Trade union posters on buses - allowed or not?

Douglas Preston

so BE unions are ramping up their campaign against privatisation of routes... fly-posters from NBRU and SIPTU urging commuters to help 'save our bus service' have started popping up on buses on commuter routes and at bus shelters - is this sort of advocacy allowed? It seems to me that trade union propaganda presenting what may be a distortion of the facts really ought not be permitted on buses

Gatling

Seeing this on Dublin buses too

corktina

I thought you meant your signature :-) took me a while to suss what you meant Gatling!

Mrs OBumble

It's just another form of advertising.

Provided the advertisers (whoever they are) have paid the agreed rate to the bus company, then I don't see a problem.




They haven't, of course. And this is why you and I aren't allowed to stick up non-approved posters inside buses.

foggy_lad

All the windows in Waterford bus station are plastered with those ghastly posters.

TheBandicoot

I find it disgusting that people would object to this, but that's just my 2 cents. Ignore it if it is such a big deal to you.

Douglas Preston

Either it’s permitted or it isn’t - if it isn’t (and I suspect this to be the case) they should be taken down. It’s called following the rules.

TheBandicoot

Douglas Preston wrote: »

they should be taken down.

By whom? The workers themselves? Good luck

Rorster_123

So its wrong now for Unions to try and protect the jobs of their members??? If your job is at risk I hope you don't need the help of a Union to try and protect it.

Gatling

Rorster_123 wrote: »

So its wrong now for Unions to try and protect the jobs of their members??? If your job is at risk I hope you don't need the help of a Union to try and protect it.

The same unions who tried to hold us and many others to ransom last year now want us to support them ,

Rorster_123

Gatling wrote: »

The same unions who tried to hold us and many others to ransom last year now want us to support them ,

All workers have a right to take industrial action whether you like it or not. The gardai have just won a case with the European Commission for the right to join a Union and take industrial action. It only took them 30 years fighting with the Government here to finally get recognition.

Just because you don't agree with a worker being allowed to strike does not mean he cannot.

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

The same unions who tried to hold us and many others to ransom last year now want us to support them ,

no unions held us to ransom, people in dublin can get around, it will be difficult but doable

n97 mini

If it's fair enough to have posters representing the union's point of view up, then it should be fair enough that posters representing the non-union point of view should also be up.

One side never tells both sides of the story.

Douglas Preston

the point is whether it is permissible to put these posters up - if not, they shouldn't be there... it isn't complicated, really... unless it's now okay to flout regulations whenever an interest group believes it is in the right

end of the road

Douglas Preston wrote: »

the point is whether it is permissible to put these posters up - if not, they shouldn't be there... it isn't complicated, really... unless it's now okay to flout regulations whenever an interest group believes it is in the right

they are posters, ignore them if they bother you, if i don't like something i either, try do something about it, or ignore it, you can always try put posters representing your side if you want

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I find it disgusting that people would object to this, but that's just my 2 cents. Ignore it if it is such a big deal to you.

Why?

Whether bus routes are put out to tender is a matter ultimately for government and the NTA.

If the unions have a view they should be communicating it via other channels than putting unauthorised notices up on buses.

Of course no mention is made in the notice that Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus can bid as well, and could actually hold onto them.

end of the road

lxflyer wrote: »

Whether bus routes are put out to tender is a matter ultimately for government and the NTA.

the government maybe, the NTA, in my opinion no (unless the government decide that we can elect members to it) . i'd love to have been able to vote out the members of the NTA who decided the closure of the rosslare waterford line, but i can't

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

the government maybe, the NTA, in my opinion no (unless the government decide that we can elect members to it) . i'd love to have been able to vote out the members of the NTA who decided the closure of the rosslare waterford line, but i can't

It should have been put out to tender.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

It should have been put out to tender.

or have those making such decisians electable and accountable to the public

Mrs OBumble

lxflyer wrote: »

If the unions have a view they should be communicating it via other channels than putting unauthorised notices up on buses.

Do we know that they're unauthorised?

What controls do the regulations place on advertisements on buses? In this case, it may be that the bus company has authorised these notices - and possibly agreed that the fee for this advertising is zero.

LXFlyer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Do we know that they're unauthorised?

What controls do the regulations place on advertisements on buses? In this case, it may be that the bus company has authorised these notices - and possibly agreed that the fee for this advertising is zero.

They are just sellotaped randomly inside the buses, and are not in any of the advertising spaces. The unions have form in this regard before.

They are not officially authorised by Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann, I think we can be certain of that.

Mrs OBumble

What are the by-laws controlling advertising - do all ads have to be in the official slots?

While these may not be official BE ads, it's possible that they're at least unofficially approved: as I understand the company and the union positions would have a lot in common in this issue.

Beano

end of the road wrote: »

they are posters, ignore them if they bother you, if i don't like something i either, try do something about it, or ignore it, you can always try put posters representing your side if you want

And how long do you think those posters would stay up?

LXFlyer

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What are the by-laws controlling advertising - do all ads have to be in the official slots?

While these may not be official BE ads, it's possible that they're at least unofficially approved: as I understand the company and the union positions would have a lot in common in this issue.

