Striking train drivers in Cork

horseflesh · 26-05-2008 3:48pm

In the words of the great Alan Partridge;
"Scum, sub-human scum....."

Red Alert · 26-05-2008 7:16pm

The management in CIE are grossly inept and have proven this time and time again. Pure economics would say that the drivers are simply milking the inept system for as much as its worth. They're probably right in that regard, but the fact that they drivers have tried and succeeded in making the management look like cowards shows that a major shake-up is needed at the top level. It is clear to me that CIE management do not, in fact, run the railway - SIPTU/NBRU probably in fact have more sway. The composition of the CIE board and the upper management team is questionable as can be seen day after day.

There are major errors of judgment in purchasing rolling stock (201's) and in its deployment (commuter cars on IC routes). Furthermore, there is an unwillingness to admit mistakes and bad engineering - which can be seen every time the so-called flagship belfast train breaks down.

Infrastructurally, the management operate on whims and to further their own personal aims. This can be seen if you look at the disconnected rusty line and platform into the rosslare europort passenger terminal - because until 'improvements' were done, passengers did not have walk in the rain to the ferry terminal from a station way outside the port. Which brings us to the interesting question of why CIE and IE in particular are more interested in buying and selling property than providing public transport, I would personally imagine a different skill set would be required in upper management for such a different industry.

The real question is would you blame the drivers for exploiting such a worthless and incompetent setup? In fact the management either are deliberately looking for petty confrontation to cover up their own inadequacies or actually are not very well versed in how the NBRU/SIPTU operate.

BanzaiBk · 26-05-2008 9:19pm

LRC Involved

The Labour Relations Commission has intervened in the Iarnród Éireann dispute, which has disrupted travel plans for thousands of passengers.

The LRC will meet management and drivers unions in Cork tomorrow in a bid to resolve the unofficial strike which is estimated to have cost the company around €2m so far.

horseflesh · 26-05-2008 10:26pm

Red Alert wrote: »

The management in CIE are grossly inept and have proven this time and time again. Pure economics would say that the drivers are simply milking the inept system for as much as its worth. They're probably right in that regard, but the fact that they drivers have tried and succeeded in making the management look like cowards shows that a major shake-up is needed at the top level. It is clear to me that CIE management do not, in fact, run the railway - SIPTU/NBRU probably in fact have more sway. The composition of the CIE board and the upper management team is questionable as can be seen day after day.

There are major errors of judgment in purchasing rolling stock (201's) and in its deployment (commuter cars on IC routes). Furthermore, there is an unwillingness to admit mistakes and bad engineering - which can be seen every time the so-called flagship belfast train breaks down.

Infrastructurally, the management operate on whims and to further their own personal aims. This can be seen if you look at the disconnected rusty line and platform into the rosslare europort passenger terminal - because until 'improvements' were done, passengers did not have walk in the rain to the ferry terminal from a station way outside the port. Which brings us to the interesting question of why CIE and IE in particular are more interested in buying and selling property than providing public transport, I would personally imagine a different skill set would be required in upper management for such a different industry.

The real question is would you blame the drivers for exploiting such a worthless and incompetent setup? In fact the management either are deliberately looking for petty confrontation to cover up their own inadequacies or actually are not very well versed in how the NBRU/SIPTU operate.

Your username is no coincidence is it......

Nostradamus · 27-05-2008 12:04am

Hamndegger wrote: »

You are well educated enough on railway issues to know that that is very much not the case. Certainly it did not helped rail freight's image but the decision to cull freight from the railways was taken long ago before 2000 and far away from any CIE board meeting.

There was no official 'Night of the Long Knives' for railfreight, they were just told to keep the stuff which makes the money. That's not the reason why practically every major logistic manager in this country avoids Irish Rail like the plague for the last 8 years now.

The real story is, and this is extremely important, any hope of a railfrieght revival was dealt a mortal blow by the 2000 strike as the business community was put off forever.

and the behaviour of the CIE unions since then, including the current fiasco put a tombstone on the grave of any railfreight revival.

superhooper · 27-05-2008 12:26am

Red Alert wrote: »

The management in CIE are grossly inept and have proven this time and time again. Pure economics would say that the drivers are simply milking the inept system for as much as its worth. They're probably right in that regard, but the fact that they drivers have tried and succeeded in making the management look like cowards shows that a major shake-up is needed at the top level. It is clear to me that CIE management do not, in fact, run the railway - SIPTU/NBRU probably in fact have more sway. The composition of the CIE board and the upper management team is questionable as can be seen day after day.

