Irish Rail - Risk of Strike Action

LXFlyer

Mycro wrote: »

This doesn't normally stop people posting the facts. Could it be the case that there is no case to answer and this is why drivers and the drivers' union are being coy about past productivity demands?

In this economic climate, an offer of 8% over three years is not to be sniffed at. Private sector jobs have been lost left right and centre since the economy collapsed. Public sector jobs remain secure - there have been no mass involuntary redundancies over the last 8 years and none are planned at Irish Rail either it seems.

I'm not saying the drivers don't have a case but there is absolutely no information available to justify the industrial action to the travelling public and those of us who are taxpayers and effectively shareholders in this company. This is a public relations disaster for the drivers. There is minimal sympathy.

With respect - I have never seen the detail which you're seeking put out in public for any dispute.

It just doesn't happen.

Unless you're in the negotiations, I'm afraid you're not going to know.

Wild Garlic

lxflyer wrote: »

Either way - expecting IR to be conducted here is pushing things.

This is an Internet forum - not an IR forum.

Agreed, however people are coming on here stating that drivers deserve this and that for various reasons, one of which is the taking on of extra duties. Once the subject is brought up I think it is reasonable to ask what those duties are.

LXFlyer

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Agreed, however people are coming on here stating that drivers deserve this and that for various reasons, one of which is the taking on of extra duties. Once the subject is brought up I think it is reasonable to ask what those duties are.

It's not going to happen though.

It never does, and I think people have to accept that.

This is not an appropriate place for that discussion - that happens behind closed doors.

Personally I suggest ignoring those sort of posts - they're generally posted by people who don't actually know anything or are posting what they've heard - it's just generally hyperbole.

In any industrial dispute the truth is generally somewhere between what both sides are looking for - and that rarely makes it into the public realm.

Wild Garlic

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Agreed, however people are coming on here stating that drivers deserve this and that for various reasons, one of which is the taking on of extra duties. Once the subject is brought up I think it is reasonable to ask what those duties are.

It would be helpful to those of us who aren't "in the know" if someone could post an unbiased summary(or a link or two) of what both sides actually want.

Just so we can see the issues they are facing (or is that fighting over).

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

It would be helpful to those of us who aren't "in the know" if someone could post an unbiased summary(or a link or two) of what both sides actually want.

Just so we can see the issues they are facing (or is that fighting over).

You are not going to get that - and I think people have to realise that.

The unions and management will both have a wish list - what they both actually will settle for will be somewhere in between.

The only people who can give you that level of detail are the negotiators, and they ain't on boards.ie

The only place that reality sets in is at the negotiations themselves and nowhere else - and unfortunately the rest of us have to accept that. We are not going to get that information here.

Mycro

lxflyer wrote: »

You are not going to get that - and I think people have to realise that.

The unions and management will both have a wish list - what they both actually will settle for will be somewhere in between.

I agree with that point. However the extra duties/past productivity we keep hearing about are history - why can nobody tell us what they were especially as they're looking for payment that seemingly was promised for these?

I received an anonymous PM last night which I am posting below with the OP's permission.

This may clarify part of the issue in the dispute.

Drivers want a big fat payrise for past productivity.
What is past productivity....Irish Rail get new trains and carriages. The Drivers get trained up on them and learn/adopt the new safety standards that come with them.
(the new trains are of course more modern so easier to drive and more comfortable).
The Drivers view that as past productivity.

For that they want a hefty pay increase, reduced roster hours but no changes to pension.
Note that rostered hours are different to contractual hours...48 hour contracted hours per week for pension purposes but only ever rostered for 39 hours per week!
And they want that 39 reduced

LXFlyer

Mycro wrote: »

I agree with that point. However the extra duties/past productivity we keep hearing about are history - why can nobody tell us what they were especially as they're looking for payment that seemingly was promised for these?

Possibly because no drivers want to get involved in this debate here.

You are making the basic assumption that there are drivers posting in this discussion - that may well not be the case.

