Whats is the current status of threatened strikes at Dublin Bus

Victor

Anyone know?

Trilla wrote: »

Just a quick one, is the strike for 9th and 10th of March off? Or has is just been moved to another date?

thanks
Trilla

shltter

Victor wrote: »

Anyone know?

It is still in the labour court

As I predicted here the company withdrew the threat to make the 160 drivers redundant and instead wants to sack them and rehire them as part time/ casual drivers that they can use if and when they need them.
As I said they never intended to make them completely redundant hence the resistance to voluntary redundancy.

The word today was that it is not looking good and they expect the talks to collapse at any time as absolutely no progress has been made since Monday.

The strikes for the 9th and 10th wont go ahead I would not think but once the talks collapse then it is all up in the air if the company push ahead with their plans without any agreement then effectively we would have a strike from that date.

Nalz

Possibility of one this Saturday?

doesnt seem to be anything on their website

spareman

Im hearing reports that saturday's has been called off too. Not official yet mind you.

Stevek101

Aren't they implementing the cuts Sunday though?

vandermeyde

Labour Court discussions pencilled in for the 31st March so implementation of the work practices from a company perspective have been deferred for this weekend. I assume the unions will follow suit with regards to this weekends proposed stoppages.

Cleopatra12

Well as far as i know, the LRC contacted all parties involved and as of 4 pm today the Company has not indicated which way they are going to go. (could have changed since then), but if not, strike going ahead on sat for NBRU and from sun for SIPTU.

spareman

Threatened strike action by drivers at Dublin Bus this weekend was called off this afternoon following intervention from the Labour Court.

SIPTU and the NBRU have been invited to the Labour Court next Tuesday to investigate the issues relating to the cost-effectiveness plan for drivers.

Services at Dublin Bus would have been hit on Sunday if management had proceeded with their plans to implement the new controversial cost-cutting plans.

SIPTU described the development as a welcome one for the travelling public, but said the Court faces a major challenge in finding a resolution.

TAKEN FROM BREAKINGNEWS.IE

Victor

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Planned-service-changes-29th-March-deferred/

Planned service changes 29th March deferred
Thursday, March 26, 2009


Planned service changes 29th March deferred

The service changes due to take place on Sunday 29th of March have been deferred. Dublin Bus has been invited to attend a Labour Court hearing on Tuesday March 31st and has accepted this invitation.

rx8

Word is that the Labour Court have concluded talks with the unions and management and that a recommendation will be issued to both sides tomorrow

I can't see that it will be very much different from their previous recommendation, so don't hold your breath for an agreement by staff.

MiniD

News reports yesterday state Dublin Bus are loosing half a million a week. I think they have to implement something soon to stop those massive losses.

Cleopatra12

Talks concluded just before lunch today, as far as i have heard there has not been too much change from the first Cost cutting plan.

Bogie staff loss of shift pay has been removed, that much i have had confirmed....

D'Peoples Voice

but I believe that Dublin Bus have agreed to continue to pay the Eastlink toll bridge charges for its employees commuting into work.

Cleopatra12

know nothing about that am afraid. No details till tomorrow....

AlekSmart

News reports yesterday state Dublin Bus are loosing half a million a week. I think they have to implement something soon to stop those massive losses.

This "News" report in itself interested me.

The Evening Herald carried it under Cormac Murphy`s by line and in it he initially described Dublin Bus as claiming it was "losing" €500,000 for every week that it`s Emergency Plan was not implemented.

However,the only references to actual statements came from a highly unusual angle indeed, A Dept of Transport source.
This sourcing of an Opinion from such a central player in this nasty little scenario represents a first for me.
Never before have I seen or heard any Departmental opinions being offered as such delicate negotiations were ongoing.

Even worse was the articles fixation with the Overtime issue,which is being portrayed as THE core problem.
At least on this board it can be stated that OVERTIME is NOT the core issue,and I would echo the NBRU`s Michael Faherty when he states there are so MANY issues that its almost impossible to describe any single one as the Core.

