Ballybrack: Local labour brickies imprisoned

by Dave - Swp Fri Feb 10, 2006 15:29 dlordan at hotmail dot com

here is the text of a leaflet distributed in teh area, which should fill people in on the details. There is an action meeting tmro morning at 11 in Farrell's pub in Dun Laoghire for anyone who wants to join the campaign in support of BIlly, Keith and Brian. The picket has been ongoing for a week with good support from the local community. It has severely disrupted the operation of the site, closing it down most of the time. Anyone who can should get to the site for 7am monday morning as the picket will continue despite the jailings and injunctions. I will post details of any and all further actions decided at the action meeting on indymedia saturday evening and will upload txts of any other leaflets etc. I'm on e-mail or at 0872703564 if anybody wants further info has any suggestions etc

COMMUNITY JOBS & TRADE UNION RIGHTS NOW!
*On Thursday February 2nd building workers from Loughlinstown, Ballybrack and surrounding areas began protests at the Collen building site on Laurel Ave where a council public housing development started recently.

*Collen Construction and sub-contractors working for them refuse to employ trade union members and building workers from the local area on the site. Collen don’t want to employ trade union members or members of the local community because they know they expect decent pay and conditions. They are using sub-contractors to undercut wages and conditions for building workers and boost their profits.

*Collen and their sub-contractors are in breach of legally binding labour Court agreements that state builders must “employ the appropriate grade of trade union labour”.

*The Collen site is a public development for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Co Council. Collen are being paid with our taxpayer’s money. The council has an obligation to ensure proper employment standards and decent wages and conditions for workers on a public site. The Council also has an obligation to serve the interest of the community and ensure that there is no discrimination against trade union members and workers from the area.

*On previous developments in the area, there were agreements with the local community that a certain proportion of the workforce on the site would be local labour.The same should happen here

*Laurel Ave was left in a run-down state for years causing a nightmare for residents and locals when it should have been demolished. Locals will now have to put up with major disruption to the area while the site is being developed. The community should get something back in the form of jobs for people in the area.

*Cowboy builders that just want to do the job on the cheap cannot be trusted to build decent quality housing for people of the area. That’s what happened to Laurel Avenue the last time.

*There are a number of major developments to start over the next year in the Dun Laoghaire area, such as Shankill, Sallynoggin and Dun Laoghaire Golf course. If we don’t stand up to the Council and developers now, the local community will get no benefit from these developments either.

*Building workers and residents will continue the protests everyday until the council and Collen give jobs to the community and end discrimination against trade union members. The whole community should support these protests.

What can you do?

*Protests begin at 7am every morning at the site. Come down to spend an hour or half an hour supporting the protest.

*Sign the petition in support of the protest.

* Join the protest at the Council meeting, Next Monday February 6th from 5-7pm at the Town Hall, Marine Road Dun Laoghaire. Don’t worry about coming late if you are working

IT’S YOUR COMMUNITY! WE MUST STICK TOGETHER!

by Interested Fri Feb 10, 2006 16:15

Are there non SWP contact details for supporting these men? I dont want to communicate with the SWP or get on one of their lists or having them calling around to my house. I just want to support the imprisoned men.

by Mark Howards Fri Feb 10, 2006 16:28

I support these workers if the issue is fighting against non-union labour but I'll be damned if I'm getting involved in a struggle about jobs only going to local workers. I support a proper wage for a proper job. This could be used by narrow minded little Irelanders. But then I wouldn't be surprised if the SWP see an opportunity to engage in communal politics after seeing the response to Pat Rabbittes play on immigration quotas. Didn't Galloway advocate something similar in the UK.

by q Fri Feb 10, 2006 16:37

Would the lifting of a ban on unions in the building site not coincidendtaly increase the amount of local labour as they wouldn't be solely sourcing from anti-union agencies?

by Mark Howards Fri Feb 10, 2006 16:43

There are unionised firms that have their own workforce, treat their staff well but the staff have to travel to the jobs. Are you saying that they should be excluded if their staff isn't made up of locals?

by pat c Fri Feb 10, 2006 16:44

i think the central issue is about whether or not the site is unionised. seeing as the site is non union then the men should be supported but only on the basis that it is non union.

its bizarre to think or argue that only bally brack people should work in ballybrack. this would be taking a very narrow focus and while it might get you support in ballybrack, it would be unlikely to make anyone very popular in the rest of dun laoire, let alone dublin. maybe rbb & co should keep that in mind.

by Michael R. Fri Feb 10, 2006 17:19

To understand more about the legalites of this. Dave above states that:-

"Collen and their sub-contractors are in breach of legally binding labour Court agreements that state builders must “employ the appropriate grade of trade union labour”

Is this not a straight forward case then that they must employ union members? How are Collen Builders defending their case?

by Dave - swp Fri Feb 10, 2006 17:39

Collen are claiming intimidation of their workers by the pickets.
They are also disputing the meaning of the employment agreement.
Fairly typical bullshit on both counts but backed by the courts. Anybody surprised?
Its my name and number because I'm the only one who contributes to indymedia involved in the picket so far.
The men are defending the terms of an agreement with the local authority after a similiar dispute in the 1970's. There is nothing reactionary about defending the gains of past struggles. The men's issue is with the local authority , the developers, and the sub-contractors.
These are the bricklayers demands not the swp's. Strong builder's trade unions on the site would obviously benefit everyone on the sites regardless of whether their from coolock or the congo.
If the bricklayers are defeated it sends a message that the state and developers can do whatever they want and can walk over the wishes of local communities. Everyone will lose out as a result.
This dispute is about union recognition and about working class communities having a say in what happens in their communities. It is a just cause and the swp is proud to support it. We and the bricklayers would welcome solidarity from all who support local democracy and union rights.

by Confused Fri Feb 10, 2006 17:40

"*Collen don’t want to employ trade union members or members of the local community because they know they expect decent pay and conditions."
So what if the members of the local community are non-union. This seems a bit ambiguous.

