Bus Strike (read warning in post #1)

thomasj · 14-05-2015 9:43am

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I'd prefer them to refund them onto the leap card!

Yep true. They would would but you have to claim it first I presume

The_Morrigan · 14-05-2015 10:03am

thomasj wrote: »

Yep true. They would would but you have to claim it first I presume

They are banking on people not being able to show up to the office in person to claim the refund.
The monthly and annual tickets must be registered on a list somewhere that they know X amount of cards are entitled to a refund.

MOH · 14-05-2015 11:16am

I'm confused again.

I thought they were selflessly going on strike to make things better for the general public in the long run, by avoiding the disaster that tendering routes out to private companies would inevitably bring?
That's what we've been told for weeks now.

But tendering routes is still on the table.
Why have our brave drivers abandoned us now?

cdebru · 14-05-2015 11:28am

MOH wrote: »

I'm confused again.

I thought they were selflessly going on strike to make things better for the general public in the long run, by avoiding the disaster that tendering routes out to private companies would inevitably bring?
That's what we've been told for weeks now.

But tendering routes is still on the table.
Why have our brave drivers abandoned us now?

Perhaps you need to pay closer attention, both unions are opposed to tendering they still are, the strike was never about stopping tendering, the strike was about protecting existing and future employees from a race to the bottom under any tendering arrangements, the high court action is about stopping actual tendering.

CaoimheSquee · 14-05-2015 11:54am

Exactly, it was just about the drivers protecting themselves at whatever expense.
They were always quite clear and vocal the public did not matter.

MOH · 14-05-2015 11:59am

cdebru wrote: »

Perhaps you need to pay closer attention, both unions are opposed to tendering they still are, the strike was never about stopping tendering, the strike was about protecting existing and future employees from a race to the bottom under any tendering arrangements, the high court action is about stopping actual tendering.

Oh, I see now. My confusion obviously stemmed from the number of posts I've read explaining how the massive disruption everyone's faced was better for us all in the long run, because the short term pain of the strike would be nothing compared to the eternal chaos that would ensue if tendering took place.

But in fact as far as tendering goes, we could have skipped the strike and just gone with this high court action? And the strike which ruined everyone's bank holiday was all about something which might never happen?

Do I have it now?

pmasterson95 · 14-05-2015 12:09pm

CaoimheSquee wrote: »

Exactly, it was just about the drivers protecting themselves at whatever expense.
They were always quite clear and vocal the public did not matter.

Exactly good to see the act that the strike was for the greater good and benefit off customers has finally dropped and its admitted it was the drivers own interests that caused the bank holiday mayhem. A noble bunch!

cdebru · 14-05-2015 12:31pm

MOH wrote: »

Oh, I see now. My confusion obviously stemmed from the number of posts I've read explaining how the massive disruption everyone's faced was better for us all in the long run, because the short term pain of the strike would be nothing compared to the eternal chaos that would ensue if tendering took place.

But in fact as far as tendering goes, we could have skipped the strike and just gone with this high court action? And the strike which ruined everyone's bank holiday was all about something which might never happen?

Do I have it now?

You are confusing opposition to tendering in general with the legitimate concerns staff had regarding tendering, what posters post here is their own personal opinions whether for or against tendering and no one here speaks for all CIE staff or their various trade unions, if you want to know what the unions position is I suggest you contact them or you could even start following them on twitter but relying on anonymous posters on boards to determine what trade union positions are on any given issue is definitely not the way to go.

As to whether the strike was unnecessary I agree completely what has been agreed at the LRC could and should have been done months ago, but any agreement requires all sides and unfortunately the DOT, NTA were unwilling to engage properly until a strike had actually happened, you will have to take it up with them as to why they allowed thousands of people to be discommoded before they were willing to sit down and commit themselves to what they were waffling about in the media prior to the strike happening.

cdebru · 14-05-2015 12:37pm

CaoimheSquee wrote: »

Exactly, it was just about the drivers protecting themselves at whatever expense.
They were always quite clear and vocal the public did not matter.

So workers shouldn't protect themselves ?

Of course the public matter, but unfortunately you can't have industrial action that doesn't affect the public, and the NTA and the DOT were unwilling to engage properly until industrial action had already taken place, if what was agreed last night had been done 2 weeks ago no one would have been discommoded as to why that happened only the NTA DOT can answer.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 14-05-2015 12:44pm

jamesbere wrote: »

I think I speak for every bus customer and say thank f**k it's called off.

Absolutely! I Agree completely!

