Another example of greed in public sector transport unions

aliveandkicking · 12-05-2006 9:34pm #1

Recently here there was a thread on the painting of bus lanes on the Long Mile road. Part of process of introducing this quality bus corridoor will be changing the terminus of Dublin Bus routes 121,122 and 123. Currently these buses terminate at Crumlin Hospital but will have to move to facilitate the QBC. The new terminus for these routes is proposed to be on Kilnamanagh Road, Walkinstown which I would estimate is no more than 750m away from the existing terminus at Crumlin Hospital.

Guess what the drivers' union has done? Thats right it has demanded financial compensation for the drivers and has refused to sanction the new terminus point until drivers are adequately compensated. Those poor drivers, imagine the sheer stress of having to drive their bus a further 750metres up a freshly painted bus lane and serve 3 extra stops, it must be nearly breaking them :rolleyes:

Shlitter and a couple of others recently said here that this type of carry on was confined to a handful of DART drivers and not to unfairly tarnish other CIE workers with the same brush. So do you think it is acceptable for Bus Drivers to demand more money because their terminus point changes?

Victor · 12-05-2006 11:07pm

Is there a material change in whats available at the terminus - shop, cafe, etc.

spareman · 12-05-2006 11:57pm

This is getting ridiculas!! compensation for a tempory move of the terminus, the unions are wasting there time messing around with this crap instead of tackling the real issues for drivers, particularly spare drivers who are treated like crap.:mad:

SeanW · 12-05-2006 11:58pm

The Cork Irish Rail drivers have threatened to go on strike to prevent the introduction of the new coach sets on the Cork-Dublin line which are scheduled to go live for a week on Monday, which themselves are months late due to - you guessed it - the unions.

John R · 13-05-2006 1:11am

There has been a considerable amount of difficulty with that proposed move, it has been on the cards for months. I believe there has been a number of objections from locals about having a bus terminus there.

It is normal for marked-in drivers to get a say on new rotas for their route, sometimes this can lead to OTT demands but it also helps provide realistic timetables.

I was under the impression that the rotas for changing the terminus of these routes had been agreed and the delay was because of outside problems.

Spareman's comment about the disparity between more senior marked-in drivers and spare drivers is correct though. A large amount of the union clout is directed at getting good deals for the marked-in drivers while the rest have to put up with years of lousy shifts.

shltter · 13-05-2006 4:16pm

aliveandkicking wrote:

Recently here there was a thread on the painting of bus lanes on the Long Mile road. Part of process of introducing this quality bus corridoor will be changing the terminus of Dublin Bus routes 121,122 and 123. Currently these buses terminate at Crumlin Hospital but will have to move to facilitate the QBC. The new terminus for these routes is proposed to be on Kilnamanagh Road, Walkinstown which I would estimate is no more than 750m away from the existing terminus at Crumlin Hospital.

Guess what the drivers' union has done? Thats right it has demanded financial compensation for the drivers and has refused to sanction the new terminus point until drivers are adequately compensated. Those poor drivers, imagine the sheer stress of having to drive their bus a further 750metres up a freshly painted bus lane and serve 3 extra stops, it must be nearly breaking them :rolleyes:

Shlitter and a couple of others recently said here that this type of carry on was confined to a handful of DART drivers and not to unfairly tarnish other CIE workers with the same brush. So do you think it is acceptable for Bus Drivers to demand more money because their terminus point changes?

There is a procedure in place for the extension of routes and there are agreed payments for changes if there is any disagreement it goes to a rights commissioner or the Labour Court. It depends on how big the change is for example moving city centre termini from one stop on Abbey St to another would not attract any payment adding a kilometre onto a route and taking in new areas would generally attract a small once off payment.

You have provided no evidence that the change is being held up by the unions in fact John R has said this is not holding up anything and that it is external interest that are holding up the change

murphaph · 13-05-2006 5:46pm

shltter wrote:

adding a kilometre onto a route and taking in new areas would generally attract a small once off payment.

But why?

aliveandkicking · 13-05-2006 6:11pm

Victor wrote:

Is there a material change in whats available at the terminus - shop, cafe, etc.

Where the buses stop presently at Crumlin Hospital there is a row of shops around the corner on Errigal Road. At the new terminus there is a Superquinn just accross the road so no real material change.

spareman wrote:

compensation for a tempory move of the terminus.

