Luas letting staff go

travis.bickle

[I]My aunt works for the Luas and she was telling us that Veolia Transport are letting 8 drivers go and 4 ticket collectors.
They where told taht they are not needed because the RPA cant afford them.
The new lines to Saggart and Cherrywood where not making enough profit.
By all accounts Veolia transport is up for sale with no takers. They where hoping to get the Metro but thats not going to happen now. So although Veolia and the rpa are making millions in profit they are still trying to work with limited staff.
She said the drivers where going on strike soon because of driver fatigue because they are tired from the long driving shifts.
<snip>
They are not looking for more money just better work life balance.
I use the Luas everyday and its a shame that private companies can do this to families with morgages and mouths to feed.
Dublin bus and bus eireann have been susidised by tax payers money for the
past 10 years to the tune of 100million euro.
How can one of the busiest transport operators not afford to keep its staff??
Maybe if all the junkies and alcos had to pay their fares then maybe these workers would be able to keep there jobs.
Did anyone in the RPA lose their job for spending taxpayers money to build a track running to nowhere with stops still not even open.
Its Veolia management and the RPA who should be losing their jobs not the drivers.. :mad:

foggy_lad

travis.bickle wrote: »

[I]My aunt works for the Luas and she was telling us that Veolia Transport are letting 8 drivers go and 4 ticket collectors.
They where told taht they are not needed because the RPA cant afford them.
The new lines to Saggart and Cherrywood where not making enough profit.
By all accounts Veolia transport is up for sale with no takers. They where hoping to get the Metro but thats not going to happen now. So although Veolia and the rpa are making millions in profit they are still trying to work with limited staff.
She said the drivers where going on strike soon because of driver fatigue because they are tired from the long driving shifts.
<snip>
They are not looking for more money just better work life balance.
I use the Luas everyday and its a shame that private companies can do this to families with morgages and mouths to feed.
Dublin bus and bus eireann have been susidised by tax payers money for the
past 10 years to the tune of 100million euro.
How can one of the busiest transport operators not afford to keep its staff??
Maybe if all the junkies and alcos had to pay their fares then maybe these workers would be able to keep there jobs.
Did anyone in the RPA lose their job for spending taxpayers money to build a track running to nowhere with stops still not even open.
Its Veolia management and the RPA who should be losing their jobs not the drivers.. :mad:

obviously the recent extensions to Cherrywood and Saggart are nowhere near as busy as was expected so the frequency will probably be reduced meaning less drivers required, would you have the company keep those staff on to sit idle in a depot getting paid for doing nothing?

travis.bickle

Drivers have been arguing that their shifts are too demanding as it is. Now the Rpa and Luas operator want to reduce the staff but not the service. Instead of a better WLB they will be made drive more hours with less rest time. Its madness. Its all about profit not about people.:mad:

Cookie_Monster

As for longer shifts the EU working hours directive will not allow for this so that's a load of rubbish. The most they'll be doing is a standard working week of hours. Without wishing to take away from the job it is a reasonably comfortable one, seated, indoors, away from the public, very easy control systems and signals in operation; it's not exactly the most difficult job even out of public transport roles (compare it to driving a DB for example). A standard 8 or 10 hour shift can't be that demanding.

Why would the RPA need to afford Luas staff? Totally seperate and up to Veolia (sp?) to determine staffing levels based on tram running requirements.

Did anyone in the RPA lose their job for spending taxpayers money to build a track running to nowhere with stops still not even open.

You might want to blame the developers for that one rather than the RPA, after all they're the ones that have left empty fields and half built estates all along the route...

Victor

travis.bickle wrote: »

The new lines to Saggart and Cherrywood where not making enough profit.

I imagine from Ballyogan to Cherrywood is in fact costing a lot of money to operate. Note that staff were hired when these lines opened.

By all accounts Veolia transport is up for sale

Acknowledged.

They where hoping to get the Metro but thats not going to happen now.

That wouldn't have happened for years.

So although Veolia and the rpa are making millions in profit they are still trying to work with limited staff.

Profits are relatively modest.

She said the drivers where going on strike soon because of driver fatigue because they are tired from the long driving shifts.

this may be difficult, as I understand they have a no strike clause in their contracts.

