Dispute enters second month... Support the BATU Striker

by tomeile Wed Sep 10, 2008 17:10

My real agenda was to answer the point you put to me . You wondered why indymedia posters were not giving straightforward support to the strike and I said it may be because of the SP's role in it .The original article didn't mention the SP's role in the dispute which I think is somewhat dishonest .When the Socialist Party's fraternal organizations throughout the British Commonwealth are taking an interest in a small irish trade union , then BATU members have have a right to be curious or even suspicious . Members I have spoken to want to know why the Australian Socialist Party have featured a story criticizing their union on its website. Supporters of trade union rights outside of BATU would like to know what's going on as well.

The Australian SP site and an Irish Independent report have said that at the begining of the dispute Shoko stuck his head out of the office window and accused the strikers of having an agenda that involved either bringing BATU into a British based union or of breaking it up . If that is the case then perhaps Shocko had some justification for his actions . A British centred party wanting to drag an Irish union into a British trade union is how it is being portrayed by some of those opposing the strikers. These issues are important and need to be discussed fraternally because this strike is starting to become an embarrassment not just for BATU ,but for the whole of the trade union movement in Ireland. My original posting on this matter was to say that it would have been good to have an independent ,balanced report for this site . I didn't want to get into a slagging match with the SP.

by Mr Alan Corcoran. - common sense Tue Sep 09, 2008 21:39

No body wants skabs ,especially in the current 'downtalking' of the ailing building industry.

Get a grip afore its too late ,Skabs are messing us around in 1 form or another.
Bad Eggs Are Turning Rotten . Work is what we need NOT GRIEF.

by Jack London Mon Sep 08, 2008 17:08

Ah tomeile, your agenda becomes clear now. You don’t really care about the strikers or the dispute, you just want a chance to have a go at the SP. I’m not a SP member or supporter but I fully support the strikers. Fair play to any political party/organisation/group who supports the strikers (there are very few) because those in the trade union movement who should be supporting them are doing fuck all. I think that fact that BATU members (not UNITE/SP/ Trots or other reds under the bed) have occupied their head office is a clear sign that the strikers have support from BATU members. As I have already said, the big turnout at the public meetings in the Teachers Club showed the support the strikers have from BATU members. You must be a bitter little man to support scabs over strikers to attack the SP.

by tomeile Mon Sep 08, 2008 15:30

"For most people and I would have thought most people who are frequent readers or contributers to Indymedia, their response to an industrial dispute involving six workers on strike for eighteen weeks, is usually pretty straightforward - they would support the workers."

That is true . But the fact is that many longstanding union members are not supporting this action or are remaining neutral in it , and that has to be explained . Many bricklayers wonder why such a small party as the Socialist Party has so much influence in BATU and think that the SP is using the crisis within the union to further its own ends at the expense of the members. A lot of people want to see the back of Shocko but they don’t want to see the Socialist Party’s influence in Batu strengthened.

This thread seems to have been started by Socialist Party people and the original article lacked balance .It did not explain all the issues behind the action , giving the impression that this was a simple cut and dried case of employer versus workers. It didn’t mention the role of the Socialist Party in the dispute ;people have a right to ask why not . The Socialist Party does not have a record of giving its own staff the rights which they say are inalienable to all workers.

by Michael Mon Sep 08, 2008 00:13

It Gets Worse. Not Only Have The Building Industry Gone From The Swings To The Roundabouts And Is The Main Theme
Of Current Affairs Ringing in Our Ears Day In And Day Out ,We Are Now Faced With The News Of B.A.T.U. Members Who Are
Occupying Headquarters Situated At Number 13 Blessington Street Dublin.
A General Secretary of B.A.T.U. And His 3 B.A.T.U. Sidekicks Are Reported To Be Passing A Picket, Which Heaven Only Knows
The Internal ( Long Term ) Damage They Are Doing , Who , Yes Who ,Gave The 'Gentry' Permission To Pass This Picket ?
We Go Back To The Old Days When We Were Told 'A Union Is Only As Strong As Its Members'.
The 20 Members Who Are Currently Occupying Headquarters Are To Be Applauded Given Their Strong Principals Which By All
Accounts Shows Us One Characteristic Which Is Sadly Lacking In Their So Called G.S. And His 3 'BUDDIES', And That Is A
Solemn Commitment To Trade Union Rules & Regulations , IE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY.............TO ALL MEMBERS.
GOOD LUCK TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE GUTS TO STAND THEIR GROUND....YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

