The strike is over

DerekP11

From irishrail.ie

Unofficial Industrial Action Concluded

The unofficial industrial action by train drivers that has lead to serious service disruptions in services in the South and West since Monday has concluded.

The majority of services will operate as timetabled today although there will be some services which will be disrupted.

Iarnród Éireann would like to apologise to all customers affected.

Navan Junction

Striking train drivers are returning to work today after a deal was reached with Iarnród Éireann late last night. ireland.com

The company said the majority of trains will operate on time today although there will be some disruption as services get back to normal.

The unofficial action lead to severe disruption to services on Monday and yesterday. There were no trains between Heuston Station in Dublin and Cork, Galway or Westport, while only one train ran between Dublin and Limerick.

Only the Waterford service from Heuston was operating to a near-normal level.

A deal was reached after 14 hours of talks. The intensive efforts to resolve the dispute, assisted by industrial relations consultant Phil Flynn, continued late last night.

Mr Flynn was engaged in meetings in Dublin with senior officials of the two unions representing drivers, Siptu and the National Bus and Rail Union. The locomotive drivers' committee, which comprises drivers from both unions, was also involved in the discussions.

The strike began on Monday after two Cork-based drivers refused to operate a new high-tech train that the company had planned to bring into service on the Cork-Dublin route.

The action spread yesterday with drivers based in Athlone and Galway joining those in Dublin, Cork and Limerick who had stopped working on Monday in support of their two colleagues.

It is understood drivers will not be driving the new trains when they return to work today.

© The Irish Times/ireland.com

Lambsbread

Navan Junction wrote:

It is understood drivers will not be driving the new trains when they return to work today.

What a bunch of wasters.

BendiBus

Lambsbread wrote:

What a bunch of wasters.

But they WILL be in service next Monday.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0517/rail.html

The unofficial action failed utterly and damaged the image of the train drivers and of the railway. It's wise to defer the new trains for a few days to let people calm down first. I suspect this was all anticipated by management anyway and their expectation was that it would be a week or so before the trains got introduced to service. But they had to push, even if it meant a few days of disruption. Otherwise they'd never see service.

shltter

BendiBus wrote:

But they WILL be in service next Monday.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0517/rail.html

The unofficial action failed utterly and damaged the image of the train drivers and of the railway. It's wise to defer the new trains for a few days to let people calm down first. I suspect this was all anticipated by management anyway and their expectation was that it would be a week or so before the trains got introduced to service. But they had to push, even if it meant a few days of disruption. Otherwise they'd never see service.

IEs complete lack of industrial relations skills have been exposed once again

2 days of strike and back to work they go NOT driving the new trains

Phil Flynn stays up half the night working out an agreement that will get people back to work and meetings to resolve the outstanding issues. But IE have to ring Ingrid Miley at half six this morning to get their side of the story on to morning Ireland knowing full well that the unions would not have had a chance to consult with its members yet.

What is it with these gob****es in IE management that they seem hell bent on confrontation.
Why not delay the introduction of the new sets for a week to allow the scheduled meeting with phil flynn to go ahead first.
What did it achieve the new trains are not running.

Then when they are given an undertaking that the sets will be introduced from next monday they deliberately go out of their way to make undertaking harder to deliver.

I don't know all the issues involved here but it seems to me that the management of IE are to eager to seek confrontation and consideration of its customers is an after tought at best.

Given John Keenans performance this morning on morning Ireland I would not be suprised if this flared up again next week.

paulm17781

Damn IE management and their refusal to drive those trains.

Wait a minute, it's not the management who went on strike with no good reason other than they wanted a pay rise for nothing.... :rolleyes:

popebenny16

Oh boy!!!!

2 days of strike and back to work they go NOT driving the new trains

Actually they are, with the exact same amount of run in time as last week.

Why not delay the introduction of the new sets for a week to allow the scheduled meeting with phil flynn to go ahead first.

Why? They have agreed to drive them next Monday before they even meet him.

