Luas strike general thread (mandatory: read warning in post #1)

trellheim · 17-02-2016 9:08pm

why would the tourists care so much ? except for Smithfield and the HopStore it doesnt affect them so much as Genpop

Cookie_Monster · 17-02-2016 9:23pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

If you are going to allow a company give their money away to people* and then claim it's loss making, we are going to have to disagree on profit and loss.

* because that's what dividends are.

that's not what dividends are. they are a form of return on your investment into the company, not just throwing money at "people". similar concept to paying interest on debt at the end of the day but just treated differently.

If it was debt instead you could hardly decide not to pay the interest owing and claim you made on a profit on that basis.

KD345 · 17-02-2016 10:17pm

I know the importance of St. Patrick's Day, but Luas actually run a Sunday service on that day. Trams operate at a reduced frequency compared to a normal Thursday. In the case of the Red Line, a large chunk of the route has no service at all for a period of St. Patrick's Day. Both lines don't start until 7am and the last tram is at 11.30.

You could argue the drivers are actually choosing a less disruptive day to withdraw service.

cdebru · 17-02-2016 10:38pm

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

Murph_D you are leaving out taxation and dividends??
These bring the company into "retained losses" territory every year

operating profits are falling every year and with the new 5year contract reportedly with tighter margins this might be the source of the "700k" loss ?(after tax and divis of course :P)

It's the weakness of the tendering model, it restricts the operator from reacting to changes in the economy, 1or 2 % wage increases may have seemed reasonable when transdev were bidding but are unrealistic now, also to win contracts operators have to cost in minimal wage increases to ensure winning the contract, and then are unable to meet pay demands irrespective of economic conditions, that leads us to the current impasse back to the drawing board on tendering we have discovered what others discovered years ago it has a huge weakness, maybe the NTA can top up wages ala TFL style.

Peppa Pig · 18-02-2016 11:48am

KD345 wrote: »

I know the importance of St. Patrick's Day, but Luas actually run a Sunday service on that day. Trams operate at a reduced frequency compared to a normal Thursday. In the case of the Red Line, a large chunk of the route has no service at all for a period of St. Patrick's Day. Both lines don't start until 7am and the last tram is at 11.30.

You could argue the drivers are actually choosing a less disruptive day to withdraw service.

Like Irish rail did when they targetted the All Ireland final Sundays?
A huge amount of people would use the luas to get to the parade on Paddy's day.

This is not SIPTU growing a conscience - it's the exact opposite.

LXFlyer · 18-02-2016 11:58am

KD345 wrote: »

I know the importance of St. Patrick's Day, but Luas actually run a Sunday service on that day. Trams operate at a reduced frequency compared to a normal Thursday. In the case of the Red Line, a large chunk of the route has no service at all for a period of St. Patrick's Day. Both lines don't start until 7am and the last tram is at 11.30.

You could argue the drivers are actually choosing a less disruptive day to withdraw service.

To be fair the service is an amended one on St Patrick's Day and not a normal Sunday service. It's effectively a weekday service during the day with all of the extra trams that operate.

You are right to say that there isn't a normal morning/evening peak, but there is an intensive service from mid-morning to late afternoon to cope with the extra demand travelling to/from the city centre.

So it will have a major impact in terms of getting people in and out of the city on that day on those corridors.

PeadarCo · 18-02-2016 12:37pm

cdebru wrote: »

It's the weakness of the tendering model, it restricts the operator from reacting to changes in the economy, 1or 2 % wage increases may have seemed reasonable when transdev were bidding but are unrealistic now, also to win contracts operators have to cost in minimal wage increases to ensure winning the contract, and then are unable to meet pay demands irrespective of economic conditions, that leads us to the current impasse back to the drawing board on tendering we have discovered what others discovered years ago it has a huge weakness, maybe the NTA can top up wages ala TFL style.

Is that what is so good about the tendering model and why it should be replicated over the entire transport Network.. Service providers have to provide a cost efficient and that means wages. That means staff have to be able to justify any increases either via productivity or general inflation increases.

