Trade Union Discussion [Archive]

anto1208

31/01/2007, 3:40 PM

Like to provide any facts to back up your libelous comments?

Opinions arent libelous

When you work on a PRIVATE site and one day the plasterers union show up to �tell� you that they are kicking your plasterers off the site and bringing in there own guys because they control the work in this city . threaten you because you tell them it�s a private site and you ll hire who you want .

Then by a mysterious coincidence your site gets broken into that night all your plaster and render is slashed and exposed to the rain ( ie ruined but not any cement ) your machine for mixing up the plaster has wires cut in it and parts stolen but they don�t touch the much smaller much much more valuable stuff only the things connected with plastering .

You start to put 2+2 together . maybe im jumping the gun but to me if it looks like a fish and smells like a fish then it�s a fish .

they take money from there �members� they force employers to hire there guys who have to pay to get in to the union ( ie : you dont join you wont work ). They do the old mafia trick of sabotaging workplaces because the owner doesn�t �employ� them in other words a protection racket .

BohsPartisan

31/01/2007, 3:51 PM

Trade unions involved in protection rackets , intimidation , sabotage and all sorts of criminal activity

Thats not an opinion, its a libelous statement.

By your criteria of protection racket, the State is one too.

pete

31/01/2007, 3:53 PM

they take money from there �members� they force employers to hire there guys who have to pay to get in to the union ( ie : you dont join you wont work )..

I have seen this first hand in well known US multinational to restrict numbers of sub-contractors who come on site. You cannot work in the plant unless a union member. Employees there are extremely well paid including relevately unskilled there too & it is as far from sweat shop as you could get. It is protectionism.

The guys protesting today might have a valid case although i suspect not & the courts have already ruled on the Intimation.

I think harder to proof unions involved in criminal activity especially in any organised manner.

BohsPartisan

31/01/2007, 4:11 PM

It is protectionism.

Unions are there to protect their members. :rolleyes:
Why don't you and anto just get a room and you can share your love (of hating unions) without the rest of us having to watch.

anto1208

31/01/2007, 4:39 PM

Unions are there to protect their members. :rolleyes:
Why don't you and anto just get a room and you can share your love (of hating unions) without the rest of us having to watch.

they protect there members ( members that are forced to join and forced to pay for the privilage just to work ) by excluding non members and holding employers to ransom .

balls to that i wont be told what i can and cant do in my own country . Why don�t you stop spreading your communist propaganda , to change this country from a capitalist state to a socialist one would destroy it .im not queing for 3 hours in the snow for a loaf of bread .:p

You can already see the problems unions have caused with the massive amount of outsourcing of jobs going on at the moment

BohsPartisan

31/01/2007, 9:54 PM

they protect there members ( members that are forced to join and forced to pay for the privilage just to work ) by excluding non members and holding employers to ransom .

Good. Let the scabs reap what they sew.

balls to that i wont be told what i can and cant do in my own country . Why don�t you stop spreading your communist propaganda , to change this country from a capitalist state to a socialist one would destroy it .im not queing for 3 hours in the snow for a loaf of bread .:p

Are you all there? Did you go to school or were you on the mitch all the time?
I know I say Socialism can work wonders but I doubt we could gaurantee snow.

You can already see the problems unions have caused with the massive amount of outsourcing of jobs going on at the moment

Its brains you want boyo. :rolleyes:

dahamsta

31/01/2007, 11:25 PM

See mod edit in first post.

Posts like "I hate the unions" and baseless accusations will result in permabans from the forum, since it goes against Rule One of the bloody thing. Ditto comments like BohsPartisan's in that last post. Aren't you on your last warning about that kind of childishness BohsPartisan? Don't answer that btw, or I'll ban you.

Power is a terrible thing.

kingdom hoop

31/01/2007, 11:47 PM

they protect there members ( members that are forced to join and forced to pay for the privilage just to work ) by excluding non members and holding employers to ransom .

:confused:

you contradict yourself i think, if you're forced to join how can you be excluded?are some people who refuse to join the union intimidated? favourable treatment/pay of union members and vice versa in the same workforce is illegal anyway.

so, are we going to discuss if unions are good, or evil? in the blue corner is pete, a staunch anti-unionist who sees unions as a hindrance, versus in the red corner bohspartisan a loyal, vehement and well respected supporter of unions....let battle commence;)

my opinion would be that love em or loathe em unions are an integral part of the workplace and a deeply woven fabric of society but are now punching above their weight in national negotiations because the considerable majority of members are in public service. not all employers are benevolent, legislation cannot solve everything, the timid worker needs a voice, but do we still really need unions and their frustrating resistance to change to what may well be the greater good??