There are major errors of judgment in purchasing rolling stock (201's) and in its deployment (commuter cars on IC routes). Furthermore, there is an unwillingness to admit mistakes and bad engineering - which can be seen every time the so-called flagship belfast train breaks down.

Infrastructurally, the management operate on whims and to further their own personal aims. This can be seen if you look at the disconnected rusty line and platform into the rosslare europort passenger terminal - because until 'improvements' were done, passengers did not have walk in the rain to the ferry terminal from a station way outside the port. Which brings us to the interesting question of why CIE and IE in particular are more interested in buying and selling property than providing public transport, I would personally imagine a different skill set would be required in upper management for such a different industry.

The real question is would you blame the drivers for exploiting such a worthless and incompetent setup? In fact the management either are deliberately looking for petty confrontation to cover up their own inadequacies or actually are not very well versed in how the NBRU/SIPTU operate.

Yes must agree in relation to management e.g. increased journey times etc even since new trains and improved lines. No strategy’s re high speed lines etc etc.
However this wild cat strike is an overreaction and emphasises just how much drivers care about their customers. Note they are not just management’s customers; they are the driver’s customers too. I know. An alien concept to old style lefty union types.

MOH · 27-05-2008 10:42am

Nostradamus wrote: »

On a side note, is it just me or is there something funny about the strike in Cork taking place the morning after the Man U Champions league match? The timing was rather odd I thought. Or very useful if you were in bits from the gargle the night before or better still if you were still in Moscow and needed some extra time to get back.

No, but I was wondering if any of them took advantage of their unexpected time off to head over to the Munster game.

corkstudent · 27-05-2008 2:57pm

This is absolutely ridiculous, it's messed up my week totally. I need to move my stuff out of my apartment before friday but I can't get down there at the moment, I get motion sick on the bus.

Normally I support strike action but they're just not considering other people needing to get on with their lives.

Nostradamus · 27-05-2008 3:12pm

corkstudent wrote: »

Normally I support strike action but they're just not considering other people needing to get on with their lives.

Wait till you are out of college and working for a living. Any notion that strikers must be supported no matter what will vanish from your worldview.

Unless of course you end up in the civil service or semi states - then you won't have to become a productive member of Irish society and the taxpayers and politicians will support you in benchmarking/partnerships la la land for the rest of your natual life while the private sector's wallets are raped to fund it.

horseflesh · 27-05-2008 6:56pm

corkstudent wrote: »

This is absolutely ridiculous, it's messed up my week totally. I need to move my stuff out of my apartment before friday but I can't get down there at the moment, I get motion sick on the bus.

Normally I support strike action but they're just not considering other people needing to get on with their lives.

Why?
What a ridiculously blinkered student-centric statement to make.

Also, let's get this straight; you usually support strike action (whatever the context apparently, and presumably unofficial wildcat action), but not this time because it inconveniences you?
So much for principles......

Good post Nostradamus.

corkstudent · 27-05-2008 7:15pm

horseflesh wrote: »

Why?
What a ridiculously blinkered student-centric statement to make.

Also, let's get this straight; you usually support strike action (whatever the context apparently, and presumably unofficial wildcat action), but not this time because it inconveniences you?
So much for principles......

Good post Nostradamus.

So because I support some strike action, I have to support ALL strike action? A day or two or a weekend is fine, and threatening additional dates, this is way too long for an important public service to be offline.

Try seeing past your superiority complex to some form of logic.

Nothing annoys me more than these BUSINESS creeps who act like employers should have all the rights and not workers, and employers should hire and fire you as they please. But when you're dealing with something like transport, there should be some reasonable limit for strike action.

Iarranród Eireann are of course totally at fault here, but it could have been handled better.

Stark · 27-05-2008 7:37pm

corkstudent wrote: »

Nothing annoys me more than these BUSINESS creeps who act like employers should have all the rights and not workers, and employers should hire and fire you as they please. But when you're dealing with something like transport, there should be some reasonable limit for strike action.

Iarranród Eireann are of course totally at fault here, but it could have been handled better.

