Dublin bus services halted by strike at Ringsend

Emerson

Bus services out of Ringsend depot have been temporarily halted due to an industrial dispute.

Routes affected include all 15s, 49, 65 77 and 150 serving Rathmines, Templeogue and Tallaght.

The LUAS red line commences business at 09.30

seamus

Yeah that's a bit ****ty. Let's leave thousands of people standing at busstops waiting for busses that aren't even gonna come, cos we didn't have the decency to let them know before they left the house.

Gob****es. Cut their pay. I, as their employer, demand that they do not be given any more money

Xterminator

This is exaclty the reason why i dont support the unions when they cry out against the privatisation of the dublin bus!

Because the unions hold the public to ranson, whenever it suits them.

They may have a legitimate grievance, but thats not the point. They should follow procedure, have a basllot, inform the public, and allow the paying customer time to make other arrangements, where possible.

Why could they not just refuse to collect fares, but drive the routes, as a 'middle ground' that doesnt penalise the captive market? Becuase they just couldnt give a sh|t.

X

Giblet

This better be a one day thing.

Dub13

A driver got pissed on.....come on lads,and he got sick and Dublin Bus would not pay him.They were right to go on Strike if you ask me.

pork99

Dub13 wrote:

A driver got pissed on.....come on lads,and he got sick and Dublin Bus would not pay him.They were right to go on Strike if you ask me.

Nobody cares.

Nobody pays me when I'm sick. If I had the income of a Dublin Bus driver I'd consider myself well off.

If I was left standing at a stop I would be thinking "fire the lot of them and replace them with Romanians/Indians/Chinese or whatever who will be glad of the job"

A Dub in Glasgo

Unoffical action therefore they had no right to go on strike this morning

Dublin Bus services returning to normal

28 September 2004 11:19

Dublin Bus has said services are returning to normal on routes which were disrupted this morning because of industrial action at Ringsend Depot.

The unofficial strike has been affecting routes to Rathmines, Terenure, Templeogue and Tallaght.

The affected routes were the 15A, B and C; 49, 65, all the 77s and the 150.

A spokeswoman said drivers were returning to work without any commitment from the company regarding its industrial relations procedures.

She said the company would begin an investigation into how this morning's unofficial action took place.

A spokesman for the NBRU said the dispute began when a driver had been told to go sick after he had protested to management about working conditions following an incident on his bus.

This is the second unofficial strike action by Dublin Bus drivers in a number of weeks. Drivers operating out of the Conyngham Road Depot brought services to a halt for several hours earlier this month in a protest over the location of a temporary bus terminus.

Dub13

pork99 wrote:

Nobody cares.

Well that says alot about you,the man (or woman these days) was trying to do a job and got some scum bag pissing on him.The way I see it this is Dublin Buses fault,if a Guard,Prison Officer or a Fire man was injured doing there job they would get paid.

pork99

Dub13 wrote:

Well that says alot about you,the man (or woman these days) was trying to do a job and got some scum bag pissing on him.The way I see it this is Dublin Buses fault,if a Guard,Prison Officer or a Fire man was injured doing there job they would get paid.

My post above is very one sided - it is what my gut reaction would be if I was left standing at a bus stop.

You also have to consider management incompetence for letting a situation get to this stage. Possibly the driver has a case, I don't know anything about what happened, but f*cking up your customers lives like this is more likely to produce the reaction in my first post.

Anyway what is the LRC there for?

Dub13

I agree it should go to the LRC,but maybe this is the drivers gut reaction also how long would it take to get to the LRC.Maybe they should have just pulled the route that the driver was working on when it happend as I cannot see the point of leaving 1000s of other people on the street.

But at the end of the day the man was pissed on when he was carrying out his dutys for Dublin Bus so they should pay him.

dmeehan

this just makes me more in favour of (part-)privatisation

at least if there was competition, you might have some hope of getting to your destination.

Also:
What is the difference between Official & Unofficial strike action?

sliabh

Dub13 wrote:

A driver got pissed on.....come on lads,and he got sick and Dublin Bus would not pay him.They were right to go on Strike if you ask me.

If a strike was required then the proper process should have been followed - ballot, notice and out. This did not happen and frankly the union should get fined over this.

I used to work in a unionised industry and there was a process to solving disputes:
1] Articulate your position and make your demands
2] Negotiate with management (this step is usually iterative)
3] If negotiations don't work then ballot for a strike
3a] More negotiations with managment
4] If all else has failed then strike
5] More negotiations - because you are going to have to agree to go back to work win, lose or draw.

