National Pay Talks

Unions, Government & Employers seem to be fully engaged in new "social partnership" talks now.

Is there really any point to this given how unrepresentative the people doing the negotiating are? The Unions by their own admission represent a meer 30% of the 2m workers in this country. Debatable who IBEC represent even amoung employers. I think maybe farmers also have a say & they represent a small fraction of the entire economy. Surely theis should be left to politicians who are elected by the people to decide - the electorate can decide whether at the next election.

Under previous National Pay Deals the unions still striked so whats the point?

If an employer is doing well they will pay staff well to keep them but if not doing well can't realistically be forced to pay an increase that it cannot afford...

Pay is only a small part of it though. Loads of issues involved in the national agreements and due to theri broad nature they're obviously not going to solve every dispute.

In saying that I'm not massively in favour of it but they have worked, to a degree, so far

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Under previous National Pay Deals the unions still striked so whats the point?

---

Yeah, because employers fail to keep to their side of the bargain. Most disputes involve employers breaking agreements and agreed procedures, not simply over pay. And if they are over pay, it's usually over failure to pay the national wage agreements.

I'm against them, as I think the workers would do better under collective bargaining rather than the meagre increases - in light of indirect tax increases and inflation - coming out of the national agreements.

jaysis pete, this union bashing is getting tiresome. the reality is days lost to strikes are 2% of what they were in the 70's and bear in mind the work force has tripled. all major bouts of industrial strife have been the employers renaging on legally binding agreements (irish ferries, an post etc). the unions have been very restrained when it comes to industrial relations, much to the annoyance of most of their members.

even if union participation is as low as 30% (i thought it was into the 40's), thats still higher than most (france has 10% and look what they achieved), we have a process that has by and large worked. far more than 30% of employees get their pay linked to what goes on in that room.

besides, if ibec and isme didnt think this process was in profoundly in their interests, would they be locked into round 7? would you prefer an adversarial labour relations policy in ireland than the agreements? dont just gripe, whats the alternative?

as macy says, most of us are actually hamstrung by the increases and would do better by ourselves and the bosses know it. my concern is the union heirarchy are too close to the levers of power for their own good and have been co-opted.

i think you underestimate the importance of stability to the irish economy pete. companies can plan better knowing what wages will be 5 years out, people can budget better and the economy is generally steady knowing the unions are behaving themselves.