People care about fairness. Employees should and do have rights, but they also have a responsibility to do the job they're being paid for, otherwise it's plain thievery. Noone's arguing that employers should be allowed hire and fire as they please, we have laws that restrict them in this regard and we expect employers to act according to these laws. Likewise we expect employees to obey the laws we have regarding strike action and to honour the agreements that they've signed, agreements that private sector employees take for granted.

horseflesh · 27-05-2008 7:38pm

corkstudent wrote: »

So because I support some strike action, I have to support ALL strike action? A day or two or a weekend is fine, and threatening additional dates, this is way too long for an important public service to be offline.

Try seeing past your superiority complex to some form of logic.

Nothing annoys me more than these BUSINESS creeps who act like employers should have all the rights and not workers, and employers should hire and fire you as they please. But when you're dealing with something like transport, there should be some reasonable limit for strike action.

Iarranród Eireann are of course totally at fault here, but it could have been handled better.

Come back to the real world when you wake up from your socialist Utopian dream.
"Business creeps...."; get a grip.
Better still why not emigrate to one of the many wonderful communist countries of the world like..............well I suppose Cuba is the only one left (pardon the pun).
Workers, unfortunately even the ones who don't do enough work to warrant that moniker, have ample rights thanks to the EU legislation we've adopted over the years. In reality, Unions have gone the way of the Dodo. All they are now are a bunch of champagne socialists holed up in Liberty Hall trying to justify their existence. They have **** all to do with "workers' rights" nowadays, just "what's in it for me..." and "that's not my job..."

Where's Paul Calf when you need him?
Bloody students....

* I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the last line of your post is a typo.

P.S. It's a pity the government don't have the balls to do what the city of New York were going to do a few years ago. The subway drivers threatened to strike, on completely unjustified grounds. The Mayor told the Union that if the strike went ahead, the Union would be fined $1m for each day of the strike. Predictably, the Union saw sense and the strike didn't happen.

corkstudent · 27-05-2008 7:44pm

Come back to the real world when you wake up from your socialist Utopian dream.
"Business creeps...."; get a grip.

I stopped reading here. Grow up. Being ANTI-SOCIALIST in this manner is neither refreshing nor does it make you any more intelligent. If you have to prove your superiority to stupid leftie students then it's just kind of sad.

horseflesh · 27-05-2008 8:11pm

corkstudent wrote: »

I stopped reading here. Grow up. Being ANTI-SOCIALIST in this manner is neither refreshing nor does it make you any more intelligent. If you have to prove your superiority to stupid leftie students then it's just kind of sad.

I don't have to prove anything, least of all to someone like you and your mock principles.
My only hope is that you and your sort aren't the future of this country.
If you're going to have socialist principles, go ahead; write protest letters, campaign for the cause du jour, march on Leinster House. I may not agree with you, but I might have a little bit of respect for you. Instead you're a pick-n-mix socialist; right-on red flag student by day, but only when it doesn't make life difficult for you. Whatever you do, don't let your principles get in the way of a comfy life.

Calina · 27-05-2008 8:13pm

Take this is a friendly warning. The question of the merits and demerits of socialism and business is one for humanities. Getting narky at each other makes me narky. I don't like being narky, particularly when, as at this moment, I would prefer to be asleep in bed somewhere that will be warm and sunny tomorrow.

So a) stay on topic and b) don't get personal and c) don't make me want to do some surgery on this thread. I don't much like deleting posts or closing threads but nor do I like babysitting threads that start to descend into mudslinging.

horseflesh · 27-05-2008 8:23pm

Calina wrote: »

Take this is a friendly warning. The question of the merits and demerits of socialism and business is one for humanities. Getting narky at each other makes me narky. I don't like being narky, particularly when, as at this moment, I would prefer to be asleep in bed somewhere that will be warm and sunny tomorrow.

So a) stay on topic and b) don't get personal and c) don't make me want to do some surgery on this thread. I don't much like deleting posts or closing threads but nor do I like babysitting threads that start to descend into mudslinging.

COMMIE!!!!

Just kidding.
Fair enough, point taken.
He (or she) just annoyed me with the faux-principles, not to mention the tacit support for those morons in Cork (if they hadn't so inconvenienced him/her of course).

Pineapple stu · 27-05-2008 8:38pm

penexpers wrote: »

If they are on strike, they are not paid. SIPTU probably have a strike fund though so the drivers might be getting something out of that.