The problem with too many of the CIE companies is that the workers seem to believe the process is:
1] Go on strike
2] Issue demands
3] Call for politicians to intervene
4] Negotiate
5] Call for politicians to intervene
6] Go to labour court
7] Call for politicians to intervene
8] Negotiate and finally accept something that was on offer before (with or without a politcal sweetener or arm twist)

A strike is supposed to be the last option and its a sign that management and unions/workers have failed.

maxheadroom

sliabh wrote:

If a strike was required then the proper process should have been followed - ballot, notice and out. This did not happen and frankly the union should get fined over this.

Why should the union get fined because some drivers spontaneously decided not to go to work?

sliabh

maxheadroom wrote:

Why should the union get fined because some drivers spontaneously decided not to go to work?

Because the union is supposed to be responsible for representing the workers with managment. So if there is an unauthorised strike then they should be liable for the sanctions (or should there be no penalty for this sort of cowboy behaviour?) You can be pretty sure that if a Dublin Bus supervisor decided on his own to suspend someone that the management as a whole would take the blame.

I believe in the UK unions are liable for wildcat and unauthorised strikes by their members.

Dub13

The thing about privatisation is if a private company runs a bus in a so called "Kip" and keeps getting there buses wrecked by bricks throught windows and drivers attacked they will just pull ALL the buses out of an area as they cannot make money.


So in a year or two when/if privatisation happens people who are from these so called Kips will be the first to be hit.Thank god I dont live in an area were this kind of thing happens on Buses,you do feel sorry for the decent people in the areas when the buses are pulled out.

sliabh

Dub13 wrote:

The thing about privatisation is if a private company runs a bus in a so called "Kip" and keeps getting there buses wrecked by bricks throught windows and drivers attacked they will just pull ALL the buses out of an area as they cannot make money.

Dublin bus does the same thing. They withdraw bus service from areas of the city from time to time.

Anyway a privatised service can be required to meet required service levels. So if you are not running busses then you could get fined or have your franchise taken off you.

maxheadroom

sliabh wrote:

Because the union is supposed to be responsible for representing the workers with managment.

Precisely. However, the union is not responsible for the conduct of its members when they're not acting under instruction from the union. You may as well ask if the union should be fined if one of its members breaks into a house.

sliabh wrote:

So if there is an unauthorised strike then they should be liable for the sanctions (or should there be no penalty for this sort of cowboy behaviour?)

Again, if the union had nothing to do with the strike why should it be held responsible? Sanctions, if any are to be applied, should be levied against the individual drivers who did not show up for work.

sliabh wrote:

I believe in the UK unions are liable for wildcat and unauthorised strikes by their members.

That wouldn't surprise me, but luckily we don't have the same industrial relations machinery as the UK.

dmeehan

Sanctions, if any are to be applied, should be levied against the individual drivers who did not show up for work.

I'd imagine this would give more cause for strike

sliabh

maxheadroom wrote:

Precisely. However, the union is not responsible for the conduct of its members when they're not acting under instruction from the union. You may as well ask if the union should be fined if one of its members breaks into a house.

No but where IR issues are concerned then the unions should be responsible.

Or the workers should be held to account. You can't have a situation where either of the two parties (staff OR management) can feel free to do what they want at the drop of a hat.

I wouldn't agree with firing them, but some sort of sanction is called for. Hitting the union in the wallet seems like a reasonable compramise

midget lord

Whatever about unions and the rest but the fact of the matter remains that someone in this city pissed on a bus driver.

Security on our public transport is an absolute disgrace. I was slightly encouraged by the implementation of the 500 euro fine and the lengths CIE went to discourage from smoking on public transport through advertising, but it wasn't implemented. You are guaranteed that on some of the longer journeys (33, 41, 38, 39, 78A, 25 etc) you will get someone smoking a cig, and quite often someone stoner smoking a spliff. Firstly there should be CIE police who will occasionally get on the bus, something similar to the ticket inspectors, but in plain clothes. If anyone is caught smoking they should received the max fine every time, if they dont pay it, well, off to the 'Joy with them.

Now back on topic. Its quite possible that this type of plain clothes policing may deter the criminally minded like the absolute scum that carried out this heneous act.

Xterminator

Dub13 wrote:

The thing about privatisation is if a private company runs a bus in a so called "Kip" and keeps getting there buses wrecked by bricks throught windows and drivers attacked they will just pull ALL the buses out of an area as they cannot make money.


So in a year or two when/if privatisation happens people who are from these so called Kips will be the first to be hit.Thank god I dont live in an area were this kind of thing happens on Buses,you do feel sorry for the decent people in the areas when the buses are pulled out.

It already happens!

They withdrew buses from several areas of in ballymun for weeks, excluding residents in old folks homes etc. on it, after a stoning incident.
While i condem anti social behavior, holding the elderly residents hostage for the behaviour of a few youths, is unwarranted. However the drivers refused to drive up the roads, and the company was powerless to force them!

I am also aware they withdrew services from a tallaght suburb for over a year!