I don't know all the issues involved here

You can say that again!

BendiBus

shltter wrote:

What is it with these gob****es in IE management that they seem hell bent on confrontation.

They've been forced into choosing confrontation. Appeasement (which it really is, not negotiation) only encourages piss-taking demands and further industrial action. The management need to make it clear they are willing to recognise workers contribution but they are not willing to roll over to every demand that any small group of workers comes up with.

In general terms, sometimes people want something for nothing. In these cases, should management give something just to maintain the peace? If they do then the next set of demands will follow quickly!

SeanW

^_^ what 'e said.

The trains have already been delayed for 6 months because of the unions. This madness had to end.

So tell me sh1tter, do you see this repeating itself:
When the Mitsui IC railcars arrive?
When the Dunboyne extension comes on-stream?
Various electrifications?
The Interconnector?

Maskhadov

the train drivers behaviour was disgraceful !!!

shltter

popebenny16 wrote:

Oh boy!!!!



Actually they are, with the exact same amount of run in time as last week.



Why? They have agreed to drive them next Monday before they even meet him.



You can say that again!

So why did John Keenan have to announce it this morning without letting the unions brief their membership if the deal was done for monday why not hang on till after the meeting today to announce the trains were going into service on monday.

John Keenan went out of his way to make that announcement on Morning Ireland knowing full well that the ordinary members of the unions would not have been briefed by the leadership.

The only reason to do that was for oneupmanship he gave no consideration to the fact that him saying this on morning Ireland would make the unions job more difficult to sell whatever deal had been agreed with Phil Flynn.

IE management are gung ho in their dealings with their work force they obviously could not give a **** if the strike continued on they are bolstered by the as usual anti union bias that passes for reporting in this state.

People should remember that this is not a popularity contest just because the media and the public are on your side does not mean that you should force confrontation that goes for either side at the end of the day the train drivers are not doing this for popularity so what the media and public think of them is largely un-important.

markpb

shltter wrote:

People should remember that this is not a popularity contest just because the media and the public are on your side does not mean that you should force confrontation that goes for either side at the end of the day the train drivers are not doing this for popularity so what the media and public think of them is largely u****ortant.

It might not be a popularity contest for the unions but it most certainly is for Irish Rail. Everytime the unions ask for money for something silly, IR management must balance saying no against the possible backlash that might occur.

Without public support they're forced to say yes to things that are patently silly. With public support, they can run the risk of a backlash and know they have public support, at least for a while.

You insist that unions are not greedy and that it's up to the management to say no to silly demands but they can't do that if they think the public won't support them when the drivers walk off.

You might be right that their industrial relations skills leave something to be desired but years of unions acting childish and holding the city to ransom left IR in a weak position.

shltter

markpb wrote:

You might be right that their industrial relations skills leave something to be desired but years of unions acting childish and holding the city to ransom left IR in a weak position.

Except IE were not in a weak position this morning they apparently had an agreement trashed out with Phil Flynn that the new sets were to be worked from next monday. Instead of keeping stum for a couple of hours John Keenan actually rang Ingrid Miley(RTE) at 6:30 this morning to expressly tell her that the trains would be working from Monday.

Anyone with half a brain could see that this would make life difficult for the Unions.

The Unions needed to be able to have a meeting with the company today then tell the Drivers that every thing was in hand that progress was being made etc etc and that as a goodwill gesture or whatever they should drive the new Locos.

Instead of being able to do that John Keenan announced to them that they would be driving the new Locos end of story done deal.

popebenny16

Except IE were not in a weak position this morning they apparently had an agreement trashed out with Phil Flynn that the new sets were to be worked from next monday.

So why did they strike at all then?

Instead of keeping stum for a couple of hours John Keenan actually rang Ingrid Miley(RTE) at 6:30 this morning to expressly tell her that the trains would be working from Monday.

And when he was morning ireland he said explicitly that he was saying thei sbecause of misleading comments from the union which had been broadcast. Cathal McQuillie then quizzed him futher on that particular point. Go to RTE.ie and have a listen to the actual interview.

