View Full Version : BATU Trade Union Discussion
IndyMedia (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74391)
Union recognition dispute or anti-foreigner dispute?
Seems a few local buildings think they have a right to employment at local sites. Imagine if that was taken to its logical conclusion?
RTE (http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0224/bricklayers.html)
Typical rubbish union protest.
:rolleyes:
dcfcsteve
24/02/2006, 11:27 PM
I used to be very supportive of Trade Unions, but time and experience has lead me to view a lot of them as ineefectual, aggressively political, and outrageously selfish.
As an example - whilst President of my Students' Union in England, we came up with the fairly obvious conclusion that there were 3 key stakeholders on campus : the students, the staff/academics, and 'the administration' (i.e. the higher echelons of the University who made all the decisions regardless of views elsewere).
We therefore set-up a collaborative body between the Students' Union and the 'Joint-campus Trade Unions' body (i.e. the group that brought together the various Unions for manual labour, different academic groups, white collar staff etc). The idea was that there were certain areas of common ground that we could all agree on, and that if the 2 main stakeholders on campus combined on these then the Administration would be less able to ignore our views.
All went well. The Unions nationally called a strike on pay levels, and we were one of the few SU's in our region that actively supported the strike - successfully encouraging the students to support it on the grounds that poor pay was impacting the quality of education they were receiving. The 2 key stakeholders on campus working together on common aims. All very positive stuff.
About a month later, however, we then sought the Trade Unions help in the National Union of Students campaign against Tuition Fees. Now - you would expect that the imposition of fees for third level education would be something Trade Union activists would instinctively be opposed to - if not down-right angry about. And you may well be right. But did they in any way, shape or form help us to galvanise support on the issue ? Did they feck. Did they agree to lobby the administration or their own members on the issue ? Did they feck ? Why ? I can only guess because it wasn't in the immediate or supremely narrow self-interest of themselves or their members.
I can still see to this day some of the little *****s clear as day in my mind at that meeting where we asked them to reciprocate our earlier support for their cause with support for ours. The room replicated a bag of eells, such was the squirming, shuffling and silent gazing at the floor that went on.
Ever since then I lost all respect for Trade Unions, and realised that the vast majority of them don't give a flying feck about ANYTHING other than their own incredibly narrow self-interest.
So the weasels can all feckin' rot in hell for all I care. Victory to the Cullen Brothers... :D
rebs23
25/02/2006, 9:05 AM
3 unemployed bricklayers in the middle of the biggest construction boom this country has ever seen! Yeah right!
Probably shouldn't post on this subject as it's too close to the bone and I'm likely to get a bit irrational on it but seriously lads anyone who works in the construction industry knows what BATU (the brickies union) are like.
They are the biggest bunch of bullying, intimidating thugs around. They have been at this stuff for years. No respect or support from their other trade unionists, other construction workers or the public and suprisingly the media beacause at this stage they have no credibility left. None not an ounce.
This "dispute" was all about getting Collen to sack certain workers.
Risteard
25/02/2006, 9:31 AM
Now - you would expect that the imposition of fees for third level education would be something Trade Union activists would instinctively be opposed to - if not down-right angry about.
I wouldn't really.
Maybe in an ideal world but i wouldn't have been as hopeful as you.:)
CollegeTillIDie
25/02/2006, 9:58 PM
Pete
Well it wasn't an attempt to prevent building on Belfield Park that's for sure! :D
Well it wasn't an attempt to prevent building on Belfield Park that's for sure! :D
I know, sure i saw 3 people were arrested & knew couldn't be that many UCD fans.
Student Mullet
27/02/2006, 12:19 AM
They were presumably allowed to hold their protest in Belfield to keep the disruption away from the local houses but they very quickly made themselves unwelcome. They would comment on the attractiveness or otherwise of every girl walking into college and then they started fights with the guards and the other workers.
I have no problem with them if they want to hold a protest but there was no need for the added extras.
They would comment on the attractiveness or otherwise of every girl walking into college and then they started fights with the guards and the other workers.
And yet they wondering why they were refused employment...
Whilst I'd be naturally suspicious of anything Boyd-Barrett has a hand in, it does seem they have a case. It's not about them not being employed because they are locals, it's about them not being employed because they're union members who would insist on getting agreed rates of pay.
Yet again highlights the need for a labour inspectorate that has seize and search powers like CAB. A fully complying employer would have nothing to fear as they'd get no complaints made against them anyway...
rebs23
28/02/2006, 8:52 AM
it's about them not being employed because they're union members who would insist on getting agreed rates of pay.