Lets face it, if the workforce decides to take actions like withdrawing a service, or wildcat strikes, they do so knowing the captive consumer has no alternative.

However i dont want to deny workers the right to industrial action, i just want due process followed, with striking as the last resort, not a first strike weapon for the militant unions!

X

pork99

midget lord wrote:

Security on our public transport is an absolute disgrace.

Public order in this country is becoming a bit of a joke generally

John R

Xterminator wrote:

It already happens!

They withdrew buses from several areas of in ballymun for weeks, excluding residents in old folks homes etc. on it, after a stoning incident.
While i condem anti social behavior, holding the elderly residents hostage for the behaviour of a few youths, is unwarranted. However the drivers refused to drive up the roads, and the company was powerless to force them!

I am also aware they withdrew services from a tallaght suburb for over a year!

Lets face it, if the workforce decides to take actions like withdrawing a service, or wildcat strikes, they do so knowing the captive consumer has no alternative.

So they should risk their safety by not yaking any action?

If you feel so strongly that these areas deserve these public services how about you volunteer to be the person who is a constant target for the sundry lowlifes amd their violent behaviour.

Xterminator wrote:

However i dont want to deny workers the right to industrial action, i just want due process followed, with striking as the last resort,

So a strike that is properly balloted will recieve your support then?

Xterminator wrote:

not a first strike weapon for the militant unions!

I guess that makes the previous "i just want due process" bit to be a lie.

Basically you (and others) just want the services to be provided no matter what, and if the people who provide them have to put up with abuse and violence then so what. After all they should be grateful to be getting paid at all, considering it is YOUR hard-earned wages that are paying them.

Xterminator

Now that the circumstances of the incident have become know i belive more than ever i was right.

How does saying going on strike should be a last resort, not a first resort, disqualify my first statement?

Perhaps you need to re-read?

I was saying the members of dublin bus should follow the correct procedure, and file their greivincesm and use the proper industrial dispute mechanisims before striking.

I also made the point their actions have effects beyond the buses not running, and because the public dont have any ther choice, they need to use the power of strike responsibly.

I have worked in a late night fast food joint for 7 years and have suffered abuse at the hand of scumbags countless times.
So dont presume to lecture me, or assume i dont know what it is like.
What i am saying is that using the strike power irrresponsibly, and not caring about the wider effect on the community, is reprehensible. That is why i used the example of stone throwing, for drives refusal to drive the scheduled 13+13a routes for weeks, without consulting management, guards, or the local community.

In yeaterdays strike case, the driver didnt report the incident as required by dublin bus, and then went hme sick, He was being paid sick pay, but disputed because he didnt get overtime payments while out sick. No greivience was filed with the union, no notice given to management, just 5 drivers picketed the depot, and the other drives refused to cross the picket. Result = Chaos.

X

Source today's indo....

Management contended the driver had failed to report the assault or follow procedures and, instead, opted for sick leave and obtained a medical certificate from his own doctor. He requested passengers to alight and returned to his garage, informing his controller of the unpleasant incident and telling him that he was going home to recover.

Yesterday five colleagues supported his grievance by placing an unofficial picket on the Ringsend garage. It was supported by most of the drivers rostered for the Tallaght and south-west Dublin routes.

A company spokeswoman said the driver should have reported the incident as an assault to the depot manager who would have contacted the State bus company's medical officer to assess his condition.

On assault leave, the driver would be entitled to full pay including shift allowances, but not overtime earnings. The driver had a medical cert effective from Saturday to yesterday but returned to work early.

Dub13

The indo are talking crap (not for the first time),I heard the driver on 98Fm last night and he did report it....he said something about Dublin Bus do not conceder someone pissing on you an assault,anyway thats not the point.He said he told today's indo about it and then went on to tell them that the next day he will be having a protest and the manager said go ahead.So to me this says 1)Dublin Bus Management were aware of it 2) they were at falt as if they had of started talking the work stoppage would not have went ahead.

Dublin Bus Management are to blame for this

sliabh

Dub13 wrote:

So to me this says 1)Dublin Bus Management were aware of it 2) they were at falt as if they had of started talking the work stoppage would not have went ahead.

Dublin Bus Management are to blame for this

No they are not. The driver (who may or may not have been telling the unvarnished truth on the radio) still did not follow the proper procedure: Register the complaint, if not addressed then go down the industrial action route.

Telling your manager that your are "having a protest" is not following the procedure.

Zaph0d

What are the workers' demands?

This adversarial approach to dealing with work problems is counterproductive for everyone involved, passengers, staff and management. What progess did the workers make as a result and what sympathy did they gain from passengers by letting them down?

Would a more negotiated approach not bring better results?

