Another example of greed in public sector transport unions

aliveandkicking

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

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

spareman

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

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

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

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

shltter wrote:

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

But why?

aliveandkicking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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_

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

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

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

shltter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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_

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

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

paulm17781

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_

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

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.

aliveandkicking

shltter wrote:

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

Right I assume you are insinuating I am a liar and making this all up because I have nothing better to do than spend my time thinking up crackpot stories about the internal working practices of Dublin Bus and its unions. If thats what you think, I'm not going to argue any further with you about it, I'll let other posters judge for themselves.

shltter wrote:

I have never seen a route made shorter .

Late 90's or early 2000/1 route 19A (or could have been 19) stopped running to Rialto and instead terminated at Kelly's Corner which is at the top of Camden Street. That was a considerable shortening of the route (at least 4km less). I wonder did the drivers give any money back to the company for driving a shorter route? No of course not because they were still working the same amount of hours per day.

Metrobest

The way they are holding up service improvements to customers because of logical changes to their work practices shows how increasingly out of touch with reality the CIE trade unions have become. But hey, why break with tradition?

Unions were set up to make sure workers were treated fairly, their rights protected and their labour not being exploited. Across the globe the union movement was at its strongest when general economic conditions were poor, employment law was weak and there was a hierarchical culture in which the weakest were exploited.

The rules of the game have changed. Economic conditions have improved beyond recognition. Ireland has one of the highest minimum wages in the world and features one of the lowest tax regimes. Irish workers, including CIE employees, have never had it so good. Some of the world's strongest, most anti-employer legislation protects workers from being exploited, underpaid, or unfairly dismissed. And rightly so. Accordingly trade unions have become increasingly irrelevent in the private sector. Except from the annoyance they cause when trains are delayed and people can't get to work, or buses can't serve customers because the unions are demanding spurious one-off payments.

Work practices change all the time; no job can or should be the same for life. It is not unreasonable for an employer to ask an employee to perform a new task or change his/her work in order to improve the service of that company. The employee has a right to be consulted, listened to. Then a decision needs to be taken. Are the employee's concerns valid? If they aren't valid - and in this case they most certainly aren't - then the employer must take a stand and say to Anto and Dekko: "there's plenty of other jobs other there. You're unlikely to walk into a job in the private sector with the pay, terms and conditions, and security of this position. The choice is yours."

Rather than serve their true purpose, the CIE emplyees/unions have morphed hideously into a blood-sucking spider. In their comfortable web of job security they bask, doing nothing all day, clocking up the hours. Then they spot an opportunity to extract more money from the taxpayer and they pounce, fangs akimbo.

I blame successive governments for this. Unfortuntely we never had a Margaret Thatcher-style leader to remove the poision from the fangs of the CIE unions. We instead get "socialist" Bertie Ahern who regularly lovebombs the trade union movement.

A disfunctional culture has formed in CIE where management sit back and monitor their generous pension funds while employees and trade unions prevent even the slightest changes to work practices - changes which would benefit the passengers who pay their wages. There's only one thing for it: shut CIE.

MiniD

shltter wrote:

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

I find it worrying that as a person employed to deal with the public, you feel it is some kind of extra task to inform customers of any route changes. You also seem to think that because it is a small once off payment of a couple of hundred euro that somehow it is ok? As someone already mentioned, when it comes to route changes, Dublin Bus usually have a newspaper advertisement of the changes and there is very often an on street presence of customer service staff. So a passenger asks you where the new terminus is, hardly a massive task now is it? If you were in a restaurant and you asked the cashier where to find the toilets following a refurbishment, would you think it is right for that staff member to get a few hundred euro to divulge the information?

You are being paid to drive for x amount of hours a day, not for distance.

As for routes being shortened:
Route 3 had a lot of it's journeys shortened to serve the Southside only (route 2).
Route 18 had a lot of it's journeys running only to Palmerstown Cemetary rather than cross the N4 to Old Lucan Road.
Route 31B recently had it's route shortened to only serve Howth Summit rather than carry on to Howth Dart Station.
Route 41C was recently altered not to serve the Airport.
Route 51B had it's routing shortened to give a more direct service to Grange Castle (introduction of 51C).

Although there have been lots of extensions of routes in recent years, I somehow doubt the drivers on the above routes offered Dublin Bus a once off payment of a few hundred euro in recognition of the shorter distance.