by Striker Supporter Sun Sep 07, 2008 13:52

You have not responded to any of the points i raised in my posting. I think your post betrays the weakness of your arguments. You are clearly here to air your political agenda, which is fine, but quite dishonest to use an important and ongoing strike to do so.

Your political squabbles aside, the bottom line is that your role on this forum seems to be as an apologist for scabs and strikebreakers. For most people and I would have thought most people who are frequent readers or contributers to Indymedia, their response to an industrial dispute involving six workers on strike for eighteen weeks, is usually pretty straightforward - they would support the workers. There are no extenuating circumstances in this strike, despite your attempt to raise some, that justify a position other than that of supporting the strikers. So Tomeile, maybe your linked to O'Shaughenssy or some of the otehr scabs, maybe your a rightwinger or maybe your just not a happy chappy but what you clearly are on this issue is someone who is supporting scabs and that Tomeile me aul flower is about as low as you can get.

by tomeile Sat Sep 06, 2008 15:05

If a trade union employee was to actively support a right wing , anti union party and was sacked ,people probably wouldn't be rushing to join a picket line in support of his democratic rights. Many brickies think that Shocko should be given fifteen minutes to clear out his desk despite his many years as an employee of Batu. I think they should be allowed to campaign for such a policy. There are issues for workers control of trade unions and the fight against bureaucracy involved in this dispute, but not only for bureaucracy in unions. Political parties of the left like the SWP and Socialist Party also employ full time workers.
The SP in North America for instance had a full time organiser by the name of John Throne who was sacked without the benefit of the "first in last out principle " when he fell out with SP's international group ,the CWI some years ago .
According to a report of an ex SPer on a previous Indymedia thread,Throne was :
Expelled, not allowed to address or put his case to the US section conference. Not allowed to make his appeal to the CWI World Congress.
Sacked after 25 years as a fulltimer, no redundancy, no pension, no health cover. In the US health cover can be a matter of life and death. John Throne was ill and had medical bills but he was abandoned by the CWI. Is that the way to treat an employee?"

by Joe - BATU Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:00

- comments on editorial policy have been removed by an editor - There are people raising red herrings here such as why I'm not a scab even though I've sacked 2 employees and locked 4 women out of work for months, and then the other great red herring about "outside forces". Readers should ignore these red herrings and look for answers as to why O'Shaughneesy wont allow an audit (if you've nothing to hide then what is the problem?), and why the scabs have not taken the 10% pay cut.

- comments on editorial policy have been removed by an editor -

by striker supporter Fri Sep 05, 2008 18:28

There is no contradiction nor should there be divided loyalty for BATU members in this dispute. The actions of the scabs are damaging to the reputation of the union and are damaging the conditions for BATU members in the industry. The refusal to apply the principle of 'last in first out' is extremely damaging to BATU members and sends a very clear message to construction employers that BATU members, who were formely and quite correctly feared by empoloyers, are now fair game. Paddy O'Shaughnessy did that, brendan O'Sullivan did that and the two side kicks Macken and Smtih did that. In order for BATU members to rebuild a strong fighting union, ,these people must be defeated and forced to go therfore the nterests of BATU members lay squarely alongside the strikers.

