Irish Rail - possible industrial action, Friday 1st August

fitzyshea

http://www.irishrail.ie/news_centre/travel_alerts.asp?action=view&news_id=410

Anyone know what the problem is now? Think its time to privatise the whole thing!

Stark

fitzyshea wrote: »

Anyone know what the problem is now?

It's a bank holiday. Do they need any other reason?

Ham'nd'egger

fitzyshea wrote: »

http://www.irishrail.ie/news_centre/travel_alerts.asp?action=view&news_id=410

Anyone know what the problem is now? Think its time to privatise the whole thing!

SIPTU have served 30 days Strike notice on the company as a result of issues pertaining to pay of sub contracted Permanent Way workers being far greater than company staff and conflicts of who does what; in other words typical in house issues. The notice runs out this week and it hasn't been addressed by the company in such a way as to cancel the notice.

Lest anybody launch into a debate about rights and wrongs of either side and who said what, this same issue has happened in the company many times over the years all over the company.

Davidth88

Think its time to privatise the whole thing!

Be careful what you wish for , I watched first hand the way BR was dismantled , I think the British rail system is still suffering for it.

The power of the unions has to curtailed , not just within CIE but other public service areas such as the airports/civil service/health service. It seems that the mgmt has no b***s to take them on , hense we get little or no progress because unions by their very nature are opposed to change ( they see change as a threat to their members/reason to ask for more money ).

You see this in all walks of public service for example a if a computer system is put in to make work easier in the private sector you just get on with it , in the public sector it seems to be a reason to throw a tantrum. Or the office gets re-located public service...... refuse to move/obstruct the move , private sector , like it or leave. Ohhh but we want to be benchmarked to have equal pay to the private sector......

Rant over.

astrofool

So they are paying temporary staff, who don't get any benefits, such as health or a pension fund, or security, more than the staff who do have those benefits, and they're striking?

Simple, give the union staff the same pay, remove their benefits, and fire them in 6 months time.

Tipsy Mac

Cork again :rolleyes:

Ham'nd'egger

Helpful comments that will work, no doubts:rolleyes:

astrofool wrote: »

So they are paying temporary staff, who don't get any benefits, such as health or a pension fund, or security, more than the staff who do have those benefits, and they're striking?

Simple, give the union staff the same pay, remove their benefits, and fire them in 6 months time.

BendiBus

Strike averted.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0730/rail.html

Victor

Davidth88 wrote: »

It seems that the mgmt has no b***s to take them on

Opposite problem - management are provoking the unions in a situation where some terms and conditions belong to the 1970s.

Pineapple stu

The strike was about the cork lads saying that p.i.c.o.p , lookout and es duties on the new works down there was their sole right to do them as 5/5 core staff and not the 5/7 staff ( which are staff who started after 2000 ). They were classing 5/7 staff as contractors because SOME of these have been taken on for new works projects. These fixed term staff do not take possessions and only do lookout duties. These lads dont get more than the cork lads as their pay scale is less than theirs. Contractors do not do the duties of per/way staff and did not down in cork. The per way staff voted in 2000 to work with contractors but this meant lookin after outside companys who do specialised work i.e cables, machines etc. The cork lads were interviewed for the new works project down there and the majority of this work would be nights and on a 5/7 rosta. The cork lads were offered 4 hours pay a week to let new works on their length but refused saying that they want to do the picop duties etc because it would involve working nights and getting the night rate for it. That is fair enough but only 1 or 2 lads would get to perform these duties and the rate for doing p.i.c.o.p duties is only 16.90 a week, whereas if they took the 4 hours a week, that would be around 70 euros or more a week for doing nothing and everyone in the gangs would have recieved it and more than likely the senior lads would still get to do p.ic.o.p duties. On one hand they say they want the night work but they will only work so many weeks of nights in a year and wont work friday nights and wont work if its raining. 5/7 irish rail staff out of the new works department went down to cork to work off track on the project and thats when the cork lads called for a strike saying that these lads are contractors when they are not and saying its their duties as 5/5 core staff ( pre-2000 ) and not the 5/7 lads. The cork lads duties is track maintenance but they have no proplem with 5/7 fixed term staff filling in for them in the mobile gangs while they go over to projects. ITS ALL MONEY WITH THEM.

loyatemu

cymro wrote: »

The strike was about the cork lads saying that p.i.c.o.p , lookout and es duties on the new works down there was their sole right to do them as 5/5 core staff and not the 5/7 staff ( which are staff who started after 2000 ). They were classing 5/7 staff as contractors because SOME of these have been taken on for new works projects. These fixed term staff do not take possessions and only do lookout duties. These lads dont get more than the cork lads as their pay scale is less than theirs. Contractors do not do the duties of per/way staff and did not down in cork. The per way staff voted in 2000 to work with contractors but this meant lookin after outside companys who do specialised work i.e cables, machines etc. The cork lads were interviewed for the new works project down there and the majority of this work would be nights and on a 5/7 rosta. The cork lads were offered 4 hours pay a week to let new works on their length but refused saying that they want to do the picop duties etc because it would involve working nights and getting the night rate for it. That is fair enough but only 1 or 2 lads would get to perform these duties and the rate for doing p.i.c.o.p duties is only 16.90 a week, whereas if they took the 4 hours a week, that would be around 70 euros or more a week for doing nothing and everyone in the gangs would have recieved it and more than likely the senior lads would still get to do p.ic.o.p duties. On one hand they say they want the night work but they will only work so many weeks of nights in a year and wont work friday nights and wont work if its raining. 5/7 irish rail staff out of the new works department went down to cork to work off track on the project and thats when the cork lads called for a strike saying that these lads are contractors when they are not and saying its their duties as 5/5 core staff ( pre-2000 ) and not the 5/7 lads. The cork lads duties is track maintenance but they have no proplem with 5/7 fixed term staff filling in for them in the mobile gangs while they go over to projects. ITS ALL MONEY WITH THEM.

wow, its like travelling back in time to the 70s! I see a winter of discontent ahead...