Sorry, but that is just not the case.

The two companies will be bidding themselves for routes - are you seriously suggesting that they would approve of notices condemning what their shareholder has decided??

This is quite simply unions acting the maggot.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

Sorry, but that is just not the case.

The two companies will be bidding themselves for routes - are you seriously suggesting that they would approve of notices condemning what their shareholder has decided??

This is quite simply unions acting the maggot.

Not openly probably but if you asked them privately then Mrs Bumble may well be correct, management have to do what they are told doesn't mean they agree with it.

dowlingm

On the Toronto subway there are some anti PPP/contacting out advertising posters at the moment but they *appear* to have paid for them as they are in the ad slots.

VWD8

lxflyer wrote: »

Sorry, but that is just not the case.

The two companies will be bidding themselves for routes - are you seriously suggesting that they would approve of notices condemning what their shareholder has decided??

This is quite simply unions acting the maggot.

Sorry what gives you the right to simply brand this as unions acting the maggot?

Trade Unions are there to protect their members interests and thats whats happening here. They are causing no inconvenience or disruptions to passengers, just highlighting the situation.

If BE management had a problem with these they would be removed immediately, the fact they are being left up suggests otherwise.

LXFlyer

VWD8 wrote: »

Sorry what gives you the right to simply brand this as unions acting the maggot?

Trade Unions are there to protect their members interests and thats whats happening here. They are causing no inconvenience or disruptions to passengers, just highlighting the situation.

If BE management had a problem with these they would be removed immediately, the fact they are being left up suggests otherwise.

Indeed and they should be using normal channels of communication to do so, which they are perfectly entitled to do - not putting up very one sided arguments on public transport vehicles that are paid for by the state.

Mrs OBumble

lxflyer wrote: »

Indeed and they should be using normal channels of communication to do so, which they are perfectly entitled to do - not putting up very one sided arguments on public transport vehicles that are paid for by the state.

Most advertising consists of one-sided arguments. How is this any different?

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

Why?

Whether bus routes are put out to tender is a matter ultimately for government and the NTA.

If the unions have a view they should be communicating it via other channels than putting unauthorised notices up on buses.

Of course no mention is made in the notice that Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus can bid as well, and could actually hold onto them.

We don't live in an equal world, it is a world where one side (government and business's) has access to massive state and private media, in the form of TV, radio and print the unions do not have access so it is a small attempt to get the union side across, to the people who actually use the services.

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

We don't live in an equal world, it is a world where one side (government and business's) has access to massive state and private media, in the form of TV, radio and print the unions do not have access so it is a small attempt to get the union side across, to the people who actually use the services.

I don't think that anyone should be allowed use the insides of public transport vehicles to put forward political views, which this patently is. As I said, let them find another way of doing it.

I remember the last set of union notices warning passengers of impending doom and gloom as a result of Network Direct being implemented - I'm still waiting on that - have people really lost out? Not that I can tell.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't think that anyone should be allowed use the insides of public transport vehicles to put forward political views, which this patently is. As I said, let them find another way of doing it.

I remember the last set of union notices warning passengers of impending doom and gloom as a result of Network Direct being implemented - I'm still waiting on that - have people really lost out? Not that I can tell.

Agreeing or disagreeing with the content is a different matter.
It is not political as such as the trade union involved is not a supporter of any political party or group, it is the views of the leadership of that union in their position as representatives of the people actually working on that public transport on the proposal to privatise a portion of their jobs.

All well and good to say find another way, but the NBRU and their supporters do not have access to TV stations, newspapers or radio stations unlike the people proposing the privatization of their jobs.

n97 mini

VWD8 wrote: »

If BE management had a problem with these they would be removed immediately, the fact they are being left up suggests otherwise.

I would think their first priority is to not inflame the situation.

n97 mini

cdebru wrote: »

but the NBRU and their supporters do not have access to TV stations, newspapers or radio stations unlike the people proposing the privatization of their jobs.

They have the same access as anyone else, and at least one media company has been observed to be pro-union in the past.

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

Agreeing or disagreeing with the content is a different matter.
It is not political as such as the trade union involved is not a supporter of any political party or group, it is the views of the leadership of that union in their position as representatives of the people actually working on that public transport on the proposal to privatise a portion of their jobs.

All well and good to say find another way, but the NBRU and their supporters do not have access to TV stations, newspapers or radio stations unlike the people proposing the privatization of their jobs.

I'd argue it is a political statement - It's making a clear statement about government policy. I just do not think it should be allowed on board a public transport vehicle. Added to that, it is completely wrong that only one perspective is being put forward.


There are other ways of doing it, and frankly that's life. I can't think of other employers in the private sector allowing this sort of notice.

Guy:Incognito

cdebru wrote: »

Not openly probably but if you asked them privately then Mrs Bumble may well be correct, management have to do what they are told doesn't mean they agree with it.

If a couple of the higher ups have mates that own supermacs, would it be ok for them to unofficially plaster the same area with ads?

Guy:Incognito

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Most advertising consists of one-sided arguments. How is this any different?