Nothing to do with trade union labour. A lot of the workers on the site are members of a trade union. Everything to do with the Brickies union trying to dictate to employers who works on paticular sites.
They were attempting to get other brickies on the site that they have a problem with sacked by Collen.
Bricklayers in Dublin are on huge money! No need for a labour inspectorate for these guys unless it's going to monitor BATU.
Did you not notice how they got absolutely no support from the other trade unions, workers, etc,
Everyone knows the bullying and intimidation that this union practise!
Bald Student
28/02/2006, 12:24 PM
Yet again highlights the need for a labour inspectorate that has seize and search powers like CAB. A fully complying employer would have nothing to fear as they'd get no complaints made against them anyway...Normally I'd agree with you but that's not an issue here because UCD have their own full time building inspectors. Their job is to check out the quality of the building work, not the labour practices, but their experienced engineers and they'd spot anything funny fairly quickly. UCD was picketed simply because the same company is building here as is building at the site of the dispute. From what I can tell the picket is gone though.
CollegeTillIDie
01/03/2006, 6:30 AM
I know, sure i saw 3 people were arrested & knew couldn't be that many UCD fans.
There's more of us than that travel to Turner's Cross for away games boy.
It's just they don't all wear club colours in case they get attacked by savages outside the pale!:D
Their job is to check out the quality of the building work, not the labour practices, but their experienced engineers and they'd spot anything funny fairly quickly.
What, they inspect wage packets as well as brick laying?
Bald Student
02/03/2006, 9:22 AM
What, they inspect wage packets as well as brick laying?That's a fair point Macy, there's a big difference between a building inspector and a labour inspector but I've yet to see any evidance or even any credible suggestion that there's anything funny going on at the site.
I pretty sure The Pheonix had something on the company - but the last two copies have been recycled at this stage, so I'll leave it at that.
Saw some sort of protest there today about C45 forms but the placards were not clearly readable... Guys looked like builders.
I guess has something to do with this? (http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2006/sw255/sw-255-2.htm)
Any clues?
Done a bit of digging & looks like this is a long running dispute about sub-contractors employed at building sites & that this prevents local people being employed.
I believe the Revenue Commissioners have done huge crackdown on the building trade & tax evasion so seems like non-issue. Seems more likely that local people seem to think they have a right to be employed on local sites which is ludicrous.
I may be incorrect but i think the builder in question has already won an injunction to prevent the unions picketing & blocking their sites so I guess that is why they picketing Dublin castle now?
Dodge
31/01/2007, 12:47 PM
I thought C45 was another new club for the first division...
I thought C45 was another new club for the first division...
No demand for extra club in Cork... :p
redron
09/03/2007, 11:36 AM
AFAIK, a C45 is the certificate from the tax office for self-employed.
BATU (representing bricklayers and some carpenters) have been campaigning for years for direct employment.
The big building companies want to take on every brickie as an individual sub-contractor. This provides many advantages to the company, and many disadvantages to the tradesmen.
Some of the advantages to the company are:
simpler payroll administration
divided workforce
Some of the disadvantages for the workers are:
complex administration (tax, PRSI, insurance...)
competition among workers
The strategy of the CIF in encouraging this mode of employment seems to be, in the short term, to try to keep labour costs down by passing some of the administrative burden to the workers and forcing workers to compete against each other, but in the long term, to try to undermine the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry and neutralise the growing power of the trade unions in the construction industry.
While skilled bricklayers can command a very good wage at the moment, this is still just a tiny drop in the ocean of profits the big construction companies in this country have been making for the last 10 years. And they know (particularly the older workers) that the building boom will not go on forever, and that when it ends they will be back to where they were before.
Block G Raptor
09/03/2007, 12:00 PM
Surprise Surprise theres a protes and the SWP turn up. Fcuking Bandwagon jumpers with no mandate other than to protest
BohsPartisan
09/03/2007, 1:39 PM
Surprise Surprise theres a protes and the SWP turn up. Fcuking Bandwagon jumpers with no mandate other than to protest
Sorry you've lost me there.
What protest have they turned up at? The one in this thread that is months old or some new one?
Anyway whatever happened to the right of free assembly?