"*The Council also has an obligation to serve the interest of the community and ensure that there is no discrimination against trade union members and workers from the area."
Again the same question as above

"*On previous developments in the area, there were agreements with the local community that a certain proportion of the workforce on the site would be local labour."
And what if they are non-union?

"*Building workers and residents will continue the protests everyday until the council and Collen give jobs to the community and end discrimination against trade union members. The whole community should support these protests."
More ambiguity

"IT’S YOUR COMMUNITY! WE MUST STICK TOGETHER!"
What about unionised Polish or indeed other foreign unionised workers who might work in the area. Should locals protest against this?

by pat c Fri Feb 10, 2006 17:48

the demand for tu labour on the site should be supported,. i'm sure that the demand for local labour is that of the men; but is it wise for you to support it? it might be difficult to build solidarity on that basis.

i reckon a brickie from blackrock, ballyfermot, ballyfermot or budapest has just as much right to work on that site. as long as they are TU members.

if we get into this locals working nonsense then crumlin will be fighting drimnagh and killester will be fighting santry. you cant build socialism, in one neighbourhood and you cant stop people who live a mile down the road from working in YOUR area.

theres no better formula for dividing the working class. its like something from the simpsons.

what we have we hold: that means solidarity with those in the next neighbourhood, in the next county, and it means solidarity with those who come from other countries.

by Michael R. Fri Feb 10, 2006 18:00

Thanks for your above response Dave on the legalities of this issue.

I reckon I agree with Pat C though and a some of the other posters. Its probably important to focus on the Unionised aspect of this protest and this is of MASSIVE importance. If companies can get away with it, which of course they will try to, they will employ the cheapest non-union labour available. With a plentiful supply of cheap labour from abroad coming in this will drive wage prices down to the detriment of all workers and ordinary folk and to the profit of the already wealthy corporations and businessmen.

This is huge issue as it affects all workers and salaried folk in Ireland. As such, it is vital to get behind this.

by old hand - ex b. a. t .u, Fri Feb 10, 2006 19:45

were is B.OS and P.OS of B.A.T.U. now was S.OB in court saying he had on hand in it?

by SWP watch Fri Feb 10, 2006 19:50

Max

There are a couple of issues here that need to be considered:

1. The “developers” of this housing scheme are Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, it is a Part 8 project to supply much needed Social Housing for local people in Dún Laoghaire. The local authority obviously aren’t making a profit.

2. The builders Collen Construction Limited were awarded the contract on this development following an open tender operated under current Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council / Dept of Environment guidelines. At no point were the required to hire local people in the construction of this scheme. Like most builders they use the same employees from site to site, only hiring when the need arises.

Collen Construction far from being “cowboys” are arguably the oldest building company in the country, they were established as far back as 1810 and are still a family-owned business. They have been involved in numerous large-scale projects including the Hugh Lane Gallery extension and other housing schemes in East Wall and Tadeka in Bray.

3. The company has no “non-union policy” and many of the workers on the site in question are members of a trade union. It should be noted there is no law requiring employees to be members of a trade union, people have the right to opt out.

4. The sub-contractor in question Quinn Brothers and established firm, who had employed three qualified bricklayers. Unfortunately these men have had to be relocated, due to several incidents, which occurred over the last two weeks. The High Court has been told the men picketing the site threatened the bricklayers.

5. The action by the three jailed protesters is completely unofficial; it is not backed by any trade union. The only official support these men are receiving is from members of the Socialist Workers Party, Dave Loran and Richard Boyde Barrett.

6. There is no legal basis for this protest, the men in question have been ill advised and are being manipulated by members of the SWP to forward their own political agenda. The real loosers here are the families of the protesters and the local community who will have to endure further delays in the project due to the actions of the Socialist Workers Party.

by pat c Fri Feb 10, 2006 20:03

1. are unions rates being paid on the site?

2. do the contractor and sub offically recognise unions for negotiation purposes?

by Chris Murray - TaraWatch Fri Feb 10, 2006 20:05 4978026

Don't know much about how injunction was applied for
in this case, but do know that it was used against
Tony Gregory, Joe Higgins, Glen of the Downs, Carrickmines,
Bin protestors,etc
In the case of Carrickmines a reverse injunction was sought by
two of the campaigners to test legality of original injunction.
It was feasible with re to testing the law in an environmental case.
Rossport injunction was watertight. Look at the wording of the injunction.
Who applied for it etc.In Irish law the injunction tends to support
the corporation and not the conscientious objector. a good solicitor
is necessary.

by R. Isible Fri Feb 10, 2006 20:07

3. The company has no “non-union policy” and many of the workers on the site in question are members of a trade union. It should be noted there is no law requiring employees to be members of a trade union, people have the right to opt out.