The move is permanant. Your point about how spare drivers are treated like crap while the union does nothing about it is interesting to say the least.

shltter wrote:

You have provided no evidence that the change is being held up by the unions in fact John R has said this is not holding up anything and that it is external interest that are holding up the change.

These are my local routes, notice of the change in terminus was posted into my letterbox over a year ago saying the route changes would come into effect at the end of 2005. Within the last couple of weeks I have asked two different drivers when the move was happening. They both replied that the union hasn't sanctioned it yet and they were holding out for extra money. There is also a post on Garaiste from a bus driver saying exactly the same thing.

Why why why does the union demand money for a simple terminus change?

BendiBus · 13-05-2006 6:21pm

aliveandkicking wrote:

Why why why does the union demand money for a simple terminus change?

Because they can. No risk involved and worst case is that they end up no worse off. Also, it's traditional! It's assumed that any change will involve extra cash to those affected. Regardless of impact on their working lives.

murphaph · 13-05-2006 6:40pm

BendiBus wrote:

Because they can. No risk involved and worst case is that they end up no worse off. Also, it's traditional! It's assumed that any change will involve extra cash to those affected. Regardless of impact on their working lives.

This one paragraph sums up everything that is wrong with CIE.

shltter · 13-05-2006 6:42pm

aliveandkicking wrote:

Why why why does the union demand money for a simple terminus change?

Because that is the agreement the unions have with the company. If under your agreed terms and conditions you are entitled to a small payment for a significant route change then asking for that payment is perfectly correct.
The unions would be in breach of their duty to their members not to seek a payment that its members are entitled to.

And you still haven't provided any evidence to support your accusation

The normal situation where there is a disagreement between the company and the unions over such matters the change goes ahead and the matter is refered to the labour court.

BendiBus · 13-05-2006 6:46pm

murphaph wrote:

This one paragraph sums up everything that is wrong with CIE.

I agree. Just in case I gave the impression I support this nonsense!

Victor · 13-05-2006 7:10pm

murphaph wrote:

But why?

Because change causes confusion and confusion causes stress. The driver has to remember to go to the new terminus (minor, but all important) and has to remember the names of the new stops, what stage they are at and how much the fare is from each intermediate stop.

Also a terminus that has say a shop, café or pub means you might be able to get a bite to eat, use the toilet, etc. between journeys. It makes for more pleasent work.

Compared to some terminii that are in the middle of nowhere or lost in some housing estate where the busses get stoned at the weekend.

Transport21 Fan · 13-05-2006 7:20pm

BendiBus wrote:

Because they can. No risk involved and worst case is that they end up no worse off. Also, it's traditional! It's assumed that any change will involve extra cash to those affected. Regardless of impact on their working lives.

What about the impact on the public transport customer then? Do we have a say in "public" transport?

Fair play for stating this Bendi-Bus, it's nice to know that not all CIE employees are not like Shiller. Between you and Red-Alert I am starting think their might be hope if more of you speak up against this carry-on within CIE.

shltter · 13-05-2006 8:07pm

BendiBus wrote:

I agree. Just in case I gave the impression I support this nonsense!

What nonsense

If your employer asks you do more work then seeking a recognition of this extra work in the form of a small one off payment is not nonsense.

Taking the O/P as being factually correct that is 750m down and 750 back that is 1.5km each journey 4 journeys a day is 6km a day 5 days a week is 30km a week.
That is just in extra driving never mind carrying more passengers often DB does not produce a new timetable which means that the driver has to try and complete the extra journey in the same ammount of time.

Now looking for a small once off payment for driving an extra 1500km a year is hardly nonsense

MiniD · 13-05-2006 8:18pm

This proposed change has been delayed for months now, infact there are bus stops at the new terminus waiting for the change.

Surely these drivers are being paid to work for a certain number of hours, and not for the distance they drive. Unless there is a safety risk with stopping at a particular terminus point then I don't see a reason for unions to get involved, drivers are still working the same hours and getting paid the same.
This kind of carry on must really annoy drivers who are not marked in on a route and are passed from one to the next. Do spare drivers get extra pay if, for example, on Tuesday they drive the 37 to Castleknock but on Wednesday they drive the 39 to Clonsilla and it's a further distance.
In the case of the extension from Drimnagh to Walkinstown, it is a very short distance, it will have the benefit of a bus lane and there is enough space at the new location to house the three frequent routes, 121, 122 and 123.
I have to say it is times like this I really feel sorry for Dublin Bus, here is a situation where they are trying to improve services and increase traffic flow on the busy Drimnagh Road by having a free flow bus lane, but there has been two major delays ,with moving terminus points and with starting the new 151 route.