MarkoP11

On one level its the duty of the union to seek the best possible deal for its members so if anything changes its a foot in the door. That said I think the senior union people are the ones truly to blame by taking futile cases just because they can. Whats said about this is when a legitimate case comes up it will be like a boy who cried wolf

Example working time act meant that over time opportunity for bus drivers in Dublin Bus was reduced, strike was threatened absolutely no point as it was an EU regulation that Dublin Bus and other operators had to enforce. Overtime is overtime its not guaranteed

End of the day if if work for Dublin Bus you will end up driving a bus around Dublin unless the union agreement is laid out to detail the precise location of each route and bus stop which I doubt it is no way should money be handed over

Dublin Bus need to do what Irish Rail management did, they pulled a very clever move 6 years ago but getting the unions to agree that introduction of new rolling stock/technology would not be cause for a claim, twice in the last 6 months the unions have tried to weasel money out of the company based on new stock, labour court ruled that the 2000 agreement allowed for that and the unions had no claim. Unions didn't agree and threatened unofficial action and a face off ensued and management won, face off 2 is Cork tomorrow. The unions knew all this but still wasted taxpayers money just because they can

Dublin Bus management are in the don't rock the boat mindset much easier life to write a few cheques

spareman

shltter wrote:

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.

Really? Im in the job 2 years and havent recieved one cent for changes to routes or new bills/ timetables.

parsi

TBH..

The Union gets it dues on the condition that it supports the workers and puts forwards their claims.

Management on the other hand have an obligation to figure out whether they can accept these terms or face the unions down.

The criticism should be levelled at management who seem to be prepared to lie down and let the Unions walk over them and God knows any Union worth its salt would keep pushing them if it's like such an open door.

At my place of work our Union wouldn't countenance such claims, then again our management has faced down the Unions before..

Transport21 Fan

parsi wrote:

The criticism should be levelled at management who seem to be prepared to lie down and let the Unions walk over them and God knows any Union worth its salt would keep pushing them if it's like such an open door.

I think it is time we strapped a couple of booster rockets to the side of Liberty Hall and point it towards Uranus.

shltter

Not one of you answered the question if you were offered the money would you take it.

So lets take the logical conclusion then why should anyone get a christmas bonus(BTW dublin bus do NOT pay a christmas bonus) you dont work any harder that week you are already being paid. I presume any of you who do receive such a payment will be returning it to your employer.

Sick pay why should an employer pay anyone who is not well enough to work and what about those greedy unions who request sorry DEMAND EXTORT This money from the poor employer. I presume you guys will be refusing those payments as well.

paulm17781

Of course I'd take money if it was offered to me. I wouldn't strike if it wasn't though.

I got a Christmas bonus this year, totally unexpected. Do you know why I got it? Because I worked very hard all year and it was to thank me for that. Had I not gotten it I wouldn't have gone on strike.

you dont work any harder that week you are already being paid.

That says it all. I work hard all year and got a bonus. You imply that one weeks hard work deserves a bonus.

shltter

paulm17781 wrote:

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.

Dublin Bus sends Drivers on training/safety courses that also involves extra travel and frequently extra hours work compared to the normal shift
NO extra payment is made.

We are talking about a long term significant change in work practises for which a small payment is made.
It is in keeping with the terms of the National pay agreement and approved by the labour relations machinery of this state.




My advice

Get off your ass and join a union

murphaph

shltter wrote:

Not one of you answered the question if you were offered the money would you take it.

If an employer offered me more money it would be for a valid reason, so I'd take it. Driving 750m further down the road is not such a valid reason.

shltter wrote:

So lets take the logical conclusion then why should anyone get a christmas bonus(BTW dublin bus do NOT pay a christmas bonus) you dont work any harder that week you are already being paid. I presume any of you who do receive such a payment will be returning it to your employer.

Some people earn 13 months salary a year, the extra month being paid in December. Some employers pay a bonus for the individual employee's contribution to the company. My compan does this once a year but it's not in December so no xmas bonus for me either.

shltter wrote:

Sick pay why should an employer pay anyone who is not well enough to work and what about those greedy unions who request sorry DEMAND EXTORT This money from the poor employer. I presume you guys will be refusing those payments as well.

An employer is not bound to pay for days off sick. It's up to you to claim for this from the Dept. of Social Welfare. There is no such thing in irish law as "sick pay". You are medically unfit for work and can claim welfare for this.

murphaph

shltter wrote:

My advice

Get off your ass and join a union

Shltter, it's people like Paul and myself who work in the private sector for companies who wouldn't tolerate your childish union's whims that actually generate the wealth for this country. The public sector does not generate wealth. That is done by the private sector and our taxes pay for public services.

If I joined a union and they started demanding extra money for me when I'm given a new piece of technology to use, or have to walk a bit further to a different meeting room, the company would just tell us all to fcuk off and move to Poland (and rightly so, there's only so much sh!te any private company would tolerate-the pblic sector on the other hand........)

