubt there is anger, as it's been successfully manipulated into private sector worker versus public sector worker - just like the right wing agenda driven commentators such as Eddie Hobbs & Alan Ruddock, the tax dodger "captains of industry" and Government would like it. More's the pity so many fell for it.
I doubt any deal will contain anything other than a wage freeze. And a voluntary redundancy, or especially a voluntary early retirement scheme would get support (as I've said before, and as was suggested by the unions in Dublin Bus for example). Redundancy and Retirement payments are also exempt from the deficit in terms of the EU pact as I understand it.
More and more of this debate is about people on the right with agenda's telling enough lies enough times that they become accepted as the truth. :rolleyes:
The government gave ICTU a nice get out clause on this one. IMPACT sould not get the required numbers of votes so were looking at loopholes to bypass the vote. I am sure that is a route they did not want to go down if had any choice.
The talks which will achieve nothing will however make the government, ICTU & IBEC appear like they are doing something which is what they all really care about anyway.
Click (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0327/1224243552922.html)
THOUSANDS OF passengers at the State’s three main airports at Dublin, Cork and Shannon could face major disruption next Thursday after the Siptu branch in Dublin airport served notice of industrial action last night in a row over pay.
SIPTU can't control its members. Seems like some sectors will make any threats to get what they want.
SIPTU can't control its members. Seems like some sectors will make any threats to get what they want.
It's a different issue (non payment of local agreements and increments) from the Day of Action so I don't see why it should be tagged on the same thread (except it suits the DAA too). And no, Head Office ultimately can't control it's members - it's what makes unions democratic and shows the difference between workers willing to stand up for themselves and those that will roll over for anything thrown at them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.