The above is very unclear. Do you mean "Collen employs non-union members"? Also, seeing as you profess to know so much about it, what percentage of the employees on site are union, what wages do the non-unionised and unionised employees get?

On a related note it is very odd that you think that Part8 housing should be constructed by non-unionised workers because they're cheaper. Slaves would be even cheaper, but I'm sure you wouldn't advocate that. Being involved in a "worthy" project doesn't give anyone carte blanche to flout the normal standards.

by SWP Watcher Fri Feb 10, 2006 20:20

Pat C: As I understand it Collen Construction employs both union and non-union members; they are a well-established firm and are fully compliant with labour laws and pay the usual going rates.

R. Isible, the point here is normal standards are being adhered to, this is a standard Local Authority development, the kind proceeding all around the country. This one has been targeted by the SWP as a means to generate publicity.

by old hand ex B.A.T.U. Fri Feb 10, 2006 21:14

William McClurg is ex swp all this is down to them,were is Dave Mc. the last man jailed for B.A.T.U. and why was he put out of the union(and work) I want to know from B.OS. Also were is P.OS. back in the mad house again.?

by Dave - swp Fri Feb 10, 2006 21:47

Everybody who works in building knows that developers use sub-contractors as a shield against unions. This is resulting in up to 50% of the workforce not being paid proper wages, pension contributions etc, as reported on RTE this evening. When they went to apply for a job on the site, the protesting bricklayers were told by the subcontractors on the site that they were taking on neither locals nor trade unionists. I should say that building workers in the ballybrack area are well known to have a high union density so locals and trade unionists means the same thing to the developer and his subbies. The key issue is certainly trade union rights. The men are all long standing trade unionists who have an honourable record of solidarity. this is why so many of them find themselves unemployed in the middle of a gigantic construction boom.
The reactionary referring to itself as 'swp watch' is a great fan of collen construction and DLRCOCO. Well fair play to it. There are not many of them around in Ballybrack, Sallynoggin and Loughlinstown tonight. The men made their own decision in putting up a picket. The three in jail made their own decision in defying the injunction. They asked and are asking for our support. We have no hesitation in giving it. It's a testimony to the rotteness of the 'official' Ireland that we are the only organised prescence in the area willing to support them. Bureacrats , cynics and careerists can never understand that working class people are capable of such courage and open defiance of everything that stinks 'official'.
We are witnessing a clear case of the machinery of the state being used to repress legitimate dissent.
The bricklayers are to be congratulated for taking their stand. They are not victims. They are rebels. We wholeheartedly endorse them.

by Dave - swp Fri Feb 10, 2006 23:05

Just seen the RTE coverage. Sickeningly slanted in favour of the bosses as usual. Peculiarly the reporter , aided by the usual clever and conniving editing, had a very similar bias to the 'swp watch', making a lot of the same insinuations, as if she were reading from the same press releases. Funny that. Or is it just that weak minds think alike? Anyway, anyone with genuine doubts or reservations is welcome to come along tmro and put their points to the other protesting brickies and relatives of the jailed men, or to do so at any other time. Sincerely, help and suggestions, as well as debate on how to carry the campaign forward are welcome. I will certainly be arguing that the focus be put on trade union rights and the right to protest. Though I think it is perfectly understandable that skilled men should feel entitled to some chance of a job in their own neighbourhood, especially when there is clearly jobs available in their trades, as there unquestionably are on the Collen site.

by R. Isible Fri Feb 10, 2006 23:13

So, again, how many of the employees on the site are union and how many are non-union. What are the union employees getting, what are the non-union employees getting? Do you endorse slave labour for Part 8 housing construction?

by DD Sat Feb 11, 2006 00:52

The protest is not for all the jobs to go to locals, but against none of the jobs going to locals. Against a policy of displacement. Locals should not be discriminated AGAINST, whether or not they are trade union members. But of course this is all about keeping the unions, and active union members, out.

A woman sacked for wearing a union badge. Men in jail for picketing.

by seedot Sat Feb 11, 2006 01:45

I'm sorry Dave, this phrase sets off alarm bells.

I think the state of our industrial relations law is an indictment of the generation of trade unionists that went before us. I think the current economic climate is seeing a renewed attack on trade unionism and that this is happening in many workplaces. I also support the manner in which you personally have engaged with Indymedia and been willing to stick around and debate your stance. But the above phrase.....

Everybody may know something, but it's not really proof or information or any type of defence of a political position. The three lads may be victims of a deliberate attempt to exclude organised labour and lower the rates paid. This is your stance and one that i am sympathetic to.

But unless you respond with details of
a) the percentage union density on that site
b) whether local labour was recruited or refused employment after application in other instances
c) whether the agreed union rates are paid or unpaid

then i think you will have problems dealing anywhere, even on indymedia, with the attacks like those of swp watcher and old hand.

Knowing the consultation process that happened in Ballymun and the promises made and then the complete lack of linkages with the local labour market i would not be surprised if this had been repeated here - however I would be surprised if there was anything approaching a firm written commitment to employ local labour and would be very interested to see this. (I'm not even sure how legal such a commitment would be).