Let's start from the assumption that all three parties involved are reasonable and fair people. (no progress is likely without this assumption)

Let's look at the common interests of all sides:

• All parties agree that being physically assaulted or horribly degraded at work is unacceptable and not an ordinary work hazard. We can all empathise with this as we are all workers of one kind or another.
• All parties want the bus service to be as good as it can be.

What alternative approach could the drivers have taken?

• They need to get the message across to passengers that they are under attack and that this is unacceptable. The urination story is a gift to journalists from all media and does not require a strike to make headline news.
• As drivers have a lot of contact with the public, they could hand out leaflets as they take fares, to outline their case.
• Once the message is established with the public, they can then agree with management what should happen in the event of an assault in terms of time off work, compensation, or suspending routes.

Management and passengers (who have no representative that I know of) should have their needs negotiated at the same time as drivers. I don't know what management would like but as a passenger I can think of many small things I would like changed in the way the bus service is run.

Dub13

The way I see it is the man was assaulted and Dublin Bus are saying he was not.Now if I was to walk up to a guard on the street and piss on him or her I am sure I would be up for assault at least.Who do Dublin Bus think they are saying what an assault is or is not.

If anybody had 98Fm on last night and heard the driver I think they would belive him.

sliabh

Dub13 wrote:

The way I see it is the man was assaulted and Dublin Bus are saying he was not.

That is not the issue. There is a process to be followed. Just because the driver disagrees with DB's view on what is or is not an assault doesn't give him an automatic right to walk out. There is a process to be followed.

And he has damaged his own case by taking the action he did.

Zaph0d wrote:

Let's start from the assumption that all three parties involved are reasonable and fair people. (no progress is likely without this assumption)

For a minute there I was wondering were you referring to the guy that did the pissing as one of the three parties

Zaph0d

sliabh wrote:

For a minute there I was wondering were you referring to the guy that did the pissing as one of the three parties

haha

ixoy

Dub13 wrote:

The way I see it is the man was assaulted and Dublin Bus are saying he was not.Now if I was to walk up to a guard on the street and piss on him or her I am sure I would be up for assault at least.Who do Dublin Bus think they are saying what an assault is or is not.

What I read though is that the urinating happened upstairs and it went through the floor unto the driver. Now that's disgusting but, if he wasn't the actual target, only an accidental victim, then surely it's not a case for assault?

None of which excuses the way he handled his complaint...

Zaph0d

ixoy wrote:

What I read though is that the urinating happened upstairs and it went through the floor unto the driver. Now that's disgusting but, if he wasn't the actual target, only an accidental victim, then surely it's not a case for assault?

TV3 news yesterday showed that the guy urinated down the periscope tube at the front of the bus that the drivers use to look in the wide angle mirror. So it was not an accident.

pork99

Zaph0d wrote:

TV3 news yesterday showed that the guy urinated down the periscope tube at the front of the bus that the drivers use to look in the wide angle mirror. So it was not an accident.

The more I hear about this the more I sympathise with the driver. Is there no way animals like that can be barred from public transport?

I'd implant a chip in the back of their necks which would deliver nasty debilitating electric shocks to them if they left Darndale or Tallaght let alone tried to get on a bus

cdebru

ixoy wrote:

What I read though is that the urinating happened upstairs and it went through the floor unto the driver. Now that's disgusting but, if he wasn't the actual target, only an accidental victim, then surely it's not a case for assault?

None of which excuses the way he handled his complaint...

first off it doesn't matter wether the piss was meant for you if you are covered in it
same way if a stone that was not aimed at you hit you in the face its still going to hurt

secondly this is a build up this was not based on one incident the pissing was just the straw that broke the camels back
there is a long running dispute in dublin bus as to what constitutes an assault

for example the company argue that being spat upon is not an assault hit by stones is not an assault etc
then if you do have a genuine case they try to worm out of paying you for example they allege that they were not informed properly or on time or that some paper work was not filled out altough they will not offer you the paperwork when you report an assault you must ask for the paperwork this must be done within 24 hours of the incident of course the last thing someone covered in urine would want to do is hang around waiting for paperwork
managers will go out of their way to deny paying assault pay now the arguement about the lrc do you have any idea how long something like that takes years
in the meantime your losing money over an incident that was not your fault
now maybe in a couple of years the lrc will agree with you and you will get the money back but that wont pay this months mortgage and it wont feed your kids today
now think about how infuriating it is to have something like this done to you
then to have the company that you work for give you the run around that makes it worse
btw the drivers will be docked their pay for the hours of this dispute
as regards fining the unions maybe they should be then maybe they would get up off their arses and get this **** sorted out so that people dont have to have lightning strikes
everbody knows this is not the best way to solve problems but sometimes you have to make a stand and say enough is enough

another suggestion maybe if the management in dublin bus got the same bonus for avoiding strikes as they get for avoiding paying assault pay then we would not have come to the situation we came to