How can one of the busiest transport operators not afford to keep its staff??

Perhaps they see themselves as over-staffed.

Maybe if all the junkies and alcos had to pay their fares then maybe these workers would be able to keep there jobs.

Many such people have DSP free travel passes, so their fare is already paid.

Did anyone in the RPA lose their job for spending taxpayers money to build a track running to nowhere with stops still not even open.

The RPA was following government policy. Most of the project staff are gone.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

As for longer shifts the EU working hours directive will not allow for this so that's a load of rubbish. The most they'll be doing is a standard working week of hours. Without wishing to take away from the job it is a reasonably comfortable one, seated, indoors, away from the public, very easy control systems and signals in operation; it's not exactly the most difficult job even out of public transport roles (compare it to driving a DB for example). A standard 8 or 10 hour shift can't be that demanding.

I don't know about Luas, but many transport companies operate split shifts - start at 7am, finish at 11am, start again at 3pm and finish at 7pm. This means one worker can cover both peaks. However, only a portion of staff would work such shifts, others would would 5am-2pm and 2pm-1am and other staggered shifts. Its great if you have a use for 4 hours in the middle of the day, but not everyone does.

Why would the RPA need to afford Luas staff? Totally seperate and up to Veolia (sp?) to determine staffing levels based on tram running requirements.

As I understand it, Veolia have a management-type contract with the RPA. If Luas incurs extra costs or increases revenues, it only gets a part / most of the money. Likewise if it reduces costs or revenues decrease, they aren't left carrying the can for the full amount. They are of course, expected to meet certain standards on punctuality, number of trams / tram km and % of fares collected, which costs them if they don't perform.

travis.bickle

Drivers are in the labour court after a seven year struggle for better working conditions.
The no strike clause was removed after the last negotiations.
Drivers work 9hr shifts, in what would be considered stressful and demanding routes. Given the amount of accidents, crashes and fatalities. The drivers are paid far less than DART drivers and Dublin Bus drivers (also Luas workers not subsidised like DB and BE with taxpayers monies)
Drivers are not looking for an increase in salary just a better work life balance which would mean retaining all of its current staff and reducing the driving hours from 9hrs to 8hr 15min.
RPA (having previously negotiated with Veolia in 2009) claimed they wanted to reduce costs by 2million in 2012 whilst retaining the service levels.
Veolias response was to maintain drive times with less staff.
Drivers feel that this is a health and safety issue as they drive longer hours than DB and DART drivers.
Reducing staff to keep profit margins up is where the RPA and Veolia stand.
Staff turnover since Luas began is at 300%.
Not a cushy number as we would be made to believe.
RPA and Veolia have been steadily making profits since 2005 and are well in the black.
Reducing staff puts the public at risk IMO and will lead to a serious incident in the not too distant future if not addressed now.:(

foggy_lad

If drivers don't like it they are always free to seek employment elsewhere.

How many hours a week are luas drivers forced to work? 50? 60? 80? is it 9 hour shifts 7 days a week?

Cookie_Monster

9 hour shift less 1 hour for lunch is 8 x 5 days = 40. standard working week that most people do, hardly long hours.

Given the amount of accidents, crashes and fatalities.

very few against the mileage all the trams clock up

Hungerford

travis.bickle wrote: »

Staff turnover since Luas began is at 300%.

How can staff turnover be 300%? The company can only be 100% staffed.;)

Cookie_Monster

Hungerford wrote: »

How can staff turnover be 300%? The company can only be 100% staffed.;)

say they need 100 staff at any point in time, they've had 300 people fill those 100 roles over the last number of years, obviously lots of people leaving and being replaced.

300% in 8 years is prett bad. Lots of training and expense for people to only stay an average of 2.5-3 years!

cgarrad

Should of had driverless trams from the start.

8 hours pressing start and stop cant be that hard, HGV drivers have loads more to do and they work similar hours?

foggy_lad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

9 hour shift less 1 hour for lunch is 8 x 5 days = 40. standard working week that most people do, hardly long hours.


very few against the mileage all the trams clock up

Do they get paid for 45 hours though? I always thought if you worked for a certain time you were entitled to certain paid breaks such as 15 minutes after working 4 hours and a further 30 minutes for lunch if working 8 hours.

