Irish Rail - Risk of Strike Action

end of the road wrote: »

they are not greedy or self serving. the strike was necessary

Necessary even though they got fired and their families fell into poverty, but its a victory.

Next time I lose at something in a humiliating fashion I'm going to use your logic and say I won. Everybody wins.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Hilly Bill wrote: »

How so?

If a person is able to avail of a perk which is not officially backed by their company it is still an inherent perk.

I.e Jimmy the DART driver gets on a bus, says to Tony the Bus Driver 'Hey, I'm a DART driver'. Tony lets Jimmy on for free.

Ask any DART driver, it exists.

where does it exist

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Oh really, so what exact proof can you offer that shows the EU standards that Irish Rail operates to is somehow better in Ireland than the rest of the EU ??? Hell I'll even take you showing me proof of Irish Rail drivers being of a "higher standard" than their EU counterparts. Can't offer any didn't think so

For the record and transparency I worked in Irish Rail so I'm well aware of requirements, standards and policies at International, EU and Irish level in relation to it and the fact that they are all the same EU wide.

So again your point is mute, but please do continue

i don't believe you worked at irish rail. no irish rail employee past or present would show the blatent contempt you do for our boys. just wouldn't happen.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Necessary even though they got fired and their families fell into poverty, but its a victory.

Next time I lose at something in a humiliating fashion I'm going to use your logic and say I won. Everybody wins.

that post referred to irish rail drivers. the ATC is off topic and not being discussed any more by me as i've said my bit on it. done, dusted.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So says you, but funnily enough the majority of people in this thread (and elsewhere seem to think differently)

the majority of people elsewhere? did you do a survey as i'd love to see it.

lxflyer wrote: »

The bottom line in terms of where the company is currently from a financial perspective is that the revenue from passengers dropped significantly in a very short space of time, while at the same time costs did not fall in the same manner.

PSO funding fell as a result of the passenger numbers dropping - that's a fact of life.

I get the impression some people want to have their cake and eat it.

IE should be able to operate in a cost effective manner, and with best commercial practices - that is what, as a taxpayer, I would expect. Doing that, should result, after PSO funding is taken into account, in the company at the very least breaking even.

It certainly should not be a bottomless pit in which to shovel state funding.

Passenger numbers fell of course but the subsidy was cut far in excess of those numbers falling. Even though the trains mightve been reduced in size the services themselves still ran.

I agree the company should be run at best value but at the same time an evenhanded apporoach shouls be taken as well. You cant simply say well give you an increase for these productivity measures and then when the drivers give their share for the company to turn around and say they want more instead of living up to their end. Not doing so leads to breakdown in trust and industrial mayhem.

Also have to ask questions as to why things were allowed to deteriorate this far in the 1st place. These things dont pop up out of nowhere and I would believe the unions saying that the company is acting the bollocks and question the management what the hells happening. Multiple sources in the media are quoting the company negotiation team for being the ones at fault since any progress thats made is immediately shot down whenever the company negotiators went away to talk to their bosses instead of those bosses being in the room in the 1st place. That leads me to be believe management seemed happy enough to let this happen. These talks went on for two weeks and nothings come of then. There was warning of this months ago and again nothing. That makes me believe Franks is blocking everything.

Realistically noone wanta to strike but a time comes when you have to stand up to be taken seriously or you just get walked all over.

end of the road wrote: »

that post referred to irish rail drivers. the ATC is off topic and not being discussed any more by me as i've said my bit on it. done, dusted.

Yet you quoted Ctrl_Alt's post about Regan and the ATC strike and offer a rebuttal about he is wrong but you are not talking about them?

That seems like some of that fancy logic.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

So did we have to wait for a driver change and that delayed the start to 0940?
There were 4 trains due to depart Bray between 0900 and 0932, if drivers only clocked in at 0900, would at least 1 or 2 of them not have been clocking in at Bray or Greystones and been able to operate 1 or 2 of the trains?
Is there normally a significant gap between someone clocking in and starting to drive a train?

Well given you have DART drivers operating out of both Fairview and Bray, yes you probably would.

Those DARTs before 09:40 may be rostered for Fairview drivers - they presumably would have been still in Fairview.

The 09:40 may be a Bray roster.