Secondly, on the point re O'Shaughnessy etc.. being management and so on - while I don't accept that there is any basis for passing pickets, ICTU guidelines or otherwise, the argument that they are not scabs because they are mangagement (which macken and smith are not) or that they are not scabs because they are members of a different union is neither here nor there as in reality besides passing pickets one of the biggest things that makes them scabs is the fact that once they pass the picekt they are carrying out the the work of the strikers. If you do not regard that as not being a scab Tomeile then i"m afraid you will have to enlighten me as to what is.

by tomeile Tue Sep 02, 2008 20:49

The strikers are employees of a trade union and it does matter that this is an inter-union dispute because trade unions should be model employers . If it isn’t a model employer its members are responsible .You say “ the membership are actually powerless to stop the scabs.” I don’t accept that .
I said in another post that inter union disputes or disputes in which a trade union is an employer are not always simple - different rules can apply . The Trade Union as an employer should be good to its workers who in turn should be very loyal employees. To apply class terminology consistently in this case you’d have the union as the employer holding out against the strikers with O’Shaughnessy as the office manager .
BATU members feel a divided loyalty ; they are trade unionists and employers at the same time. It doesn’t help to say things couldn ’t be simpler . There is a genuine contradiction.

by Jack London Tue Sep 02, 2008 17:44

tomeile,
If you accept that I am not being inaccurate about “management have unilaterally decided who to lay off (no last in first out as is the norm) and to unilaterally cut the pay of the remaining workers” then surely this alone is sufficient reason to support the strikers? It shouldn’t matter that this is an inter union dispute, either the strikers are in the right or they are in the wrong.

by tomeile Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:05

Jack
You are not being inaccurate ,as far as I am aware , when you say “ management have unilaterally decided who to lay off (no last in first out as is the norm) “ . In fairness ,you’re actually not inaccurate about the facts at all (apart from the Freudian bit about “IBEC taking lesions from the scabs “). It’s the interpretation you put on the facts ,and the lack of context that I object to .

by Jack London Mon Sep 01, 2008 18:22

Tomeile,
You make some very interesting points but the simple fact is that management have unilaterally decided who to lay off (no last in first out as is the norm) and to unilaterally cut the pay of the remaining workers. Please point out any inaccuracies in this statement of facts.
O’Shaughnessy, O’Sullivan, Smith and Macken are scabs simply because they claim to be union men and are passing a legitimate picket.
Also your facts are wrong about the support of the ordinary BATU members. The turnout at the public meetings are a good indication of the support but the membership are actually powerless to stop the scabs. I would also imagine that the BATU members aren’t getting much representation from an office without staff and no full timers on the sites. Then again, would you really want to be represented by scabs?
IBEC and the other employers are quite right to be laughing at this dispute, a union bureaucracy shafting their own staff (remember the SIPTU cleaners?). Maybe IBEC are taking lesions from the scabs.
It’s a pity yourself and the likes of Henry Joy don’t give unequivocal support to the legitimate strikers instead of pushing some old shite about “outside forces”.

by tomeile Sun Aug 31, 2008 18:03

I made a loose analogy in my last post ,but not a ridiculous one , Jolly Red Giant . I think you get the point ,but just in case you don’t ,try to imagine how S.P members would feel if Joe Higgins hadn’t effectively been a Socialist Party full-timer for many years ,but was nonetheless a leading member of the party . Socialist Party members would be entitled to feel at least some bewilderment if full-timers at the SP offices , who were not actually supporters of the party , went on strike and then called Joe a scab for passing their picket line.

But leaving analogies aside, my point was that , from what I hear talking to BATU members , this is not a simple ,cut and dry tale of employers ,strikers and scabs , as the reports we are getting on this site would have us believe. It would be good to see an Indymedia article on the background to the dispute for the benefit of those of us not directly involved in it. Like Henry Joy Mc , I’m not in BATU and am not taking sides . Maybe as a poster has said , the union is finished and workers need to find another means of representing themselves .That’s up to the members of BATU , but it's not nice to see a union with a history of militancy tearing itself to pieces -whoever is at fault.
Sadly there’s no Indymedia Industrial reporting team ,so here’s what I know about some of the history behind the dispute .

BATU stayed outside of Partnership and insisted on free collective bargaining before the building boom took off ten years ago . As a consequence , the employers, with government approval and architects’ connivance , adopted a strategy of “ taking the bricks out of the industry”. Cladding was substituted for bricks on the sites while subbies and employment agencies were encouraged to set up as a layer between the big building companies and the workers in the industry.

