Bus Eireann strike - services have resumed (Read first post)

bk

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

On Twitter, at least, I think they just used the GoBus one.

That is in Dublin, there is no GoBus stop in Cork, thus the question?

KCAccidental, let me be clear, there is absolutely no defending the actions taken by drivers yesterday. Blocking a bus on a public road is illegal. Forcing passengers off a bus is illegal.

Shouting abuse and threatening passengers and private bus drivers is simply not defendable.

To the point of them using a BE bus stop. The bus stops are actually owned by Cork City Council and the use of the space on the road is licensed by CCC. It is a public road and footpath and anyone is entitled to use it.

KCAccidental

bk wrote: »

That is in Dublin, there is no GoBus stop in Cork, thus the question?

KCAccidental, let me be clear, there is absolutely no defending the actions taken by drivers yesterday. Blocking a bus on a public road is illegal. Forcing passengers off a bus is illegal.

Shouting abuse and threatening passengers and private bus drivers is simply not defendable.

To the point of them using a BE bus stop. The bus stops are actually owned by Cork City Council and the use of the space on the road is licensed by CCC. It is a public road and footpath and anyone is entitled to use it.

I'm not defending it. It's not something I'd expect to see in a civilized society.

I'm just clearing up the confusion of some people as to what happened.

As for the Bus stops, well if it's branded BE then it should be considered off limits as it will confuse people who might think that the strike has been called off etc. As it was, the drivers considered it passing a picket and acted as such. I would agree with them on that, but not on what happened on Macurtain St.

Kumsheen

bk wrote: »

The RTE news piece clearly shows that uniformed employees * of BE surrounded a bus with passengers on board and would only leave the bus leave when the passengers got off.

I've heard elsewhere that video was taken showing these staff verbally abusing and threatening the passengers on the GoBE coach.

Absolutely awful carry on, total bully boy, thuggish and criminal actions, no excuse for it at all.

* Given they were in uniform and have shamed the company, they should really be fired for this.

I realise people are shocked by this behavior but there is nothing new with using intimidation and threats as a picketing tactic, it's just we have not seen them in Ireland for a number of years. I have seen far worse than this in the past.
I am in no way condoning this conduct at all, i just want to point out the reality that i don't think there will be any sanction on the people involved.
Perhaps the customers will be identified and given some sort of gesture of compensation and apology.

listermint

KCAccidental wrote: »

I'm not defending it. It's not something I'd expect to see in a civilized society.

I'm just clearing up the confusion of some people as to what happened.

As for the Bus stops, well if it's branded BE then it should be considered off limits as it will confuse people who might think that the strike has been called off etc. As it was, the drivers considered it passing a picket and acted as such. I would agree with them on that, but not on what happened on Macurtain St.

You are defending it, thats what youve been doing since the incident happened, and you are still defending it in that post.

There is Zero confusion as to what happened, a bunch of morons stopped a private bus on a public street forcing all of the paid passengers to get off the bus using fear and intimidation to do so. Its no better or worse than what you see in the north in the past when buses get hijacked by morons claiming to be 'protesting'.

Every last one of them is accountable.

KCAccidental

listermint wrote: »

You are defending it, thats what youve been doing since the incident happened, and you are still defending it in that post.

There is Zero confusion as to what happened, a bunch of morons stopped a private bus on a public street forcing all of the paid passengers to get off the bus using fear and intimidation to do so. Its no better or worse than what you see in the north in the past when buses get hijacked by morons claiming to be 'protesting'.

Every last one of them is accountable.

how? I'm referencing two different incidents. I defended one and condemned the other.

it's pretty simple.

n97 mini

I just watched the news clip, it's about 1 minute in here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0513/3532401-talks-under-way-in-bus-eireann-dispute/

Why didn't the GoBE driver call the Gardaí? If I was a passenger on that bus I would certainly have done, after I had given those blocking the road a piece of my mind.

devnull

SIPTU is to ballot members in Irish Rail and Dublin Bus for industrial action in solidarity with members in Bus Éireann who are opposing cost reduction proposals at the company.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0514/392115-bus-eireann-strike/

hardCopy

n97 mini wrote: »

I just watched the news clip, it's about 1 minute in here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0513/3532401-talks-under-way-in-bus-eireann-dispute/

Why didn't the GoBE driver call the Gardaí? If I was a passenger on that bus I would certainly have done, after I had given those blocking the road a piece of my mind.

Gardai were called, they left him high and dry

BenShermin

Just to clarify a point. Two GoBÉ buses were disrupted yesterday in Cork. The bus pictured stopped on Merchant's Quay had no LED destination board, the bus pictured stopped on McCurtain Street did have a LED board.

