Printable View
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.
53% apparently. 20k odd voted in favour out of 60k or so membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
And of course 8k or so voted against it ;)
About the same as the last national referendum then - not enough to actually respect a decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
That appears to be a common theme these days....Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
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.
But leave social welfare at its current level which is about 4 times as much as in the UK...?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
That's the UK's issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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...
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.
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.
Why would IBEC save ICTU's bacon? More like the threat of strike forced IBEC and Governments hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
huh? ICTU said all along that the reason for strike action was to get back to talks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Job done by the unions so...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
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.
I don't care much for Eddie Hobbs or his shady past, but the point is valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
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.