The TU stuff is key - but you need to get the information from this site - not what everybody already knows.

by Dave - swp Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:04

The company moved all heavy machinery off the site last night. It was reported on newstalk 106 that Collen have announced they are closing the site indefinitely due to 'health and safety considerations'
According to locals they also took on two local men yesterday, obviously in response to the jailings.
These are both propaganda moves by the company designed to make the men look like liars and thugs. Don't fall for it.

In answer to seedots questions. According to information from official sources only three men working on the site were having pension contributions paid. There were a lot more then three men working on the site. As most are employed by subbies who move from site to site. it is hard to calculate an exact percentage. Collen are saying that it is none of their business whether the employees of the subbies are in a union or not. The subbies are definitely not paying the agreed union rate.

As it says in the leaflet and other posts locals who asked for a start were told locals and union members were not being taken on.

Again anyone is welcome to speak directly to the bricklayers involved. I will get as much exact detail as I can at the meeting this morning and post it sometime this evening.

by old hand ex B.A.T.U. Sat Feb 11, 2006 16:53

Look the lads are in jail,on one gets joy out of that,I have fought along side Billy McClurg in the past,Billy is a good man,put when the SWP and the other trors the SP are on the seen, working people have on hope,I have seen it all before.on hope.All they do is put worker against worker,they know best,none of them worked ever on a site,yet they know best. When Willy and Dave were jailed in 1998 we had sites allover Dublin out,now a handfull of in the court,the union could not have a meeting for 3years,on A.G.M. for 3 years. Why, trots infighting,B.A.T.U. has been over taken,by trots,B.OS. is a friend the Kerry holey Joe the T.D. for the SP,theone who takes in the money is a trot,some of the new jobs in the union given to trots. Bolck work done away with on a lot of the big sites,all down to the trots who know best.

by old hand ex B.A.T.U. Sun Feb 12, 2006 06:15

They are all of that and more,put they are in the trots ,B.OSis in the SP. but saids he is not,the one that takes the money is in the SP also, plus two more,P.OS, is in the labour party also the PUP,D.F,the little rat is a drop out of Mos red army.A lot of what they done will come out soon.this year.

by Idontthinkso Sun Feb 12, 2006 13:26

Ah yes, the typical bullshit gets rolled out.

How many were in court? These men are causing problems in their own community, they are causing problems for their neighbours and it has nothing to do with unions.

facts are these men do not have the support of the community or their own union. The decision to jail them was met with cheers from the public area. Their claim is that locals cannot get jobs on the site, well guess what? Locality has nothing to do with it. The company emplys those it feels are best for the job and thats that. Plenty of locals are employed on the site already.

Might also mention that only 2 are actually locals and they could spend their time working on an alternative site earnign than standing around causing problems for the men and women workign hard on this site.

by curious Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:42

Isn't he from the 'Noggin? And he works on the buildings. Think I remember him saying once on The Den that he's SIPTU. Probably still has a lot of illusions in the disgusting leadership of Jack O'Connor. Still, it would be interesting to hear his views on this burning issue.

by Dave - swp Mon Feb 13, 2006 15:37

Not that its anyone's business but my youngest brother and my da are builders' labourers and my other brother is a brickie. I worked on a lot of building sites, some big, some small, and have a lot of knowledge and experience about how working people are used up and spat out by developers.
The lads have taken a stand and we are supporting them. Simple as that.

by The Digger Mon Feb 13, 2006 15:57

You have a remarkable pedigree but sadly the same cannot be said for Richard Boyd Barrett. I fear that all of this is just another stunt in your futile campaign to get RBB elected. No hope.

The real problem is that this campaign is likey to damage the SWP outside of Dun Laoighaire. How is an SWP member like Ritchie Brown going to tell brickies and operatives (potential voters) in Dublin North Central that they dont have a right to work in Dun Laoighaire? Or will he be telling them that only Raheny brickies have the right to work in Raheny? Will Brid Smith tell Ballyfermot brickies that only they have the right to work on sites in Ballyfermot? This campaign is half baked.

by dave - swp Mon Feb 13, 2006 16:33

I think if you read about the campaign you would find you are entirely mistaken. The men are being denied work because they are union members. They are not campaigning for exclusive local employment, but for Collen to stop their ban on union members and for a 'proportion of local labour' to be taken on. This is standard practice in a many areas, ballymun regeneration for example. It was also the practice in dlrcoco in for many years. Collen and the subbies are refusing to take on trade unionists and locals. Locals expect proper wages and conditions and many of them are, like the jailed men, longstanding trade unionists. This is why they find themselves unemployed- because the have been blacked. The campaign is fundamentally about trade union rights.

by The Digger Mon Feb 13, 2006 16:42

I support the demand for a fully unionised site with union rates of pay. I do not support your demand for local labour. What about unionised companies who have their own workers, should they sack some of them to take on locals?

Even if there was a clause in an agreement for a % of local labour this could not be restricted to TU members, it would be illegal to do so. This is established law, the Supreme Court has found that a closed shop is illegal.

How would the locals be picked? Age? Ability? Length of time in the area? Your campaign could well end up with notorious scabs being employed hust because they live locally.

by Paul Mon Feb 13, 2006 19:10

Having spoken a few of my neighbours in Loughlinstown over the weekend, it’s quite clear what the “local” aspect of this protest is.

