Dublin Bus strike from Sunday 04/08 [called off - service resumes 07/08]

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

What some seem to think is that if another company forms or takes on any of the routes that DB used to serve than this company will have to employ all the DB staff that worked those routes at their DB rates of pay and with the same conditions:D:D:D

What some seem to think is there id a magic 2200 trained cpc ready, route trained drivers out there waiting to do the job.
Some people want to believe TUPE doesn't exist or apply even though the NTA admitted on page 11 of there document that tendering 10% was an effort to avoid TUPE because Dublin bus could redeploy or pay off that amount but if it was a full transfer TUPE would have to apply.

Stevek101

cdebru wrote: »

What some seem to think is there id a magic 2200 trained cpc ready, route trained drivers out there waiting to do the job.
Some people want to believe TUPE doesn't exist or apply even though the NTA admitted on page 11 of there document that tendering 10% was an effort to avoid TUPE because Dublin bus could redeploy or pay off that amount but if it was a full transfer TUPE would have to apply.

I think you'll find the majority of the 2,200 will be quick to pick up work over joining the dole que. Everyone is in it together till the **** really hits the fan. There is very little if any public support.

end of the road

cdebru wrote: »

If they play the NTA game then the NTA will tender out, and the current employees will be redeployed and non union low paid workers will take their jobs and the NTA will hail it as a successful money saving device and use it as a stick to attack DB employees terms and conditions further and to roll out more tendering of routes.

even though the real truth will probably be that its costing the tax payer more as the privates will want every penny for the free travel scheme

end of the road

Stevek101 wrote: »

There is very little if any public support.

doesn't mean anything either way, public support or not doesn't effect the outcome in cases like this

cdebru

Stevek101 wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of the 2,200 will be quick to pick up work over joining the dole que. Everyone is in it together till the **** really hits the fan. There is very little if any public support.

Why would they when the law guarantees them the same terms and conditions they have now ?
Why would anyone accept less favourable terms?
As to the dole, many would find themselves better off than working for much reduced pay and conditions. The truth is that these low paid jobs if allowed to happen would become the preserve of immigrants mostly east European who have no social welfare entitlements, that is what has happened for example with refuse collection. It simply makes no sense for Irish people to do these jobs by and large.
The **** has been hitting the fan for 2 months now with threats and browbeating from government, management and their own unions and they haven't wilted yet.
Public support is irrelevant it wins nothing, but you should never fall into the trap of presuming people on message boards are representative of anything.

hmmm

cdebru wrote: »

What some seem to think is there id a magic 2200 trained cpc ready, route trained drivers out there waiting to do the job.

There isn't, but there might be 200. And next year another 200. And so on.

miller50841

I love the way the Government and media have brainwashed people to the extent they actually believe that all this is a great idea, is there ever a day that the ones that work aren't hit with more tax or cut's or some people stating the ones on the dole will do it.

I really do be cracking up reading stuff on the net with tears rolling down my face.

If people on the net have such bright ideas or can see something that could be changed for the better maybe start with writing a letter to the powers above such companies.

cdebru

hmmm wrote: »

There isn't, but there might be 200. And next year another 200. And so on.

If you read the NTA report you will see that they recognize that they cant avoid TUPE it is on page 11, yeah they hope that DB will be able to redeploy 10% and that could work if the unions allow it but what do you do with the next 200 and the next in a DB that is shrinking pretty soon they will not be able to absorb the displaced drivers and TUPE will inevitably kick in.

cdebru

miller50841 wrote: »

I love the way the Government and media have brainwashed people to the extent they actually believe that all this is a great idea, is there ever a day that the ones that work aren't hit with more tax or cut's or some people stating the ones on the dole will do it.

I really do be cracking up reading stuff on the net with tears rolling down my face.

If people on the net have such bright ideas or can see something that could be changed for the better maybe start with writing a letter to the powers above such companies.

Agreed what they are actually planning is a system were private operators will carry zero risk if no one travels the NTA still has to pay the operator till the end of the contract. The NTA will provide the buses and depots, and pay for those buses on a kilometre basis there is no investment from private operators and no risk the the NTA pays out ie the taxpayer all they have to do is provide a driver and their job is done.

