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

cdebru · 09-03-2016 12:51am

doc11 wrote: »

The Luas wasn't build for free, I don't see how you can forget about the hundreds of millions in capital and finance cost by treating every penny of current revenue after wages as profit to be divided among workers.The proposition is laughable.

Who said every penny ? People losing the run of themselves the claim was fares would rise to pay for any pay settlement, merely pointing out that the RPA estimated a €30 million surplus over the term of this pay deal which would pay the pay deal and still leave a profit.

You are correct it wasn't built for free which makes it even more ridiculous that it will end up sitting there wasted for weeks or months instead of spending a relatively small amount of money to fix this issue. The money is there but the structure of fixed price contracts locks the people whose labour generates the profit are locked out from any share of it.

Infini · 09-03-2016 3:55am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I don't think they would have the bottle to do an all out strike. With 3 weeks notice and 5 weeks training service would be restored within 3 weeks all be it limited but it would give drivers the wake up call they need.

Not gonna happen end of. Fact is the whole contract is being shown as dodgy as hell and this is the ultimate root here. They COULD afford the increases without necessarily even having to raise fairs a cent but the way its "locked in" is showing how any productivity and work they could do is basically gonna be worth nothing so long as the contract in place blocks anything but the meager increases which are worth squat when inflations taken into account.

This will become ugly before its sorted and theres a risk of things getting worse in general over the next month because if that 10min service is attempted to be forced through without agreement in the rail it'll be the heavy rail shutting down as well. As much as people hate to accept it the last few years have left workers in various sectors far more beligerent and angry and its getting to the point that it'll take long continuous strikes before problems get sorted. As much of a pain that it might be this is the way things are going in general.

cdebru wrote: »

It is funny the begrudgery that permeats any of these discussions, it is blantant jealousy and rage at people they someone feel are inferior to themselves getting any kind of half decent wage.

I agree with this completely at times its like talking to a wall with some posters as it feels like hating for the sake of it. So what if what theyre seeking is better than your wage or others etc. If you feel you deserve better you get out there and fight for it not moan about the inconvenience because unless your willing to go the whole way including strikes noones gonna take you seriously until you show the employers and even the goverment your serious. If you dont people just walk over you until you do.

Brendan Bendar · 09-03-2016 5:42am

People will just walk over you!!

Sure sure like the Luas drivers are doing to the travelling public.

Sanctioning an all out strike is one thing, voting for it is another.

Let's see how that works out.

You seem to have little knowledge about the k I knock on effects of this pay claim.

I would be extremely surprised if the Luas drivers went on all out strike.

cdebru · 09-03-2016 10:13am

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

People will just walk over you!!

Sure sure like the Luas drivers are doing to the travelling public.

Sanctioning an all out strike is one thing, voting for it is another.

Let's see how that works out.

You seem to have little knowledge about the k I knock on effects of this pay claim.

I would be extremely surprised if the Luas drivers went on all out strike.

Reading what transdev said after the wrc, they effectively put it up to the drivres, so it is either all in or fold. Transdev seem to be of the opinion that maybe drivers voted for strike thinking it would be easy that with an election upcoming the company under pressure from government give in, but now they might be less up for the fight because they have won nothing and nearly halved their claim. We shall see what way it goes, if they don't have the balls to go all in then they don't deserve a deal and transdev will walk all over them.

Brendan Bendar · 09-03-2016 11:54am

cdebru wrote: »

Reading what transdev said after the wrc, they effectively put it up to the drivres, so it is either all in or fold. Transdev seem to be of the opinion that maybe drivers voted for strike thinking it would be easy that with an election upcoming the company under pressure from government give in, but now they might be less up for the fight because they have won nothing and nearly halved their claim. We shall see what way it goes, if they don't have the balls to go all in then they don't deserve a deal and transdev will walk all over them.

Having the 'balls' , as you put it is one thing, however having some common sense and pragmatism is another.