Its the N.B.R.U Drivers that went on strike. Siptu drivers reported for work but for some reason told that they wernt allowed. The per-way maintanence crowd in cork are the same, they all cry for no proper reason down there and think Irish Rail owe them a living. Im a siptu rep and i hate these eejits down there. Whats the point of them joining the union and then doing their own thing? Its all about money down there, if irish rail give that driver an extra allowance for doing what they asked him then he would do no bother. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY.

corkstudent · 27-05-2008 8:39pm

horseflesh wrote: »

COMMIE!!!!

Just kidding.
Fair enough, point taken.
He (or she) just annoyed me with the faux-principles, not to mention the tacit support for those morons in Cork (if they hadn't so inconvenienced him/her of course).

Well if it doesn't inconvenience people then it's not so much a bad idea, is it? I work off the basis of utility. I don't defend "Principles" in the absolute, I believe in the best solution for the situation, the most good, a form of Utilitarianism. I believe that believing in principles for principles sake is dangerous as this line of thinking does not adapt to every situation.

Talk about faux-principles indeed.

Instead you're a pick-n-mix socialist; right-on red flag student by day, but only when it doesn't make life difficult for you. Whatever you do, don't let your principles get in the way of a comfy life.

What, in other words follow socialist doctorine in the extreme just for the sake of being a socialist instead of actually picking out the bits I think work? Like you know, countries like Norway and Sweden, who work much better than us, tend to do?

I know I was told to knock it off, but come on. This is the same line of thought that reads to fundamentalism. It's not a case of "doing things properly", there's no one absolute best system. I happen to think striking is important but in this instance it should not have gone on as long as it is going on, whoever's fault it is. There is nothing hypocritical about this - it's all about balance.

With your simple minded way of thinking you can just pigeon hole people off as HYPOCRITICAL COMMIE STUDENT and deal with everything on that basis. And then act like you don't have to PROVE anything, because your opposition's values are OBVIOUSLY so false(another thing you don't have to prove, apparently).

Red Alert · 27-05-2008 9:47pm

For the benefit of horseflesh I'm neither involved in Irish Rail nor the communist party.

shltter · 27-05-2008 11:54pm

horseflesh wrote: »

Workers, unfortunately even the ones who don't do enough work to warrant that moniker, have ample rights thanks to the EU legislation we've adopted over the years. In reality, Unions have gone the way of the Dodo. All they are now are a bunch of champagne socialists holed up in Liberty Hall trying to justify their existence. They have **** all to do with "workers' rights" nowadays, just "what's in it for me..." and "that's not my job..."

Where's Paul Calf when you need him?
Bloody students....

* I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the last line of your post is a typo.

Usual anti trade union bull****

Trade union is useless till you actually need one and crap about EU legislation now protecting workers so they don't need a union shows how far of the wall you are I suggest you read up on some of the recent European court decisions to see how we can just rely on the EU to protect us.

horseflesh wrote: »

P.S. It's a pity the government don't have the balls to do what the city of New York were going to do a few years ago. The subway drivers threatened to strike, on completely unjustified grounds. The Mayor told the Union that if the strike went ahead, the Union would be fined $1m for each day of the strike. Predictably, the Union saw sense and the strike didn't happen.

The legislation to fine trade unions already exists and has been used in the past

However in this case there is no trade union in dispute with IE so fining a union that has not instigated but has tried to mediate and find a solution ( and did until the gob****es that pass for management in IE succeeded in throwing a spanner in the works) would seem rather draconian.

Perhaps some financial penalty for the gob****es that provoked this and continue to provoke it may be more useful in finding a resolution. It should be remembered that the passengers and the Drivers are the ones who are at a loss here the management will still take home their full wage packet.

shltter · 27-05-2008 11:56pm

penexpers wrote: »

If they are on strike, they are not paid. SIPTU probably have a strike fund though so the drivers might be getting something out of that.

They won't be paid anything from Siptu or the NBRU strike fund because they are not on an official strike

Nostradamus · 27-05-2008 11:59pm

cymro wrote: »

Its the N.B.R.U Drivers that went on strike. Siptu drivers reported for work but for some reason told that they wernt allowed. The per-way maintanence crowd in cork are the same, they all cry for no proper reason down there and think Irish Rail owe them a living.

and mark my words as soon as the strike ends - the TV cameras will film the first train out of Cork and the muppet in locomotive cab will blast the horn and wave his fist at the camera while he and the rest of the other train drivers will have a huge "UP YOURS" grin on their faces knowing well that just like the 1,000th time before they have gotten away with this carry once again.