Can companies just slap advertising anywhere they like whenever suits them? On buses maybe?

cdebru wrote: »

We don't live in an equal world, it is a world where one side (government and business's) has access to massive state and private media, in the form of TV, radio and print the unions do not have access so it is a small attempt to get the union side across, to the people who actually use the services.

It's been a long time since Siptu have been the little man. That nice big ivory tower of theirs on the quays Is a shining light to that.

end of the road

to me the unions are doing nothing wrong and have my support, they must do what they feel is necessary to protect their members, a few posters on busses isn't the end of the world, if those against them feel so strongly then try put up some posters expressing your view.

Douglas Preston

my take is we pay enough for public transport - too much probably - and it is wrong that we should be assailed by union propaganda on our commutes... it's all very well saying ignore the signs but they are an invasion of public space

end of the road

and thats the thing, its "public" space, so the unions can put up the posters, those who disagree can also put up posters outlining their view

devnull

And if the NTA or Department or transport for instance put posters up on the other side of the argument, can you see the bus drivers saying it is ok?

smellmepower

If they want to highlight the issue thats fair enough,but the union should pay for advertising slots on buses like anyone else would have to.

end of the road

smellmepower wrote: »

If they want to highlight the issue thats fair enough,but the union should pay for advertising slots on buses like anyone else would have to.

maybe they have payed for it?

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

They have the same access as anyone else, and at least one media company has been observed to be pro-union in the past.

Seriously no one can be that naive. You have heard of Communicorp, you do know who controls Independent News and Media surely ?


Sam Smyth ? Gemma O'Doherty ? you really think we have a functioning media ?

The media is anti union, anti worker, and inevitably pro government. That is not just in the case of public transport workers, anyone teachers, civil servants, nurses etc who oppose government policy as it affects their sector will find themselves on the wrong end of the state and big business media.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Can companies just slap advertising anywhere they like whenever suits them? On buses maybe?




It's been a long time since Siptu have been the little man. That nice big ivory tower of theirs on the quays Is a shining light to that.

This is not SIPTU, and having a large office block in the centre of town does not give you access to the media.

devnull wrote: »

And if the NTA or Department or transport for instance put posters up on the other side of the argument, can you see the bus drivers saying it is ok?

Why would they have to ? they have access to organs of the state and private media to propagandise their ideas and plans for public transport. They don't need to leaflet buses or trains.

Mrs OBumble

Douglas Preston wrote: »

my take is we pay enough for public transport - too much probably - and it is wrong that we should be assailed by union propaganda on our commutes... it's all very well saying ignore the signs but they are an invasion of public space

Ok, so what types of advertisting is acceptable?

The stuff about binning your gum?

Ads for FF politicians?

Explicit sexual health promotion messages? Or more subtle stuff about healthy eating?

Real-estate adverts?



You may not want to be assailed by any of these messages. But it seems that the bus by-laws do allow for them.

VWD8

None of the buses in Waterford garage were funded by the NTA and are fully owned by Bus Eireann, so they can put up whatever they like on them.

n97 mini

cdebru wrote: »

The media is anti union, anti worker, and inevitably pro government.

Eh, the media group with two TV stations, four radio stations, a major website, and a weekly printed publication is in a pretty dominant position, some would say the dominant position. It's also extensively unionised and state-owned.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

Eh, the media group with two TV stations, four radio stations, a major website, and a weekly printed publication is in a pretty dominant position, some would say the dominant position. It's also extensively unionised and state-owned.

State owned and Government controlled. Nevermind the acknowledged take over of RTE by the Workers party/DL who are now where ? Oh yeah in the Labour Party.....and Labour are where ? Oh Yeah part of the government that is planning on privatising bus routes, and who was backing Labour candidates in recent elections ? oh yeah Jack O'Connor the head of SIPTU.

The main trade unions in this state have long ago given up on protecting workers rights, the Union sector is too Labour what the charity sector was to FF and FG.

n97 mini

They don't need to protect workers' rights, employment law and all the associated machinery does that.

Trade unions are now primarily concerned with protecting and enhancing pay and conditions.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

They don't need to protect workers' rights, employment law and all the associated machinery does that.

its supposed to but no it doesn't, at least not everyone all the time, your deluded if you think it does.
unions exist because the members want and need them to exist to protect them and look out for their interests as well as make sure they get good working conditions and pay, nothing wrong with that.
just be cause one might not want to be in a union doesn't mean others don't, or shouldn't be able to be in one.

n97 mini wrote: »

Trade unions are now primarily concerned with protecting and enhancing pay and conditions.

thats 1 part of it yes

Mrs OBumble

n97 mini wrote: »

They don't need to protect workers' rights, employment law and all the associated machinery does that.

You've clearly never been in the receiving end of an employer who's choosing to break the law.

It's a bit like the roads: just because the law says to drive on the left with a maximum speed of 120km/h, doesn't mean that everyone does so.

Some breaches are minor, eg driving at 125 kim for a few k's, or failing to give a 15 minute tea break to someone who only works for 4.5 hours in a day.

But unless there is an effective and immediate controller, the size of the breaches that motorists or employer's will chance their arm with gets larger .

Unions by their very existence protect rights to some extent while doing very little - effectively they are a form of cheap employment law insurance.