Btw, Shltter, you have had ample opportuinty to read all of the posts on all of the threads about the strike on this forum. As someone who traditionaly supports the unions in CIE I would like you to give and answer to the following questions:

1. Why did the drivers refuse to drive all trains, not only the new CDE set?

2. If they are unsafe, why wasnt this an official dispute?

3. If theere are safety issues, how come the drivers are driving them next monday on the exact same terms and ther exact same lead-in time as last week?

Really, I'm sick of asking these questions here, however no-one who supports the unions can answer these basic questions.

murphaph

You're wasting your time Holy Father! Shltter will never accept that these skangers were chancing their arm for the umteenth time. It was not even sanctioned by the unions! It was unofficial action-that is the worst sort of employee relations you can get! They have a union which is powerful yet when that isn't enough for them they just throw the toys out of the cot and walk off the job, leaving the ordinary folks who work (often for mush less than these loco drivers) and pay their wages up sh!t creek without a paddle. There is no real issue here, least not one that would ever lead to industrial action being contemplated in the private sector (or even most of the public sector!).

shltter

popebenny16 wrote:

So why did they strike at all then?



And when he was morning ireland he said explicitly that he was saying thei sbecause of misleading comments from the union which had been broadcast. Cathal McQuillie then quizzed him futher on that particular point. Go to RTE.ie and have a listen to the actual interview.

Micheal Halpenny had said they would not be driving the new train sets on that morning that is it
That was not misleading it was fact.

popebenny16 wrote:

Btw, Shltter, you have had ample opportuinty to read all of the posts on all of the threads about the strike on this forum. As someone who traditionaly supports the unions in CIE I would like you to give and answer to the following questions:

1. Why did the drivers refuse to drive all trains, not only the new CDE sets?

The company basically suspended the drivers who had refused to drive the new sets the rest walked out in sympathy.

popebenny16 wrote:

2. If they are unsafe, why wasnt this an official dispute?

There is nothing unsafe on the new trains I believe the point was that they felt they had insufficent training and that was the unsafe element

popebenny16 wrote:

3. If theere are safety issues, how come the drivers are driving them next monday on the exact same terms and ther exact same lead-in time as last week?



Really, I'm sick of asking these questions here, however no-one who supports the unions can answer these basic questions.

The training thing is a red herring as far as I can see thrown in by the unions to muddy the waters.
In my opinion the train drivers were of the opinion that they wanted the other elements of their claim that the labour court had said had some validity to be sorted before they did something for the company. Quid pro quo if you like.

My own personal opinion is that they acted pretty stupidly the labour court had rejected the pay claim and seperated the other issues which phil Flynn had been appointed to mediate on.


That said I think the company also bears a large part of the responsibility for this weeks events they had been warned that this was likely to happen they have waited this long they could have waited another week to allow the phil flynn meeting to go ahead.
And John Keenans actions just further confirms the unprofessionalism of the IR in IE

MrPudding

shltter wrote:

That said I think the company also bears a large part of the responsibility for this weeks events they had been warned that this was likely to happen they have waited this long they could have waited another week to allow the phil flynn meeting to go ahead.
And John Keenans actions just further confirms the unprofessionalism of the IR in IE

This is where we really see the gap between public and private company workers.

For me it is unacceptable that the workers can dictate how things should be done. To me giving in to stupid demands and threats is a sign of unprofessionalism.

MrP

popebenny16

Im glas that you're not tryihng to justify the actions ot the drivers anyway.

Yes, training was a red herring.

I am not a fan of IE or their managment nor their human resources, they're all pretty dire. However, you would have thunk that the drivers knew this was the worst ground to have a dispute on.