Macy

01/02/2007, 8:05 AM

do we still really need unions and their frustrating resistance to change to what may well be the greater good??
Whats the greater good? More profit for the few, less pay for the many, poorer working conditions for the many, poorer terms of employment for the many?

Every piece of legislation that has given the workers rights, health and safety entitlements, pension entitlements has been because of pressure from the trade union movement. Even in the latest national wage agreement, the increase in the labour inspectorate wouldn't have happened without Trade Unions. Indeed, for all their blather about cost of doing business, pay was never the issue for IBEC in the negotiations - they were concerned with anti explotation measures.

Anto1208 post should be deleted - it's without the backing of facts or even the name of the union and company.

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 8:08 AM

Anto1208 post should be deleted - it's without the backing of facts or even the name of the union and company.

Yeah, I know I went a bit OTT in my last post but that he really is a WUM. Actually couldn't believe some of the stuff he's coming out with.

rebs23

01/02/2007, 1:07 PM

While anto may have been a bit hysterical, he has a point about certain unions in the construction industry namely, BATU, the brickies union.

They are at this stage widely despised by other construction workers for their tactics and the way they bully and intimidate not only employers but their own members, etc. They are a disgrace to the Trade Union movement.

There are numerous High Court Injunctions against them (just do a google search) where they attempt to have certain groups of workers dismissed because they choose to work on a c2 or c45. They have, allegedly, assaulted people during disputes including in two incidents (reported in small print in the media) where H&S officers were assaulted. Their members and cronies have allegedly set fire to site compounds, asked for certain direct employees to be sacked who have then themselves gone on to claim Unfair Dismissal cases, they have refused union cards to people from Eastern Europe (affectively denying them work on sites) and also people from the country or from neighbouring counties, etc, etc. They even threw out all the files and furniture from OPATSI's (another union) offices and burned them on the street outside.

Seriously do a google search on these guys. They have behaved absolutely outrageously. The National Implementation Body recently concluded a report on their activities and recommended amongst other things that their monopoly position for representing brickies be done away with.

In the construction industry you effectively have to be a union member to get work and so they have abused that wholesale.

I have witnessed at first hand other activities they have got involved in and until such time as something is done about them, people like anto and others who are forced to join unions to work on sites, will continue to view the trade union movement in the manner they do.

Oh and to top things off for those that go on about the greedy builders etc, they are taking a Supreme Court challenge to the REA a legally binding agreement that provides construction workers with rates starting off as a GO of 15.58 and a craft rate of 18.15 and that excludes travel time, wet time, country money etc, etc. Without this agreement can you imagine what the rates would be?

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/12/13/story651922727.asp

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 1:22 PM

They are at this stage widely despised by other construction workers for their tactics and the way they bully and intimidate not only employers but their own members, etc. They are a disgrace to the Trade Union movement.
coming from someone who is anti-union like you, thats a ringing endorsement.

There are numerous High Court Injunctions against them (just do a google search) where they attempt to have certain groups of workers dismissed because they choose to work on a c2 or c45.

So what if they have high court injunctions against them? Labour law is a stich up against any union who wants to seriously protect their members.

They have, allegedly, assaulted people during disputes including in two incidents (reported in small print in the media) where H&S officers were assaulted.
Using the word allegedly does not negate libel. There have been a lot of lies printed about building workers in the Herag.

Their members and cronies have allegedly set fire to site compounds
Again that word.
The accusers have in no way an ulterior motive do they?

Subcontracting costs lives. Numerous deaths have occurred on building sites as a result of poor H&S which the builder had no liability because they only employed sub-contracters who were legally obliged to look after that themselves. Two builders were sent to jail in 1998 or 99 for picketing against poor safety regs and were vilified in the press. BATU have a lot of faults but as unions go in this country, they're one of the better ones.

pete

01/02/2007, 1:30 PM

When i google BATU is get... :D

Batu Khan, a 13th century Mongol ruler, and the founder of the Blue Horde empire...