In the absence of any effective BATU counter-strategy , many bricklayers found themselves unable to find work in the middle of what was the biggest boom the industry in Ireland has ever known . At the same time , free collective bargaining was very successful for those who were able to get work - some brickies were earning thousands of euros a week. The fact that these high paying jobs were union ones led to resentment being directed towards the union itself by many unemployed bricklayers , with accusations of backhanders and a system of ‘jobs for the boys in the union loop’ operating.

So long as BATU subscriptions were being directly debited from workers wages , and so long as unemployed brickies were prepared to pay big money to get a BATU card to get back to work , full timers’ wages were paid . It all started to unravel with the ending of the boom and the costly settlement of a court case earlier this year . The case against BATU had arisen when a bricklayer with long standing connections to the union opted for ,what Earnest in his post above called , “going back on the tools” by working ,against union policy for a sub-contractor. When BATU militants picketed the site ,the subbie and main contractor sued the union . The protracted case was settled out of court with a confidentiality clause ,but the union is said to have lost hundreds of thousands of euros in the process . Faced by bankruptcy and convinced that there were those within its own ranks who wanted to see BATU finished , the union bureaucracy acted – bureaucratically how else- to protect its own interests .
As the previous poster noted , IBEC , and the building employers’ federation , the CIF , would have been stupid not to take advantage of the situation. But they are not the only ones laughing and whooping. The government and those unions who are signed up to partnership are pointing to the debacle in BATU as an example of what you end up with when you go it alone.

by Jolly Red Giant - SP/CWI Sat Aug 30, 2008 21:48

tomeile quote

"An analogy would be if Socialist Party full timers were to join a union , go on strike then start accusing Joe Higgins of being a scab for passing their picket line "

Joe Higgins has, in effect, been a full-time worker for the SP for many years - so your analogy is quite ridiculous.

by Henry Joy McC - SIPTU member Sat Aug 30, 2008 13:50

Tomeile has made a fair point,these things often involve more than meets the eye and certainly the BATU members I know and socialise with are adamant that there are some nasty outside forces at work,intent on damaging the union and the movement.They are doing a good job of it,no doubt about that.

I will not be taking sides but at some point the mess that has been made will have to be cleared up.In the meantime,the work of BATU has to go on,the General Secretary and other officials cannot very well leave all the union's members in the lurch waiting for the situation to resolve itself.There would not be much of a union left for them to come back to if they did,also they have a legal obligation to represent their members.This applies to the General Secretary in particular,who I do not think is a member of UNITE in any case.UNITE seem pretty quiet about this,I suppose it's an embarrassment for them as well,but the trade union movement is certainly taking damage on a scale that even its most bitter enemies have been unable to inflict up to now.Of course IBEC and the rest of them are whooping with delight,so would we be if it was them beating themselves up.

by tomeile Fri Aug 29, 2008 17:34

If an employer or management passes a picket line , they aren’t usually regarded as scabs . A scab is a member of the union who breaks rank with his or her fellow workers and sides with management . There is a distinction .
The last poster said that this is a clear cut case of employer versus workers , but during inter-union disputes and when a trade union is the employer , things are never so cut and dried . A lot of BATU members are confused by the issues involved in this dispute and don't know which side to take :should they be loyal to their own union or to workers from UNITE who are striking against their union?
An analogy would be if Socialist Party full timers were to join a union , go on strike then start accusing Joe Higgins of being a scab for passing their picket line . I’d like to see this dispute resolved amicably.

by Jack London - Scab-Free Trade Union Movement Wed Aug 27, 2008 13:23

The facts behind his dispute couldn’t be simpler. There is a legitimate strike and some members of management are passing the legitimate picket. These people are scabs. Because this strike is between a Trade Union and its employees doesn’t make a difference. It is unacceptable if an employer attempts to sack or make an employee redundant without consultation regardless of who the employer is. It is unacceptable if an employer attempts to cut the wages of employees without consultation regardless of who the employer is.
It is sad that people who would normally be shouting their heads off about workers rights are suddenly silent about this strike because it involves a union. Where is ICTU or DCTU now when workers rights are being trampled on?
O’Shaughnessy, O’Sullivan, Smith and Macken are scabs.

