Aircoach workers win union recognition

by Industrial Militant Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:28

Could someone tell us if there were any conditions to this arrangement? I think winning union rights in this company is very important. These workers are to be congratualted. However I would like to know if the union officials are only slapping their backs as they get more subs. SIPTU had GAMA workers on the books. What did they do for them? SIPTU leaders are rotten. In LUAS they negotiated a deal to get membership but tied down to "no strike clauses". LUAS recognises unions but it's still an anti-union employer thanks to SIPTU leaders. Is there a "no strike clause" in this deal with Aircoach?

by Union Maid Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:30

Dont know whats in the deal but the workers voted to accept it. Do you believe that you should have a veto over their decision?

by Paul Hardy - SIPTU Organising Dept Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:45

As stated above, there is no 'no-strike' clause in the agreement.

by Industrial Militant Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:48

As I said: "I think winning union rights in this company is very important. These workers are to be congratualted. "

Getting union rights has to be welcomed. It's a step in the right direction. The point in my posting is 1. it should not be left to names on the membership book (ie like the way SIPTU treated GAMA workers) and 2. are there any strings attached? (I don't know, could we get more info). Union Maid should read my posting.

by Cian Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:50

Congratulations to the workers in Air Coach for organising themselves. Its a good example for other sectors to show that union recognition can be won - though its not an easy struggle.

by Paul Hardy - SIPTU Organising Unit Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:53

Not 100pc sure what you mean by 'strings', but I don't think there are any strings attached, no. Aircoach now recognise the union for collective bargaining.

I don't want to go off topic, but I think the remarks about GAMA are unfair. As to Luas, a start-up company operating a new service which is liable to fines for service disruption is a different situation.

by Jeeves - IBEC Wed Aug 23, 2006 17:11

I must tell my good friend the minister next time I see him that the only way to stop these pesky strikes is to slap an old fine or two on the company and the union will back down!

GENIUS!

how did nobody think of this before!

by kazik anhalt - siptu Wed Aug 23, 2006 18:16

Yes, you are absolutely right GENIUS and after we might as well slap the drivers in the face and be automatically brought back in XIX century- there was no or very little of union, isn't it a nifty plan, think of it!?

by Shop Steward Thu Aug 24, 2006 03:21

Good work and all credit to the Aircoach workers and SIPTU. The negativity is unwarranted, especially as its not backed up by any hard info on any supposed shortcomings in the agreement.

by Fee Sat Aug 26, 2006 14:09

The fact is that, in a country without statutory recognition legislation, it is all down to how far the (often vulnerable and nervous) workers in a non-unionised place are willing to push it. Nobody wants to see their hands tied by a rubbish collective agreement but at the end of the day they can use their vote as they see fit or organise some sort of action to improve the agreement once it is on the table.

Anyway, there seems to be no suggestion that this agreement is rubbish and certainly the Aircoach workers don't seem to think it is so congratulations to them. It seems a shame that the hard work of activists and organisers has received such a lukewarm reception here. I think that establishing the means for workers to improve their lives and advancing the union movement is ALWAYS a cause for celebration, no matter which bureaucrats may benefit indirectly.

I think some of my fellow lefties need to keep their eyes on the prize.

Fee

by Industrial Militant Sun Aug 27, 2006 20:32

Are there any strings attached like a "No strike clause" or anything else in that manner. Paul Hardy shows how rotten he is. He justifies LUAS deal as that firm have fines if not running. So in the interests of the employer the union should give up the right to Strike. Hardy you just don't get it, do you. As for Hardy's remarks on GAMA. Those workers were members of SIPTU for years. SIPTU did nothing for them despite knowing of rumours about low pay. Why didn't ye visit the sites and ask around as Mick Murphy did? Why did you not pay the Striking GAMA workers strike pay? That strike said a lot about employers and the government but also a lot about the rotten union officials.

by D_D Sun Aug 27, 2006 21:39

Congratulations all 'round. Great work. A good job of organisation.

Very relieved to read: "The deal at Aircoach provides neither for a 'closed shop' nor a no-strike arrangement". Let LUAS be the last! (Though a closed shop, agreed BY THE WORKERS after they organise, is a good thing.)

There is now a need for a new Dublin Public Transport Branch in SIPTU (while keeping the Dublin Bus Branch).

by pat c Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:56

Congrats to the workers.

Must disagree about the closed shop though. Not sure its a good idea. It makes it easy for Burocratic Unions to get rid of troublesome activists. You're thrown out of the union, therefore you lose your job as well. In an ideal world, the workers in a company would strike if such a thing occurred. But we dont live in an ideal world.

by Paul Hardy - SIPTU Organising Dept Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:53

There are interesting alternatives to closed shops which some unions are experimenting with. The TGWU in Britain has agreed a 'Fair Shares' deal with one London bus company whereby no-one must join the union, but all non-members must make a small financial contribution. Of course, you end up with nearly 100% membership, as people think quite rightly that they might as well have a say, but it is good that people don't feel forced to join.

PS - I may be rotten, but I post under my own name.