Socialist Party leaflet (http://www.socialistparty.net/pdf/texts/freethebrickies17-02-06.htm) supports
...militant response to the challenge thrown down by Collen Construction Ltd and the High Court. The rest of that article is very militant too...

After more googling it appears that its more of a ICTU v BATU dispute than anything else... On the otherhand could be viewed that BATU don't want any foreigners working on sites as they are not "local to the area..."

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 1:35 PM

We demand:

- BATU members should establish an organising committee to co-ordinate the struggle to free the three jailed bricklayers.

- Pickets to be placed on all Collen Construction sites � shut them down until the High Court injunction is lifted and the three workers are freed.

- For a campaign of action to force the replacement of the sub-contractors with trade union labour

- For a united campaign by all construction unions to recruit non-union Irish and migrant building workers. Fight the "race to the bottom".

Do you see anything wrong with those demands?
What is wrong with workers wanting direct employment? With them wanting to pay PAYE and PRSI so they can have their full social welfare entitlements when they are laid off, as happens from time to time in the building industry?

pete

01/02/2007, 1:42 PM

Do you see anything wrong with those demands?
What is wrong with workers wanting direct employment? With them wanting to pay PAYE and PRSI so they can have their full social welfare entitlements when they are laid off, as happens from time to time in the building industry?

We demand:

- BATU members should establish an organising committee to co-ordinate the struggle to free the three jailed bricklayers. Fair enough, nothing illegal there.

- Pickets to be placed on all Collen Construction sites � shut them down until the High Court injunction is lifted and the three workers are freed. Illegal & should be jailed it started again

- For a campaign of action to force the replacement of the sub-contractors with trade union labour Protectionist Racket worthy of the Mafia

- For a united campaign by all construction unions to recruit non-union Irish and migrant building workers. Fight the "race to the bottom". No one forces workers to be contractors, I would assume most choose to do so as get paid more the faster/better they work. Ever heard of Democracy?

The Trade Union movement will remain marginalised if it fails to back rouge militant unions. It it the one single thing that p!sses me off.

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 1:51 PM

The Trade Union movement will remain marginalised if it fails to back rouge militant unions. It it the one single thing that p!sses me off.

Don't assume. Many do it because they have no option. Those who want to do it set the standard and drive that standard down for honest workers.
As I've said before the legality or illegality of the protest doesn't concern me. If the protest is justified, it is justified regardless of what the law says.

- For a campaign of action to force the replacement of the sub-contractors with trade union labour Protectionist Racket worthy of the Mafia

Only the Mafia would be for a a campaign of action to force the replacement of the trade-union with sub-contractors. In fact that is what the building Mafia in this country along with their buddies in Fianna Fail have been doing for years.

pete

01/02/2007, 2:02 PM

If the protest is justified, it is justified regardless of what the law says.

I think we back to Rossport Five here. Protests are fine (some of the most relaxed laws anywhere in this country) but illegal protests (deemed illegal by Independent Judiciary) are not.

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 2:07 PM

Illegal laws?

rebs23

01/02/2007, 2:09 PM

Bohspartisan please deal with the issues.
[MOD EDIT: Deleted at the request of the poster]
Is it ok to ask contractors to fire people because are not union members and do not want to join a union?
Is it Ok to ask contractors to fire people who want to work on a c2 or c45 basis? (much more tax efficient for those on big money such as brickies)
Is it ok to organise mobs to picket a site without ever going to any third party on the issue?
Is it OK to launch a Court Case against the REA, the legally binding agreement that prevents the race to the bottom in construction?
Is it ok not to give union cards to people on the basis of their county of origin or their nationality?
[MOD EDIT: Deleted at the request of the poster]

You and I know the real reason BATU launched their campaign for direct employment is because their membership was declining as a result of more and more of their members wanting to work on a sub contract basis and because some of their senior officials were militant trade unionists and members of some socialist party or other.

Put away the ideology and answer the questions. You clearly have never worked on a site in any capacity or you'd know how the other trades, other trade unions and workers feel about the brickies union.

BTW I am not anti trade union at all. I have the utmost respect for most of the trade unions. Just anti Bullies which is what BATU are.

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 2:20 PM

Bohspartisan please deal with the issues.

[MOD EDIT: Deleted at the request of the poster]

Is it ok to ask contractors to fire people because are not union members and do not want to join a union?Yes. Its essential to maintain the bargaining power of the unionised workforce who is the only part of the workforce the union has any obligation to.