by White Fang Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:55

Will the real Jack London please stand up?Some of these posts are confusing.I don't know who is on the level is this business but they had better all knock their heads together and sort it out.The employers are certainly having a laugh,why wouldn't they,it's a gift.

by Jack London - The trade union movement Sat Aug 23, 2008 22:02

IBEC are wetting themselves laughing at all of this.I wouldn't claim to know all the facts about this but I do know that. Also,ordinary trade unionists are despairing at the laughing stock the trade union movement has become(that is, the minority that actually cares one way or the other).The word in Dublin is that the 'strikers' and saboteurs are definitely not acting off their own bat but are having their strings pulled by malevolent outside interests.If so,there will be a serious reckoning with those who are defiling the good name of the trade union movement for their own twisted 'political' ends.

by johnny - batu Sat Aug 23, 2008 13:29

Does this sound familiar? Scabs using a police escort to cross an official picket - This was one of the anti-union practises Maggie Thatcher used during the miners strike. These are also the actions of "Trade Union Official" Paddy O'Shaughnessy.
Well Maggie succeeded in breaking the unions in England and Paddy will also be successful in destroying the trade union movement in Ireland. How is this guy supposed to confront employers on our behalf and talk about union rights when he himself has dismissed 2 employees with no process and has left 4 other women employees outside the gate for months, then he goes and scabs for a living and wont go to the Labour Court? Imagine next time batu has a strike, are these guys supposed to come out to the site and tell lads from other unions not to pass the picket.
To make matters even worse this guy attends partnership talks wher he sits around the table with all the other beards (these "trade unionists" have effectively consented to Paddys actions by their silence. I mean really ,if these "union bosses" cant do anything to help in this situation do you really think they would be able to tackle the well organised employers body IBEC?) where he tries to negotiate working conditions for every working man in Ireland. Well guess what I dont think IBEC are going to take a lecture on union rights from a scab and those who sit silently beside a scab.
So congratulations Paddy, just like Maggie your going to succeed in destroying the trade union movement, but Paddy you cant take all the credit, you'll have to share it with the beards who have gone along with your Irish Ferries type behaviour.

by Jack London Fri Aug 22, 2008 15:14

Ignore the smokescreen been pushed by the scabs. This is a back & white case - on one side are the legitimate strikers and on the other are SCABS. People who have passed pickets have always been called scabs and always will be. It doesn’t matter if they are “so-called” union officials.
Funny, if Michael O’Leary had done what O’ O’Shaughnessy has done these scabs would be shouting at the top of there voices.
O’Shaughnessy, O’Sullivan, Smith and Macken are scabs.

by Matthew Hopkin - Trotfinder General Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:29

Whenever you see publicly embarrassing internecine abuse being stirred up,witch hunts orchestrated and hatred incited amongst unions and union members,it generally means one thing,ie Trots at work.Used to be Tories,but Trots are better at it.They're similar in a lot of ways but Trots are more anti-union.

So-let's hear who is really pulling the strings in this ghastly and unholy pantomime.

by John Doe - john's union Wed Aug 20, 2008 13:55

Why would the so called "strikers" still look for re-instatement?

I decline to call them strikers as a strike seldom involves the cutting of phone wires, breaking and entering of buildings and threats to staff. Also, for the comment above, I was under the belief that it was the strikers who stole the personal details and passed them to UNITE.

How do any of the strikers expect to be re-instated to work beside the men that they are ridiculling on a daily basis? Its ridiculous.

The only thing they could possibly get at this stage is a settlement package, which has been shown above to be refused.

No man will turn around and say to the people that have threatened him and shown that they are capable of carrying out such unlawful acts "Sorry lads come on back in and work beside me". Its not going to happen no matter how much you stand outside that office and threats are not going to help.