LXFlyer

The private operators, or whoever wins the contract, carry the risk that if they don't perform according to the standards set in the contract that they will lose the contract - that's a fairly risk that up to now neither DB nor BE have had to face.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

The private operators, or whoever wins the contract, carry the risk that if they don't perform according to the standards set in the contract that they will lose the contract - that's a fairly risk that up to now neither DB nor BE have had to face.

Yes but as they will be leasing the buses who will be responsible for maintenance, and since the NTA is buying the buses who will be responsible for reliability? The buses they have bought already suffer from an overheating issue.
Traffic and roadworks etc are outside of the operators control so really all that is left is ensuring you have staff.
Even then they will have wriggle room of a couple of percent.

What people are missing is that, the operator will no longer be dependent on the farebox at all, so in a situation like happened here in 2008 where a massive drop off in passengers happened the operators will be unaffected they will still have to be paid, no cost cutting no service reductions the NTA will still have to find the money to pay them even if they are carrying no one. That money will have to come from the state or the farebox.

There will be no saving any savings will be swallowed up in administration, and duplication of management and supervisory positions.

edanto

Does anyone know what's happened with this dispute in the past month?

Last I heard, the proposals had been rejected, but there would be no further strike action as long as the company agreed not to implement the cost-cutting as outlined.

Is it still in that stalemate? What's going on behind the scenes?

Only asking out of interest after the DART action this morning.

miller50841

edanto wrote: »

Does anyone know what's happened with this dispute in the past month?

Last I heard, the proposals had been rejected, but there would be no further strike action as long as the company agreed not to implement the cost-cutting as outlined.

Is it still in that stalemate? What's going on behind the scenes?

Only asking out of interest after the DART action this morning.

The group set up to look into it are still looking into it pretty much other than that no news.

rx8

A new set of proposals will be put to drivers on Wednesday and a ballot will take place next week.
I haven't heard anything about what might be on the table so we'll have to wait and see what they come up with.

paulieb

the group set up to find out why drivers rejected the deal is a complete joke. they where supposed to ask drivers why it was rejected.

im sure they where well payed for this, the question is who are they and who picked them?

THE FACT IS not one driver was asked why it was rejected.

so this expert group has failed to do what it was set up to do.
who is responsible for this, how much money was wasted, they did not do the job.

Dub13

paulieb wrote: »

THE FACT IS not one driver was asked why it was rejected.

I know a National Executive member of the NBRU and he said they had a very constructive meeting with the group.

Tickityboo

Dub13 wrote: »

I know a National Executive member of the NBRU and he said they had a very constructive meeting with the group.

I don't think that's the same as the drivers.

Dub13

Tickityboo wrote: »

I don't think that's the same as the drivers.

Drivers should express what they have issues with to there union reps who in turn pass it onto this group. Also its my understanding that all on the NBRU National Executive are still drivers.

Tickityboo

Dub13 wrote: »

Drivers should express what they have issues with to there union reps who in turn pass it onto this group. Also its my understanding that all on the NBRU National Executive are still drivers.

Do you not think we have done that?
It hasn't got us very far.
This group were supposed to talk to drivers aswell as union reps.

Stevek101

Sure it was made clear no deal will be accepted last time round.

cdebru

Dub13 wrote: »

I know a National Executive member of the NBRU and he said they had a very constructive meeting with the group.

The NBRU executive would have accepted the first deal and have been pushing their members to vote yes asking them why their members voted no is a pointless exercise and was not what the brief of the ictu,ibec group was they were supposed to speak to the unions, management and drivers all they did was speak to unions and management, and ignored the people who actually voted no.

If the NBRU executive knew what their members thought we wouldn't have needed an ICTU, IBEC intervention, the reason I suspect they didn't speak to drivers was because it was embarrassing both unions that they needed someone to find out what their members were thinking. That the people paid to represent them couldn't or didn't know why their members voted no.

Hootanany

? :rolleyes:

markpb

I appreciate it's frustrating for the drivers but if you don't feel your union is representing you, that's a problem for you and there's a very obvious solution. Complaining that the union you voted to represent you aren't representing you and now the company should deal with you directly is ludicrous. Either you're a member of a union or you're not.

cdebru

markpb wrote: »

I appreciate it's frustrating for the drivers but if you don't feel your union is representing you, that's a problem for you and there's a very obvious solution. Complaining that the union you voted to represent you aren't representing you and now the company should deal with you directly is ludicrous. Either you're a member of a union or you're not.