After the 8 car DARTs and now this, the drivers have raised up and both times have had to get back down again and both times for nothing. IE knew this was going to happen. Bet those boys in hr are pissing themselves laughing, and that drives me even more mad.

civdef

Should unoffical strikes in essential services be illegal?

markpb

It would be nice if state service strikes were deemed illegal but there's a simpler way around it. They walked off their jobs without notifying their employer that it was official union action. They should be giving a written warning for it and if it happens again, fired. This is exactly what would happen if anyone else walked out.

murphaph

markpb wrote:

It would be nice if state service strikes were deemed illegal but there's a simpler way around it. They walked off their jobs without notifying their employer that it was official union action. They should be giving a written warning for it and if it happens again, fired. This is exactly what would happen if anyone else walked out.

Exactly, if I walked out 'in sympathy' with someone else (who had not been fired, just suspended), I'd just be sacked for not attending work. Either you're on an official trade union dispute (assuming you're represented bya union) or you're just absent from work. These boys were the latter and should be treated as such, given a written warning or whatever (though my employer, and most normal employers, would consider a failure to attend work to be a gesture of resignation after 3 days without contacting the company and would begin preparing your P45 for you).

shltter

murphaph wrote:

Exactly, if I walked out 'in sympathy' with someone else (who had not been fired, just suspended), I'd just be sacked for not attending work. Either you're on an official trade union dispute (assuming you're represented bya union) or you're just absent from work. These boys were the latter and should be treated as such, given a written warning or whatever (though my employer, and most normal employers, would consider a failure to attend work to be a gesture of resignation after 3 days without contacting the company and would begin preparing your P45 for you).

Who says they had not contacted their employer.

IE knew exactly why they were not at work.

My honest opinion is that IE forced a situation knowing full well the likely outcome.
The difference in my opinion is that in a private company the management would not have forced a position that would likely lead to a serious discommoding of your customers and a serious loss of revenue.

That does not mean I think what the train drivers did was right I think they played into the hands of the IE management who apparently seem to be spoiling for a row.


Going on with nonsense about sackings is just that nonsense unless you would prefer to escalate matters. I don't think anybody with the exception of Phil Flynn comes out with any honour trying to now continue on or widen the dispute would only make matters worse and would detract people from the original issue and increase support for theses guys.

shltter

MrPudding wrote:

This is where we really see the gap between public and private company workers.

For me it is unacceptable that the workers can dictate how things should be done. To me giving in to stupid demands and threats is a sign of unprofessionalism.

MrP

Forcing issues for the sake of it is unprofessional whether it is in the public or the private sector whether it is management or unions.

In my opinion it shows a complete disregard for the customers of the company.

I dont see what has been gained by anybody from this dispute other than making all sides look foolish. ( except Phil Flynn who has proved yet again how invaluable he is to this country which would have pissed of Herr McDowell so maybe it was all worthwhile):D

murphaph

shltter wrote:

Who says they had not contacted their employer.

....and said what eaxatly to IE HR? "I don't want to come to work today because you've suspended two lads for not driving a new train"??

That's just a refusal to work and would get you sacked in the private sector, actualy you would be resigning yourself after a set time!! It's 3 days in my contact which is pretty standard across the private (real-world) sector.

shltter wrote:

The difference in my opinion is that in a private company the management would not have forced a position that would likely lead to a serious discommoding of your customers and a serious loss of revenue.

Wha? Forced a position? You mean introduce new (well, sort of) trains that have been sitting idle for months, the ones the taxpayer coughed up for? A private company simply wouldn't expect any problems from introducing new technology (which this isn't really!).

shltter

murphaph wrote:

....and said what eaxatly to IE HR? "I don't want to come to work today because you've suspended two lads for not driving a new train"??

That's just a refusal to work and would get you sacked in the private sector, actualy you would be resigning yourself after a set time!! It's 3 days in my contact which is pretty standard across the private (real-world) sector.


Wha? Forced a position? You mean introduce new (well, sort of) trains that have been sitting idle for months, the ones the taxpayer coughed up for? A private company simply wouldn't expect any problems from introducing new technology (which this isn't really!).

