Ryanair Attempt Strike Breaking With Irish Scabs

fergal1790

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
1,743
This is not Scab activity at all. the baggage workers work for the airport not the airline and in an attempt to keep their service running Ryanair organised their own luggage handling at the airport.

If the airport had hired in the Irish staff they could be called Scabs.

It is no different to a private company operating a private bus during a Bus Eireann strike to carry the passengers let down by the workers and unions.
 


Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
So workers should have no rights? Employers should be entitled to do what they wish and when?
They have every right to agree to work for the wage and conditions offered, or not to (i.e. go work somewhere else)

Employers should have the right to freely offer terms to employees.

Employees should and do have the right to ask (or even "demand) anything they want. But they should not the right to force the employer to pay what they demand.

It is the liberal way.




Should supermarkets be allowed to band together in a "union" and demand you pay more for your shopping? And if you refuse, should they have the right to collectively force you from buying what you need elsewhere?


I believe what applies to people selling bread, or milk should apply to those people selling labour.
 

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
16,470
I'd like to see more of it. Sack strikers and just replace them. Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Irish Rail etc.

If the sacked workers or associated goons try to stop companies trading, the Gardaí should arrest the en masse.


Who said people shouldnt be allowed strike?
You are right its not very obvious that anyone here on this thread thinks workers should not strike.
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
9,567
[/B]
You are right its not very obvious that anyone here on this thread thinks workers should not strike.
Theres a difference between not allowing someone to strike and thinking that workers should not strike.

I dont see trainwreck saying they dont have the right to strike. I read it as he belives there should be different consequences for striking than there are at the moment.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Who said people shouldnt be allowed strike?
I never said they couldn't strike (refuse to work). They are free to do what they want. However:

The employer should also be free to replace them.
The employees should not be able to prevent the business from trading.


The solution isn't banning strikes, but to remove the anachronistic protection enjoyed by "striking" workers and to remove any impediment (including standover or sabotage) to business replacing those who don't want to work and continuing with the business.

Don't strike. Quit. If you have a case, the employer will compromise or even concede. If you don't have a case, they will find acceptable replacements at an acceptable cost.


Face it, a strike is a tacit admission that the employer isn't underpaying you at all. It means you are too scared to even resign en masse at the risk the employer simply waves you out the door and replaces you.
 

gatsbygirl20

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
22,551
Back then priests and nuns preyed on innocent kids, today Trade Union scum prey on innocent travelers. The only difference between the two is the spurious claim of self-interest spewed out by the highly paid Trade Union leaders and their witless defenders.
People here have no difficulty in knocking the Irish of the 1930s through 1960s for bending the knee to the clergy, but the same opininated gobsh1tes have no problem whatsoever with expecting people to bend the knee to Trade Union diktats. Go figure!
It's nothing to do with bending the knee to the TUs it's about workers having the right to protect their pay and conditions.
Yes, there is always this attempt to pretend that industrial action is all about nasty, well-paid union leaders. Those who oppose the idea of workers joining a union need a bogey man to point to. And it's difficult to make a bogey-man out of workers on 11 Euro an hour. So it must be the fault of union bosses forcing poor innocent workers to strike

The fact that employees themselves vote for strike action, in some cases are willing to lose pay when they go on strike--this is downplayed.

It's easier to pretend that workers are victims of nasty union leaders, than to admit that they themselves are voluntarily fighting for their own pay and conditions using legal means, of which striking is one.

They are obeying nobody's "diktat". They are the very workers and "taxpayers" that in other circumstances are lauded. They are members of a union to protect their pay and conditions, and they elect its leaders and pay them to defend their interests. They vote to strike or not to strike

They ARE the union. But that doesn't fit the "well-paid union fat cat" narrative.
 

blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
22,697
Naughty Ryanair.

I shall boycott them forthwith.

I mean, I've only flown with them once and I haven't been on a plane for several years, so it might not help much.

But hey I still boycotted them so yay me!
 

blokesbloke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
22,697
Hang on I've just noticed Ryanair flew workers over to break the strike.

If I know Ryanair... did said workers have to pay for the tickets?

Or were they kept in the hold?

I bet they still tried to flog them lottery tickets and lukewarm coffee, too.
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
9,567
I never said they couldn't strike (refuse to work). They are free to do what they want. However:

The employer should also be free to replace them.
The employees should not be able to prevent the business from trading.


The solution isn't banning strikes, but to remove the anachronistic protection enjoyed by "striking" workers and to remove any impediment (including standover or sabotage) to business replacing those who don't want to work.

Don't strike. Quit. If you have a case, the employer will compromise or even concede. If you don't have a case, they will find acceptable replacements at an acceptable cost.


Face it, a strike is a tacit admission that the employer isn't underpaying you at all. It means you are too scared to even resign en masse.
Thats the point I was trying to make to amsterd.

People have to be free to refuse to work. But those adversely affected by their actions must also be free to protect themselves.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Thats the point I was trying to make to amsterd.