Staff and unions can't just demand pay increases for the craic. The fact that the company can go bust or lose subsequent tenders means they won't roll over to union blackmail.

Unions were/are set up to protect vunerable workers. LUAS workers are anything but vunerable in the grand scheme of things.

cdebru · 18-02-2016 1:21pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that what is so good about the tendering model and why it should be replicated over the entire transport Network.. Service providers have to provide a cost efficient and that means wages. That means staff have to be able to justify any increases either via productivity or general inflation increases.

Staff and unions can't just demand pay increases for the craic. The fact that the company can go bust or lose subsequent tenders means they won't roll over to union blackmail.

Unions were/are set up to protect vunerable workers. LUAS workers are anything but vunerable in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah its working really well at the moment, and what happens when wages fall behind the rest of the economy and you can't attract workers ? That was the situation faces by TFL and they had to subsidise wages, a similar situation occurred in DB in the late 90s, when they couldn't attract or retain employees, and they had to fairly dramatically increase wages, you can't do that when you are tied into fixed price contracts and you end up where we are with the luas, billions spent on it and its not running over a couple of million euro.

Also just to add the company may well lose the contract because they have failed to meet targets because of lost days, the workers will not lose their jobs however they will transfer to the new operator, the straight jacket of fixed price contracts is clearly not the panacea to the ills of public transport some were hoping for.

PeadarCo · 18-02-2016 1:43pm

cdebru wrote: »

Yeah its working really well at the moment, and what happens when wages fall behind the rest of the economy and you can't attract workers ? That was the situation faces by TFL and they had to subsidise wages, a similar situation occurred in DB in the late 90s, when they couldn't attract or retain employees, and they had to fairly dramatically increase wages, you can't do that when you are tied into fixed price contracts and you end up where we are with the luas, billions spent on it and its not running over a couple of million euro.

Also just to add the company may well lose the contract because they have failed to meet targets because of lost days, the workers will not lose their jobs however they will transfer to the new operator, the straight jacket of fixed price contracts is clearly not the panacea to the ills of public transport some were hoping for.

Wages are automatically factored in in the tendering process. A company will tender for the amount where they feel they can make a profit. They'll factor in wages in the tendering process. If they feel they need to increase wages to attract qualified staff they'll raise it then. If they feel they can get the same work done for less they'll also factor that it.

I don't think there'd be a lack of job applications if the jobs were put out for application tomorrow.

A couple of million euro would go along way in helping all the homeless people, help out the health service etc. Luas drivers are extremely well paid for the work they do at their current salary never mind what they're asking for. I'd have no problem with giving subsidies for public transport but every penny should be justified as its taking resources away from other area's.

Murph_D · 18-02-2016 4:24pm

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

Murph_D you are leaving out taxation and dividends??
These bring the company into "retained losses" territory every year

operating profits are falling every year and with the new 5year contract reportedly with tighter margins this might be the source of the "700k" loss ?(after tax and divis of course :P)

I'm not leaving out anything - just taking the figures published in the account excerpts as Profits (before tax). Tax is a percentage of profits, so can't turn profit into loss. I don't know if dividends, interest, amortisation etc have been factored in - that's the problem with account excerpts, they don't tell you very much.

All I'm doing is questioning the 700k loss the company is claiming. No one seems to have seen the numbers that produce this -700,000 figure. What if Transdev Ireland is paying a huge "royalty" to its French parent? Or paying exorbitant interest on an inter-company loan? Or paying unjustifiably large dividends to its shareholders (the French government, from what I can make out). Not saying they are - it's just that we can't be sure that they are not.

It's one aspect of the story, that's all. The company brought it up. Everyone is hammering the drivers for the 53% figure, so in the interests of balance it would be nice to know how this loss was arrived at, considering we KNOW the underlying business is profitable from its own published accounts.