With 9hour shifts they are surely more likely to be working 4days a week just like those working 12hour shifts only work three days which gives them a weekly total of 36hours worked?

Cookie_Monster

foggy_lad wrote: »

Do they get paid for 45 hours though? I always thought if you worked for a certain time you were entitled to certain paid breaks such as 15 minutes after working 4 hours and a further 30 minutes for lunch if working 8 hours.

there should be 2 x 15 min paid breaks in there and an hour unpaid for lunch over 9 hours iirc from my retail days. Though the rules could have changed, that was back in 08

foggy_lad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

say they need 100 staff at any point in time, they've had 300 people fill those 100 roles over the last number of years, obviously lots of people leaving and being replaced.

300% in 8 years is prett bad. Lots of training and expense for people to only stay an average of 2.5-3 years!

Because of the economic situation they are getting people applying for jobs who are overqualified and possible using Luas as a stepping stone to their preferred occupation, I would imagine people who are overqualified for jobs rarely stay in them for very long?

foggy_lad

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there should be 2 x 15 min paid breaks in there and an hour unpaid for lunch over 9 hours iirc from my retail days. Though the rules could have changed, that was back in 08

Used to work an 8hour shift and we got the first minute break paid plus 30minutes for lunch paid and this had a further 15 minutes unpaid added to give us a decent lunch, this was all included in the 8 hour shift though not added on to the end, afaik if we were working more than the 8 hours we would have been entitled to a further 15minute paid break plus a full hour for lunch with at least 45minutes paid.

hmmm

Genuine question, why is driving a tram stressful work? Wouldn't driving a bus or a HGV be far more stressful?

MarkK

travis.bickle wrote: »

Staff turnover since Luas began is at 300%.

If there is big staff turnover, then there should be plenty who will jump for voluntary redundancy.

dowlingm

According to the Engineers Ireland presentation by RPA, LUAS made an operating loss in 2011 which means they are drawing on accumulated profit from prior years.

It has been pointed out that LUAS economics mean no provision is being made for infrastructure replacement, simply the cost of day to day running. If this assertion is correct then LUAS was basically always loss making if it had been required to make provision for capital item replacement.

cgarrad: automatic light rail requires full separation. LUAS is a mixed mode operation. For example the Toronto Eglinton light rail project will be part tunnel part at-grade in right-of-way with level crossings. In tunnel, the drivers will switch to automatics but once they emerge from the central part of the line to the outer stretches east and west they will revert to manual mode. If you have a full grade separated line for driverless operation you don't buy trams, you buy metro vehicles which can cost less because you don't worry about a side-on impact from a bus or HGV. If you know all this then then you're hopping a ball and kindly stop it.

Victor

Can I ask people not to discuss matters that may be before the courts?

---

travis.bickle wrote: »

The no strike clause was removed after the last negotiations.

I didn't realise.

Drivers work 9hr shifts, in what would be considered stressful and demanding routes.

While yes, there is quite a bit of on-street interaction in the city centre, I imagine it is a lot easier than driving a truck or bus for the same amount of time, although not being able to swerve to avoid a collision can be a bit of a draw back.

Given the amount of accidents, crashes and fatalities.

I understand there was about 450 safety incidents (not all incidents will involve contact or casualties) last year, the first increase since services started. There have only been 3 fatalities associated with Luas. One pedestrian, one cyclist and one construction worker. In 150-200 million journeys, that is an excellent record.

The drivers are paid far less than DART drivers and Dublin Bus drivers

They signed up to do a particular job at a particular amount. That amount isn't derisory.

(also Luas workers not subsidised like DB and BE with taxpayers monies)

Hmmm, interesting argument. Most people would look at it as the service has received the subsidy, not the workers.

Drivers are not looking for an increase in salary just a better work life balance which would mean retaining all of its current staff and reducing the driving hours from 9hrs to 8hr 15min.

Surely working less hours for the same pay is a pay increase via the back door?

RPA (having previously negotiated with Veolia in 2009) claimed they wanted to reduce costs by 2million in 2012

Not unreasonable.

whilst retaining the service levels.

I'm not sure that RPA will comment directly on staff levels unless it affects service levels.