The people involved are aggrieved over the fact non-nationals from Poland & Latvia are employed on this site and they are not. People from other EU countries have every right to be here, its terrible any socialist party would try to exploit divisions in the community.

To be honest I’m disgusted the SWP would involve themselves in this type of action. I was a strong supporter of DL prior to their move to Labour and since then have would have supported SWP on the basis of their Bin Tax Campaigns, SOS and anti-war stance, however after this I won't be voting SWP again.

by anon Mon Feb 13, 2006 19:32

Claims that the contractor was purposely not hiring unionised nationals can be backed up by details of the wages and condtions not being up to standard otherwise why would they do it?

by Anon Mon Feb 13, 2006 22:30

I was at a meeting in Dun Laoghaire for the 3 jailed men. It's a slur to say that it's only about having 'local' labour on the sites. I don't believe they are racist. I wouldn't be too surprised in Collen are spinning it that way. The main demands centre around union rights and against sub-contracting. These men were jailed because they are BATU members. Union members do not get jobs with the sub-contractors. There are Collen sites around this country. I think it should be determined what the pay and conditions are in these sites. Lets take Collen on and the BATU leadership who are trying to walk away and not attack the jailed men.

by UCD lefty Mon Feb 13, 2006 22:36

The 4 Socialist Party members of the UCD SU Council have a motion down on this at Wednesday's meeting. Motion is asking the SU reps on the University's Buildings Committee to seek if there are proper rates of pay and if there is sub-contracting on the Belfield Collen site. Motion also opposes jailing and supports protests for their release.

by Jon Lee Anderson Tue Feb 14, 2006 00:56

Just like to say i,m a bricklayer in B.A.T.U. ,and were the leaders ship does not seem to be supporting the lads and are to busy looking after their pension money, the majority of union brickies in the general membership would support the 3 lads.But unfortunately there seems to be a vail of secrecy over the whole issue.
I would hope the B.A.T.U. shop stewards would get more involved and try to get the Dublin Branch motivated

by Finnegan - BATU Tue Feb 14, 2006 02:34

I agree with you Jon, there is a veil of secrecy about it all. I'm also a BATU bricklayer ,I was at the court on Friday and our site sent our shopsteward down on Monday,and he came back none the wizer.

I support the lads fully and will support any action that the "bricklayers" of BATU decide take, but I am suspicious about the motives of the SWP. I feel their presence in this could be very damaging to it's cause as a whole.They seem to jump on every issue, make a big song and dance,chant a few slogans sell a few papers and then f**koff after a month or two depending on how much momentum that certain campaign has gained.

Also in the court on Friday a conversation was overheard where RBB was asking a bricklayer "is there any way we can force the union to act",Who is he to ask our union to do that? he's not a bricklayer.Is he a member of our union? Does he want to damage our union even further than it's already been damaged to bolster his own agenda?

I feel that whatever action the individual members of BATU take on this should be supported. I hope the lads get out soon,and I hope they win.

by Communitarian Tue Feb 14, 2006 02:39

Local Community
even if all things being equal – ability, wages etc. – locals might well wonder why non-locals would be preferred to non-locals for the job, especially if Part8 is supposed to be done for the benefit of the community. Or is that “community” stuff just blarney used by local government to give contracts to their friends (who perhaps, have kids in the same private school)? The Irish economy doesn’t work for builders – it works for their bosses (and I don’t mean foremen).

It’s good to source labour as close to the community as you can. That sort of stuff builds communities as opposed to geographical areas.

Also, like buying organic food as closely sourced as possible, the less each worker has to travel, the better for environment and traffic.

On Migrant Labour
If the ever-expanding Dublin area relies more and more on immigrant labour from elsewhere in Ireland or from Poland, Australia or whatever, houses must be built at a greater rate than immigration, or rent and property prices go up and up, and green spaces get less and less. In this case, those who control the supply (builders and property developers), also increase demand by bringing in fresh supplies of cheap labour from outside the city.

These newcomers will have to be able to afford their rent/property on the ever-dminishing wage, or else, their living arrangements will be substandard.

A recent report by the Pensions Ombudsman on Fri 10th Feb, 2006 – the same day as this very article – claimed that 130,000 workers in the construction industry were not paying any pensions, largely, because of rogue employers not paying any entitlements on their behalf. The report states that most such workers are erroneously described by their employers as being self-employed, thus letting the latter off the hook for PRSI and other tax declarations.

With such a hidden workforce, one might well question the TSB-ESRI report of last month which stated that builders got a 9% wage-rise on average in 2005. How would anyone know this? By claiming to know it, the ESRI are missing the obvious and closing its eyes to the abuses.

If inspectors close a company for non-payment of PRSi etc., it simply reopens under a different name. With so few inspectors, government policy on the issue is a joke on us, courtesy of Fianna Fáil (the Builders’ Party).

So, let no-one start getting’ offended by such bad words as “community”. It’s more of it we need to stand up to this relentless shower.