What is the Department of Transport playing at here ?

Thus far it has avoided becoming enmeshed in the ongoing debate,which has been a feat of some note given that the entire dispute has been orchestrated by Minister Dempsey`s policy of reducing the company`s funding and thus pre-empting the disposal of vehicular assets and human resources in order to ensure that Bus Atha Cliath`s ongoing improvements in service did not translate into any greater level of Modal Shift from private cars.

It needs to be stated again and again that it is NOT in Minister Dempsey`s interests for either of the CIE Bus companies to become TOO successful at their allocated task,especially in the light of the December deadline for the signing of Public Service Obligation (PSO) contracts with the Government.

Minister Dempsey quite simply NEEDS more private cars to return to his shiny new PPP Toll Road network,cos if the numbers do`nt start climbing again then HIS Departments projections,upon which several Toll Concession contracts have ALREADY been signed will simply colapse.

This could result in some of the Private Sector participants becoming wary of making any further committments to PPP deals...and THAT would be very serious indeed for Mr Dempsey and a few other PPP devotees in Government.

It can thus be seen that one quick and relatively simple way to increase car useage is to ensure that Public Transport availibility is scaled back and on a National basis to ensure equitability.....for the investors that is !

The Labour Court and the LRC deliberations really do need involve the Department of Transport,who after all are the Policy Drivers of the CIE group and who`s actions thus far have been somewhat devious in nature.

However,as with most things in Irish Public Administration at the current time,it`s probably safer to assume a level of incompetence rather than have it confirmed and then be disappointed at learning of it !!!

rokz

considering it was himself that appointed Mr Potterton to the board of the National Roads Authority.Mr Potterton is a close friend to the Demsey family and also a business partner to his younger brother....Need i say more..!.Will he ever have to pay a toll..?

shltter

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

but I believe that Dublin Bus have agreed to continue to pay the Eastlink toll bridge charges for its employees commuting into work.

I never heard of DB paying Eastlink toll charges nor was it ever even mentioned in the LRC proposals. So I don't know how they can agree to continue paying something they haven't paid before.

shltter

Cleopatra12 wrote: »

Talks concluded just before lunch today, as far as i have heard there has not been too much change from the first Cost cutting plan.

Bogie staff loss of shift pay has been removed, that much i have had confirmed....

No way of knowing that till the court issues its recommendation all that happened yesterday was all sides gave their views to the labour court.

But if they are only taking a day to produce a recommendation it would suggest that it will not be radically different from the LRC propsal.

rx8

I'm not very good at this computer stuff, but i've attached the union hand-out of the LRC recommendations issued today.

Looks like more of the same....

AlekSmart

Reading tween the lines of Willie Noone`s statement to the meejia earlier,the SIPTU position this time around appears to be veering towards muted recommendation of the Labour Court document..

The reality is that Bus Atha Cliath management have effectively run rings around the trades unions due to their superior Media Handling and very definite strong guidance from the Department of Transport.

The appearance in the last few days of statements attributed to Dept of Transport "sources" has been a very unusual and,for me,worrying development in this situation.

The Minister and his Departmental Senior`s have succeeded in emasculating Bus Atha Cliath and Bus Eireann well in advance of the December deadline for the Public Service Obligation contracts.

The Labour Court recommendation is for sure not a very positive piece of work from a perspective of the State remaining involved in the provision of Sustainable Alternatives to Private Car useage.

However this much trumpeted "Green" Public Transport policy now appears to be in shreds as it is now rather obvious that Minister Dempsey must move to protect his contractual arrangements with the Toll Road developers.

The State simply cannot support any SIGNIFICANT transfers of commuters from Private Car to Public Bus/Coach services.....therefore Minister DEmpsey has acted swiftly and decisively to ensure that Public Transport availibility options are significantly reduced whilst giving the impression that only minor adjustments are afoot.