People have to be free to refuse to work. But those adversely affected by their actions must also be free to protect themselves.
Don't try and discuss anything with that oaf. You get more sense from the wall.

As shown over and over again. "Striking" in reality doesn't mean "withholding labour" in practice. It means closing down the business until it concedes to demands of a monopoly (i.e. the workers who are making themselves - with the support of anachronistic labour laws and sometimes shear thuggery and threats - the only supplier for the business).
 

SeanieFitz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
12,015
Id would imagine that a goodly proportion of the 100,000,000 who part with their money to O Leary are trade union members. Why dont they all just boycott him?
why stop there? should trade union members boycott businesses who are members of IBEC/ISME, should all farmers boycott Aldi or Lidl, should you boycott businesses who recognise trade union membership, should SF supporters/members boycott INDO group of newspapers? etc etc etc
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Naughty Ryanair.

I shall boycott them forthwith.

I mean, I've only flown with them once and I haven't been on a plane for several years, so it might not help much.

But hey I still boycotted them so yay me!
Well, I am now going to end my Ryanair ban, so they are now probably up net, given my travel demands.
 

SeanieFitz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
12,015
I never said they couldn't strike (refuse to work). They are free to do what they want. However:

The employer should also be free to replace them.
The employees should not be able to prevent the business from trading.


The solution isn't banning strikes, but to remove the anachronistic protection enjoyed by "striking" workers and to remove any impediment (including standover or sabotage) to business replacing those who don't want to work and continuing with the business.

Don't strike. Quit. If you have a case, the employer will compromise or even concede. If you don't have a case, they will find acceptable replacements at an acceptable cost.


Face it, a strike is a tacit admission that the employer isn't underpaying you at all. It means you are too scared to even resign en masse at the risk the employer simply waves you out the door and replaces you.

You big into freedom of choice I see. Well if you are all for such freedom's I guess why not allow lightening strikes? the TU in this case were (until O'Leary herded in his scab labour) giving 24 hours notice of strike action however due to O'Leary's action this is now at risk. The irony of all this is that O'Leary looks to have escalated the problem

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/berlin-airport-union-attacks-ryanair-for-strikebreaking-tactic

This is a Ryanair tactic that may be supported by some right wing Thatcherites in this country however I expect it will not be tolerated in Germany, France, Netherlands etc etc
 

Uganda

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
9,567
why stop there? should trade union members boycott businesses who are members of IBEC/ISME, should all farmers boycott Aldi or Lidl, should you boycott businesses who recognise trade union membership, should SF supporters/members boycott INDO group of newspapers? etc etc etc
Because listening to some of the ryanair bashers on here you would think that ryanair takes trade unionists up in the air and jettisons them all over the irish sea.

I just wonder if all this anti ryanair stuff is as widespread as they would make out, how come one hundred million people every year pay them?
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
You big into freedom of choice I see. Well if you are all for such freedom's I guess why not allow lightening strikes? the TU in this case were (until O'Leary herded in his scab labour) giving 24 hours notice of strike action however due to O'Leary's action this is now at risk. The irony of all this is that O'Leary looks to have escalated the problem

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/berlin-airport-union-attacks-ryanair-for-strikebreaking-tactic

This is a Ryanair tactic that may be supported by some right wing Thatcherites in this country however I expect it will not be tolerated in Germany, France, Netherlands etc etc

As I said, let people do what they want.


Hell, in this example, I will even wave my usual objection to market collusion - you know how we hate the idea of sellers colluding to push up prices we consumer s have to pay? In this case colluding to push up wages.



Call it a "My favourite pony" strike for all I care.


Let Ryanair replace any and all those who break their contract and refuse to work or fail to turn up to work.


Simples:

On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. ... The civil service ban on the remaining strike participants was lifted by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
The life ban on future civil service jobs was perhaps a bit OTT, but the summary dismissal and replacement of these "strikers" was justified and paid massive long term benefits for Americans/
 

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
16,470
I'd like to see more of it. Sack strikers and just replace them. Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Irish Rail etc.

If the sacked workers or associated goons try to stop companies trading, the Gardaí should arrest the en masse.
Theres a difference between not allowing someone to strike and thinking that workers should not strike.

I dont see trainwreck saying they dont have the right to strike. I read it as he belives there should be different consequences for striking than there are at the moment.
If you want strikers to be sacked or arrested then in anyone's language that means you don't want them to strike or the shouldn't be allowed to strike., except of course in the language of PIE posters.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
why stop there? should trade union members boycott businesses who are members of IBEC/ISME, should all farmers boycott Aldi or Lidl, should you boycott businesses who recognise trade union membership, should SF supporters/members boycott INDO group of newspapers? etc etc etc
I shop only in unionised supermarkets, stay as often as I can in unionised hotels, travel on unionised transport. Being a member of IBEC or ISME is not a reason to boycott businesses, not recognising trade unions is where alternatives exist.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top