Striking train drivers in Cork

who_ru · 22-05-2008 5:29pm #1

saw this on the cork city board. unreal.

Dublin - Cork trains and Cobh and Mallow services canceled. One driver refused to drive his train because he was asked to move a train to facilitate driver training.

Only in this pathetic little country can a small bunch of constantly disgruntled workers hold the rail network to the south to ransom.

E92 · 22-05-2008 7:32pm

They don't know how good they have it their cushy state owned monopoly jobs with NO incentive to do better for the consumer.

They should sack the lot of drivers in Cork. This is far from the first time Cork drivers have just decided to not arse themselves into doing what us taxpayers are PAYING them to do.

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by Cork drivers yet AGAIN:mad:!

corktina · 22-05-2008 7:40pm

i think you should wait for the whole story before jumping to conclusions...

Ham'nd'egger · 22-05-2008 7:57pm

corktina wrote: »

i think you should wait for the whole story before jumping to conclusions...

The current issue boils down to qualified drivers being expected to supervise trainee drivers on the job and some complications in relation to it.

I am only speaking for myself but I think that it is entirely reasonable to expect a fully trained and competent driver in control of 500 passengers and not a guy learning the trade; imagine the furore getting onto a bus with a learner driver at the wheel.

aliveandkicking · 22-05-2008 8:29pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

The current issue boils down to qualified drivers being expected to supervise trainee drivers on the job and some complications in relation to it.

I am only speaking for myself but I think that it is entirely reasonable to expect a fully trained and competent driver in control of 500 passengers and not a guy learning the trade; imagine the furore getting onto a bus with a learner driver at the wheel.

How did the guy that's a fully trained and competent driver get fully trained and competent in the first place? You can bet your life part of his training involved having an experienced driver supervising him in the cab. Now he is refusing to do the same for someone else.

Anyway these trainee drivers will have been training on non passenger locomotives for months before being let anywhere near a passenger train.

fitzyshea · 22-05-2008 8:56pm

The guys over on rail users Ireland reckon full strike coming up! All services likely to be cancelled tomorrow!

KC61 · 22-05-2008 9:25pm

fitzyshea wrote: »

The guys over on rail users Ireland reckon full strike coming up! All services likely to be cancelled tomorrow!

I would be extremely cautious of such claims.

At the moment there is a local dispute in Cork and a nationwide work to rule, the latter of which has been ongoing for the past few months. Whether the local dispute escalates into a national one remains to be seen, but I would be surprised if it were to spread that quickly.

I have to say that I think it somewhat folly for a group who are not a party to the dispute to be making predictions with such certainty. We shall wait and see.

Ham'nd'egger · 22-05-2008 9:29pm

aliveandkicking wrote: »

How did the guy that's a fully trained and competent driver get fully trained and competent in the first place? You can bet your life part of his training involved having an experienced driver supervising him in the cab. Now he is refusing to do the same for someone else.

Anyway these trainee drivers will have been training on non passenger locomotives for months before being let anywhere near a passenger train.

By being trained properly using qualified instructors with decades more experience than them and not drivers who are unqualified to instruct. Not too long ago, drivers didn't get near an engine until 3 months into their training; today they are asked to bring an engine to and from Cork at that stage. Some on the job training was used but only towards the end of their courses when there is a higher level of competence obtained.

Under these circumstances, there is an accident waiting to happen.

superhooper · 22-05-2008 9:42pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

By being trained properly using qualified instructors with decades more experience than them and not drivers who are unqualified to instruct. Not too long ago, drivers didn't get near an engine until 3 months into their training; today they are asked to bring an engine to and from Cork at that stage. Some on the job training was used but only towards the end of their courses when there is a higher level of competence obtained.

Under these circumstances, there is an accident waiting to happen.

Seems incredible that they are being trained in by regular drivers rather than instructors!
What determines the length of time it takes to train a driver?

mikemac · 22-05-2008 9:52pm

There are many petty stupid and petty reasons to strike and Irish Rail and Bus Eireann have basically pulled all of them by now.
I still don't believe bus drivers in Limerick went on strike in 2004 because the roster was printed instead of hand-written. RTE reported but surely they can't be that ridiculous?

From this thread it seems to be a Health & Safety issue so let's not bash the unions yet. It's the most important issue of all.
I see many Dublin Bus driving going around under instruction and I don't know how Irish Rail operate but I hope they aren't skimping on training.