DrumSteve

n97 mini wrote: »

I just watched the news clip, it's about 1 minute in here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0513/3532401-talks-under-way-in-bus-eireann-dispute/

Why didn't the GoBE driver call the Gardaí? If I was a passenger on that bus I would certainly have done, after I had given those blocking the road a piece of my mind.

Dead right, I wouldnt have got off the bus.

ixoy

devnull wrote: »

SIPTU is to ballot members in Irish Rail and Dublin Bus for industrial action in solidarity with members in Bus Éireann who are opposing cost reduction proposals at the company.

I saw that. So they're basically willing to bring the country's public transport system to a standstill to protect their wages whilst causing utter chaos to the general public. The cost of that to the wider public and their wages, in terms of the economic losses, would be staggering. People could lose far more than what's being asked of the BE staff over a dispute that doesn't even involve them.

foggy_lad

ixoy wrote: »

I saw that. So they're basically willing to bring the country's public transport system to a standstill to protect their wages whilst causing utter chaos to the general public. The cost of that to the wider public and their wages, in terms of the economic losses, would be staggering. People could lose far more than what's being asked of the BE staff over a dispute that doesn't even involve them.

Any further strike action won't last long if NBRU members are resulting to threats and intimidation of private bus operators and their passengers at such an early stage.

all transport workers currently considering strike action as an option should also realise the implications of striking, they won't get paid for time they are on strike and they won't be entitled to anything from the state either, it could take months of punitive thrift to recover after losing even a couple of weeks salary.

nomoreindie

ixoy wrote: »

I saw that. So they're basically willing to bring the country's public transport system to a standstill to protect their wages whilst causing utter chaos to the general public. The cost of that to the wider public and their wages, in terms of the economic losses, would be staggering. People could lose far more than what's being asked of the BE staff over a dispute that doesn't even involve them.

Some of the unions in this Country are a disgrace and need to have their power taken away. They are only joining in because the harsh truth is that the Bus Eireann drivers realised that they could not hold the Country to ransom by themselves.

n97 mini

SIPTU should be charged with treason. This dispute has nothing to do with IE or DB.

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

Any further strike action won't last long if NBRU members are resulting to threats and intimidation of private bus operators and their passengers at such an early stage.

apart from the passengers involved and many here most will just get on with it

foggy_lad wrote: »

all transport workers currently considering strike action as an option should also realise the implications of striking, they won't get paid for time they are on strike and they won't be entitled to anything from the state either, it could take months of punitive thrift to recover after losing even a couple of weeks salary.

all prooves their not doing it for fun, their doing it because they have no other option, the public will just have to bare with it and put up, more people support those boys then you would think

end of the road

nomoreindie wrote: »

Some of the unions in this Country are a disgrace and need to have their power taken away.

no their not, and no they don't, the unions are vital guardians and protectors of our men and women in the public sector and therefore need to be shown respect just like the workers they represent, mrs t tried to turn britain into a sweat shop and failed, if she can fail our lot will to.

nomoreindie wrote: »

They are only joining in because the harsh truth is that the Bus Eireann drivers realised that they could not hold the Country to ransom by themselves.

ah dear god, what a load of complete nonsense, maybe if you get your wish and what little power the unions has is taken away heres what we could do, lower the minimum wage to 1 euro an hour, tripple all taxes, and make it illegal for people to work any less then 12 hours, you will have got your wish of no unions so theirs nothing you can do about it? no? didn't think so, unions are vital, and its not as if we have seen industrial action for a long time, put up with it.

Peppa Pig

end of the road wrote: »

apart from the passengers involved and many here most will just get on with it

all prooves their not doing it for fun, their doing it because they have no other option, the public will just have to bare with it and put up, more people support those boys then you would think

NBRU website wrote:

On July 18th, 2003, the NBRU made industrial relations history by holding a 'No Fares Day' protest at plans to privatise our public transport system. For the first, and only time in Irish history, the travelling public had access to a fully integrated bus and train service without having to pay. Aspiring Transport Ministers Take Note!

NBRU website

There's another option, previously used, which hurt BE but did not cause any hardship to the general public, nor did it require any thuggish behaviour.

No other option does not cut it as an excuse

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

SIPTU should be charged with treason. This dispute has nothing to do with IE or DB.

would cost to much and be a waste of court and police time, all have better more important things to be doing, its a strike, if you really want to get round you can

KCAccidental

Peppa Pig wrote: »

NBRU website

There's another option, previously used, which hurt BE but did not cause any hardship to the general public, nor did it require any thuggish behaviour.

No other option does not cut it as an excuse

they can't do that any more sadly as it's not protected from legal action by the company for loss of earnings. Were they to do it again then BE management would take the union to court.