Is it Ok to ask contractors to fire people who want to work on a c2 or c45 basis? (much more tax efficient for those on big money such as brickies)Ditto. Their work practices hurt unionised workers therefore the union has an obligation to defend their members.

Is it ok to organise mobs to picket a site without ever going to any third party on the issue?Its more than ok. Its a tactic that works where as third parties usually side with the employer because the law is stacked in their favour

Is it OK to launch a Court Case against the REA, the legally binding agreement that prevents the race to the bottom in construction?I'll have to look into that one.

Is it ok not to give union cards to people on the basis of their county of origin or their nationality?Absolutely not. You should know my opinion on that. Where and when did this happen?

[MOD EDIT: Deleted at the request of the poster]

BTW I am not anti trade union at all. I have the utmost respect for most of the trade unions. Just anti Bullies which is what BATU are.You mean they don't bend over and let their members get shafted like some of the others?

Macy

01/02/2007, 2:28 PM

Is it ok to organise mobs to picket a site without ever going to any third party on the issue?
Bohspartisan deals with most, but you are aware that it takes two sides to go to a third party? One normally refers the issue to a third party (rights commissioner, LRC and then Labour Court) and then they invite both sides in. Or are you claiming that the union in question was called in for third party talks and refused?

pete

01/02/2007, 2:29 PM

Illegal laws?

Apologies, Edited now...

Q - Is it ok to ask contractors to fire people because are not union members and do not want to join a union?
A - Yes. Its essential to maintain the bargaining power of the unionised workforce who is the only part of the workforce the union has any obligation to.

I know you defend Socialism as different that Communism but hard to see the difference with such an answer... :eek:

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 2:33 PM

I know you defend Socialism as different that Communism but hard to see the difference with such an answer... :eek:

That doesn't make sense Pete. I'm for workers democracy. The union movement at its best is democratic (undfortunately not usually the case in Ireland) and when a decision is made by the union membership it should be acted on.

SOME RELATED ARTICLES
23 killed on sites in 2005 (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75726)

UCD Collen site picket (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74391)

Ballybrack 3 campaign (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74406)

Refusal to employ union members (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73181)

What Reb23 refered to?

BATU president condemns attack on office of union
By PADRAIG YEATES, Industry and Employment Correspondent

Irish Times Oct 27, 1998

The president of the Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU), Mr Mick McNally, has condemned the attack on the offices of the Plasterers' Union on Friday, when files were thrown into the street and set on fire.

The incident occurred shortly after two building workers were released from prison for defying a High Court order and for unofficially picketing a building site in Ballsbridge, Dublin.

And, on the REA:
Irish Times, Feb 15 1999

BATU says the agreement, which has set legally binding terms and conditions of employment for 50,000 building workers since the 1960s, is outdated. In particular, the union is angry at delays in dealing with grievances that arise on building sites.

"We require progressive industrial relations machinery that can help keep pace with the highly mobile industry of today," said the general secretary of BATU, Mr Paddy O'Shaughnessy. "No more is BATU prepared to tolerate employers hiding behind the agreement, frustrating settlements at every turn and then, having used the industrial relations machinery as a shield, heading for the High Court to frustrate the process even further."

Mr Shaughnessy called for a "fast-track" approach to settling disputes. He pointed out that building projects that once took years to complete are now finished within weeks, before the machinery for resolving grievances has started to operate.

NY Hoop

01/02/2007, 3:02 PM

Jaysis bohspartisan I'd say you're one of those headers in the CPSU.

"I don't answer vagueries. Who, why, where?"

How about answering the original question?

If you dont like unions dont join them.

KOH

rebs23

01/02/2007, 3:04 PM

Bohspartisan deals with most, but you are aware that it takes two sides to go to a third party? Or are you claiming that the union in question was called in for third party talks and refused?

IR procedures in the construction industry are legally binding on all sides and which BATU have refused to use, which is why they are up in the High Court every second month.

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 3:05 PM

Jaysis bohspartisan I'd say you're one of those headers in the CPSU.

I'm in the PSEU. Unfortunately.

Why do I join a union if I don't like them? Why did you support Rovers at the same time you didn't like the people who ran the club?