You use very emotive terms in your post such as "walk all over" and "having balls to go all in"

This attitude has all the hallmarks of a person or persons thirsting for conflict and confrontation in the workplace possible under the 'red tide' of the recent election.

Looking at it objectively no-one is being walked on least of all the drivers

This 'don't let them walk on you' is a phrase which would have gone out of fashion around 1914 to be honest.

This dispute will have to be resolved in some way, but I would be very surprised if the drivers come out of this without loss of earnings over all.

Idbatterim · 09-03-2016 4:27pm

I accept that the cost of living here is far higher than the UK, so i would expect wages to be higher, just not 100% higher.

I totally disagree, London would be higher than Dublin and outside of the two main cities, I found the the cost for lots of stuff actually higher in the uk and I am over there very often.

Also bear in mind that the council tax over there and proper water charges etc...

People will just walk over you!!

Sure sure like the Luas drivers are doing to the travelling public.

Sanctioning an all out strike is one thing, voting for it is another.

Let's see how that works out.

You seem to have little knowledge about the k I knock on effects of this pay claim.

I would be extremely surprised if the Luas drivers went on all out strike.

if it gets to all out strike stage, why wouldnt transdev simply start recruiting new drivers? You then have the new drivers on acceptable pay and it lays down a benchmark to them, that you would hope would stop any future piss taking.

In relation to the "loss to Dublin" when it is shut down, particularly over Patricks day etc. If this is the loss from two lines, what is the loss by having the rest of the city served by the current joke that is known as Dublins "transport network"

Dr_Bill · 09-03-2016 4:55pm

Some numbers from The Indo

What do the Luas staff want?

Siptu lodged a claim for pay rises ranging from 8.5pc to 53.8pc for four groups of staff, when claims average between 1pc to 3pc in other sectors. They have also lodged claims for a range of improvements to their terms and conditions.

What does their employer say?

Transdev says it can’t afford the claims as it suffered losses of €700,000 last year. It will consider increases between 1pc and 3pc.

What is their pay?

Tram drivers start on €35,901 a year, and progress up a scale to €42,247 a year in year nine.

cdebru wrote: »

They aren't paid 60k nor looking to be paid 60k

A 53.8% pay hike equates to €53.83k to €64.59k so for folks to turn around here and say that SIPTU and the tram drivers are not looking for a €60+ pay package is nonsense, that's the simple maths and facts!

If SIPTU isn't looking for 53.8% pay rises let them come out and say that or did some incompetent stuff up and got the decimal point wrong in the press release and meant to look for 5.38% pay rises?

Seems folks are blinkered to the inconvenient truth that the pay claim is unheard off with an awful sense of entitlement. Longer this goes on I wonder if TransDev considers pulling the plug and entering into Administration and protection of the courts all the employees would potentially lose their jobs and have to reapply with different contracts and absolutely nothing anyone could do about it.

09-03-2016 5:15pm

Dr_Bill wrote: »

..
If SIPTU isn't looking for 53.8% pay rises let them come out and say that or did some incompetent stuff up and got the decimal point wrong in the press release and meant to look for 5.38% pay rises?
..

Might be tough considering that;

Transdev published the Siptu claim - http://transdevireland.ie/assets/files/Claim%20For%20Transdev%20Employees-%202.pdf

Along with some reasonable information worth considering - http://www.transdevireland.ie/News.html?nid=7

FACT: Tram drivers on €42,247 (YR 9) are seeking a 53.8% increase to €64,993 by 2017.

Including the current pay scales - http://transdevireland.ie/assets/files/LUAS%20Transdev%20T's%20and%20C's.pdf

Some of the requests/demands

25% increase in annual leave days.
50% increase in sick pay

And a basic salary increase that looks like this when you consider the number of employees at each grade.
Grade Employee Count 5 year Additional cost 1 year additional cost per employee
Traffic Supervisors 16 1,000,000 12,500
Revenue Protection Supervisors 8 554,000 13,850
Revenue Protection Officers 37 1,650,000 8,919
Tram Drivers 172 19,500,000 22,674
Pension 233 2,000,000 1,717

cdebru · 09-03-2016 7:22pm

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Some numbers from The Indo

What do the Luas staff want?