So, either take your settlement or refer the matter to the Labour Court. BATU have agreed to attend the court so whats the problem?

by mulder - batu Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:40

It's bad enough for strikers to see anyone crossing their picket line but when the scabs are full time trade union officials, including a general secretary, it makes for a particularly disgusting spectacle.

Building and Allied Trades Union (BATU) General Secretary Paddy O’Shaughnessy, Assistant General Secretary Brendan O’Sullivan and organisers Andy Smith and Greg Macken have continually passed our pickets. Not only are they passing pickets but they are also scabbing by carrying out the work of striking office staff. Deputy General Secretary Denis Farrell has refused to pass our picket line.

There are six of us on strike and we are members of Unite / ATGWU. We began official industrial action against our employer BATU on 9 May. We did not take the decision to engage in industrial action lightly, but the Ryanair like actions of the General Secretary and others has left us with no choice.

On May Day, the Assistant General Secretary Brendan O’Sullivan himself typed up the forced redundancy notices that were then signed by Paddy O’Shaughnessy and issued that day to union organisers Tom Fitzgerald and Robert Kelly. No criteria was given as to why Tom and Rob had been selected for redundancy. Tom Fitzgerald who has eight years service with the union has been replaced by Greg Macken who has eleven months service, this “organiser” is now answering the phones and doing the typing.

Office staff were threatened with an imposed, non negotiable pay cut of 10% along with detrimental changes to conditions of employment. When we requested union representation we were informed that a staff association was in place in BATU and that there would be no discussions with our union.

The so called staff rep, Andy Smith, casually informed office staff that he had been elected to represent us. This was the first we heard about the BATU staff association. We refused his representation and continued to press for our union to be recognised. We were informed by the General Secretary that our pay would be docked for attending union meetings.

After Tom and Rob were served the compulsory redundancy notice and were barred from the building, the locks and alarm codes were changed and a private security guard was hired to wander the building. When I attended for work on 2 May I was told by the General Secretary that I was not to turn on or touch my computer, he then said I should go home, “have a day off”, which I refused to do. My desk-side locker, which contained not only personal items but members private details, had been smashed open and the contents rifled through. Other office staff were locked out of the union’s membership system, effectively preventing them from doing any work. When the notice of redundancy was served on Robert Kelly, he was given 15 minutes to leave the building. Both he and Tom were escorted from the building by the scabs now doing their work.

Before placing pickets on the building the first thing we did was issue a leaflet to members of BATU explaining that we are in dispute with the leadership of the union, not with them. We have had hundreds of members pledging support for our dispute, and organising work place collections.

Members have also visited the picket line every single day to show support for us but also to register their disgust at those passing pickets. The solidarity and instinctive defence of basic trade union principles by the members of BATU stands in stark contrast to those paid officials who claim to represent them.

Tommy Fitzgerald sacked BATU full time organiser spoke to Stephen Boyd of the Socialist:

“The background to our dispute lies in the serious financial problems facing BATU which has a deficit of approximately €300,000 per quarter. The key to solving the financial problems of BATU lies in recruiting and organising more workers in the construction industry.

“Instead the General Secretary Paddy O’Shaughnessy decided to sack Robert Kelly and myself and to reduce the wages of the office staff by 10%. A pay cut of 10% to Paddy O’Shaughnessy who earns €117,000 a year isn’t much, but it is a lot to our office workers especially with the increasing cost of living.

“How the decision to sack Robert and myself was reached raises all sorts of questions about the lack of democracy in BATU. A new regional organiser was appointed in January of this year and he is one of the scabs now crossing our picket line. Incredibly two weeks after his appointment it was announced that there was a financial crisis! Then at a meeting of the NEC the general secretary proposed a motion to give himself carte blanche powers to sack people and make any cost cutting measures he wanted. Leading officials voted on this motion at the NEC despite this being against the unions rules.

“Our industrial action has ignited a wave of opposition from rank and file members of BATU to the current leadership of the union. Hundreds of members have attended meetings and protests in support of our fight for reinstatement. At the meetings there have been calls for the general secretary to resign and many people have raised the need for democratic accountability in how BATU is run. A rank and file group called BATU Concerned Members Action Group has been established to campaign for change in the union.