When enough private companies had left, the tax take would fall so much that even the money for your union's panderings would dry up and you might find yourself on the dole too.

shltter

paulm17781 wrote:

Of course I'd take money if it was offered to me. I wouldn't strike if it wasn't though.

I got a Christmas bonus this year, totally unexpected. Do you know why I got it? Because I worked very hard all year and it was to thank me for that. Had I not gotten it I wouldn't have gone on strike.



That says it all. I work hard all year and got a bonus. You imply that one weeks hard work deserves a bonus.

Who said anything about strike I have not heard anyone mentioning a strike.

The union put in a claim the company agree or disagree they negotiate if they cannot agree then it goes to the Labour court who then decides.


No matter how hard I work all year or the next 30 years I will never get an unexpected bonus from DB
Luckily for you your employer recognises extra effort and rewards it DB does not so if you do not ask you will not get.

shltter

murphaph wrote:

If an employer offered me more money it would be for a valid reason, so I'd take it. Driving 750m further down the road is not such a valid reason.

In your opinion.

murphaph wrote:

Some people earn 13 months salary a year, the extra month being paid in December. Some employers pay a bonus for the individual employee's contribution to the company. My compan does this once a year but it's not in December so no xmas bonus for me either.


An employer is not bound to pay for days off sick. It's up to you to claim for this from the Dept. of Social Welfare. There is no such thing in irish law as "sick pay". You are medically unfit for work and can claim welfare for this.

I never said an employer was bound to pay sick leave that is my point although some employers do pay their employees for a certain ammount of sick time. The logic of peoples arguements here is that no company should ever pay sick pay or indeed Xmas bonuses.
And if you take it or have the cheek to ask for it you are greedy.

_Kaiser_

shltter wrote:

We are talking about a long term significant change in work practises for which a small payment is made.
It is in keeping with the terms of the National pay agreement and approved by the labour relations machinery of this state.




My advice

Get off your ass and join a union

Please explain to us how driving 750m futher down a road qualifies as a significant change in work practises???

If I understand you correctly, you then go on to suggest that we should all go out to actively extort money from our employers by joining a union??

As I stated earlier, which you didn't respond to I notice, the best thing that could happen to Dublin Bus and the travelling public is that staff like you be given a choice: Do the job you're being paid to do, or get out.

murphaph

shltter wrote:

No matter how hard I work all year or the next 30 years I will never get an unexpected bonus from DB
Luckily for you your employer recognises extra effort and rewards it DB does not so if you do not ask you will not get.

It's a free country Shltter. You are free to leave DB and get another job. That's what my employer would say if I started making unreasonable demands and they'd be right!

shltter

murphaph wrote:

Shltter, it's people like Paul and myself who work in the private sector for companies who wouldn't tolerate your childish union's whims that actually generate the wealth for this country. The public sector does not generate wealth. That is done by the private sector and our taxes pay for public services.

If I joined a union and they started demanding extra money for me when I'm given a new piece of technology to use, or have to walk a bit further to a different meeting room, the company would just tell us all to fcuk off and move to Poland (and rightly so, there's only so much sh!te any private company would tolerate-the pblic sector on the other hand........)

When enough private companies had left, the tax take would fall so much that even the money for your union's panderings would dry up and you might find yourself on the dole too.

The company I work for provides a service that the Government pays towards the same as it does for many private sector companies who provide goods and services to the state.

No matter who was providing that service it would still have to be paid for and in reality the state would pay alot more if it was a private sector company.
Look at the subvention to private companies in the UK providing Public transport compared to before privatisation.

shltter

murphaph wrote:

It's a free country Shltter. You are free to leave DB and get another job. That's what my employer would say if I started making unreasonable demands and they'd be right!

Of course and you are free to come to DB and work here if you think life is so handy here.

shltter

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Please explain to us how driving 750m futher down a road qualifies as a significant change in work practises???

If I understand you correctly, you then go on to suggest that we should all go out to actively extort money from our employers by joining a union??

As I stated earlier, which you didn't respond to I notice, the best thing that could happen to Dublin Bus and the travelling public is that staff like you be given a choice: Do the job you're being paid to do, or get out.

I see so you know better than the Labour court is that right


I do the job I am getting paid for in well over a decade working for DB I have never had one passenger complaint nor have I had any accidents (touch wood)

murphaph

shltter wrote:

Of course and you are free to come to DB and work here if you think life is so handy here.

I don't want to drive a bus for a living, it's not my area, but you neatly danced around the issue. This is a free country with a buoyant economy. You make out like working for DB is akin to being a slave in a roman galley ship, yet you stay working for them. If it's so bad, move, go work for Dualway, Barton's, Morton's, AMC etc. etc. The truth is that you know you have a nice job for life and aren't about to jack it in any time soon