Veolias response was to maintain drive times with less staff.

Is this the current action or a previous action?

Drivers feel that this is a health and safety issue as they drive longer hours than DB and DART drivers.

Don't DART drivers have up to 48 hour weeks?

Reducing staff to keep profit margins up is where the RPA and Veolia stand.

They are there to provide a service / make money, not employ people.

Staff turnover since Luas began is at 300%.

How much of this was before the recession? During the boom, some decent construction companies would have 100-200% or more employee turnover per year.

Not a cushy number as we would be made to believe.

I'm not sure that many people quite have it 'cushy' at the moment. The CIÉ companies have shed a lot of staff and the transport industry doesn't employ anything like it used to and incomes and job security have dropped.

RPA and Veolia have been steadily making profits since 2005 and are well in the black.

For an investment of about €1 billion, between them they have had a surplus of maybe €50 million over nearly 8 years. It isn't that lucrative. But remember, Veolia are there to make money, not employ people and RPA are there to move people, not employ people.

Reducing staff puts the public at risk IMO and will lead to a serious incident in the not too distant future if not addressed now.:(

That is a possibility, but is it really borne out, based on past performance?

Could I ask:
What are the typical shift patterns?
Each week, how many hours are actually (a) worked (b) worked as driver / CSO?
Do drivers ever get rotated through other work?

foggy_lad wrote: »

Do they get paid for 45 hours though? I always thought if you worked for a certain time you were entitled to certain paid breaks such as 15 minutes after working 4 hours and a further 30 minutes for lunch if working 8 hours.

The vast majority of workers do not get paid breaks.

Carawaystick

travis.bickle wrote: »

Drivers are in the labour court after a seven year struggle for better working conditions.
The no strike clause was removed after the last negotiations.
Drivers work 9hr shifts, in what would be considered stressful and demanding routes. Given the amount of accidents, crashes and fatalities. The drivers are paid far less than DART drivers and Dublin Bus drivers (also Luas workers not subsidised like DB and BE with taxpayers monies)

You may have forgotten the hundreds of millions of taxpayers money spent building the tramlines, without which there would be no tram drivers jobs. That's a hidden subsidy

travis.bickle

Carawaystick wrote: »

You may have forgotten the hundreds of millions of taxpayers money spent building the tramlines, without which there would be no tram drivers jobs. That's a hidden subsidy

The tramlines where built with EU FUNDING the taxpayer paid very litle in ratio terms. In return we where forced to give them the "yes" vote or we'd never see any further grants. DB, BE, IR, and DART have all received subvention form the taxpayer for the last 20 years in the total of billions. Leading to better conditions, better wages, but not better services. etc
Luas staff receive the minimum payments from a french multinational, whose track record around the world is akin to mcdonalds and ryanair.
Staff work constanly under the fear of dismissal for minor infractions.
So please get your facts right before responding with pure drivel.
secondly HGV drivers deliver cabbages not people. they dont have to drive into the city centres.

MarkK

travis.bickle wrote: »

The tramlines where built with EU FUNDING the taxpayer paid very little in ratio terms.

The EU gets its money from the taxpayer and how much is "very little".

travis.bickle wrote: »

In return we where forced to give them the "yes" vote or we'd never see any further grants.

Rubbish

travis.bickle wrote: »

Luas staff receive the minimum payments from a french multinational, ...

The drivers are on minimum wage?

travis.bickle wrote: »

So please get your facts right before responding with pure drivel.

Try taking your own advice.

travis.bickle wrote: »

secondly HGV drivers deliver cabbages not people. they dont have to drive into the city centres.

Do you think the city centre shops get their cabbages delivered in a ford fiesta, or does Dunnes stores use Luas to deliver their fruit and veg to their city centre supermarkets?

OssianSmyth

ERDF funding for Luas 82.5m
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/country2009/ie_en.pdf

Original Luas capital cost: 728m
http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/metro_north/build_and_operation_permission/Pages/MetroNorthMythsandFacts.aspx

If strikes takes place, it will be more difficult for the operator to renew its contract in 2014.

steve-o

Any suggestion that Luas is not subsidised is nonsense. Like all public transport, it avails of the tax saver scheme which represents a clear subsidy by diverting money from the Revenue Comissioners to public transport. It generates extra demand from people who would not otherwise use the service and allows the operator to have higher annual ticket prices than people would otherwise be prepared to pay. Simple economics.

