Meanwhile, back at Fás the waste continues..

B

birthday

'Holiday perk makes a comeback just as Fás sees the light'
Sunday Times 21 Novemebr John Burns Atticus

reports that Fás workers due to retire got 44 days away time to allow staff to get ready for retirement but most treated it as an extra 8 weeks holiday.

management withdrew this 'arrangement' earlier in the year but SIPTU took the matter to the Labour Court and won!
Fás claims to the court that the arrangement was outside public sector norms but this fell on deaf ears.

This is the SIPTU that will pretend to be concerned about budget cutbacks affecting the old, sick, elderly..
 


DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,449
All SIPTU and the other unions care about are themselves and their members.
They may make noise about the elderly and sick etc, but that's just to make them seem like a caring bunch. Once they have what they want, they'll be ahppy, regardles of the cost to taxpayers.
Unions in Ireland aren't worth a fook.
 
Last edited:

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
'Holiday perk makes a comeback just as Fás sees the light'
Sunday Times 21 Novemebr John Burns Atticus

reports that Fás workers due to retire got 44 days away time to allow staff to get ready for retirement but most treated it as an extra 8 weeks holiday.

management withdrew this 'arrangement' earlier in the year but SIPTU took the matter to the Labour Court and won!
Fás claims to the court that the arrangement was outside public sector norms but this fell on deaf ears.

This is the SIPTU that will pretend to be concerned about budget cutbacks affecting the old, sick, elderly..
Of course they won in the Labour court.
Isn't it stuffed with their "Bruvvers"?
Another outfit that needs a serious dose of Glauber's Salt!
 

johndodger

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,845
'Holiday perk makes a comeback just as Fás sees the light'
Sunday Times 21 Novemebr John Burns Atticus

reports that Fás workers due to retire got 44 days away time to allow staff to get ready for retirement but most treated it as an extra 8 weeks holiday.

management withdrew this 'arrangement' earlier in the year but SIPTU took the matter to the Labour Court and won!
Fás claims to the court that the arrangement was outside public sector norms but this fell on deaf ears.

This is the SIPTU that will pretend to be concerned about budget cutbacks affecting the old, sick, elderly..
If the Labour Court decided in their favor then it is surely the fault of the FAS who obviously didn't put up a good enough case. SIPTU were just doing their job. If they are asked to bring a case by their members (who pay for their service) then that is what they do.


All SIPTU and the other unions care about are themselves and their members.
Eh, that is their job!!! That is what they are paid for!! Just as it is the job of IBEC to look after their members interests. It is not their job to run or care about the wider country. That, if you have forgotten, is the job of the Government.


Of course they won in the Labour court.
Isn't it stuffed with their "Bruvvers"?
Another outfit that needs a serious dose of Glauber's Salt!
Are you suggesting that the Labour Court is not impartial and if so what evidence do you have to back up this allegation?
 
Last edited:

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,167
Eh, that is their job!!! That is what they are paid for!! Just as it is the job of IBEC to look after their members interests. It is not their job to run or care about the wider country. That, if you have forgotten, is the job of the Government.
Fine. But let the beards spare us from sanctimonious intoning of the mantra of protecting the vulnerable.
 

Expose the lot of them

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
20,745
They need time to get ready for retirement as obviously no time to do that once retired. The scary thing we probably don't here of all the other give away schemes.
Considering they have been retired since they commenced employment with FAS it makes this even more of a joke at our expense.
 

DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,449
Eh, that is their job!!! That is what they are paid for!! Just as it is the job of IBEC to look after their members interests. It is not their job to run or care about the wider country. That, if you have forgotten, is the job of the Government.
I'm well aware of that...I just pointed it out and wanted to point out the hypocrisy of them banging on about the elderly etc as though they care.
 

johndodger

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,845
Fine. But let the beards spare us from sanctimonious intoning of the mantra of protecting the vulnerable.
I'm well aware of that...I just pointed it out and wanted to point out the hypocrisy of them banging on about the elderly etc as though they care.
Well this is a free country and they are entitled to their opinions. You don't have to listen or agree. In fact, if they are voicing the opinions of their members, then it stands to reason that they would be against cuts that hurt the vunerable.

Representing their members interests and having concern for the delivery of key public services and protecting the vunerable are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe, just maybe, they consider that there are ways of protecting public services without the bulk of the burden of the cuts falling on it's members. Maybe, just maybe, they consider that the bankers/developers and super rich should pay a larger share rather than being protected by Fianna Fail. Maybe, just maybe, the consider that their members are being unfairly singled out for blame while the FF/Banker/Developer cadre who got us in to this mess get away scot free.
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
Are you suggesting that the Labour Court is not impartial and if so what evidence do you have to back up this allegation?