As far as Noel Dempsey and the Government are concerned,the most pressing need is to revive the flagging numbers of car borne commuters by any means possible.
Even the current media flagging of yet another Car Scrappage scheme is clear enough indication of the Realpolitik of this Governments reliance on Private Motoring as a cash cow to keep us afloat.

This policy is Insane.

Not alone is it lunacy to divest oneself of almost 300 high capacity vehicles BUT the renewed threats to impose financial penalties on Ireland for its woeful Carbon Emissions figures will cost us dearly when retaining and funding the operation of these vehicles would serve to reduce this embarrassing figure.

The Flat Earth society of Kildare Street have won this particular battle.
They have succeeded in pushing Public Bus and Coach transport back at least 20 years and it remains to be seen if that lost ground can ever be regained.....

But I suppose it is easier than ensuring that the likes of the Patton Flyer is complying with the Law......Now that WOULD be worth the Pay Rise which the Departmental Secretary Generals recieved earlier this year,just in time for the Depression :mad:

KC61

Similarly I would have to say that integrating a maximum of TWO routes on a corridor is madness.....

This means that the 66/A/B and 67/A routes could be integrated together but the 25/A and 26 would have to be completely separate. This means the nonsense of buses departing together along the same corridor could continue for some considerable time to come.

AlekSmart

Correct KC61...and even better is how the new schedules so swiftly drafted by the company feature such "improvements" as,for example on the 11 Route several periods during the day when there is a 30 minute gap,then 2 departures scheduled to depart together ie: 11 & 11A,11 & 11B this double whammy is then followed by ANOTHER 30 Minute gap.

I`m also saddened by what appears to be a lack of understanding of what is ACTUALLY happening in terms of Customer Travel patterns.

The 11A (Wadelai Pk-Mather Road North) is being cancelled on Saturday/Sunday.
However this particular subdivision of the 11 route has some of the newest high density apartment complexes in the area in addition to the constantly increasing use of the Roebuck Road entrance to the UCD residences by the Student Body and others.

I for one would have sought to maximise the presence of the 11A route by a heavy LOCALIZED campaign centred on the section between Foster Avenue and Bird Avenue,with what I believe would be very positive results.

However,it appears this is NOT how we do things and instead we shall probably have to await an expert or two to come along and tell us whats wrong.......

shltter

KC61 wrote: »

Similarly I would have to say that integrating a maximum of TWO routes on a corridor is madness.....

This means that the 66/A/B and 67/A routes could be integrated together but the 25/A and 26 would have to be completely separate. This means the nonsense of buses departing together along the same corridor could continue for some considerable time to come.

I would not be so sure about that

It depends on what is a corridor and where the corridor starts the document does not specify so it could mean that the chapelizod road is a corridor.

The document is actually kind of gibberish on this

operating from the same garage providing it operates along the same corridor and operating along the same common corridor.

It could just rule out say the 20B and the 16/A as they have little common operation.

KC61

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is one that was in the Deloitte report, and that's that for most major corridors, the best practice of operation is to have integrated schedules among the major routes.

For example, on the Howth Road the 29A, 31/B, and 32/A/B would be integrated, on the Lucan corridor the 25/A, 26, 66/A/B, and 67/A would be integrated etc.

This means that all of the departures would be staggered in such a way as to minimise long gaps in departures and to minimise the incidence of two or three buses leaving simultaneously and then a long gap.

If the document is taken at face value I would fear that this will not happen. In my view this is essential if the bus service is to be taken seriously and to attract car users out of their vehicles!

KC61

AlekSmart wrote: »

Correct KC61...and even better is how the new schedules so swiftly drafted by the company feature such "improvements" as,for example on the 11 Route several periods during the day when there is a 30 minute gap,then 2 departures scheduled to depart together ie: 11 & 11A,11 & 11B this double whammy is then followed by ANOTHER 30 Minute gap.

I truly hope that you're wrong Billy as that would be sheer madness, but given past performance it's par for the course.

shltter

No this has nothing to do with integration of timetables it is only concerned with maximizing driving time. For example it's to allow the company to include a route with a shorter running time into the bill for another route.
Say your 25 and 26 if the 26 had a 30 minute running time compared to a say the 25 had 45 minutes they have a duty with 40 minutes spare they incorporate a journey on the 26 route.