“Following on from a meeting of a few hundred BATU members three of the union’s trustees took action and froze the union’s assets and finances. Subsequently Paddy O’Shaughnessy unsuccessfully tried to replace the trustees and force the bank to release funds.

“The Dublin Council of Trades Unions unanimously passed a motion proposed by UNITE and seconded by SIPTU supporting our strike. We also received important pledges of support and money from unions at the trades council.

“There is a lot of anger amongst the ranks of BATU about the direction the union has taken and in its decline. Our members in many workplaces including Pierce, Bowens and Barbarry have been phoning me for help and advice because they have refused to be represented by the scabs still working in head office.

“BATU’s leading officials have serious questions to answer. Why is it that between 2002 and 2005 when the number of people working in the construction industry increased by 37% did the membership of BATU fall by 25%? BATU should be out there in a major recruitment drive. We should be engaging in battles defending the members and challenging the employers in the construction industry who are getting away with major attacks. The CIF want a 12 month pay freeze and a 33% wage cut for young people starting off. And what is the answer of the leading officials in BATU – sack two of their organisers and cut their office staff’s pay.

“They tried to buy us off with a wad of cash but we aren’t going anywhere and with the support of the members behind us we can win reinstatement and take a big step towards turning BATU into a democratic fighting union.”

by hatchet - batu member Tue Jul 01, 2008 01:21

in regard to the last member who left a post regarding a referal to the labour court,paddy attended an l.r.c hearing regarding the lay offs that he was instigating and the union officials were disputiing,at the hearing paddy was asked by the lrc was it not the case that batu members had a policy of seeking a last in first out for its members facing lay offs ie bickys chippys stone masons he agreed it was,he was then asked was he saying as an employer that he did not apply these same fair principles to other staff who worked for the union ie trade union officails ,he said that was his position as an employer,the lrc was then unable to resolve the dispute and recomened it be heard in the labour court,at this stage paddy refused to go to the labour court,that was the time to go,prior to any industrial action being balted for,these were two officials whd implemeented and fought to keep lay offs fair and i do't blame these officials what so ever for seeking fair treatment,paddys been telling lies in his letters to the members,it is true to say unite can refer the matter to the labour court,which they may have done at this stage im not sure,paddys says this 6 weeks into the dispute it never needed to go to industrial action had he not refused to attend from day 1.i feel the power he had or has went to his head,regarding seeking 10 percent reduction in pay for office staff this would usually be disscused in most other establishments or companys and probably negotiated by a third party.its paddy who made accusations of loss of financial records by unite members and refused auditors access to the building.id say lett the auditors in and see how the land lies, tommy fitz had 8 years service a carpenter by trade and very close to holding a degree in industrial relations, i find it hard to see the justification in the lay offs in the way that they were chosen,i think if the truth be known paddy had lost his teeth and was happy for a comfortable 110,00 a year plus expenses for old rope. these men and wmen are entitled to fair treatment the same as is sought for all batu members. industrial action has generally been the most effective and quickest way of resolving a dispute even with the most rougish employers i some how doubt the picketers were expexting their own collegues to pass them by on the picket line fair play to denis for practising what he preached. yours hatch

by member - member Mon Jun 30, 2008 23:56

Why doesn't Unite refer their dispute to the labour court!! Batu said they would attend?? Very confused here. Look at the news there are redundancies and pay cuts everywhere why should our union be any different. whats with all the uproar??

by blacklisted member - paddy must go Sun Jun 29, 2008 15:56

Paddy has the trustees in the highcourt in the morning,another act of a laeder on his last legs.it reminds me of the last days in the bunker,no money,no support,the membership turning on him,and after his failed attempt to remove the president of the union from office he has turned to the old reliable "the high court".
What i would like to know is are "malone and potter"still in a position to act on behalf of the union,or did the president instruct them that they are no longer acting on behalf of the union!!!!!
After all the damage that has been done to our trade over the last ten years that paddy could blame on individuals long since gone,this time the blame lies squarley at his feet,
support the trustees 2morrow morning half 8 outside the highcourt,all welcome

by Jimmy Sat Jun 28, 2008 14:22

This is a great trade union suing our own members down the high court and treatening to bankrupt them and put their families out on the street, but wont go to the labour court.
I dont think even Michael Oleary would do this. Even Irish Ferries went to the labour court.