That is not what people are saying the brief this group was given by the government was to talk to unions, management and drivers, they did not do that.

The point of this group was to find out why drivers were rejecting the labour court proposals, hard to see how they could do that without speaking to them, and only speaking to those already involved in the labour court process.

Union representation and leadership will take a lot longer to address than the timescale needed to sort this issue out.

markpb

cdebru wrote: »

That is not what people are saying the brief this group was given by the government was to talk to unions, management and drivers, they did not do that

Maybe I'm missing something but that sounds like rubbish to me. The unions only job in life is to represent the drivers to Dublin Bus. If the drivers are rejecting the deal, why isn't the union talking to them? Why should a third party be called in to negotiate between the union and their members? I presume if the drivers are so unhappy with how they're being represented that they've quit the NBRU and SIPTU and want to negotiate with DB directly from now on?

You can't have it both ways. If the union isn't representing you, quit and either negotiate directly or form a new union.

cdebru

markpb wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but that sounds like rubbish to me. The unions only job in life is to represent the drivers to Dublin Bus. If the drivers are rejecting the deal, why isn't the union talking to them? Why should a third party be called in to negotiate between the union and their members? I presume if the drivers are so unhappy with how they're being represented that they've quit the NBRU and SIPTU and want to negotiate with DB directly from now on?

You can't have it both ways. If the union isn't representing you, quit and either negotiate directly or form a new union.

Correct you are missing something, the ICTU/IBEC group were supposed to consult drivers they even said they would do this themselves they didn't. Now maybe they will come up with a proposal that will be acceptable to all sides but if they don't then, we would have to ask why they didn't do what they claimed they were going to do.

Direct negotiations with management were never proposed nor am I blaming DB because the group did not do what they were supposed to do. What they did is what the LC did and that failed, but we will have to wait and see what their proposals are but at the moment I'm not very hopeful.

markpb

cdebru wrote: »

the ICTU/IBEC group were supposed to consult drivers.

Why? What role is the union playing if someone else has to ask the drivers what they want. Maybe I'm missing your point but you're also missing mine. The drivers want someone to represent them to the company but somehow their union isn't the right person. Why are they still members of that union - it's hardly a complicated question.

cdebru

markpb wrote: »

Why? What role is the union playing if someone else has to ask the drivers what they want. Maybe I'm missing your point but you're also missing mine. The drivers want someone to represent them to the company but somehow their union isn't the right person. Why are they still members of that union - it's hardly a complicated question.

Why ?

Because that is what they were asked to do and that is what they said they were going to do.

I agree that is the function of a trade union, that there should be no need for a third party to consult directly with those unions own members ( which is likely why it didn't happen as it would be an embarrassment to those unions as I stated previously). However the evidence is that for whatever reason these unions are not adequately representing the views of their members hence the deadlock, and it appears that the leadership of these unions does not understand why the deals they oversaw in the LC and in direct discussions with management were rejected.

That was the point of this latest intervention to find out why that was happening and that is why direct consultation with drivers was proposed unfortunately it never happened.

Those 2 unions are the only unions the company will recognise to represent drivers, so they can't just leave or set up or join a different union. Unfortunately changing the leadership of these unions is a long complicated process, mostly due to rules designed by these people and their predecessors to protect their own positions.

edanto

The IT reports today on this third party group and their report. cdebru, do you think their reason for the rejection matches your view?

"The report says that the principal and overriding reason for workers rejecting the Labour Court recommendation on cost-saving measures was the complete lack of trust in the word of the company.

....

The report says that the current proposals represent “the best that can be achieved in the current financial circumstances”. It says any further concessions “would fatally undermine the company’s cost-saving plan”.

However. the report sets out a number of operational changes to address many of the drivers’ concerns which were identified as contributing to the rejection of the previous ballots."

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/independent-report-warns-against-further-strikes-by-dublin-bus-workers-1.1561946

Personally, I'm just trying to understand the reasons behind the rejection of the proposals.

LXFlyer

The report and it's recommendations are on the Dublin Bus website:

http://dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News/Dublin-Bus-Independent-Investigation-Report/