45

KC61 wrote: »

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is one that was in the Deloitte report, and that's that for most major corridors, the best practice of operation is to have integrated schedules among the major routes.

For example, on the Howth Road the 29A, 31/B, and 32/A/B would be integrated, on the Lucan corridor the 25/A, 26, 66/A/B, and 67/A would be integrated etc.

This means that all of the departures would be staggered in such a way as to minimise long gaps in departures and to minimise the incidence of two or three buses leaving simultaneously and then a long gap.

If the document is taken at face value I would fear that this will not happen. In my view this is essential if the bus service is to be taken seriously and to attract car users out of their vehicles!

D'Peoples Voice

shltter wrote: »

I never heard of DB paying Eastlink toll charges nor was it ever even mentioned in the LRC proposals. So I don't know how they can agree to continue paying something they haven't paid before.

As I can't find a source for the newspaper I read it, I'll retract my statement.

KC61

shltter wrote: »

No this has nothing to do with integration of timetables it is only concerned with maximizing driving time. For example it's to allow the company to include a route with a shorter running time into the bill for another route.
Say your 25 and 26 if the 26 had a 30 minute running time compared to a say the 25 had 45 minutes they have a duty with 40 minutes spare they incorporate a journey on the 26 route.

I think integrating timetables on a "corridor" would require the boards (driver and bus rosters) of all the integrated routes to be merged together. How else could you work it?

In order to deliver an integrated schedule you would need a mix of short and long routes to meet the restrictions on driver working time and maximise their driving hours.

There are two elements here:
1) Delivering a consistent quality product to the customer
2) Maximising driving time

The two are inter-related.

shltter

KC61 wrote: »

I think integrating timetables on a "corridor" would require the boards (driver and bus rosters) of all the integrated routes to be merged together. How else could you work it?

In order to deliver an integrated schedule you would need a mix of short and long routes to meet the restrictions on driver working time and maximise their driving hours.

There are two elements here:
1) Delivering a consistent quality product to the customer
2) Maximising driving time

The two are inter-related.

Not related to this

This is only interested in maximising driving time you can integrate timetables without having them on the same schedule.

What you are talking about is for example ensuring as far as possible that buses on a corridor are evenly spaced and not bunched together. The reason this does not happen now is nothing to do with routes being on a different schedule it is because the people who pass for schedulers in DB have little or no idea how to do the job properly.

Even where a route has 2 different termini they fail miserably to take account of this for example the 16/a instead of scheduling so that buses don't meet as the 16 emerges onto the swords road they schedule on a 10/15 minute frequency so a bus leaves the airport and and 10/15 minutes later one leave santry just in time for them to parade in convoy to Rathfarnham.

The simple fact is that they don't know how to schedule and they never look at the other routes sharing a corridor and that has nothing to do with this measure this is purely to allow them to bring up average driving times by including a journey or two from a shorter route thats all.

shltter

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

As I can't find a source for the newspaper I read it, I'll retract my statement.

There was an issue a few years ago about a small number of drivers that had to use the westlink when they were moved to Harristown, I have no idea what happened there but it forms no part of the current discussion as you can read from the labour court document published here.

AlekSmart

shltter wrote: »

There was an issue a few years ago about a small number of drivers that had to use the westlink when they were moved to Harristown, I have no idea what happened there but it forms no part of the current discussion as you can read from the labour court document published here.

I think d`Peoples Voice has prob read an account of how the Labour Court recognises that the Judgement it gave in relation to the Haristown Dispute remains in force irrespective of the present judgement.

Part of the original judgement involved a temporary arrangement to fund staff then forced to travel to H/town via the WestLink.
However this was ALWAYS accepted as a temporary measure and has already lapsed under the current agreement.

Truth never stands in the way of Good Fiction....:)