by old bricklayer Fri Jun 27, 2008 19:33

O'Shaughnessy has the trustees in court on Monday 30th June,more money gone from the Union.

by Honest John Fri Jun 20, 2008 19:21

So there we go my comment was taken down again last night, I don't know if it was the part about you lot receiving one months wages in advance from BATU while you were on "strike" or the part about where you got my data from that upset you but down went my comments just like I predicted.
Anyway just an other update, ICTU has refused to hear the unite complaint against BATU

by Earnest - BATU Fri Jun 20, 2008 17:37

I am an ordinary member of BATU. I feel as I'm sure other members feel that this debacle is utterly embarrassing and disheartening. Also I am angered that these people have attacked our union and it's members in such a manner.

How did "Unite" get my address? I take issue with my personal details being passed around to organisations that I have never heard of nor wanted to ever have my details! A violation of personal data laws surely?

Furthermore, It was nauseating to discover that the people who have been furnished with my and other BATU members address's are of the calibre of people that would stoop so low to printing a photograph of an official with the word "SCAB" across his chest. This action can only be described as despicable and is tantamount to plain childish bullying. What if the dispute was resolved and the perpetrators then returned to work with the individual they have vilified? How can the man in question ever be expected to work along side colleagues that are capable of such a poltroon activity.

If these officials really held the welfare of the union members in the hearts they would not allow them to go unrepresented for the past 6 weeks. When the trade of bricklaying is in such a woeful state, our union instead of being a bastion of our rights remains closed and docile and useful to nobody.

Whole story is boys is that you have to go back on your tools. Even the great James Connolly was not above taking up work when his union was in difficulties. What makes you lot any better?

Some shower.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Wed Jun 11, 2008 19:07

A reminder to the readers of Indymedia, to the majority of you who still understand the importance of showing solidarity and support to striking workers that there is a fund raising event for the BATU strikers this Friday night in the Teachers Club in Parnell Square at 8pm.

by Big Nev Mon Jun 09, 2008 19:00

It saddens me to see members of the trade union movement attack each other like so, especially when I know from my many years in the construction industry and many years membership in A.G.B.S.U and B.A.T.U that the C.I.F are laughing their hearts off at this , but I can inform you now my unite friend the reality of the situation is that there is very little support from rank and file B.A.T.U members, now if it's surrport your looking for you'd be better of to be more informative and at least trying to answer some of the questions asked, your quick defence to call everyone a scab,who wants to ask a question , you don’t like, seem’s puzzling and leaves me to asked the question “Is there other elements at play here”?

by unite member Mon Jun 09, 2008 16:41

First port of call as you put it if you are sacked is not to go to a tribunal, its to try and organise industrial action to fight for your job. Thats what has been done with great success and great support from BATU members, except of course the scabs who are crossing the picket line and those who have posted above who obviously support the scabs!

by Old Bricklayer Wed Jun 04, 2008 21:38

As some one who worked for 40 years as a bricklayer, been on the committee and the executive ,come from a bricklaying family, I have to say sadly,ITS ALL AT AN END, the union can not pay all this money,16 workers,if the truth is known 4500 paid up menbers.Paddy on over 100,000 euro a year,some of the others 60,000 to 85,000 a year. All good things come to an end, some of those who are in support with the strickers are nothing but rats leaving a sinking ship,who have had a big hand in the makeing of the whole mess

by Support the BATU Strikers Wed Jun 04, 2008 17:31

Support the BATU Strikers

Strike Fundraiser
Show your support & solidarity

Friday 13th June 8pm
Teachers Club
Parnell Square

Live music & craic!

adm. €10

More info contact: Tom Fitzgerald 087 2253755

Poster for Strike Fundraiser 0.02 Mb