While the suckers in the private sector pay for it all.

shltter · 28-05-2008 12:00am

Calina wrote: »

IIRC and I am open to correction on this, the 2000 strike was a breakaway union at the time? Wasn't that ILDA? Not all the drivers were involved?

Don't let facts get in the way of one of his polemics

shltter · 28-05-2008 12:04am

Nostradamus wrote: »

and mark my words as soon as the strike ends - the TV cameras will film the first train out of Cork and the muppet in locomotive cab will blast the horn and wave his fist at the camera while he and the rest of the other train drivers will have a huge "UP YOURS" grin on their faces knowing well that just like the 1,000th time before they have gotten away with this carry once again.

While the suckers in the private sector pay for it all.

The problem is that you come at this completely one sided all you can see is wrong on the drivers behalf and you completely overlook the actions of " management" you are well informed enough on the workings of IE to know better

carbsy · 28-05-2008 12:09am

What happened to people caring about their job? It's all about 'us' v 'them' these days, a sad state of affairs.

Pineapple stu · 28-05-2008 6:48am

The Union tells them to go back to work as its not an official strike, so why bother be in an union if you are going to do your own thing anyway. Then they ask the union to represent them at the labour court and in talks with Irish rail. The union should have in my opinion refused to help the driver until he went back to work and then have talks and if it came to it an OFFICIAL STRIKE.
Their job title is a TRAIN DRIVER, so drive the feckin things

. It would have been diffrent if he was asked to sweep the bleedin platform

corktina · 28-05-2008 7:22am

driver trains yes....train other drivers is the function of an Instructor though perhaps....

ixoy · 28-05-2008 9:24am

corktina wrote: »

driver trains yes....train other drivers is the function of an Instructor though perhaps....

But I thought the dispute arose from someone just merely observing a train driver at work? Which is different to actively training.

The problem is that you come at this completely one sided all you can see is wrong on the drivers behalf and you completely overlook the actions of " management" you are well informed enough on the workings of IE to know better

The news reported they had withdrawn the signed letter demanding the drivers don't strike - what precisely are the management doing wrong at the moment? All we've heard really is that the task the driver was struck down for last week was something he was obliged to do under his contract - hence he didn't get the official union backing because it wasn't a valid claim.

Ham'nd'egger · 28-05-2008 10:26am

ixoy wrote: »

But I thought the dispute arose from someone just merely observing a train driver at work? Which is different to actively training.

A trainee would be then under the supervision of that driver and would be his responsibility whilst in the cab. This is the greater issue at hand that people won't or don't consider; the buck passing of training duties to those unqualified to teach the driving skills and the consequential passing of driving duties to unqualified staff.

While he has to learn how to drive somehow, this should only be done under the proper instruction of his locomotive inspector who is competent and trained to instruct him and not by any available driver on the day. The bus companies would not put a man with a provisional D license at the wheel for his days work; it is utterly correct for the same to apply on a train, regardless of the rights and wrongs of this dispute.

One driver I know remarked to me that this is an accident waiting to happen; I hope to goodness that he is proven wrong.

popebenny16 · 28-05-2008 11:01am

Here's the thing..... IE say there was an agreement, obviously the drivers dont agree and, in fact, it was well known that the terms were disputed by the drivers before last Thursday. So, knowing that, managment made the decision to ask a driver to do something that the drivers had said was in dispute. That didnt have to happen. They should have instead had the issue clarified and agreed bedore making that demand.

Taking the driver off the payroll, but not actually sacking him (and therefore denying him his ability to claim either Social Welfare or strike pay since its an unoffial dispute) for one refusal is also provocative. That was also a decision that was made. Now managment knew damnn well what would happen.

So, today, 6 days into it, we have the LRC. Why 6 days? Surely six hours is the proper time?

It's very easy to be angry with the drivers and as someone who has been affected myself because of it, as well as family members who had to change hotels last weekend at short notice, you can take it that I was cursing them all from a height over the weekend. It takes two to tango, though, and for all Nostrdamus taking one position and Ham'an-egger taking the other, in the middle is the truth. The circumstances suggest this was a deliberate ploy from managment (the exact same circumstance happened in april but no-one was taken off the payroll) but for the life of me I cannot understand why.