Siptu lodged a claim for pay rises ranging from 8.5pc to 53.8pc for four groups of staff, when claims average between 1pc to 3pc in other sectors. They have also lodged claims for a range of improvements to their terms and conditions.

What does their employer say?

Transdev says it can’t afford the claims as it suffered losses of €700,000 last year. It will consider increases between 1pc and 3pc.

What is their pay?

Tram drivers start on €35,901 a year, and progress up a scale to €42,247 a year in year nine.

A 53.8% pay hike equates to €53.83k to €64.59k so for folks to turn around here and say that SIPTU and the tram drivers are not looking for a €60+ pay package is nonsense, that's the simple maths and facts!

If SIPTU isn't looking for 53.8% pay rises let them come out and say that or did some incompetent stuff up and got the decimal point wrong in the press release and meant to look for 5.38% pay rises?

Seems folks are blinkered to the inconvenient truth that the pay claim is unheard off with an awful sense of entitlement. Longer this goes on I wonder if TransDev considers pulling the plug and entering into Administration and protection of the courts all the employees would potentially lose their jobs and have to reapply with different contracts and absolutely nothing anyone could do about it.

Pay claim has been reduced to 30% at the higher end, it was widely reported earlier this week.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 09-03-2016 7:34pm

Still seems to be a misplaced decimal point there...

Brendan Bendar · 09-03-2016 7:34pm

cdebru wrote: »

Pay claim has been reduced to 30% at the higher end, it was widely reported earlier this week.

Eh..... Sure

Submit a 53% claim, which is off the wall, then reduce it to 30% and you are a great guy.

Uhhhhhhh...... ...... Ssssssh:rolleyes:

Idbatterim · 09-03-2016 8:09pm

mislead them to believe that they are entitled to a 10.6% pay increase per annum

they arent entitled to sh*t!

Also for anyone who believes the employees should be paid more because Transdev could afford to pay more and still operate. Please go to your boss later, will be particularly laughable if its a massive firm. Ask for a 50%+ increase, because they are Tesco, a bank, who cares. Because they can "afford it" :rolleyes:

Eh..... Sure

Submit a 53% claim, which is off the wall, then reduce it to 30% and you are a great guy.

Uhhhhhhh...... ...... Ssssssh
Brendan Bendar is online now Report Post

50% piss take, 40% piss take, 30% piss take, 20% nigh on piss take, 10% ish over 5 years, fair enough...

Peppa Pig · 09-03-2016 8:11pm

cdebru wrote: »

Pay claim has been reduced to 30% at the higher end, it was widely reported earlier this week.

For drivers and supervisors.
The revenue team seem to have copped on and Transdev are negotiating with them.

Now, imagine they settle, but the drivers don't and call an all out strike. Are the revenue guys forced into an all out strike they don't agree with? Could be some intra union arguments.

Owen Reidy wrote:

We will announce more strikes before the week is out," said union official Owen Reidy. "I think the dispute could threaten the future of the project of the Luas if it continues

Is he seriously saying that they will be no Luas if they don't get their massive rise? He's is currently using blackmail with the Paddy's day and Easter strikes, now he is threatening sabotage.
Wow
Link

Idbatterim · 09-03-2016 8:13pm

on transdevs end you would have to question is the trust simply gone totally. Is there anything left to work with, what happens six months down the road if they decide they arent happy again, go seeking another massive increase?

Those piss takers arent people that can reasonably be dealt with, ergo I hope they simply all lose their jobs and new staff are hired...

Brendan Bendar · 09-03-2016 8:17pm

Peppa Pig wrote: »

For drivers and supervisors.
The revenue team seem to have copped on and Transdev are negotiating with them.