Old Hand
Yeah, when was the last union man to go to jail for the cause or workers’ rights? Unions have changed a lot in 100 years have they not?

by Rilley Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:13

Just for your information Paul, if you can't stomach Labour but are disillussioned with the antics of the SWP, you should check out the Irish Socialist Network, an organisation started by ex-WP/DL members, at:

www.irishsocialist.net

by Ray Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:12

Wos coming to work on the bus this morning and over heard some primary school kids discussing the issue, one of the younger kids asked why the lads were arrested, an older kid replyed, it was cause “they were only trying to get work on the 3-story building site, but the jobs had been taken by Pols.” Its pretty clear the message that’s circulating amongst the community.

by old hand ex B.A.T.U. Tue Feb 14, 2006 17:55

Dear Communitaria thank you for looking at what I have too say,now it is not 100 years since a worker has gone to jail,its 8 years this year. Dave and Willy went to jail for B.A.T.U. in 1998,the trots in the union and outside got them to go there,Higgins the T.D. went into the Dail in handcuffs ,got people to sit down in the street and os on. Dave has since been put out of the union,and work,Willy is also not working,Joe Higgins has three new people working full time in the union now,B.OS who was put out of the Labour Party with him is there to. All of them worked hard to get Dave and others out.Now that Billy and the other lads(,whom I do not know,)are in jail, none of these trots are to be seen,they have got their jobs and to hell to all the rest.B.A.T.U. is going to go under this year,courtcases are comeing up that will bring out the truth and that will see the end of them.

by marxist Tue Feb 14, 2006 18:53

Hey, BATU guy. who the hell is BO'S? btw you're one cynical right-wing gobshite.

by paula geraghty Tue Feb 14, 2006 19:53 mspgeraghty at yahoo dot ie

they left the 4 courts

(c) Paula Geraghty

by lefty Tue Feb 14, 2006 21:16

I'm not a fan of the SWP by no means. I still don't think the attacks on RBB are justified. He is honest and sincere in his stand with these men. Why not attack Collen, the subbies and the BATU leaders. They are the ones who need to be attacked not people trying to help the 3 jailed men. People should stadn with these guys and not allow their anti-SWP feelings get in the way.

by Tom Tue Feb 14, 2006 22:58

I wish to support the 3 lads ,I think what they are doing takes great courage, it's sad to see that honest working men have to go to jail for the right to work to feed their families.I would also like to agree with the marxist ,I think BATU is better of without right wing head bangers like that X BATU member with axes to grind.

by Free the brickies Wed Feb 15, 2006 01:38

The postings by old hand ex B.A.T.U. about the SP are malicious lies. You expect us to believe that Joe Higgins has got people in positions in BATU to be careerists and bureaucrats and get members of the union kicked out. Hardly the actions of a man who lives on a workers wage, went to jail and fought for the Gama workers. All SP members and SP officials in BATU are fighting for the jailed brickies what are you doing for them?

by UCD head Wed Feb 15, 2006 21:54

The motion proposed at UCD SU Council was passed tonight. Fianna Fáil members including Conor Dixon and John Butler opposed the motion. They said that the SU should not support union rights and that the men deserved jail due to 'law and order'. Paddy Carroll also opposed the motion. Speaking in favour of the motion was Oisín Kelly (proposer), Dave Murphy (seconder, & bin tax prisoner in 03), Jane Horgan-Jones, Dermot Looney, Enda Duffy, Niall Dolan, Conor McGowan and others. UCDSU now support protests calling for the release of the 3 jailed bricklayers and will investigate the the pay levels and sub-contracting practices on Collen's Belfield site.

by Cian - SP Wed Feb 22, 2006 00:57 ComradeCian at eircom dot net Limerick 085-7077919

Free the BATU brickies!
PICKET ALL COLLEN SITES - SHUT THEM DOWN!

Socialist Party leaflet - Available as a PDF http://www.socialistparty.net/pdf/pdfs/free_the_brickies(17-02-06).pdf

Building workers need to make a swift militant response to the challenge thrown down by Collen Construction Ltd and the High Court. BATU members should take on Collen with the same tactics they employed in the past of solidarity action to shut down all Collen sites to force them to lift the High Court injunction and free BATU members - Andrew Clarke, Keith Kelly, and William McClurg.

During the "hey days" of the Celtic Tiger construction workers and in particular BATU members fought for direct employment and for decent wages. The militant tactics employed by BATU members were very successful and played a major role in pushing large numbers of subcontractors off the sites and in getting building workers significant pay increases. This same approach can defeat Collen and send a message to all construction companies and sub-contractors that their campaign to drive down wages and weaken the unions won’t be accepted.

The Socialist Party believes that BATU activists and members need to take hold of and organise this dispute by establishing an organising committee to co-ordinate action to force Collen Construction to lift the High Court injunction. Collen sites at the Municipal Gallery Parnell Square and UCD (Forsters Ave entrance) as well as the site in Ballybrack should be picketed and shut down until the three BATU members are freed from jail.

Militant campaign to force employers back

Construction companies and sub-contractors are trying to take back the gains made by building workers. They are using non-union and migrant labour and are trying to push down the wages of all building workers. The super-exploitation of migrant workers was exposed and defeated at GAMA by a campaign of militant struggle by the Turkish workers with the support of Joe Higgins TD and the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party calls on the construction unions to launch a militant campaign to recruit nonunion Irish and migrant building workers into the unions and to fight to maintain the wage rates and conditions of all building workers.