That's the problem - drivers would be in the wrong location.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

That's your prerogative but having worked in procurement over a number of years there it means I've a very in depth understanding of engineering & driving standards as well as other Irish Rail operations, so any kind of tripe you throw at me I will have an actual answer

you haven't had an answer so far. just insulting the drivers

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

not just the generalisations you come out with.

there have been no generalizations from me

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

at the end of the day you are so one sided and blinded to the fact that you have to support "our boys" you can't actually see the wood from the trees

yes, i will support and respect our boys for standing up for themselves. its my duty as far as i'm concerned to support anyone whoever they may be standing up for themselves by striking. workers rights. i will always cary out my duty

Infini2 wrote: »

Passenger numbers fell of course but the subsidy was cut far in excess of those numbers falling. Even though the trains mightve been reduced in size the services themselves still ran.

I agree the company should be run at best value but at the same time an evenhanded apporoach shouls be taken as well. You cant simply say well give you an increase for these productivity measures and then when the drivers give their share for the company to turn around and say they want more instead of living up to their end. Not doing so leads to breakdown in trust and industrial mayhem.

Also have to ask questions as to why things were allowed to deteriorate this far in the 1st place. These things dont pop up out of nowhere and I would believe the unions saying that the company is acting the bollocks and question the management what the hells happening. Multiple sources in the media are quoting the company negotiation team for being the ones at fault since any progress thats made is immediately shot down whenever the company negotiators went away to talk to their bosses instead of those bosses being in the room in the 1st place. That leads me to be believe management seemed happy enough to let this happen. These talks went on for two weeks and nothings come of then. There was warning of this months ago and again nothing. That makes me believe Franks is blocking everything.

Realistically noone wanta to strike but a time comes when you have to stand up to be taken seriously or you just get walked all over.

Sorry, but the drop in PSO subsidy is not the real reason for this. It would not make up the difference. It's a convenient smokescreen. The bottom line is that company costs remained too high while passenger revenue tanked, and the costs were not cut quickly enough - people may not want to hear it, but that is the reality. And in any company the biggest cost is normally payroll.


I'm not sure how you can quite blame management for not seeing the recession coming - no one did. But most companies responded rapidly to it. IE had to go through rounds and rounds of protracted negotiations for several years, while losses continued to mount, and nothing happened on that front until 2014. That simply is nonsensical, and to me, as someone who did take a large reduction in pay in 2009 in order that I might still have a job to go to, and as a taxpayer, it frankly is not acceptable.


CEOs don't normally attend HR negotiations - but of course they will ultimately have the final say - that's their job.

look lads, this isn't about the financial state of IR

in all of railway history , the drivers always had a particular position of power, unlike most grades on the railway, they are needed on a daily basis

as a result that gives them considerable industrial muscle, and they use that from time to time. the exact reasons are irrelevant.

The state has a long history of powerful trade union groups holding key industries to ransom, witness the deep water port strike in Waterford for example, a strike that destroyed the port.

IN this regard IR has ultimately two choices, whinge, moan and twist in the wind, and pay up , or shut the system down.

so they will pay up and the nett result , is that more and more state subvention goes into IR salaries and less and less goes into the infrastructure. the staff get a little richer , the rail system gets a little poorer and more " cost cutting " exercises are then undertaken . This usually involves not replacing staff, so that existing staff get put upon and then look for more money, . wash, dry and repeat

the end result is a mainline train system, with a halt in Dublin and Cork with two trains, 6 very expensive drivers , and three passengers paying 1000 euros a pop

CosmicJay wrote: »

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No but it's still considered a perk, non - cash items are still a bonus.

I know you wouldn't be the most up to date on Ptax and Revenue guidelines but all I'll say is trust me.

Now i know that you are just taking the proverbials.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There's nothing to indicate that Irish Rail are being paid anywhere near enough, for providing adequate quality - people can't complain of bad quality, while simultaneously encouraging slashing of costs.

It's the simple narrative threads like this keep rolling back to:
It's pointed out how if you want good quality, you have to pay for it, and that at present not enough is being paid to provide it - and then it just keeps devolving back to soundbites which split up those two concepts "quality is not good enough", "they shouldn't complain about their pay" etc. - without any connection of the two, and realization that there needs to be a lot more funding to achieve a quality service.

Nobody is going to provide a quality service, at current funding levels - there needs to be a huge increase.

There's nothing to indicate that they aren't being paid too much, as BoatMad above said its a dying, aging, horribly inefficient state run body who needs to hand the keys over to a state body or company that can actually do the job.

So they striked (stroke?) and are now back at work.
Assuming neither side budges do the unions have a mandate already for another strike or have they to go back to ballot again?