KomradeBishop · 14-05-2015 12:56pm

I support drivers right to strike and I oppose privatization/tendering - if the unions choose to stop their strikes, to protect their working conditions while accepting partial tendering in the process, then I'm not really going to judge them for that, as I don't know how politically likely it would be, for them to be able to do anything to stop tendering.

So I support them protecting their working conditions, even if they don't manage to stop tendering.

pmasterson95 · 14-05-2015 1:11pm

when the drivers were called selfish the response was unions are great and are stopping privitisation and ensuring "quality service" is maintained.

Yet now we see their stunts havent stopped privitization/tendering but they get to keep their perks and benefits....but how do the the public benefit from the bank holiday strike?

I see how drivers did. No visible benefit for the public tho.

KomradeBishop · 14-05-2015 1:50pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

when the drivers were called selfish the response was unions are great and are stopping privitisation and ensuring "quality service" is maintained.

Yet now we see their stunts havent stopped privitization/tendering but they get to keep their perks and benefits....but how do the the public benefit from the bank holiday strike?

I see how drivers did. No visible benefit for the public tho.

So let me get this straight, people who were previously complaining that the strikes inconvenienced them, are now complaining that they stopped striking before tendering was scrapped?

Do you think they have a realistic chance of stopping tendering in this way, or do you think it will just make the public more amenable to privatization?

I don't know what is most politically prudent for the unions myself, whether that is possible or not, but I do think that unions showing their willingness to strike, will help create pressure against future privatization - whether that will stop or just slow it though, I don't know.

pmasterson95 · 14-05-2015 2:08pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So let me get this straight, people who were previously complaining that the strikes inconvenienced them, are now complaining that they stopped striking before tendering was scrapped?

Do you think they have a realistic chance of stopping tendering in this way, or do you think it will just make the public more amenable to privatization?

I don't know what is most politically prudent for the unions myself, whether that is possible or not, but I do think that unions showing their willingness to strike, will help create pressure against future privatization - whether that will stop or just slow it though, I don't know.

No just pointing out that the excuses used to justify the first strike was pure BS. The reasons given blathered about how drivers were selflessly trying to ensure that quality service was maintained and that fares didnt increase
and other bull about how the first strike was for the greater good. Yet now after they get their own security and benefits they suddenly forget the "greater good". Their motives was never for the public benefit, only themselves. If the ****e they were using to justify the first strike was true then yes technically they should still be on strike tomoro. For all their harping about benefits and quality for the public the factor that mattered most was their own pockets and **** the public. I'm not complaining per se just laughing at sheer hypocrisy is all. The public were never in the drivers interests despite their claims.

pclive · 14-05-2015 2:23pm

Monthly and Annual Refunds
We will issue customers with annual and monthly tickets on Leap Cards with a refund for days lost due to the industrial action on Friday, 1st May and Saturday, 2nd May. A refund of €11 can be collected from our Head Office, 59 Upper O’Connell Street. - See more at: http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News/Planned-Industrial-Action-called-off-on-May-15th-and-16th/#sthash.I6LjfhC8.dpuf

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News/Planned-Industrial-Action-called-off-on-May-15th-and-16th/

cdebru · 14-05-2015 2:35pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

when the drivers were called selfish the response was unions are great and are stopping privitisation and ensuring "quality service" is maintained.

Yet now we see their stunts havent stopped privitization/tendering but they get to keep their perks and benefits....but how do the the public benefit from the bank holiday strike?

I see how drivers did. No visible benefit for the public tho.

The response from whom ?

Read the SIPTU 6 point plan that is was always what the strike was about. The unions are and remain opposed to tendering but the strike itself never set out to stop tendering if you read any of the statements from both unions it is clear as day that they never claimed the strikes were aimed at preventing tendering.
The strikes were always about preventing the race to the bottom which is neither in the staff or the traveling publics interest.

end of the road · 14-05-2015 2:36pm

UCDVet wrote: »

So *just* important enough to be funded by the tax payers....but not so important as to stop them from disrupting service whenever they like?

they are not disrupting service whenever they like. these were genuine issues they went on strike over, and they could have been sorted out before a strike happened.

UCDVet wrote: »

Seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either treat them like a private company, let them strike all they want, let other companies compete - or don't.

dublin bus is very much a public company. i don't see how they are being treated like a private company. if you want companies to "compete" with dublin bus, then call for commercial licences to be issued to allow operators operate these routes on their own merits along with the subsidized dublin bus, ensuring that if these companies find it unviable we will have a back up.