The jailing of the three BATU bricklayers is the latest in a number of serious attacks on fundamental trade union rights. Witness the strike at Irish Ferries also Dunnes have sacked a shop steward Joanne Delaney for wearing a union badge and now the trade unionists have been jailed for campaigning for jobs.

United Trade Union response needed

There must be a united response from the trade union movement. BATU should be supported by all of the construction unions, in particular SIPTU and also the ICTU. BATU should demand that ICTU immediately impose an all-out picket on all Collen Construction sites. ICTU and some union leaders will say they can’t do this because it is against the law. Anti trade union legislation is being used to assist the bosses in attacking jobs and conditions. They are there to try to prevent union action. These laws must be broken by the trade unions if workers rights are to be defended. The courts would be powerless to enforce their anti-union laws if they were faced down by the might of a united trade union movement.

This dispute centres on a Collen Construction site where they are building houses for Dun Laoghraire / Rathdown County Council. This is another example (like GAMA) of big construction companies being given state contracts and being allowed by the government and local authorities to break the law and union/construction industry agreements.

Oppose Social Partnership

"Social partnership" is a con that’s been used for the last 19 years to increase the profits of big business and stop workers struggling for decent pay and conditions. The Socialist Party is opposed to "social partnership" and believes that trade union activists and members need to get organised to reclaim and transform our unions. We need fighting democratic unions that are prepared to struggle against the "race to the bottom", to protect the wages and conditions of all workers, Irish and migrant. If you are interested in finding out more about how you can get involved in campaigning to transform our unions then contact the Socialist Party.

We demand:

- BATU members should establish an organising committee to co-ordinate the struggle to free the three jailed bricklayers.

- Pickets to be placed on all Collen Construction sites – shut them down until the High Court injunction is lifted and the three workers are freed.

- For a campaign of action to force the replacement of the sub-contractors with trade union labour

- For a united campaign by all construction unions to recruit non-union Irish and migrant building workers. Fight the "race to the bottom".

by expose batu - independent Wed Feb 22, 2006 02:33

It is clear that most people don’t have a clue about what is happening in relation to batu
and who is running the union
3 lads in gaol and batu are nowhere to be seen
well I see that every body seems to think that the lads are in gaol because they are BATU members ,if so why ant batu coming out and supporting them openly ,why are the saying in court that they have no part in this matter .were is the GS of BATU ,Why do these men need to turn to these measures to gain employment when they are supposed to have such a strong union behind them (at €10 euro per week ) why all the cloke and dagger taticits by Batu, why wernt these men advised as to the possible outcome of there picketing and the costs envolved to them by ,I read that Collen are in breach of construction agreements if so why aren’t Batu doing there Job and exposing Collen through procedures and avoiding all of this troubel most of all why do these lads need to use political parties and the likes of rbb to organise the campaign when the have an elected branch committee sitting in the union head quarters every Monday night who should be running it (not that there is anything wrong with the parties involved or rbb) Surely these men and the rest of the batu members are entitled to have a lobby in relation to the likes of these disputes in the form of there GS again where is he .Why have they not been given legal rep by the union ,
The answer is the union don’t want to know them but they are part responsible for getting them into this mess .what will be the out come i would guess that batu will let all the goe soaps do the running around for them in the hope that the legal action by collen will be dropped agents the union and then if they get a hint that collen are prepared to drop the legal action they will jump in and try to fix it. And what about the lads they will feel glad to get out of it in other words they will get noting but being used by batu like al the other good union members that were before , remember Batu had nearly 100% paye agreements with builders 2 years ago were is it now ,were was the lobby from them NONE

by keith Wed Feb 22, 2006 16:19 k_mac_83 at hotmail dot com

I saw one of the protests in Belfield on Monday morning and again yesterday. I was curious to see what it was about so i went to have a look. The Gardaí were trying to stop a large group of people from entering the site. There was the usual people calling the Gardaí all sorts of names and trying to cause trouble. Usual behaviour for this kind of protest. I hear today that there was a girl injured in this mornings "protest". There is no point in protesting against the men being jailed. They broke an injunction. Thats what happens. As to the behaviour of the construction company. Where is the proof that they are discriminating against union workers? A company isn't obliged to hire union workers, it just can't discriminate against them. Are those already employed going to be fired if they join a union? As for employing local workers. Why should someone employ locals when migrants do a much better job? I don't see how you can justify protesting without actually having the required information such as the union make up of the site. Seems to me that the same old people have found another issue that they can latch onto and use to get in the headlines. The fact that the union isnt even backing the men up shows that they dont really have a case at all.

As pointed out in the two comments by KeithWatch and TomJoad below this post is probably completely false. Full details of the injuries caused by the Gardai can be read in our front-page story here -- 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial.

by Keith Watch Wed Feb 22, 2006 16:33

You obviously were not there on Monday. Today the 'girl' that got injured was a Garda. She fell as she was pushed over by her fellow Gardaí. Once she fell protesters prevented anyone falling on her and went to her assistance as male Gardaí continued their pushing and kicking of protesters. That shows who are the thugs. Keith you are clearly you are the one on the side of thuggery. Collen are an anti-union company. Any fool could tell you that. In fact, they will tell you themselves! Collen also have a very bad safety record. BATU leaders need to pull their finger out. They should organise large numbers to protect the pickets on Belfield. BATU leaders should drop the 'red scare' about supporters of the Ballyback 3.

by Tom Joad Wed Feb 22, 2006 16:56

Keith,

1) "The Gardaí were trying to stop a large group of people from entering the site."