Pineapple stu

I also heard that Irish rail won their case in the labour court against the striking train drivers in cork.

Davidth88

:eek:

I rest my case from the rant above

The per way staff voted in 2000 to work with contractors

I would love to see people in say IBM ( to which I have no connection ) try this on !

The cork lads were offered 4 hours pay a week to let new works on their length

To LET new works be carried out, whos railway is it for gods sake ! See what I said above !

Perhaps I was slightly wrong in what I said , the mgmt not only does not have the B**s to ake them on , but also not the brains to manage change .

paulm17781

So let me get this right. Working for a semi state is a reason to screw your employer?

Davidth88

So let me get this right. Working for a semi state is a reason to screw your employer?

Eh ?

Can you put that remark into context pls ?

Pineapple stu

And to add to my rant, the unions are pissed off with the cork lads because no matter what they say , the cork heads will do what they want anyway.:D

paulm17781

Davidth88 wrote: »

Eh ?

Can you put that remark into context pls ?

It just seems that once one does any work for a semi state, they strike,moan and threaten for various things that are just nonsense. As is said everywhere, it wouldn't happen in private industry.

Davidth88

On a slight seperate note, why is CIE / Irish Rail called a ' semi - state ' ? After all no one else owns then do they.

Thanks for clearing the context up paulm17781, I agree with you .

Pineapple stu

Its not over yet, its just differed. This is laughable now .
New works wants to work in a green field, yes a field but the cork lads are saying that they should have been told first as its their work. 2 of these lads have been made acting inspectors for the work in midleton and still they are giving out. I would love to be at the meetings

Ham'nd'egger

Davidth88 wrote: »

On a slight seperate note, why is CIE / Irish Rail called a ' semi - state ' ? After all no one else owns then do they.

The services, routes assets, liabilities and properties etc owned and operated by CIE were purchased from private undertakings in the past and it literally is a company whose shareholder happens to be the State. In theory, it could be sold off in the morning as a business transaction.

Ham'nd'egger

paulm17781 wrote: »

It just seems that once one does any work for a semi state, they strike,moan and threaten for various things that are just nonsense. As is said everywhere, it wouldn't happen in private industry.

In all fairness Paul, the sector of business with the lowest amounts of strike days lost tends to be State companies. SEEMS to isn't exactly fact based, is it?

markpb

Hamndegger wrote: »

In all fairness Paul, the sector of business with the lowest amounts of strike days lost tends to be State companies. SEEMS to isn't exactly fact based, is it?

That statistic is helped by the lenient approach our government takes to unions, government unions in particular. Do you think it's normal for employees to be asked to vote on whether or not they'll allow their employed to hire contractors?

Ham'nd'egger

markpb wrote: »

That statistic is helped by the lenient approach our government takes to unions, government unions in particular. Do you think it's normal for employees to be asked to vote on whether or not they'll allow their employed to hire contractors?

On the contrary, Mark; there is some arms of the State (Garda and PDF) who are not even allowed to join or form a union; similarly, ask members of CPSU how well represented they are both at Congress and the floor and see how lenient the Government is.

On your initial question, I don't think it is normal but take note that the Union members voted on that in a union ballot, not a company ballot. If a company brings in a sub contractor to offer services that their permanent staff already does, a union will stand up and ask questions and see if it will involve union members losing out; after all this is what they pays their subs for. Not saying if it is right or wrong to do so but you would expect them to deal with it.

markpb

Hamndegger wrote: »

On the contrary, Mark; there is some arms of the State (Garda and PDF) who are not even allowed to join or form a union; similarly, ask members of CPSU how well represented they are both at Congress and the floor and see how lenient the Government is.

Would you disagree then that an unwillingness to take on strong unions has caused delays in making several government decisions? Terminal 2 of Dublin Airport and the reformation of the bus licensing system spring to mind. Siptu threatened to go on strike if the government allowed a private operator to run T2 because they were afraid they wouldn't have much ground in a private company. Siptu and Nbru both threatened to go on strike if the government went ahead with their plan to privatise 25% of new bus routes in Dublin. Eventually an agreement was reached (which is ridiculous - what has bus licensing got to do DB employees?) but it took so long that it was abandoned.

I'm not so naieve as to completely blame the unions for this, they're just doing their job but the government has faffed around refusing to make important decisions because they don't want the take political chances.

Hamndegger wrote: »

I don't think it is normal but take note that the Union members voted on that in a union ballot, not a company ballot.

It amounts to the same thing for the general public who would have been inconvenienced if a strike had gone ahead. It's quite common, both in private companies and in parts of the civil service, to hire contractors for their specialised skills or to beef up employee numbers to get a project finished sooner. Irish Rail employees see it differently - they think they should be able to stop the company operating in the most efficient manner and should be able to screw up the lives of hundreds of people to get it.

Victor

markpb wrote: »

Siptu and Nbru both threatened to go on strike if the government went ahead with their plan to privatise 25% of new bus routes in Dublin.

Wasn't it more that Brennan was shooting off his mouth saying he would privatise 25% of all bus routes in Dublin, provoking a reaction.

In reality, he provided little to improve transport. he ws engaged in a privatisation exercise, not a transport provision exercise.