Well eh, ...yes
If you don't believe me perhaps you should listen to Michael O'Leary
or the Supreme Court.Ryanair v IMPACT. Supreme Court Decision and Trade Union Recognition.

Most employers in this country believe that even the greatest waster in the country will walk out the door of the Labour Court with at least 15,000 grand in an unfair dismissal case.
And that without any risk of costs.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,167
Well eh, ...yes
If you don't believe me perhaps you should listen to Michael O'Leary
or the Supreme Court.Ryanair v IMPACT. Supreme Court Decision and Trade Union Recognition.

Most employers in this country believe that even the greatest waster in the country will walk out the door of the Labour Court with at least 15,000 grand in an unfair dismissal case.
And that without any risk of costs.
It is the one area where all the employee has to do is accuse and you have to prove your innocent if you are an employer. Guilty until proven innocent.
 

anewbeginning

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,616
This is another extreme case of gombeenism and not for the first time it's the unions who are behind it.

The unions appear to have as many gombeens as the political parties, no wonder they are such great bed fellows.

Siptu should be ashamed of themselves.

44 days to prepare for retirement? What the hell is wrong with this country?

I just hope when Labour gets in, they don't dance to the unions tune. Otherwise it will be left to FG to sort things out. Makes you think we need an overall FG majority, to prevent the unions having influence in government.

I really believe we will never have a proper public service in this country until the unions are banned from the public service.
 

johndodger

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,845
Well eh, ...yes
If you don't believe me perhaps you should listen to Michael O'Leary
or the Supreme Court.Ryanair v IMPACT. Supreme Court Decision and Trade Union Recognition.

Most employers in this country believe that even the greatest waster in the country will walk out the door of the Labour Court with at least 15,000 grand in an unfair dismissal case.
And that without any risk of costs.
Seriously.. you are referencing Michael "anti-union" O'Leary as "evidence" that the Labour Court is impartial?? Are you serious?

Can you provide any real evidence, particularly from the "Most employers" that you reference?

Can you also answer why FF in Government (who were remember funded by and in the pocket of big business) and IBEC never did anything about this, particularly as they are ones who appoint members of the Labour Court, along the ICTU (which only appoints 3/9 members)? Do you consider someone like Mary Cryan to be on the side of the unions, and if so why?
 
B

birthday

This is another extreme case of gombeenism and not for the first time it's the unions who are behind it.

The unions appear to have as many gombeens as the political parties, no wonder they are such great bed fellows.

Siptu should be ashamed of themselves.

44 days to prepare for retirement? What the hell is wrong with this country?

I just hope when Labour gets in, they don't dance to the unions tune. Otherwise it will be left to FG to sort things out. Makes you think we need an overall FG majority, to prevent the unions having influence in government.

I really believe we will never have a proper public service in this country until the unions are banned from the public service.
I just hope that the IMF/ECB crowd are made aware of this carry on, so that an end to this special treatment for elite workers.
Context is everything: SIPTU are looking for this at a time when people are facing unbelievable hardship and enforced emigration and trying to pretend that these things are not somehow connected.
What would Connolly think?
The SIPTU economist (Sherlock) gave the game away on Newstalk last week that SIPTU really just represent PS workers when she tried to make out that private sector workers were minimally affected by the
recession!
 

Expose the lot of them

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
20,745
Most employers in this country believe that even the greatest waster in the country will walk out the door of the Labour Court with at least 15,000 grand in an unfair dismissal case.
And that without any risk of costs.
Only an ignorant fool who does not know how the industrial relations structures in this country operate could make the above statement.

The Labour Court consists of 9, full-time, members - a Chairman, 2 Deputy
Chairmen and 6 Ordinary Members, 3 of whom are Employers’ Members and 3 of whom are Workers’ Members.