_Kaiser_ · 13-05-2006 8:22pm

This attitude is precisely what's wrong with CIE (and many other (semi)state bodies in this country) :mad:

So you're being asked to drive an extra 1.5km... In my book (and I'd suspect most people's), this doesn't constitute a "significant route change". And as for Victor's point about shops etc being close by... this is a bonus, not a prerequisite in my opinion. If they're that hungry, bring a thermus and a sandwich!

It's no wonder CIE is in the state it's in with this "the world owes me a living" attitude from staff/unions. I'd love to see it run along the lines of a private company - you do the job you're paid to do or you don't get paid/get fired!

With the ever increasing non-national population I'm sure there'd be no problems finding replacements,

BendiBus · 13-05-2006 8:34pm

shltter wrote:

What nonsense

If your employer asks you do more work then seeking a recognition of this extra work in the form of a small one off payment is not nonsense.

Taking the O/P as being factually correct that is 750m down and 750 back that is 1.5km each journey 4 journeys a day is 6km a day 5 days a week is 30km a week.
That is just in extra driving never mind carrying more passengers often DB does not produce a new timetable which means that the driver has to try and complete the extra journey in the same ammount of time.

Now looking for a small once off payment for driving an extra 1500km a year is hardly nonsense

If you're paid by the kilometer then I agree with you. If you're paid by the hour then I don't. If you work longer hours as a result of the extra 6km per day then fair enough, but your overtime should cover that anyway.

As a matter of interest, if a new terminus resulted in a route being 750m shorter, would you offer your employer a once off rebate due to you driving 1500km less each year?

NavanJunction1 · 13-05-2006 8:46pm

Can I just make sure of this - all drivers are actually paid by the hour, aren't they?

shltter · 13-05-2006 9:32pm

BendiBus wrote:

If you're paid by the kilometer then I agree with you. If you're paid by the hour then I don't. If you work longer hours as a result of the extra 6km per day then fair enough, but your overtime should cover that anyway.

As a matter of interest, if a new terminus resulted in a route being 750m shorter, would you offer your employer a once off rebate due to you driving 1500km less each year?

It is not an ongoing payment it is a once off payment

It is in recognition of the extra work involved the labour court have ruled on these and agreed that the small once off payments are justified.

I have never seen a route made shorter but even if it was it would involve extra work as Drivers would be the ones who would have to explain to passengers that they were not going the 750 metres extra so whether it gets shorter or longer there is more work involved whether it is extra driving or extra work explaining the new arrangements and taking it in the neck from those that are not happy it involves extra work.

We are talking small ammounts of money here no more than a couple of hundred euros

And Finallly this is not holding up the change because even if there was a dispute over payment the change goes ahead and the matter is refered to the labour court

shltter · 13-05-2006 9:40pm

MiniD wrote:

Unless there is a safety risk with stopping at a particular terminus point then I don't see a reason for unions to get involved, drivers are still working the same hours and getting paid the same.

They are getting paid the same ammount it is a once off payment of a couple of hundred euro there is no ongoing pay increase

MiniD wrote:

This kind of carry on must really annoy drivers who are not marked in on a route and are passed from one to the next. Do spare drivers get extra pay if, for example, on Tuesday they drive the 37 to Castleknock but on Wednesday they drive the 39 to Clonsilla and it's a further distance.

Spare drivers are paid on a pro rata basis for the change as well

MiniD wrote:

In the case of the extension from Drimnagh to Walkinstown, it is a very short distance, it will have the benefit of a bus lane and there is enough space at the new location to house the three frequent routes, 121, 122 and 123.
I have to say it is times like this I really feel sorry for Dublin Bus, here is a situation where they are trying to improve services and increase traffic flow on the busy Drimnagh Road by having a free flow bus lane, but there has been two major delays ,with moving terminus points and with starting the new 151 route.

As has already been mentioned this is not holding up the change the change is being held up by residents who are not happy having 3 routes terminate near their homes

spareman · 14-05-2006 12:09am

shltter wrote:

Spare drivers are paid on a pro rata basis for the change as well

explain that one please, spare drivers get extra pay when a route or timetable changes?

aliveandkicking · 14-05-2006 1:55am

shltter wrote:

And you still haven't provided any evidence to support your accusation

What do you want me to do, post you written documentary evidence? I have spoken to two bus drivers from different routes (121 & 122) and I have also referenced a post on Garaiste message board from a well respected bus driver. Are you suggesting these people are liars?

shltter wrote:

As has already been mentioned this is not holding up the change the change is being held up by residents who are not happy having 3 routes terminate near their homes

And your evidence to back this statement up is where exactly?