Now, imagine they settle, but the drivers don't and call an all out strike. Are the revenue guys forced into an all out strike they don't agree with? Could be some intra union arguments.

Is he seriously saying that they will be no Luas if they don't get their massive rise? He's is currently using blackmail with the Paddy's day and Easter strikes, now he is threatening sabotage.
Wow
Link

There has to be a vote on all out strike.

I assume this will include all Luas staff.

I would be amazed if this was voted for.

Don't know what Reidy is on about but if he thinks this threatens the future of the Luas, well that definitely proves he has gone off on a major solo run here.

Just goes to show what these guys think, way removed from reality.

cdebru · 09-03-2016 8:39pm

Peppa Pig wrote: »

For drivers and supervisors.
The revenue team seem to have copped on and Transdev are negotiating with them.

Now, imagine they settle, but the drivers don't and call an all out strike. Are the revenue guys forced into an all out strike they don't agree with? Could be some intra union arguments.

Is he seriously saying that they will be no Luas if they don't get their massive rise? He's is currently using blackmail with the Paddy's day and Easter strikes, now he is threatening sabotage.
Wow
Link

I would imagine it would be an all out strike in the drivers grade then it would be up to the union and it's members as to what other grades would do in that circumstance.

I would imagine reidy is talking about a long term strike where transdev is fine 100k a day for no service any profit they would likely make in their 5 year contract could be easily swallowed up

Peppa Pig · 09-03-2016 8:42pm

cdebru wrote: »

I would imagine reidy is talking about a long term strike where transdev is fine 100k a day for no service any profit they would likely make in their 5 year contract could be easily swallowed up

I don't, he specifically said the future of the Luas project, not the Luas contract.

Brendan Bendar · 09-03-2016 9:22pm

cdebru wrote: »

I would imagine it would be an all out strike in the drivers grade then it would be up to the union and it's members as to what other grades would do in that circumstance.

I would imagine reidy is talking about a long term strike where transdev is fine 100k a day for no service any profit they would likely make in their 5 year contract could be easily swallowed up

Great, just horse in an outlandish claim, then strike in the hope the company is put out of business?

Some strategy that.

These people need a short sharp shock, like the dole queue.

hmmm · 09-03-2016 9:36pm

cdebru wrote: »

I would imagine reidy is talking about a long term strike where transdev is fine 100k a day for no service any profit they would likely make in their 5 year contract could be easily swallowed up

Transdev goes bust or withdraws, CIE are brought in to run it, the drivers get "parity" with train drivers, the taxpayer pays. Happy days for everyone except the people paying for it.

Brendan Bendar · 09-03-2016 9:42pm

hmmm wrote: »

Transdev goes bust or withdraws, CIE are brought in to run it, the drivers get "parity" with train drivers, the taxpayer pays. Happy days for everyone except the people paying for it.

Bros. Grimm wrote stories like that.

cdebru · 09-03-2016 9:46pm

hmmm wrote: »

Transdev goes bust or withdraws, CIE are brought in to run it, the drivers get "parity" with train drivers, the taxpayer pays. Happy days for everyone except the people paying for it.

No I haven't read the contract but normally the contracting body in this case now the TII is the operator of last resort, so it goes back to them if transdev can no longer fulfill the contract, and the employees transfer to them, then they operate it till they recontract the operation.

salonfire · 09-03-2016 9:51pm

Another thing to consider along with the actual increase in salaries is the other costs to the Employer.

On top of the 50% salary increase if given, Transdev would be paying additional Employer PRSI and possibly pension contributions (both based on a percentage of employee salary).

Unions really are a joke these days, mostly only striking in industries where the general public can be used as pawns.

end of the road · 09-03-2016 9:54pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Great, just horse in an outlandish claim, then strike in the hope the company is put out of business?

Some strategy that.