Idbatterim · 18-02-2016 4:31pm

the only question that is important to me, is their current pay reasonable & are their pay claims reasonable. With the increases they are looking for and if there are going to be continued strikes and they are polls apart and the company knows its bottom line. They should simply shut the entire thing, that will force the issue pretty quickly... either reach a quick agreement or let them start looking for other jobs...

Murph_D · 18-02-2016 8:04pm

So the suggestion is a lockout. For the year that's in it, like?

Peppa Pig · 18-02-2016 8:32pm

Murph_D wrote: »

So the suggestion is a lockout. For the year that's in it, like?

The 103rd anniversary of the lockout

Mind you if Larkin and Connolly were around now would they be claiming that Transdev are exploiting the workers? Doubt it.

In 1913 we had tram drivers going on strike preventing the well to do from getting to the horse show. Over a hundred years later we have tram drivers threatening to stop ordinary workers and their families from getting to the Paddy's day parade.

As Dougal would say, its mad Ted.

syklops · 18-02-2016 10:27pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

the only question that is important to me, is their current pay reasonable & are their pay claims reasonable. With the increases they are looking for and if there are going to be continued strikes and they are polls apart and the company knows its bottom line. They should simply shut the entire thing, that will force the issue pretty quickly... either reach a quick agreement or let them start looking for other jobs...

As I understand it they went to TransDev management wanting X more. TransDev basically laughed and said No. So they went on strike.

60k and 27 days holidays is the sort of package a senior software engineer gets. A role which requires serious technical knowledge and years of experience. Should someone who can sit a 6 week course be entitled to the same amount? No, I don't think so.

Vic_08 · 19-02-2016 12:28am

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that what is so good about the tendering model and why it should be replicated over the entire transport Network.. Service providers have to provide a cost efficient and that means wages. That means staff have to be able to justify any increases either via productivity or general inflation increases.

Tendering is just outsourcing or subcontracting by another name, it is a very good way of insulating the real bosses (in this case the NTA) from the messy business of dealing with unpleasant staff issues.

The problem with using this model for rail transport is that it relies on the contractor being able to force pay and conditions on staff to keep costs down and profits up, a strategy that doesn't work well in a specialised industry with low staff turnover and strong unionisation.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Staff and unions can't just demand pay increases for the craic. The fact that the company can go bust or lose subsequent tenders means they won't roll over to union blackmail.

They can always just shut up shop and hand the keys back to the NTA as other operators have done when the financial situation has become unfavourable for them, if their business is not set up to allow them to do this and still come out of the venture in overall profit then their lawyers and accountants are not worth a crap.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Unions were/are set up to protect vunerable workers. LUAS workers are anything but vunerable in the grand scheme of things.

Unions were set up to represent their members, if you want someone to act as social justice warriors then the general election is on next week, I suggest you cast your vote accordingly.

The Luas drivers pay their dues to SIPTU and are perfectly entitled to have them represent their wishes however they decide.

Vic_08 · 19-02-2016 1:06am

syklops wrote: »

60k and 27 days holidays is the sort of package a senior software engineer gets. A role which requires serious technical knowledge and years of experience. Should someone who can sit a 6 week course be entitled to the same amount? No, I don't think so.

Ireland is not a meritocracy, get over it. I am sick to death of graduates and IT types bemoaning the unfairness of their (taxpayer funded) degrees not allowing them to walk in to the high paying, high status job they believe they are entitled to.

If a tram driver can get the same as a senior software engineer then those are the breaks, those tram driving jobs were open to Mr software engineer to apply for as well.

Life isn't fair and pay rates for jobs are certainly not.

Is it fair that someone with an IQ in the 80s can earn 100 times that of a junior doctor saving lives in a A+E department just because he can kick a ball around a field?

Is it fair that scumbags that don't contribute a thing to society get to live entire lives paid for by others?

Is it fair that the bank chiefs and stock market gamblers get to live it up in their mansions while the rest of the world paid for their actions?