If I was a driver and wasn't given adequate training but ordered to drive a route I couldn't do then I'd refuse too.
But if it's a case of just looking for more money to do their job then sack the bastard!

WTF? Bastard isn't filtered on boards?

fitzyshea · 22-05-2008 10:05pm

superhooper wrote: »

Seems incredible that they are being trained in by regular drivers rather than instructors!
What determines the length of time it takes to train a driver?

It takes a year to train in new drivers.

Ham'nd'egger · 22-05-2008 10:40pm

fitzyshea wrote: »

It takes a year to train in new drivers.

It used to take 80 weeks to be fully trained just 20 years ago with applicants already certified as train guards eligible to apply. Today it is 48 weeks with the emphasis placed into on the job training as opposed to supervised training after long theory work; this time even now is being looked at for shaving.

Victor · 22-05-2008 11:15pm

micmclo wrote: »

But if it's a case of just looking for more money

I've heard many issues mentioned in the dispute and money hasn't been one.

mikemac · 22-05-2008 11:21pm

Don't take one sentance from my post and take it out of context Victor.
I clearly stated it may be a Health & Safety issue while other posters are calling for mass sackings

I was being balanced and reasonable in this debate even if it's tempting not to be

aliveandkicking · 22-05-2008 11:39pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

It used to take 80 weeks to be fully trained just 20 years ago with applicants already certified as train guards eligible to apply. Today it is 48 weeks with the emphasis placed into on the job training as opposed to supervised training after long theory work; this time even now is being looked at for shaving.

48 weeks training compares well with international best practice of training train drivers. Just because in IE it took 80 weeks 20 years ago doesn't mean it was the best way back then.

Ham'nd'egger · 22-05-2008 11:51pm

aliveandkicking wrote: »

48 weeks training compares well with international best practice of training train drivers. Just because in IE it took 80 weeks 20 years ago doesn't mean it was the best way back then.

True; there is elements that have been dispensed with over the years so the times will come down naturally. Work is they want it down even longer; 26 is what they want to achieve.

aliveandkicking · 23-05-2008 12:13am

Hamndegger wrote: »

True; there is elements that have been dispensed with over the years so the times will come down naturally. Work is they want it down even longer; 26 is what they want to achieve.

26 would certainly be insufficient especially if that includes route training aswell.

covert · 23-05-2008 6:17am

Hamndegger wrote: »

The current issue boils down to qualified drivers being expected to supervise trainee drivers on the job and some complications in relation to it.

I am only speaking for myself but I think that it is entirely reasonable to expect a fully trained and competent driver in control of 500 passengers and not a guy learning the trade; imagine the furore getting onto a bus with a learner driver at the wheel.

This is bullsh1t. A caricature trade union guy from Cork was on the Last Word yesterday evening, and even he said the train the driver was told to drive was for training purposes, i.e. no passengers on board, just trainees observing a qualified guy driving.

Yoda · 23-05-2008 7:14am

I got to Westport station at 06:45 and I (and many others) were turned away. The driver did not turn up for the 07:00 train. I asked the CIÉ representative if this were related to the Cork action. He said yes. I asked if the mid-day or evening trains would be running. He said he had no idea.

I am well and truly annoyed.

Yoda · 23-05-2008 7:15am

KC61 wrote: »

Whether the local dispute escalates into a national one remains to be seen, but I would be surprised if it were to spread that quickly.

I have to say that I think it somewhat folly for a group who are not a party to the dispute to be making predictions with such certainty. We shall wait and see.

We didn't have to wait long.

corktina · 23-05-2008 7:35am

possibly the issue is that training should be an Instructers job and driving a drivers job....perhaps this driver felt that he couldnt safely drive the train whilst training someone else..

..dont under-estimate the job a train driver does, there is a LOT resting on his shoulders and a moments distraction can be fatal. Maybe he felt that he himself had insufficent training to drive the unit.(I assume the trian in question is one of the new Inter City units....?)

KC61 · 23-05-2008 7:56am

Yoda wrote: »

We didn't have to wait long.

Unfortunately there are more cancellations, but all Dublin, Sligo, Limerick, Waterford and Rosslare based duties, along with DART and Commuter services in the Dublin area are still running.

That was not what was implied last night on that board.

KC61 · 23-05-2008 8:13am

The particular issue yesterday was that a driver who was rostered to be based in Cork yesterday as a pilot locomotive driver, i.e. a driver who will be available to shunt rolling stock around the station as required, was then asked to instead to take another train out of Cork for the purposes of driver training. In other words, he would drive a train to another location and return (say Mallow or Charleville) while some trainee drivers would observe how he drove the train.