But I don't see what subsidies have to do with driver pay and conditions anyway.

Losty Dublin

steve-o wrote: »

Any suggestion that Luas is not subsidised is nonsense. Like all public transport, it avails of the tax saver scheme which represents a clear subsidy by diverting money from the Revenue Comissioners to public transport. It generates extra demand from people who would not otherwise use the service and allows the operator to have higher annual ticket prices than people would otherwise be prepared to pay. Simple economics.

But I don't see what subsidies have to do with driver pay and conditions anyway.

Taxpayer scheme absolutely does not subsidise public transport. It saves those in the scheme (Me included) some exposure to income tax and related deductions as well as allowing us to buy annual tickets which would be otherwise out of our reach. How a tax saving scheme (decrease tax income for the person and the state) somehow increases income for a tax subsidy to companies, do explain that one to us all

steve-o

Losty Dublin wrote: »

How a tax saving scheme (decrease tax income for the person and the state) somehow increases income for a tax subsidy to companies, do explain that one to us all

If it changes the behaviour of people (attracts more people to the service) then it does subsidise it. And that is at the cost of lost taxation.

dowlingm

I agree. While there is a benefit to many people who would have bought LUAS tickets anyway, for many other people it tips the balance between LUAS and another non-PT mode so LUAS revenue increases. It's important that indirect government supports be recognised as support because "tax expenditures" don't tend to get noticed by the public as "government spending" particularly when hard choices have to be made.

As for whether LUAS was "subsidised" by the capital side investment, well yeah, but at least you end up with a physical asset in the same way you do the motorways etc. At the moment that infrastructure is purely dedicated to LUAS but one day perhaps we'll see cargotrams using the right of way at night - it does after all almost reach Dublin Port or perhaps a southside extension to bring rubbish to Poolbeg Incinerator.

Link to Zurich presentation on how they use trams to COLLECT rubbish (PDF).

Hungerford

Victor wrote: »

Can I ask people not to discuss matters that may be before the courts?

It's up before the Labour Court - not a proper court of law - so it can be discussed.

cgarrad

travis.bickle wrote: »

Luas staff receive the minimum payments from a french multinational, whose track record around the world is akin to mcdonalds and ryanair.

The Irish Independent reports that Microsoft managed to beat off competition from the likes of Google and Pepsico Ireland in order to claim the top spot position.

Who came in after Microsoft? EMC Information Services came in at a respectable fourth place, while McDonald’s was ranked at fifth.



http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/microsoft-named-best-large-company-to-work-for-in-ireland-for-the-fourth-year-in-a-row-0021379-1

dowlingm

cgarrad wrote: »

The Irish Independent reports that Microsoft managed to beat off competition from the likes of Google and Pepsico Ireland in order to claim the top spot position.

Who came in after Microsoft? EMC Information Services came in at a respectable fourth place, while McDonald’s was ranked at fifth.

I don't place much weight on those lists to be honest:
http:// www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-44540189/the-dirty-truth-about-best-places-to-work-lists/

Dubit10

Race to the bottom tbh. They'll have the drivers replaced by jobreach scheme lackies in no time.

Victor

OssianSmyth wrote: »

If strikes takes place, it will be more difficult for the operator to renew its contract in 2014.

If I'm correct, the first contract was for ~5 years and the second for 10, so its not for renewal until about 2018.

Hungerford wrote: »

It's up before the Labour Court - not a proper court of law - so it can be discussed.

Different matter. Although that said, I get the impression that the various labour dispute organisations prefer that such matter not be dealt in an uncontrolled fashion.

OssianSmyth

Contract was 5 years in 2004, extended by another 5 in 2009
http://www.veolia-transport.com/en/solutions/key-locations/mobility-centers-dublin.htm

French newspapers are now reporting that Cube infrastructure investment fund is to buy Veolia-Transdev this year.
http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/service-distribution/actu/0201926206843-veolia-la-cession-de-la-branche-transport-se-rapproche-297302.php