Why should a tram driver or any other worker have to morally justify their pay rate to your or anyone else's satisfaction? If they are in a position to force a better wage out of their employer then fair fukks to them because it is only exactly whay you or anyone else here would do in the same situation.

Everyone in Ireland loves a cute hoor until their day is inconvenienced when they are suddenly the worst thing since aul Mr. Brennans.

In the league table of people in Ireland who have gotten something they are undeserving of a tram driver on 60k wouldn't even register on the chart.

*Just for the record, my opinion of the merit of their demand for equality with heavy rail drivers is that there is none. The jobs are worlds apart in terms of training, ability and competencies required.

Frankly if I was an IE driver and the LUAS boyos got their 60k I would be immediately demanding at least 100k to reflect my rightful place above them, I would also recommend all you overworked senior software engineers do the same, cant be earning the same as a damn tram driver after all.

Cookie_Monster · 19-02-2016 4:00am

Vic_08 wrote: »

They can always just shut up shop and hand the keys back to the NTA as other operators have done when the financial situation has become unfavourable for them, if their business is not set up to allow them to do this and still come out of the venture in overall profit then their lawyers and accountants are not worth a crap.

doesn't solve the issue though because of the ridiculous TUPE rules. the current staff would have to be taken on by the new operator and the same mess would re-occur.

PeadarCo · 19-02-2016 8:57am

Vic_08 wrote:

The problem with using this model for rail transport is that it relies on the contractor being able to force pay and conditions on staff to keep costs down and profits up, a strategy that doesn't work well in a specialised industry with low staff turnover and strong unionisation.

To be honest if you wanted to make an argument to ban unions you couldn't have done it better. The role of tendering is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Surely Ryanair as Ireland's most successful transport company shows that if you want good quality transport at a reasonable cost don't deal with unions.

It should also be pointed out that any job that only requires 6-10 weeks training can't be called specialised. Maybe if it took a year or two yes. I'd say the reason for the low staff turnover is the relative ease of the job and lack of options outside it.

What Luas drivers have to understand the luas is run for the benefit of the public and not them.

kildarecommuter · 19-02-2016 10:21am

WRC inviting both sides in next week...

n97 mini · 19-02-2016 11:19am

PeadarCo wrote: »

What Luas drivers have to understand the luas is run for the benefit of the public and not them.

I think Luas drivers generally start out believing that, but then the union types start working on them.

cdebru · 19-02-2016 12:00pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

doesn't solve the issue though because of the ridiculous TUPE rules. the current staff would have to be taken on by the new operator and the same mess would re-occur.

Outsourcing requires tupe just to maintain services, if every 5 years all the luas employees lost their job along with the contractor losing the contract, or had to apply for their position on new terms and pay rates you would at a minimum have a disruption in service, as well as making any employment with luas undesirable to say the least.

cdebru · 19-02-2016 12:12pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be honest if you wanted to make an argument to ban unions you couldn't have done it better. The role of tendering is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Surely Ryanair as Ireland's most successful transport company shows that if you want good quality transport at a reasonable cost don't deal with unions.

It should also be pointed out that any job that only requires 6-10 weeks training can't be called specialised. Maybe if it took a year or two yes. I'd say the reason for the low staff turnover is the relative ease of the job and lack of options outside it.

What Luas drivers have to understand the luas is run for the benefit of the public and not them.

And realistically that is not going to happen, so how do you deal with the reality, rather than the way you want it to be.
Comparisons to Ryanair don't translate to LUAS, Ryanair is not the sole operator of a state funded piece of very expensive infrastructure. It's not possible to ban unions, an employer can refuse to deal with them but that won't necessarily make them go away especially when they are already established.

Luas is run for the benefit of the public, but that does not mean employees cannot look to improve their conditions of employment, and to withdraw their labour when met with a brickwall, run for the public does not mean employees have to accept any old sh1t.

howiya · 19-02-2016 12:22pm

cdebru wrote: »

And realistically that is not going to happen, so how do you deal with the reality, rather than the way you want it to be.
Comparisons to Ryanair don't translate to LUAS, Ryanair is not the sole operator of a state funded piece of very expensive infrastructure. It's not possible to ban unions, an employer can refuse to deal with them but that won't necessarily make them go away especially when they are already established.