The problem is not the new trains the problem was the issues associated with them which Phil Flynn had only just been appointed to mediate.
Now like it or lump it everyone was aware that if IE pushed ahead there would be a problem we can all agree or disagree on whether there should have been a problem but there was so you deal with the reality not what you would like the reality to be or arguably what the reality should be.

Bernard Allen(FG) warned IE that there would be a problem if they went ahead if he knew and FG would not be the closest party to the trade union movement then it is obvious that IE knew.

Iam not arguing that the guys were right not to drive the train I am merely pointing out that IE knew this in advance but carried on regardless. Now in the heel of the hunt the trains were not driven this week but they will be driven next week that is exactly what the unions asked them for to delay for one week to allow them to meet Phil Flynn first. Instead of just agreeing to it in the first place we end up with chaos and then agreement.

The fact that IE had the right to introduce the trains is not in dispute they clearly had the right to do it but bull headedly excercising that right was not in the interest of their passengers.

Hotblack Desiato

shltter wrote:

The problem is not the new trains the problem was the issues associated with them which Phil Flynn had only just been appointed to mediate.

What bloody problems. Problems which exist only in the NBRU lunatic fringe.
If there was any substance to this whatsoever then the union would be organising an official dispute. You and I both know this.

shltter

ninja900 wrote:

What y problems. Problems which exist only in the NBRU lunatic fringe.
If there was any substance to this whatsoever then the union would be organising an official dispute. You and I both know this.

I could have phrased that better what I meant was that the problems are in regard to the other matters that have been refered to Phil Flynn
AFAIK there are no problems with the new trains just a case of tying up different issues to the introduction of the new trains.
It would appear that drivers basically wanted those issues sorted out before they would drive the new trains. Basically the new trains were being used as a bargaining chip in the other negotiations.

Hotblack Desiato

shltter wrote:

Basically wanted those issues sorted out before they would drive the new trains. Basically the new trains were being used as a bargaining chip in the other negotiations.

Precisely. All the talk of safety issues is horses**t. It all boils down to "we want more money/shorter hours, let's use the new trains as an excuse for confrontation." You seem to think this is acceptable, well the Irish public who pay for all of this DON'T. Privatisation just moved a step closer. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another debate, but IE, the public and the Govt simply won't put up with this sort of s**te any longer and IE employees need to wake up to this.

SeanW

shltter wrote:

It would appear that drivers basically wanted those issues sorted out before they would drive the new trains. Basically the new trains were being used as a bargaining chip in the other negotiations.

So you're more or less admit what has been said since the beginning. That it has nothing whatsoever to do with these trains?

Yeah, so if anyone here has issues with their current employer decides to stop working if and when their boss brings in Windows Vista on office computers, would it be acceptable for them to go on a lightening strike?

After all, we haven't been trained on Windows Vista but lucky you, we'll still work a computer with Windows NT on it ...

I could see some P45s being typed up at that point.

shltter

SeanW wrote:

So you're more or less admit what has been said since the beginning. That it has nothing whatsoever to do with these trains?

Yeah, so if anyone here has issues with their current employer decides to stop working if and when their boss brings in Windows Vista on office computers, would it be acceptable for them to go on a lightening strike?

After all, we haven't been trained on Windows Vista but lucky you, we'll still work a computer with Windows NT on it ...

I could see some P45s being typed up at that point.

No more or less about it I said the safety issue was a red herring

No I dont think lightning strikes are a good idea.

Hope that settles that for you

shltter

ninja900 wrote:

Precisely. All the talk of safety issues is horses**t. It all boils down to "we want more money/shorter hours, let's use the new trains as an excuse for confrontation." You seem to think this is acceptable, well the Irish public who pay for all of this DON'T. Privatisation just moved a step closer. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another debate, but IE, the public and the Govt simply won't put up with this sort of s**te any longer and IE employees need to wake up to this.

I dont accept that privatisation took a step closer

And I dont believe I said that what the train drivers did was acceptable I dont think IE management are completely blameless in all this thats all as usual in all walks of life things are not black and white.