The Chairman and the 2 Deputy Chairmen are appointed by the Minister for
Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Employers’ Members are nominated by
IBEC (Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation) and the Workers’ Members are nominated by ICTU (Irish Congress of Trades Unions).
The Labour Court also has a legal adviser - the Registrar - appointed by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Detailed Current Functions of the Labour Court are to:
(Industrial Relations)
· investigate trade disputes under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 2004
· investigate, at the request of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, trade disputes affecting the public interest, or conduct an enquiry into a trade dispute of special importance and report on its findings
· hear appeals of Rights Commissioners’ recommendations under the Industrial Relations Acts.
· establish Joint Labour Committees and decide on questions concerning their operation
· register, vary and interpret employment agreements
· register Joint Industrial Councils
· investigate complaints of breaches of registered employment agreements
· investigate complaints of breaches of codes of practice made under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (following consideration of the complaint by the Labour Relations Commission)
· give its opinion as to the interpretation of a code of practice made under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990
· investigate disputes (where negotiating arrangements are not in place) under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004
(Equality)
· hear appeals of decisions and recommendations under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the equality provisions of the Pensions Act, 1990
· hear appeals of Non-discrimination Notices and Substantive Notices issued by the Equality Authority
(Organisation of Working Time)
· approve working time agreements under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
· hear appeals of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the Organisation of Working Time
Act, 1997
· investigate complaints of the non-implementation of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
(National Minimum Wage)
· hear appeal of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000
· investigate complaints of the non-implementation of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000
· hear applications for exemption from the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000
(Part-Time Work)
· approve collective agreements regarding casual part-time employees under the Protection of Employees (Part -Time Work) Act, 2001
· hear appeals of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001
· investigate complaints of non-implementation of Rights’ Commissioners’ decisions under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001
(Fixed-Term Work)
· hear appeals of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003
· investigate complaints of non-implementation of Rights’ Commissioners’ decisions under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003
(Safety, Health and Welfare at Work)
· hear appeals of Rights Commissioners’ decisions under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005
· investigate complaints of non-implementation of Rights’ Commissioners’ decisions under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

Unfair dismissals cases are heard by the Rights Commissioner or the EAT, discriminatory dismissals by the Equality Tribunal.

I have not read the full decision of the FAS 40 days but would assume that the employees' won on the basis that it is at term of their contracts of employment and an employer cannot unilaterly change the contract. The same rules apply to any contract.

This clause should not have been in the contract in the first place and remembrer IBEC sit on the board of FAS and FAS pays membership to IBEC. Members of IBEC have access to IBEC's legal team, had FAS been serious by ending this nonsense they could have consulted with the employees and bought it out. The fact that they did not implies that they were not serious possibly to secure the privilege for the managers and directors of that failed and dysfunctional organisation.
 

Bill D Gallows

Active member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
219
'Holiday perk makes a comeback just as Fás sees the light'
Sunday Times 21 Novemebr John Burns Atticus

reports that Fás workers due to retire got 44 days away time to allow staff to get ready for retirement but most treated it as an extra 8 weeks holiday.

management withdrew this 'arrangement' earlier in the year but SIPTU took the matter to the Labour Court and won!
Fás claims to the court that the arrangement was outside public sector norms but this fell on deaf ears.

This is the SIPTU that will pretend to be concerned about budget cutbacks affecting the old, sick, elderly..
The reason SIPTU won the case is because the Fianna Fail appointed Board thought they could do what they like and ignored the agreed procedures with staff for dealing with such issues.

The Court found that where agreements are in place, they should be respected, which the FAS Board did not do. The Court recognised this particular leave is generous and directed that SIPTU address this matter through the agreed procedures, which the Union have accepted.

BTW, it is SIPTU, along with the other unions who are doing most to stand up to this rotten Government, who are intending to cut the minimum wage and social welfare among other things.

Every other civil organisation are either supporting Fianna Fail, or are hiding in the shadows, yes that includes you Catholic Church, Ibec, ISME, Fine Gael et all.

Get your facts straight before you speak, not the propaganda from an anti worker/ anti union rag like the Sunday Times. Are the Sunday Times saying those protect the minimum wage and those on social welfare ? Not at all, they are more interested in extinguishing the only real voice ordinary people have.
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
The reason SIPTU won the case is because the Fianna Fail appointed Board thought they could do what they like and ignored the agreed procedures with staff for dealing with such issues.

The Court found that where agreements are in place, they should be respected, which the FAS Board did not do. The Court recognised this particular leave is generous and directed that SIPTU address this matter through the agreed procedures, which the Union have accepted.
BTW, it is SIPTU, along with the other unions who are doing most to stand up to this rotten Government, who are intending to cut the minimum wage and social welfare among other things.

Every other civil organisation are either supporting Fianna Fail, or are hiding in the shadows, yes that includes you Catholic Church, Ibec, ISME, Fine Gael et all.

Get your facts straight before you speak, not the propaganda from an anti worker/ anti union rag like the Sunday Times. Are the Sunday Times saying those protect the minimum wage and those on social welfare ? Not at all, they are more interested in extinguishing the only real voice ordinary people have.
Great news that SIPTU are looking into it!
On past performance it means that we can look forward to this little privilage being reduced by a day or two sometime about 2020.:rolleyes:
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top