Unless, and this is me pulling an idea from my ass here, IE are under a very public and unatlerable deadline (say... 2010)...to get 2 hourly train services to and from Dublin from all points, with one every hour at peak times, and every 2 hours from the Junction to Waterford and from Mallow to Tralee. Now, the only way to do that, with current staff deployment, is to heavilly rely on drivers working in their spare time (sounds familier?) not to mention the problems of having drivers in various starting positions in the morning all over the country. This may mean they'll need a shed load of new drivers to be trained (that sounds familier too) in a big hurry.... but..... but... they announced this new timetable when they ordered the new IC railcars and the CDE back three years ago...

surely they would ahve started planning this then? You know, recrutiing, training, changing rotas and work practices.... that's quite a logisical task. Why are they only embarking upon it now? Why do we have to call in the LRC when thiings like these were totally forseeable and therefore preventable?

Roy Keane was correct, fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

ixoy · 28-05-2008 11:09am

Hamndegger wrote: »

A trainee would be then under the supervision of that driver and would be his responsibility whilst in the cab.

Isn't that a passive responsbility? As in the trainee sits there and keeps quiet or would the driver be expected to give an answer to how a particular control works and then have that answer taken as gospel?

This is the greater issue at hand that people won't or don't consider; the buck passing of training duties to those unqualified to teach the driving skills and the consequential passing of driving duties to unqualified staff.

Weren't these agreed to though on under their current contracts?

Do you also not feel that some level of training and knowledge should be imparted by drivers? In much the same way that many jobs require you to impart knowledge to other people to skill them up, even if you're not a qualified trainer

The bus companies would not put a man with a provisional D license at the wheel for his days work; it is utterly correct for the same to apply on a train, regardless of the rights and wrongs of this dispute.

But is the trainee driving the train? If not then it's not a comparable analogy - a closer one would be a fully licensed drive rhaving a provisional in the passenger seat. What exactly is the trainee doing?

Stark · 28-05-2008 11:12am

popebenny16 wrote:

This may mean they'll need a shed load of new drivers to be trained (that sounds familier too) in a big hurry.... but..... but... they announced this new timetable when they ordered the new IC railcars and the CDE back three years ago...

surely they would ahve started planning this then? You know, recrutiing, training, changing rotas and work practices.... that's quite a logisical task. Why are they only embarking upon it now? Why do we have to call in the LRC when thiings like these were totally forseeable and therefore preventable?

I seem to remember the drivers refusing to drive the new IC railcars because they wanted more money to drive them. There was also the issue of staff in Kent Station refusing to allow the new carriages to be kept overnight in the station for similar reasons. I imagine getting hiring approval for more drivers with that **** going on is no easy matter. When that kind of thing happens, the Government comes under pressure to reduce the size of the public sector, rather than increase it.

pburns · 28-05-2008 12:58pm

Stark wrote: »

I imagine getting hiring approval for more drivers with that **** going on is no easy matter. When that kind of thing happens, the Government comes under pressure to reduce the size of the public sector, rather than increase it.

Let's face it - that is all that matters to the Cork rebels...

Their primary concern is maintaining the status quo and blocking progress so they can maintain their power base.

And why is it always Corkonians causing a ruckus - from the GAA lads, to 'Saipan', to the constantly-striking train drivers. They're a contrary breed down south...

Nostradamus · 28-05-2008 2:00pm

popebenny16 wrote: »

Here's the thing..... IE say there was an agreement, obviously the drivers dont agree and, in fact, it was well known that the terms were disputed by the drivers before last Thursday. So, knowing that, managment made the decision to ask a driver to do something that the drivers had said was in dispute. That didnt have to happen. They should have instead had the issue clarified and agreed bedore making that demand.

Except the train drivers have been pulling these stunts for the better half of a century. This is not a 'flash in the pan' dispute - this is a result of an embedded culture of deep-rooted dysfunctionality within Irish Rail BOTH Management and Staff.

Anyways, as for IE management now that you mention this semi-non entity.... What's really obnoxious is that the only time I ever see IE senior mangement is when they are having their photos taken beside a new train or handing out a best hanging basket awards somewhere.

The rest of the time they are completely useless and there are times I have to wonder if they are even real or if they are like Bigfoot or Nessie or something. It's unreal how elusive they are - forget about it if trouble is brewing.

Look how they have all vanished into the ether right now as soon as trouble is in the air. I spend a lot of my time in Boston and in their version of Metro Newspaper the boss of the MTA answers letters sent in by commuters on a page dedicated to passenger issue. In a recent issue a passenger complained about a nasty train conductor and the MTA boss asked the passenger to send him an email with full detail of the incident. Could you imagine an IE manager doing something like that.