Whereas Strikes are legally protected from court action for loss of earnings.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

apart from the passengers involved and many here most will just get on with it

all prooves their not doing it for fun, their doing it because they have no other option, the public will just have to bare with it and put up, more people support those boys then you would think

They're doing itt because they let their union whip them into a frenzy in preparation for the ballot and the result was a vote for strike action. Were staff warned of the consequences of not being paid for weeks on end and no way of recovering that lost pay? Were they warned that they may have trouble paying bills and mortgages? Or that they wouldnt be able to afford basic food and other daily essentials?

Peppa Pig

KCAccidental wrote: »

Whereas Strikes are legally protected from court action for loss of earnings.

What they did in Cork yesterday is not legally protected but it did not stop them. Can GoBE sue for loss of earnings?
Is it a case that we'll break the law as long as we don't lose our earnings.

KCAccidental

foggy_lad wrote: »

They're doing itt because they let their union whip them into a frenzy in preparation for the ballot and the result was a vote for strike action. Were staff warned of the consequences of not being paid for weeks on end and no way of recovering that lost pay? Were they warned that they may have trouble paying bills and mortgages? Or that they wouldnt be able to afford basic food and other daily essentials?

I would imagine most unions members would be aware of the consequences of an open ended strike.

Jamie2k9

Whereas Strikes are legally protected from court action for loss of earnings.

Once again I will point out this is not a legal strike.

KCAccidental

Peppa Pig wrote: »

What they did in Cork yesterday is not legally protected but it did not stop them.
Is it a case that we'll break the law as long as we don't lose our earnings.

you asked why they couldn't enact a no fares protest like the the one in 2003 and I gave you the reason why they don't have another option legally for their dispute other than striking.

I wasn't referencing anything else and your post is a straw man argument of the worst kind. I can't help you any further than the information I've given you, I'm afraid to say and I get the feeling that despite proving that your previous suggestion is unworkable you still want to have a pop at the workers.

KCAccidental

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Once again I will point out this is not a legal strike.

what does that have to do with me giving Peppa Pig the reason why there can't be a no fares type of protest?

foggy_lad

KCAccidental wrote: »

I would imagine most unions members would be aware of the consequences of an open ended strike.

How many union membets are only members because it is a condition of their employment? While most would be aware of the consequences in theory very few would know the reality of prolonged strikes where families would have sold or killed family pets to save on the cost of feeding them. Where children were sent to school with no lunch because there was nothing to give them. There is very little help for families of striking workers aand the likes of th saint vincent de paul are already well overstretched in the current economic recession.

Peppa Pig

KCAccidental wrote: »

you asked why they couldn't enact a no fares protest like the the one in 2003 and I gave you the reason why they don't have another option legally for their dispute other than striking.

Could they legally go on a work to rule? Could they legally have a ban on overtime? Could they legally stay working while going back to the labour court? Could they legally have a series of well publicised one day strikes? Could they legally strike on certain routes only?

All I am saying is that there are other options other than an all out open ended countrywide strike.

ixoy

end of the road wrote: »

apart from the passengers involved and many here most will just get on with it

...more people support those boys then you would think

I imagine that support will whittle rather quickly.

For the many who rely on public transport they could face trying to car pool (may not be possible) or spending considerable sums on taxi fares.
Some then won't be able to get into work and be forced to use their own holidays or just lose a day's wages.
Let's not forget students unable to get to exams potentially (especially with the upcoming Leaving Cert and any ongoing college exams).

For those who are in a position to drive into work, they'll also face congested roads increasing their commute time (and fuel costs) as well as the knock on effect it might have (e.g. arranging to get home to pick up kids).

For shops it will mean less business as people don't go to visit the shopping centres, particularly in the city centre. That's going to impact businesses already struggling.

It will not be possible for many to just "get on with it", especially without cost to themselves.

All that for a dispute over about forty euro a week for a few hundred people.

devnull

I would suspect the unions would hope the public would blame the government rather than the strikers if it escalates.

KCAccidental

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Could they legally go on a work to rule? Could they legally have a ban on overtime? Could they legally stay working while going back to the labour court? Could they legally have a series of well publicised one day strikes? Could they legally strike on certain routes only?

All I am saying is that there are other options other than an all out open ended countrywide strike.

Overtime is built in to their rosters so if they did have a ban on overtime, it would be almost a part time strike with major disruption. I'd imagine the union and management prefer a short period of disruption with an all out strike rather than protracted disruption to services that would happen with a ban on overtime. This is also easier for the public to understand. With all services suspended rather than certain services where you wouldnt know whether you bus would turn up to the stop or not (although some would argue that BE are like that already )