UCDVet wrote: »

Last I checked, Dublin Bus is lucky if *half* their revenue comes from actual customers *

well, there are many reasons for that which simply won't be changed by tendering.

UCDVet wrote: »

we give them a monopoly on the city.

yes, because its the best use of resources and subsidy. such a monopoly provides fleet flexibility and other economies of scale. integration needs to be improved but thats the NTA'S problem now.

end of the road · 14-05-2015 2:44pm

while it is unfortunate that tendering is still on the table, i'm happy the unions seem to have got minimum standards across tendered routes. such standards are reasonable and there is no argument for them not to be implemented.

reggaeman · 14-05-2015 7:14pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

No just pointing out that the excuses used to justify the first strike was pure BS. The reasons given blathered about how drivers were selflessly trying to ensure that quality service was maintained and that fares didnt increase
and other bull about how the first strike was for the greater good. Yet now after they get their own security and benefits they suddenly forget the "greater good". Their motives was never for the public benefit, only themselves. If the ****e they were using to justify the first strike was true then yes technically they should still be on strike tomoro. For all their harping about benefits and quality for the public the factor that mattered most was their own pockets and **** the public. I'm not complaining per se just laughing at sheer hypocrisy is all. The public were never in the drivers interests despite their claims.

As a driver I totally agree with you.

end of the road · 14-05-2015 7:24pm

reggaeman wrote: »

As a driver I totally agree with you.

they got the majority of what they wanted though so there would be no need to be still on strike.

reggaeman · 14-05-2015 7:39pm

MOH wrote: »

Oh, I see now. My confusion obviously stemmed from the number of posts I've read explaining how the massive disruption everyone's faced was better for us all in the long run, because the short term pain of the strike would be nothing compared to the eternal chaos that would ensue if tendering took place.

But in fact as far as tendering goes, we could have skipped the strike and just gone with this high court action? And the strike which ruined everyone's bank holiday was all about something which might never happen?

Do I have it now?

Its quite obvious the unions are playing games with the public and drivers. I said before and after the strike that as soon as they get the chance to compromise they would. Its was all about show-man ship. And the foolish drivers went along like lambs. The unions know the game is up and are trying to put on a show. BE DB will be privatize I have no doubt about that. Average drivers wage with BE is €1000 per week. They know what's coming their way.

end of the road · 14-05-2015 7:47pm

reggaeman wrote: »

Its quite obvious the unions are playing games with the public and drivers. I said before and after the strike that as soon as they get the chance to compromise they would. Its was all about show-man ship. And the foolish drivers went along like lambs. The unions know the game is up and are trying to put on a show. BE DB will be privatize I have no doubt about that. Average drivers wage with BE is €1000 per week. They know what's coming their way.

oh i'm sure it will be privatized, but i believe political motivation will be the reason and nothing to do with our benefit, considering the government have done all sorts against our wishes

KomradeBishop · 15-05-2015 3:58pm

pmasterson95 wrote: »

No just pointing out that the excuses used to justify the first strike was pure BS. The reasons given blathered about how drivers were selflessly trying to ensure that quality service was maintained and that fares didnt increase
and other bull about how the first strike was for the greater good. Yet now after they get their own security and benefits they suddenly forget the "greater good". Their motives was never for the public benefit, only themselves. If the ****e they were using to justify the first strike was true then yes technically they should still be on strike tomoro. For all their harping about benefits and quality for the public the factor that mattered most was their own pockets and **** the public. I'm not complaining per se just laughing at sheer hypocrisy is all. The public were never in the drivers interests despite their claims.

So, even if politically it is a bad move and wouldn't achieve the end goal of stopping privatization/tendering, they should still be on strike regardless, just out of a matter of principle - that's what you're saying then?

I don't know if that is or is not politically possible - to stop tendering in that way - but just because they are standing up for their own conditions as workers, doesn't mean they are not also standing against tendering/privatization; it's perfectly possible for them to capitulate short of stopping tendering, to retain their working conditions, while still opposing it - if it's not politically possible for them to stop it, then that's all they can do, and it's still putting up a fight against it as it will give government pause before seeking further privatization in the future.

The only hypocrisy I see, is blasting the unions for not continuing a strike for even longer, when you are against it in the first place, and when you know it likely wouldn't have made a difference to this round of tendering - that's just opportunistic hypocrisy, for blasting the unions and workers no matter what they do.

Bus Strike (read warning in post #1)

Comments