I get the impression that most of the time IE's senior management are all hiding in a cardboard box under a table somewhere giving each other masonic handshakes while waiting for the newest piece of kit to arrive so they can have their photos taken next to it. When one of them actually tells the truth about something he is banished into the wilderness for not playing ball.

My attitude to the striking train drivers is the same to the IE managers. A plague on both their houses and they are two sides of a bi-dysfunctional entity which robs this country of decent rail services. It's only during this recent farce I am 100% behind the managers. They are doing the right thing this time IMO.

As for the Government they are the biggest problem of all. No balls.

Ham'nd'egger · 28-05-2008 2:03pm

ixoy wrote: »

Isn't that a passive responsbility? As in the trainee sits there and keeps quiet or would the driver be expected to give an answer to how a particular control works and then have that answer taken as gospel?

But what you are doing here is putting an unqualified instructor in charge of an unqualified driver. It isn't a case of getting a seat with the best view; if the trainee driver is asking questions as to what x or y control does, then it follows that he who is asking such questions is not competent to be in that situation. I have ridden in train cabs before and I would expect the likes of myself to be asking questions like that; not a potential driver.

ixoy wrote: »

Weren't these agreed to though on under their current contracts?

I gather that this may be the case, yes, but it seems that these striking drivers disagree.

ixoy wrote: »

Do you also not feel that some level of training and knowledge should be imparted by drivers? In much the same way that many jobs require you to impart knowledge to other people to skill them up, even if you're not a qualified trainer

By all means, impart but to do this formally in lieu of proper instruction isn't the way to go IMO. We know of many companies who cut corners in training and get castigated over same; in a safety critical working environment, it is not wise.

ixoy wrote: »

But is the trainee driving the train? If not then it's not a comparable analogy - a closer one would be a fully licensed drive rhaving a provisional in the passenger seat. What exactly is the trainee doing?

Yes, they are driving the train at times under the supervision of a qualified driver, though this obviously is not from day one.

Ham'nd'egger · 28-05-2008 2:08pm

Nostradamus wrote: »

Except the train drivers have been pulling these stunts for the better half of a century. This is not a 'flash in the pan' dispute - this is a result of an embedded culture of deep-rooted dysfunctionality within Irish Rail BOTH Management and Staff.

Anyways, as for IE management now that you mention this semi-non entity.... What's really obnoxious is that the only time I ever see IE senior mangement is when they are having their photos taken beside a new train or handing out a best hanging basket awards somewhere.

The rest of the time they are completely useless and there are times I have to wonder if they are even real or if they are like Bigfoot or Nessie or something. It's unreal how elusive they are - forget about it if trouble is brewing.

Look how they have all vanished into the ether right now as soon as trouble is in the air. I spend a lot of my time in Boston and in their version of Metro Newspaper the boss of the MTA answers letters sent in by commuters on a page dedicated to passenger issue. In a recent issue a passenger complained about a nasty train conductor and the MTA boss asked the passenger to send him an email with full detail of the incident. Could you imagine an IE manager doing something like that.

I get the impression that most of the time IE's senior management are all hiding in a cardboard box under a table somewhere giving each other masonic handshakes while waiting for the newest piece of kit to arrive so they can have their photos taken next to it. When one of them actually tells the truth about something he is banished into the wilderness for not playing ball.

My attitude to the striking train drivers is the same to the IE managers. A plague on both their houses and they are two sides of a bi-dysfunctional entity which robs this country of decent rail services. It's only during this recent farce I am 100% behind the managers. They are doing the right thing this time IMO.

As for the Government they are the biggest problem of all. No balls.

While you and I are on different sides of the argument of the strike, I agree with you for the most on this; there is a poor management grip on the whole company. As to why this is so, your last sentence is the core problem.

Snickers Man · 28-05-2008 2:46pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

But what you are doing here is putting an unqualified instructor in charge of an unqualified driver. It isn't a case of getting a seat with the best view;

Some questions, Ham'dn'egger.

1) Do you have to be a qualified driver first to become a qualified instructor?

2) If it takes 48 weeks (the equivalent of two years at university) to train somebody off the street to be a driver, how much additional time does it take to train an already qualified driver to become an instructor?

Hamndegger wrote: »

if the trainee driver is asking questions as to what x or y control does, then it follows that he who is asking such questions is not competent to be in that situation.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. If a trainee doesn't know what x and y controls are doing that's acceptable. He is only a trainee. I would very much hope that a qualified driver would be able to answer such questions, whether or not he or she had done whatever supplemental course was needed to become an instructor.