This is standard practice, and (as I understand it) part of a driver's normal duties. It had nothing to do with new trains, but was for the purposes of new trainee drivers observing a fully trained driver at work. The train in question would have been out of service, with no passengers on board.

What happened was that the driver said that he was rostered as the pilot locomotive driver and nothing else and as such refused to drive the other train.

This boils back to the current work-to-rule which relates to the ongoing talks over the wider issue of drivers' working conditions (in which there are valid arguments on both sides).

However, I would have to say that this particular action is an escalation too far, in that it is the duty of management to decide what tasks an employee does in the course of his day, within his/her working hours and his/her terms of employment, not an employee. Basically the driver decided yesterday that he was employed to drive one particular locomotive and nothing else.

There needs to be a cooling down period and some serious talking done to resolve this dispute, as with summer holidays approaching there will be fewer and fewer drivers available to cover annual leave, and more cancellations will follow.

Yoda · 23-05-2008 8:24am

KC61 wrote: »

What happened was that the driver said that he was rostered as the pilot locomotive driver and nothing else and as such refused to drive the other train. [...]
Basically the driver decided yesterday that he was employed to drive one particular locomotive and nothing else.

And the Westport line drivers decided that he was right? :eek:

PRND · 23-05-2008 8:29am

I bet Aircoach are rubbing their hands with glee. Why would people continue to take the train if they can't rely on it. This reminds me of the UK's car industry strikes. At a time when they should have been trying to be as profitable as possible in the face of competition they went on endless strikes with little public support. The outcome? The largest British owned car manufacturer is the London Taxi maker LTi.

KC61 · 23-05-2008 8:50am

Yoda wrote: »

And the Westport line drivers decided that he was right? :eek:

The driver in question was suspended by management after refusing to drive the train and other drivers in Cork, Tralee, Galway, Athlone and Westport have now walked out in sympathy.

As I say both sides need to calm the situation down, and get some serious talking and knocking of heads done to resolve the immediate and underlying issues.

Heisenberg. · 23-05-2008 8:56am

This post has been deleted.

ixoy · 23-05-2008 9:20am

KC61 wrote: »

The driver in question was suspended by management after refusing to drive the train and other drivers in Cork, Tralee, Galway, Athlone and Westport have now walked out in sympathy.

Sympathy? Sympathy for what - that he was disciplined for not doing his job? Absolute farce.

What by the way are the drivers looking for in their "work to rule" stance - will more money suddenly make them more accomodating? Or would they be happy to have their same wage and extra staff brought in?

KC61 · 23-05-2008 9:45am

ixoy wrote: »

Sympathy? Sympathy for what - that he was disciplined for not doing his job? Absolute farce.

What by the way are the drivers looking for in their "work to rule" stance - will more money suddenly make them more accomodating? Or would they be happy to have their same wage and extra staff brought in?

The work to rule has nothing to do with money. It is (as I understand it) to do with working conditions, such as working hours, and other safety related issues. The negotiations have been ongoing since 2007 and the drivers feel that nothing is progressing with them, hence the introduction of a work to rule.

Yesterday's action, while related, is to say the least ill-advised, and to be honest amounts almost to anarchy on the part of the driver, as it effectively boils down to an employee dictating to management how he will do his job.

seamus · 23-05-2008 9:46am

Trade Union guy on NewsTalk this morning trying to fluff his way through it. The driver in question has a standard "other duties as required" clause in his contract. The union guy tried to say, "Down in Cork this is understood to mean 'emergencies only'". Since when did "as required" ever mean, "emergencies only"?

Typical state union people - absolutely no idea what it is to do a normal job, and any excuse to strike and sit on their lazy arses at full pay.

The state should pay another country's rail service money to train in 100 drivers, then hire them into Ireland a six-month contract. When the union drivers strike, give them two options - get back to work or **** off.

ixoy · 23-05-2008 9:58am

KC61 wrote: »

The work to rule has nothing to do with money. It is (as I understand it) to do with working conditions, such as working hours, and other safety related issues. The negotiations have been ongoing since 2007 and the drivers feel that nothing is progressing with them, hence the introduction of a work to rule.

So they need more people then to work the hours right? It's the only possible answer (other than cut down the timetable). So that would involve training new people in to work the hours they don't feel safe working? Well refusing to help train in those new drivers isn't going to help that issue...

Striking train drivers in Cork

Comments