To be honest whether its the residents or the unions thats holding it up is beside the point. What this thread has highlighted is just how greedy and militant CIE group of companies' unions are. The whole idea of Deco saying "jaysus their movin me terminis up da road and i wont be able to buy the sun in dat shop on errigal road anymore, i demand compansayshun for this" is ridiculous and belongs to the past.

In the 80s Dublin Bus Unions (or CIE as it was still known as then) held up the introduction of the KD class bus because the ceiling of the new buses were a couple of inches too low (in their opinion). Today in 2006 the unions are holding up the introduction of new trains for the Dublin - Cork line and delaying the introduction of a QBC for South West Dublin. Ireland has changed in the last 30 years, maybe its time CIE unions done the same.

Just for the record I have no pathological hatred of unions, I believe they have a role to play in 21st century Ireland but the kind of crap that goes on in CIE has got to stop and outdated "working practices" and "agreements" must change.

As a side note it will be interesting to see what Connex employed Luas drivers do when the red line trams are lengthened from 30 metres to 40 metres. Will they demand extra money for carrying more passengers ala DART drivers? Better still when the red line is extended from Connolly to the Point Depot or the Green line extended from Stephen's Green to link with the red line will the drivers demand more money?

shltter · 14-05-2006 2:48am

spareman wrote:

explain that one please, spare drivers get extra pay when a route or timetable changes?

I never said anyone gets anything when a timetable changes nobody gets anything for a timetable change.

But when a route changes then the spare drivers in the garage in question get a pro rata payment smaller than the payment for marked in drivers in line with the fact that they don't work the road as much.

shltter · 14-05-2006 3:01am

aliveandkicking wrote:

What do you want me to do, post you written documentary evidence? I have spoken to two bus drivers from different routes (121 & 122) and I have also referenced a post on Garaiste message board from a well respected bus driver. Are you suggesting these people are liars?

And your evidence to back this statement up is where exactly?

To be honest whether its the residents or the unions thats holding it up is beside the point. What this thread has highlighted is just how greedy and militant CIE group of companies' unions are. The whole idea of Deco saying "jaysus their movin me terminis up da road and i wont be able to buy the sun in dat shop on errigal road anymore, i demand compansayshun for this" is ridiculous and belongs to the past.

In the 80s Dublin Bus Unions (or CIE as it was still known as then) held up the introduction of the KD class bus because the ceiling of the new buses were a couple of inches too low (in their opinion). Today in 2006 the unions are holding up the introduction of new trains for the Dublin - Cork line and delaying the introduction of a QBC for South West Dublin. Ireland has changed in the last 30 years, maybe its time CIE unions done the same.

Just for the record I have no pathological hatred of unions, I believe they have a role to play in 21st century Ireland but the kind of crap that goes on in CIE has got to stop and outdated "working practices" and "agreements" must change.

As a side note it will be interesting to see what Connex employed Luas drivers do when the red line trams are lengthened from 30 metres to 40 metres. Will they demand extra money for carrying more passengers ala DART drivers? Better still when the red line is extended from Connolly to the Point Depot or the Green line extended from Stephen's Green to link with the red line will the drivers demand more money?

You have no evidence to back up your claim only hearsay that you allege some one told you

And we will see what happens when the LUAS changes

And tell us if your employer offered you a small once of payment to recognise your increased productivity and support in implementing changes that would benefit your comapny and its customers

What would you do refuse it and say no I dont deserve this your already paying me.?

Because if you would accept the money then the only issue is whether you should wait for a benevolent employer to offer it (which in DB would never ever happen) or you ask for it.

In an ideal world an employer would recognise extra effort and reward it but DB does not work that way if employees ( particularly frontline employees) never asked for anything they would never get anything.

murphaph · 14-05-2006 8:56am

There'll be no hassle with 40m units on the red line, wait and see.

I am actually flabergasted that a driver who drives the same number of hours each day gets a penny extra for a route being extended. I knew it was a crackpot 'system' in CIE but by Jesus I din't think it was this bad.