NY Hoop

01/02/2007, 3:09 PM

I'm in the PSEU. Unfortunately.

Why do I join a union if I don't like them? Why did you support Rovers at the same time you didn't like the people who ran the club?

PSEU?:eek: Christ I thought you were a service officer.

I meant generally if people dont like unions dont join them. You say unfortunately you are in the PSEU. Why not leave then?

Comparing it to following Rovers is stupid. When I started following the club Yoggi Bear could have ran it for all I knew!

KOH

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 3:13 PM

I meant generally if people dont like unions dont join them. You say unfortunately you are in the PSEU. Why not leave then?

Just because I don't like how its run doesn't mean I won't try to change it and doesn't mean there are some benefits. The PSEU has sold us up the river on a lot of things but if we didn't have a union things'd be worse.

I'm an EO by the way.

NY Hoop

01/02/2007, 3:46 PM

Just because I don't like how its run doesn't mean I won't try to change it and doesn't mean there are some benefits. The PSEU has sold us up the river on a lot of things but if we didn't have a union things'd be worse.

I'm an EO by the way.

That's the standard line. Without us you'd be fcuked. Sounds like you have a cushy number where you are on the 5th floor.

KOH

rebs23

01/02/2007, 3:58 PM

Thanks for answering the questions. I'll let people make up their own minds on the answers.
As for liblelous comments.......there are sworn testimonials lodged in the High Court. There have been numerous reports detailing these incidents and no one has been sued. Why is that?

rebs23

01/02/2007, 4:07 PM

SOME RELATED ARTICLES
23 killed on sites in 2005 (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75726)

UCD Collen site picket (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74391)

Ballybrack 3 campaign (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74406)

Refusal to employ union members (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73181)

What Reb23 refered to?

And, on the REA:
Irish Times, Feb 15 1999

As I have said before the Court Action brought by BATU against the REA resulted in a situation whereby GAMA could legally pay below the agreed rates in this country and then they go and lecture us about stopping the race to the bottom. Hypocrites.

As for the attack on OPATSI, ask anyone in the Plasterers union whether they accept the aplogies of BATU. It is just another incident in a long running series of incidents.
As for the quotes from Indymedia, absolute rubbish, the Collen dispute was again another attempt by BATU to get brickies who do not want to join the union sacked.

Thats it for me in this debate, getting too close to the bone, especially when you have witnessed things yourself first hand.
Most unions are there to represent their members and take cases etc, no problem with that. BATU are bullies that try to imtimidate people sometimes physically, anyone denying it happened or happens doesn't know what they are talking about.

BohsPartisan

01/02/2007, 5:44 PM

TSounds like you have a cushy number where you are on the 5th floor.

KOH
Yeah right.
Like to make yourself known to me? Hardly fair you know who I am.

kingdom hoop

01/02/2007, 7:36 PM

Whats the greater good? More profit for the few, less pay for the many, poorer working conditions for the many, poorer terms of employment for the many?

my post was a general poser not a belief. but, the 'greater good' is a pretty difficult and slightly subjective concept. jeremy bentham was fond of utilitarianism, and summed it up something like the more happiness for the more people the better. his followers use whats known as the felicific calculus to decipher what the 'greater good' truly is;)
but there's no use being a smartass unless you can provide a solution..so...:o

bohs, you say
Its essential to maintain the bargaining power of the unionised workforce who is the only part of the workforce the union has any obligation to.
to me that reads like 'we need unions to halt capitalism'. if a person doesnt want union representation he should be free to decide so himself, not to be told that we need you(as a number not a person) on our side so that we can fight our battles.

rebs23

01/02/2007, 7:38 PM

Both myself and Bohspartisan already have linked here;
This article makes reference to the Collen Construction case and the claims lodged in the High Court;
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/12/13/story651922727.asp
This quote from the Irish Times deals with the OPATSI incident when members of BATU thrashed the offices of OPATSI and burned their documents

What Reb23 refered to?

Quote:
BATU president condemns attack on office of union
By PADRAIG YEATES, Industry and Employment Correspondent

Irish Times Oct 27, 1998

The president of the Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU), Mr Mick McNally, has condemned the attack on the offices of the Plasterers' Union on Friday, when files were thrown into the street and set on fire.