My understanding is that the guy was loath to drive the train with trainees because he was not a fully qualified instructor. But surely he would be able to answer such questions as a fully qualified driver.

Stark · 28-05-2008 2:55pm

Having someone shadow you is very different to instructing someone.

paulm17781 · 28-05-2008 2:58pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

I gather that this may be the case, yes, but it seems that these striking drivers disagree.

This is my problem with the whole thing. I don't know how you can take their side with this being the case.

Ham'nd'egger · 28-05-2008 3:48pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Some questions, Ham'dn'egger.

1) Do you have to be a qualified driver first to become a qualified instructor?

Yes, you would need to have worked as a driver. There is additional training courses given for locomotive inspectors in lecturing, teaching etc. There is also instructors in signaling who would have worked as signalmen. Bear in mind that there is not an vocational course for a train driver that one could attend so the responsibility is on operators to train in staff.

Snickers Man wrote: »

2) If it takes 48 weeks (the equivalent of two years at university) to train somebody off the street to be a driver, how much additional time does it take to train an already qualified driver to become an instructor?

I don't know exactly how long is required to be honest but they would presumably need to have many years experience driving to be deemed suitable and not just, say one or two years driving. Other factors would probably come into play for the right candidate.

On your last point, I am aware that there is a difference between merely viewing and being responsible to "train" somebody. My point is that the level of supervision asked of a driver would fall out of his formal abilities, even if his knowledge level is up to it.

Pineapple stu · 28-05-2008 4:41pm

Tell me this then. How are new drivers ment to get to know their new routes? The only way is to pair up with the experienced driver . The inspectors and trainers dont drive the trains on the routes so a lot has changed since they were drivers.
I think the cork lads has made a big deal out of nothing here.

Padraig Mor · 28-05-2008 5:10pm

cymro wrote: »

I think the cork lads has made a big deal out of nothing here.

Remember these are the guys who went on strike when IE tried to fire a ticket checker who was creaming from the till.....

paulm17781 · 28-05-2008 6:08pm

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Remember these are the guys who went on strike when IE tried to fire a ticket checker who was creaming from the till.....

Was that Cork too? If it was, I've really lost any form of respect I had.*

*Yes, in this case I had some support as I felt management could play this better.

parsi · 28-05-2008 7:02pm

Nostradamus wrote: »

Except the train drivers have been pulling these stunts for the better half of a century.

Bit of an exaggeration there I'd imagine...

P_1 · 28-05-2008 9:26pm

Just a hypothetical folks, seeing as these train drivers are in all probability, going to strike again at some stage. Would it be worthwhile to train some army engineers and have them step into the breech and drive the trains the next time a strike like this happens?

superhooper · 28-05-2008 10:38pm

According to The Examiner today drivers don't mind this training schedule but that the problem was that the driver in question was rostered to do "station duties". However the change in duties was not acceptable to him. Perhaps he felt he needed more time to think about it or just wasn't in the mood.Maybe he was tired.He might have been a Chelsea fan and was a bit down. Could have been a United fan and was feeling a bit raw??:rolleyes:

Pineapple stu · 28-05-2008 10:49pm

pithater1 wrote: »

Just a hypothetical folks, seeing as these train drivers are in all probability, going to strike again at some stage. Would it be worthwhile to train some army engineers and have them step into the breech and drive the trains the next time a strike like this happens?

No, it will never happen. The per-way and other staff would walk out then.

horseflesh · 28-05-2008 10:51pm

pithater1 wrote: »

Just a hypothetical folks, seeing as these train drivers are in all probability, going to strike again at some stage. Would it be worthwhile to train some army engineers and have them step into the breech and drive the trains the next time a strike like this happens?

Good question, and although probably a bit far fetched, a good idea too.
Something like this should be done so that the next time these morons pull off a wildcat strike (and lets be honest, there WILL be a next time) they could all be sacked en masse. I'm sure having that thought in the back of their little minds would put a stop to their gallop soon enough, and the days of them holding a gun to everyone's head would be gone.

P_1 · 28-05-2008 11:57pm

cymro wrote: »

No, it will never happen. The per-way and other staff would walk out then.

I don't think they would TBH. Not if the drivers are on a wildcat strike without a union mandate.

Striking train drivers in Cork

Comments