Block G Raptor
09/03/2007, 2:06 PM
No Problem with the right to free assembly. I just find it hard to believe that the SWP or SP or whatever have such a broad mandate that any protest that arrises just happens to be an issue that they feel passionate about
it's electioneering and bandwagon jumping of the highest order and if you think otherwise you are flying in the face of logic and blind to the facts
BohsPartisan
09/03/2007, 2:12 PM
it's electioneering and bandwagon jumping of the highest order and if you think otherwise you are flying in the face of logic and blind to the facts
No you are blind to the facts. If its electioneering why do we bother protesting when there is no election in sight? Any Party worthy of the name "Socialist" will campaign on workers rights or it has no right to call itself Socialist. Your arguement is meaningless and repetitive. Every protest to you is bandwagon jumping. You even dug up this old thread to try and make a point.
The reason campaigning parties stand out when they protest/campiagn/do anything pro-active is because the mainstream parties do nothing untill there is an election around the corner.
And you didn't explain what this thread had to do with the SP or SWP.
I think BATU protested outside the National Television Awards a few weeks ago.
Possibly a no foreigners & jobs for locals only protest?
:confused:
I think BATU protested outside the National Television Awards a few weeks ago.
Possibly a no foreigners & jobs for locals only protest?
:confused:
Nah, they were disgusted with the Bill O'Herlhy award. As we all were
Nah, they were disgusted with the Bill O'Herlhy award. As we all were
Brickies Against Bill
Block G Raptor
12/03/2007, 10:36 AM
And you didn't explain what this thread had to do with the SP or SWP.
I guess has something to do with This www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2006/sw255/sw-255-2.htm
BohsPartisan
12/03/2007, 10:50 AM
I guess has something to do with This www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2006/sw255/sw-255-2.htm
Yeah but that was from February 2006.
Block G Raptor
12/03/2007, 2:33 PM
so it was. still validates my point though. a thread pops up on here about a protest and in The Very first post on that thread is a link to SWP newsletter, that was my point it seems to me that were ever there is protest there is the Protest Party/ies
BohsPartisan
12/03/2007, 2:47 PM
Yeah but AFAIK the link has nothing to do with the actual protest Pete was describing (other than it involves building workers). He was just wondering if it had anything to do with it.
Two related BATU threads merged.
rebs23
18/03/2008, 9:11 AM
Good article in the Sunday Times (16/3/08) on page 4 titled "Building union pays for campaign of violence". No link available online (must be something to do with the English and Irish versions of the paper) that I can find but anyone that has interest should seek it out.
Basic story is that a bricklaying subcontractor was awarded €400,000 in damages and €1million in legal fees. BATU has agreed to pay these amounts as a settlement following a court case that was due to be heard last Tuesday.
Good article in the Sunday Times (16/3/08) on page 4 titled "Building union pays for campaign of violence". No link available online (must be something to do with the English and Irish versions of the paper) that I can find but anyone that has interest should seek it out.
Basic story is that a bricklaying subcontractor was awarded €400,000 in damages and €1million in legal fees. BATU has agreed to pay these amounts as a settlement following a court case that was due to be heard last Tuesday.
I was looking for link to that too but can't find any online media coverage. The case was taken by the brick layer sub contractor.
It seems the main contractor (i believe McNamara) indemnified BATU before the judgement. It was speculated that this was so McNamara could finish existing jobs as brick layers may walk off site if large bill for their union. It also described how developers drastically reduced the amount of brick work used on buildings due to the actions of BATU - I remember this at the time. The brick laying sub contractor had to close his business because he could get no work as he would he would bring BATU disruptions along with him.
Shocking indictment of the BATU leaders & would hope that SIPTU could ban them from representing their affiliates. I think they had been watching too many movies & were wannabe Teamsters. SWP very quiet now.
rebs23
18/03/2008, 11:35 AM
I think they had been watching too many movies & were wannabe Teamsters.
That about sums it up. In fairness SIPTU were never supportive of them or their actions.
BohsPartisan
18/03/2008, 9:07 PM
Speculators have long been involved in a campaign of violence and intimidation against building workers. How many people have died on building sites in the last ten years? Building contractors have the full power of the organised crime that is our ruling party behind them. What are you supposed to do against that? And I'm sure the times has no ulterior motive either. Not surprised its the same old goons going after the unions here as usual. :rolleyes:
Speculators have long been involved in a campaign of violence and intimidation against building workers. How many people have died on building sites in the last ten years? Building contractors have the full power of the organised crime that is our ruling party behind them. What are you supposed to do against that? And I'm sure the times has no ulterior motive either. Not surprised its the same old goons going after the unions here as usual. :rolleyes:
Completely off topic.