The incident occurred shortly after two building workers were released from prison for defying a High Court order and for unofficially picketing a building site in Ballsbridge, Dublin.

rebs23

02/02/2007, 11:34 AM

I shouldn't have posted in this debate in the first place, too close to home and all that. I understand you are nervous especially when someone calls a post libelous and I would have no problem in you passing on my details to anyone who wishes to persue any legal action as a result of my posts.
I still don't see how anything in those posts was libelous as they repeat assertions made in National Newspapers by many persons but here is a link to a collection of articles in the Irish Times some detailing instances of violence on picket lines, etc.

http://www.ireland.com/cgi-bin/dialogserver?DB=all&THRESHOLD=90&QUERY00=BATU

A quote from the National Implementation Body report on these disputes stated
" Many documented cases were presented involving withdrawl/denial of union cards, expulsion for refusal to support list system, etc. BATU deny the context and circumstances of any such decisions but not the impact. Without prejudice to the detail of any paticular case, there is no doubt that, at least in relation to main contractors, BATU can decide who works. This power brings with it grave respoonsiblities and needs to be balanced."

John O'Connell a Limerick brickie stated in the Daily Mail (25/10/06) that "his card was ripped up and he tried to work on other sites but each time strike action followed until the employer let him go".

The Sunday Times from April 20, 2003, Article called Laying Bricks of the Future " November 26; Park Motors again. A safety officer is knocked down and kicked to the ground by a crowd of men for photographing damage to the site managers car. Men confronting the garages manager claim to be from the Building and Allied Trade Union. BATU strenuosly deny these incidents. The next day, warned that they have breached a High Court order, one of the flying pickets replies "**** off" and we don't give a **** about the High Court".
These incidents were detailed in affadavits setting out injunctive proceedings brought by the Collen Group.." The article goes on to say "14 firms have current or pending legal action against BATU".

In a more recent article in the Evening Herald (5/12/06) " A Polish bricklayer has entered into a furious row with his former employers and the BATU workers union claiming that he has been discriminated against because of his nationality..."

From the Examiner 23/2/2006 " The Garda suffered a head injury and was left with minor concussion when she fell during a melee at UCD, Bellfield campus"

From the Irish Times 18/2/2006 " A building company has secured a temporary injunction against the Building and Allied Trade Union after complaining the union is the "prime mover" in an ongoing "campaign of intimidation" on construction sites in Dublin".

From the Irish Independant 12/1/03 " The amin bricklayers union has again abandoned its planned Dublin branch annual meeting due to internal tensions over alleged "instances of intimidation of staff and members" in recent weeks."

From Industrial Relations News 14/1/04 " the CIF states that "sites have been invaded and workers subjected to bullying, threatening and intimidating behaviour."

From Construction Magazine 24/5/03 " The company also allege materials were set ablaze by a crowd of BATU members who rampaged through a North Dublin site as the company met with union representatives nearby"

I know I should have quoted from these before going off on one but anyway hope this gives a good picture.

BohsPartisan

02/02/2007, 12:01 PM

John O'Connell a Limerick brickie stated in the Daily Mail (25/10/06) that "his card was ripped up and he tried to work on other sites but each time strike action followed until the employer let him go".

Why was his card ripped up?

From Industrial Relations News 14/1/04 " the CIF states that "sites have been invaded and workers subjected to bullying, threatening and intimidating behaviour."

CIF would say that wouldn't they. Employers often describe pickets as bullying and intimidation.

From the Examiner 23/2/2006 " The Garda suffered a head injury and was left with minor concussion when she fell during a melee at UCD, Bellfield campus"

Here's the online edition of the IE from that date;
Where is that article? (http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/02/23/) Would just like to read the whole thing.
I know people who were there and the Garda� were not innocent victims.
Also the dispute in question occurred because Collen construction refused to employ trade union labour on a council contract in Ballybrack.

pete

02/02/2007, 12:31 PM

I know I should have quoted from these before going off on one but anyway hope this gives a good picture.

As long as you link to any claims I don't see an issue now.

rebs23

02/02/2007, 12:32 PM

Doesn't seem to be available online but I have an actual copy of the article here by Mary Regan the Headline is "Garda hurt in building site clash".

rebs23

02/02/2007, 2:02 PM

Fair enough.
In relation to the Health and Safety officer incident, allegations of assault were made by Collen Construction in an affadavit in the High Court against persons associated with a picket by members of BATU at their site not against BATU itself. Quote from article below;

The Sunday Times from April 20, 2003, Article called Laying Bricks of the Future " November 26; Park Motors again. A safety officer is knocked down and kicked to the ground by a crowd of men for photographing damage to the site managers car. Men confronting the garages manager claim to be from the Building and Allied Trade Union. BATU strenuosly deny these incidents. The next day, warned that they have breached a High Court order, one of the flying pickets replies "**** off" and we don't give a **** about the High Court".