These people need a short sharp shock, like the dole queue.

they don't.

hmmm wrote: »

Transdev goes bust or withdraws, CIE are brought in to run it, the drivers get "parity" with train drivers, the taxpayer pays. Happy days for everyone except the people paying for it.

transdev is a multi-national transport company. i would suggest there is absolutely no chance of them going bust.

salonfire wrote: »

AnoUnions really are a joke these days

no, they really are not. they are a great insurence policy.

salonfire · 09-03-2016 10:00pm

end of the road wrote: »

they don't.

transdev is a multi-national transport company. i would suggest there is absolutely no chance of them going bust.

These short, glib responses of yours are completely pointless and getting tiresome to read.

What do the drivers need, then? To be given the increase they are demanding? Then if the train drivers seek to restore the difference, their pay should be increased likewise?

And we can all watch the merry-go-round where unions chase more and more wild increases every few years?

When will you ever pull yourself into the real world.

Grandeeod · 09-03-2016 10:09pm

salonfire wrote: »

These short, glib responses of yours are completely pointless and getting tiresome to read.

What do the drivers need, then? To be given the increase they are demanding? Then if the train drivers seek to restore the difference, their pay should be increased likewise?

And we can all watch the merry-go-round where unions chase more and more wild increases every few years?

When will you ever pull yourself into the real world.

I'm glad someone else has noticed it. It's laughable at this stage, considering the same poster has been effectively run out of a similar thread in a different forum.(or hasn't got the nuts to defend the crap he spouted.)

salonfire · 09-03-2016 10:26pm

end of the road wrote: »

no, they really are not. they are a great insurence policy.

Oh, really?

So I take it that you don't believe the various employment laws in place today are enough to protect workers rights.

That is why you need a union as "enforcers" to act as an "insurance policy" against any employer action.

But, why stop there?

Why not extend your ideology into criminal law? If someone commits a criminal offence against you, then why not have a group as "enforcers" to act as an "insurance policy" against those? Vigilantism, if you will.

end of the road · 09-03-2016 10:27pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm glad someone else has noticed it. It's laughable at this stage, considering the same poster has been effectively run out of a similar thread in a different forum.(or hasn't got the nuts to defend the crap he spouted.)

continuing to get personal, oh dear (don't worry, i couldn't care a less really)
i expressed opinions in the other thread, explained them, and left the thread after going over the same thing again and again because some did not like the answers i gave. nothing i can do about that.

salonfire wrote: »

So I take it that you don't believe the various employment laws in place today are enough to protect workers rights.

That is why you need a union as "enforcers" to act as an "insurance policy" against any employer action.

of course. absolutely. why would that be an issue.

salonfire wrote: »

But, why stop there?

Why not extend your ideology into criminal law? If someone commits a criminal offence against you, then why not have a group as "enforcers" to act as an "insurance policy" against those? Vigilantism, if you will.

because we have enforcers for criminal law. the gardai.

markpb · 09-03-2016 10:40pm

end of the road wrote:

transdev is a multi-national transport company. i would suggest there is absolutely no chance of them going bust.

You know how companies work, right? I'm never sure if you're talking through your hat or just wrong.

Transdev Ireland could quite easily go bust even if the parent company or other companies in the group are profitable.

end of the road · 09-03-2016 10:45pm

markpb wrote: »

You know how companies work, right? I'm never sure if you're talking through your hat or just wrong.

Transdev Ireland could quite easily go bust even if the parent company or other companies in the group are profitable.

i'm well aware of how it works. however, the poster mentioned simply, transdev, and not transdev ireland. i can only go on what is written.

fret_wimp2 · 09-03-2016 10:59pm

Are they still working to rule or being awkward? The luas sat at the Sandyford stop for about 10 minutes this morning with the driver sitting in the cab, the previous one was 10 minutes gone before we left.

He waited at every stop way longer than usual also even though we were packed to the rafters. just sitting there with nobody getting on or off for an extra minute at every stop. journey that used to take 25 minutes now takes 35-40 minutes.

how does punishing the travellers benefit the drivers?

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

Comments