I believe the HSA police work place safety & nothing excuses poor safety. Two wrongs don't make a right. If Developers are engaging in unsafe practices use the powers of the courts. You can't lump all Developers into one group just like BATU don't represent the entire trade union body. If you mean the same goons I presume you mean the Courts? The sub contractor company was put out of business by BATU.
Brick layers could have been making out like bandits in the good days (paid per brick/block) but instead BATU ensured the demand for brick layers on certain large projects was eliminated by McNamara Development. Seems alongside the brick laying subcontractor (Kilbern Developments or some similar name) the biggest losers were the brick layers themselves.
Still can't find link to this on any media source.
BohsPartisan
19/03/2008, 8:40 AM
If Developers are engaging in unsafe practices use the powers of the courts.
"The power of the courts compels you!" :rolleyes:
The law is stacked in the employers favour. Because they are subcontracting it takes the onus for safety off the site owner and places it on the individual "sub-contractor".
rebs23
19/03/2008, 8:54 AM
The case is about bricklayers that had to leave a site due to intimidation. Bullying and Harrassment by one group of workers against another group of workers is a breech of Health and Safety.
Your logic is truly out there Bohspartisan and surely you could come up with some better namecalling than "goons".
BohsPartisan
19/03/2008, 9:57 AM
The case is about bricklayers that had to leave a site due to intimidation. Bullying and Harrassment by one group of workers against another group of workers is a breech of Health and Safety.
Your logic is truly out there Bohspartisan and surely you could come up with some better namecalling than "goons".
If you deserved any better I'd have bothered but its like a broken record with you and Pete - indo or some other reactionary media source prints anti union story and you're on here straight away. I never see either of you on here jumping on employers.
If you deserved any better I'd have bothered but its like a broken record with you and Pete - indo or some other reactionary media source prints anti union story and you're on here straight away. I never see either of you on here jumping on employers.
Feel free to start a thread on work place safety if any recent stories about it.
This was a case where the courts found against 1 particular union. Surely you are not suggesting the courts are biased just because they lost? I kept this thread separate for other union discussions.
BohsPartisan
19/03/2008, 1:46 PM
Feel free to start a thread on work place safety if any recent stories about it.
This was a case where the courts found against 1 particular union. Surely you are not suggesting the courts are biased just because they lost? I kept this thread separate for other union discussions.
The courts are always biased towards the rich.
jbyrne
20/03/2008, 11:32 AM
The law is stacked in the employers favour. Because they are subcontracting it takes the onus for safety off the site owner and places it on the individual "sub-contractor".
complete nonsense. the onus of health and safety is the responsibility of everyone on site... employer, main contractor, sub-contractors and the design team. to say the onus is taken off the employer is wrong. the main contractor is ultimately responsible for health and safety on site and thats the law. a sub contractor has responsibility for his own men which is only right but the ultimate responsibility rests on the main contractor to ensure a building site is in compliance.
The courts are always biased towards the rich.
where construction is concerned this certainly is not the case. a court in this country will almost always rule against the person / company that can afford to pay
Revolution at BATU? (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0908/batu.html)
Members of the Building and Allied Trade Union, which represents construction workers, are refusing to leave their offices in north Dublin over a dispute with the union's top management.
The staff involved, who are also members of the Unite trade union, say they will continue to occupy BATU's head office at Blessington Street until their demands are met.
They say they have no confidence in the present leadership, and are demanding the resignation of the head of the union, and that the union opens its books to an auditor.
BATU chief Paddy O'Shaughnessy said that there is 'no question' of him resigning, and noted that auditors had signed off on the union's accounts for 2007.
What is going on there? Union staff (who are in turns members of a different union) revolting against the Union management? Very :confused: ing
BohsPartisan
12/09/2008, 12:24 AM
where construction is concerned this certainly is not the case. a court in this country will almost always rule against the person / company that can afford to pay
This has not been the case. Please cite precedence.
What is going on there? Union staff (who are in turns members of a different union) revolting against the Union management? Very ing
Its political. Certain staff were victimised for political reasons and are taking action against their employers. This is not a unique situation. Sacked Airpoert workers in Belfast who had a guarantee from their union, Unite (formerly ATGWU) are protesting at the union reneging on that promise.
rebs23
15/09/2008, 9:46 PM
The old Last In First Out not being adhered to by a union. It's great stuff, long may the drama continue!
BTW You'd know its the carpenters section that did the blockwork at the entrance, very bad blockwork joints.:D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.