The Gardai were not trying to stop people entering the site because people were not trying to enter the site. People were trying to picket the site and to shut it down.

.2) There was the usual people calling the Gardaí all sorts of names and trying to cause trouble.

Who was "causing trouble" I suggest you take a look of the front page of the Evening Herald which shows about 6/7 Gardai manhandling a protester. One actually has him in a headlock. So with physical responses like that, its not surprising people respond with name-calling.

3) I hear today that there was a girl injured in this mornings "protest".

Well actually it was a photographer with the Evening Herald who says they were injured by the Gardai – not the protesters. A ban garda was injured in the to-ing and fro-ing. she tripped and knocked her head. The senoir garda on site said he didn't believe it was intentional. A number of protesters are left bruised and sore also, so its hardly all onesided.

4) "Where is the proof that they are discriminating against union workers"

Collen Construction are a notorious anti-union company. This is not the first time workers have had problems with them. They employ sub-contractors so as to be able to wash their hands of any wrong doing when the shit hits the fan. AVS and Quinn subcontractors (who are currently working for Collen) are not compliant with pension legislation. If you want your proof, just talk to the 100,000 – 130,000 building workers in Ireland who don’t have a pension. But since you probably wouldn’t believe anything these "types" say, just ring the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman on 01 6471650.

5) Why should someone employ locals when migrants do a much better job?

Well Keith, you asked for proof of discrimination, where’s your proof that migrants would do a better job. They certainly might do it cheaper, but that doesn’t mean better. In actual fact, many subbies hire migrants (or Irish for that matter) with no trade and pass them off as tradesmen so as to put a higher price on the job. Therefore the job will not only be of a worse quality, but possibly even dangerous.

i know you probably had your mind made up on this dispute before you actually looked at the facts, but if you do wish to take a position of oppostion to the action taking place, it is advisable to base your points on factual information

regards

by pension person - site worker Wed Feb 22, 2006 21:35

It is interesting to see that the comments that are made about building workers pensions payments show that people don’t understand mush about the working of the pension scheme .
The pension scheme is run by an executives committee comprising of workers reps and employer reps, they over see the running of the pension scheme and administration of it Paddy O Shaughnessy the GS of Batu is on it as well as sIPTU REPS .The monitoring agency that chase non compliant builders is made up of union offices ,the unions are paid large sums of money to chase non compliant builders and can take them as far as the civil courts ,Unions in the construction industry get paid from a levy paid by each worker and that money goes to the unions for ach case they procure . the unions can be paid up to and more than €200,000 per year depending on how many cases they take each year ,i think its about €700 per case but i maybe wrong .
so between the employers and the unions who meet no less than once a month you would think that it would be easy to make every body comply with the pension scheme ,but not so ,by the way this has been going on for years hundreds of thousands of pounds and euro paid to unions and still 100,000 to 150000, not registered in the scheme
SO WHO IS TO BLAME IN A TIME WHEN EVERY BODY IS TALKING ABOUT VALUE FOR MONEY THIS SEEMS LIKE A BRUTAL DEAL FOR THE BUILDING WORKERS BUT A GREAT EARNER FOR THE UNIONS ..AS THEY CALL ITTHEMSELFS ==== THE BOUNTY
AND YOU THOUGHT COLLEN BROS WERE DOING AN INJUSTICE

by Keith Fri Feb 24, 2006 09:02 k_mac_83 at hotmail dot com

I'm so glad everyone can tell me what I saw on Monday and Tuesday because i was in fact there watching and even had to drive through the protesters to get to college. After I had parked I went back up to see what was happening. Let me state exactly what I actually saw at about 8.15 on both days. The Gardaí had formed a line across the construction site entrance. Some protesters were marching peacefully. There was another group pushing against the Gardaí. Perhaps they weren't trying to get in but they were definitely pushing.

Another group were in the middle of the crowd shouting, and i quote, "you bunch of f*cking w*nkers". This was before the front page on the Herald. I'm not surprised the Gardaí responded roughly as, from what I read in the papers, the protesters had also been threatening and jeering the people who worked on the site.

In my previous post I said I "heard" that a girl had been injured. I did not say she was injured by protesters. My point in mentioning it was to show that when badly organised protests without Union support happen they will always end up with someone being injured.

You still have not shown me any proof that they are discriminating against union workers. Unfortunately I cannot ask the 100,000 workers because I'm a bit pushed for time these days. Perhaps if you could tell me when exactly Collen ask a potential employee if they are a member of a trade union. This part of my previous post was not an argument in favour of Collen. I was merely looking for some actual information.

When i mentioned migrant workers I was talking about people from outside the local area, not just outside the country. My point here is that if a company ( in any industry) has two people looking for a job and a non local person is the better qualified why should they be required to hire the local?

I take offence to Indymedias addition to my post stating it is completely false. Perhaps they could tell me which part? They could have at least emailed me and asked me to clarify or back up my remarks. I suppose it's my own fault for thinking this site was an unbiased.