Luas is run for the benefit of the public, but that does not mean employees cannot look to improve their conditions of employment, and to withdraw their labour when met with a brickwall, run for the public does not mean employees have to accept any old sh1t.

While I agree with the rights of workers to withdraw their labour, there's a world of difference between accepting any old sh1t and the current conditions of Luas staff.

PeadarCo · 19-02-2016 12:35pm

cdebru wrote: »

Luas is run for the benefit of the public, but that does not mean employees cannot look to improve their conditions of employment, and to withdraw their labour when met with a brickwall, run for the public does not mean employees have to accept any old sh1t.

Heres the think I don't have an issue with unions in general and consider them to be a very valuable ally for genuinely vulnerable workers. LUAS workers are incredibly well paid for what they do.

Its the attitude espoused by you that a union/strike can never be wrong endangers the rights livelyhood of vulnerable workers. They've provided companies a very effective argument to not recognise them.

Also anybody who thinks you can't get rid of unions hasn't made attention to developments in the private sector over the last 20/30 years.

PeadarCo · 19-02-2016 12:38pm

cdebru wrote: »

Outsourcing requires tupe just to maintain services, if every 5 years all the luas employees lost their job along with the contractor losing the contract, or had to apply for their position on new terms and pay rates you would at a minimum have a disruption in service, as well as making any employment with luas undesirable to say the least.

There are plenty of unemployed people who would gladly take the jobs on offer. As for only having a job for 5 years, well welcome to the real world. At the end of the day if it deliver the best value for the taxpayer its what should be done.

Providing workers pay is reasonable(Which the LUAS pay by any objective measure is) any pay increases out of line with inflation should only be done if they will result in an improvement in service for the customer.

Murph_D · 19-02-2016 12:41pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that any job that only requires 6-10 weeks training can't be called specialised. Maybe if it took a year or two yes. I'd say the reason for the low staff turnover is the relative ease of the job and lack of options outside it.

Where did you get the 6-10 weeks figure from? The published salary scales mention two induction periods (A and

of 26 weeks each. I'd consider this a training period. Not sure how this works but if drivers have to pass through both scales there's your "year or two".

PeadarCo · 19-02-2016 12:45pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Where did you get the 6-10 weeks figure from? The published salary scales mention two induction periods (A and of 26 weeks each. I'd consider this a training period. Not sure how this works but if drivers have to pass through both scales there's your "year or two".

Other boards users so I'm open to correction.

TheExile1878 · 19-02-2016 2:30pm

SIPTU was founded (in part) by the great James Connolly.

I'm sure if he heard the workers wanted a 53% pay rise and we're striking, he'd spin in his grave.

They're greedy gob****es and should be given a bloody good smack!

n97 mini · 19-02-2016 3:02pm

Saw this on twitter. Interesting read.

Whiskeyjack · 19-02-2016 3:50pm

Vic_08 wrote: »

Why should a tram driver or any other worker have to morally justify their pay rate to your or anyone else's satisfaction? If they are in a position to force a better wage out of their employer then fair fukks to them because it is only exactly whay you or anyone else here would do in the same situation.

Because like it or not Luas drivers are public servants, maybe not technically because it's a private company (Ireland's great for that magical happy fantasy land where a company can have all the unaccountability of the Private sector with the security and monopoly of the public sector), but thousands of people in Dublin are dependent on them because they have no competitors to turn to when they strike.

Software developers striking means that some other company that pays their employees fairly steps in, people in retail striking means I just go to another shop. Luas/Bus/Rail strikes affect everyone significantly and they better have a damn good reason for doing so, just "forcing a better wage" isn't good enough when you're already on a pretty generous package.

Luas strike general thread (mandatory: read warning in post #1)

Comments