These incidents were detailed in affadavits setting out injunctive proceedings brought by the Collen Group.." The article goes on to say "14 firms have current or pending legal action against BATU".

The buring of the files of the OPATSI union, these events occured following the release of two member of BATU from prison and the BATU union apologised to OPATSI following this event.

Quote from Article here;

BATU president condemns attack on office of union
By PADRAIG YEATES, Industry and Employment Correspondent

The president of the Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU), Mr Mick McNally, has condemned the attack on the offices of the Plasterers' Union on Friday, when files were thrown into the street and set on fire.

The incident occurred shortly after two building workers were released from prison for defying a High Court order and for unofficially picketing a building site in Ballsbridge, Dublin.

The attack on the Plasterers' Union offices has highlighted divisions which exist between BATU and other building unions over sub-contracting. BATU wants all sub-contractors removed from sites while the other unions approve of a new agreement which seeks to regulate the practice.

...Mr McNally, who is not a member of BWABE, said he intended apologising to the Plasterers' Union on behalf of BATU for the attack. He also confirmed that the matter would be discussed at the next meeting of BATU's national executive.

I hope this clears everything up.

BohsPartisan

02/02/2007, 2:18 PM

So what you are really saying is that the company who started the dispute by refusing to employ trade union labour made some allegations about members of that trade union, who it was in the process of a dispute with at the time?

anto1208

02/02/2007, 3:14 PM

Im kind of unwilling to post in this thread anymore since you aren�t aloud to post your opinions, thoughts or relay any stories you have heard with out turning into a mini detective and preparing a book of evidence to accompany it . Despite the law protecting your right not to name your sources . But surely a disclaimer along the lines of �the views displayed on this forum are not he views of anyone associated with Foot.ie !� would cover it .

Ive never heard ( this doesn�t mean it hasn�t happened ) of anybody getting sued for what they posted on an internet chat forum FFS :rolleyes: !!! but since we ve been requested to respect the rules of the forum ill try my best to do so . ( even though ive never read them its like reading the instructions to a new toy no one ever does it :D )

But if the union�s do come looking to flex there financial muscle with a bunch of hot shot lawyers to sue 1 ordinary worker it will just reaffirm everything I believe about there bully boy tactics. I can see the head lines now UNION SUES HANDSOME YOUNG MAN OVER BULLING JIBE . :D

Boh�s sometimes I get the feeling from your posts that you may be too heavily involved to be able to take a neutral view on such topics , I also get the impression that you may even condone some of there action ( re: your scabs get what they deserve comments ) .
I just fear that the people involved will use unacceptable behaviour to protect there interests and that there members will justify there actions to hold onto there power .

The simple truth is that socialism/unions etc can never work, humans are inherently greedy and corrupt the ones that get to the top get corrupted by the power.

(ps if any of this dose break rules etc ill remove it straight away )

BohsPartisan

02/02/2007, 3:23 PM

The simple truth is that socialism/unions etc can never work, humans are inherently greedy and corrupt the ones that get to the top get corrupted by the power.

This notion has been discussed at length in the Socialism thread and has been roundly debunked. look at that, see if you have any new evidence to add and by all means do. Otherwise stop repeating mantra.

kingdom hoop

02/02/2007, 3:54 PM

This notion has been discussed at length in the Socialism thread and has been roundly debunked. look at that, see if you have any new evidence to add and by all means do. Otherwise stop repeating mantra.

there's a socialism thread?? cant believe i wasnt informed, i'm catching the next bus....still waiting, and waiting, and waiting..man how i wish socialism catches on:)

with trade unions its probably worth differentiating between the workplace level issues like anto raises versus on the other hand the wider role that unions play in bargaining, lobbying etc. in terms of the former there should be plenty of anecdotal evidence supported by the progression of the claims , while the latter role mentioned is obviously more political and ideological so i'm sure one could give their opinions on that area, once they are well argued of course