This could be equated with someone in McDonalds asking for more money because the served more bigmacs this week than last week. You get paid by the hour and get overtime for extra work.

Now......

shltter wrote:

What would you do refuse it and say no I dont deserve this your already paying me.?

Because if you would accept the money then the only issue is whether you should wait for a benevolent employer to offer it (which in DB would never ever happen) or you ask for it.

In an ideal world an employer would recognise extra effort and reward it but DB does not work that way if employees ( particularly frontline employees) never asked for anything they would never get anything.

This is an absolute gem. YOU AREN'T DOING ANY EXTRA WORK, you get paid overtime if you do extra work. The company is quite right in not offering you yet more of the taxpayer's money/farebox revenue to do no extra work. You are salaried employees with overtime to cover any extra work. As has been pointed out, if a route were ever to shorten and the company came looking for a rebate you'd all be up in arms (and rightly so). You can't have it both ways however!

Just an aside to spareman, mate, how do you work with this sort of sh!t? I mean, I've known for a long time that the unions in CIE are only after the easy wins but I never realised how precise their behaviour in this regard was, to ignore the spare drivers in favour of 'marked-in' drivers is particularly disgusting behaviour.

And to reiterate what someone else said, there is a place for the trade union movement in Ireland but by God, they are wrecking the noble aims of the trade union founding fathers by looking for money for old rope just because it's easy in CIE. I was looking at old pictures of Inchicore Works a few days ago. Boy those lads needed union representation, really hard physically demanding work that was. They'd laugh at you shltter for whining about pressing your foot down on the accelerator of an automatic transmission bus for an extra 750 metres.

_Kaiser_ · 14-05-2006 11:51am

shltter wrote:

I have never seen a route made shorter but even if it was it would involve extra work as Drivers would be the ones who would have to explain to passengers that they were not going the 750 metres extra so whether it gets shorter or longer there is more work involved whether it is extra driving or extra work explaining the new arrangements and taking it in the neck from those that are not happy it involves extra work.

This is a joke right???? :mad:

Would ya ever cop on.. If you even get a response beyond an ignorant grunt or abuse from some of your colleagues you're doing well, but you expect us to believe that having to explain to passengers that the route ends earlier (which involves one maybe two announcements per trip over the PA system for the first few days) justifies your looking for yet more money????

Never mind the fact that these things are usually on the website/in the paper anyway, this is just out and out greed and arrogance in my opinion.

Personally I think DB management would be better off breaking the unions and firing the lot of you with this attitude, cause you'd soon realise there's NOWHERE else that'd put up with rubbish like this.

Red Alert · 14-05-2006 12:51pm

Just to point out because someone's mistaken above, I don't work for CIE, DB, IE, BE or LUAS!

paulm17781 · 14-05-2006 1:10pm

I work in software. I frequently work long hours with no overtime as I take it as a part of my job.

That's all going to change from now on :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_ · 14-05-2006 1:29pm

paulm17781 wrote:

I work in software. I frequently work long hours with no overtime as I take it as a part of my job.

That's all going to change from now on :rolleyes:

I would say most people (especially in IT - I'm an IT manager myself) work extra hours, do things not originally in their job spec etc, and do so without demanding extra pay every time too.. in fact, most contracts specifically write in that you will be required to be flexible as business needs change.

It's time some CIE staff realised that the state/public doesn't owe them a living, and that the tail doesn't wag the dog when it comes to business needs/decisions, but it'll take a strong management/govt backbone for this to happen.

paulm17781 · 14-05-2006 1:49pm

I once had to do a training course in Crumlin, that is the other side of the city to where I work and I didn't get paid any extra for that either.

There was also one time when I got wet going to work.

Let us not forget the time loads of people were late and I had to answer a few people's phones. I had a lot of stress that morning. I had to lift my handset and press both the digits '6' and '8' to answer. In previous jobs I had to press '9' so I was doing twice the work of a normal job. Then, after answering the phone I had to speak to the person I then had the stress of explaining that whichever colleage hadn't arrived in yet. There were a few instances where I had to take a message, my middle finger still hurts sometimes where the pen was resting. By 10 I had two nervous breakdowns and a stroke. The company really owe me for that morning.

We don't have a union in work but from my above examples you can tell it is clear one is needed for this kind of injustice to the working man. Does anyone else here have tails of hardship and mis-treatment in the workplace. I am sure I am not alone in working in substandard conditions such as these.

Another example of greed in public sector transport unions

Comments