Most people posting here have nothing to do with the dispute, and aren't even with IE.

Jamie2k9

Deleted User wrote: »

I received an anonymous PM last night which I am posting below with the OP's permission.

This may clarify part of the issue in the dispute.

Interesting and this would clear up the NBRU comment about it going on for 8 years or something like that. Guessing that person is not a driver because of the tone of language used or one which voted against action.

As I said yesterday none of this is outside their terms of employment and it's outrageous that IE are evening offering a pay increase based on it.

lxflyer

lxflyer wrote: »

Most people posting here have nothing to do with the dispute, and aren't even with IE.

Correct, but as passengers, we are affected by the dispute.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct, but as passengers, we are affected by the dispute.

Indeed we are - but expecting an answer (and getting rather exercised about it) to a detailed specific question about the dispute here on a random internet forum is possibly pushing things.

Mycro

lxflyer wrote: »

Possibly because no drivers want to get involved in this debate here.

The fact that divers do not want to get involved in the debate, I suggest (and sorry for repeating this point) that they don't believe they have a valid case.

If the recent post above is true and drivers are seeking a pay rise for training on new trains eight years ago, my suggestion holds some truth.

If this is true, could somebody explain why new trains justify more pay? Continuous improvement must be accepted as the natural order of events. This might mean new or different duties, or a different way of doing things. Failing to respond to the times will see a company fail. Employees should not expect to revive pay increases for simply doing their jobs. They should expect to lose their jobs for not adopting new or better ways of doing things. This is how capitalism works. We are not a socialist or communist society stuck in the dark ages. Would those in Irish Rail like us to go back to the days of wooden carriages and doors that had to b closed one-by-one b hand?

Again, as I've said before, I'm not saying the drivers don't have a case, but based on the information available, the case is not obvious.

mickmmc

There can also be a PR battle with many strikes or potential strikes.

During last's year Irish Rail strike it was leaked to the newspapers that David Franks (CEO) was on holidays in Mauritius. That was PR gold for the unions in the short term. Whoever leaked that information didn't think it through as the relationship with the unions and Franks is strained (independent.ie).

The same tactic was used the previous year when it was leaked to the newspapers that the Chairman of Bus Eireann was in Emirates during a strike (working). Again, that was PR gold for the unions. However, the Chairman resigned shortly afterwards.

In recent weeks Irish Rail have upped their game on the PR front and won the battle this time; the company released details of the 7.9% increase to the media which put the unions on the back foot. Also, Franks pulled the rabbit out of the hat last week by writing to the drivers and sending the letter to their homes prior to the talks. That letter really undermined the unions.

A few years ago the HSE brought a HR director (since left) in from the private sector and he applied the same tactic as Franks by writing to employees directly during disputes. It drove the unions mad.

LXFlyer

Mycro wrote: »

The fact that divers do not want to get involved in the debate, I suggest (and sorry for repeating this point) that they don't believe they have a valid case.

If the recent post above is true and drivers are seeking a pay rise for training on new trains eight years ago, my suggestion holds some truth.

If this is true, could somebody explain why new trains justify more pay? Continuous improvement must be accepted as the natural order of events. This might mean new or different duties, or a different way of doing things. Failing to respond to the times will see a company fail. Employees should not expect to revive pay increases for simply doing their jobs. They should expect to lose their jobs for not adopting new or better ways of doing things. This is how capitalism works. We are not a socialist or communist society stuck in the dark ages. Would those in Irish Rail like us to go back to the days of wooden carriages and doors that had to b closed one-by-one b hand?

Again, as I've said before, I'm not saying the drivers don't have a case, but based on the information available, the case is not obvious.

I do fully understand your point of view, but you seem convinced that you are entitled to an explanation here.

I don't think that you are going to get it.

Why should any driver, or indeed anyone else, feel under an obligation to post here and answer questions posed about their terms of employment?

It's a random internet board!!

A sense of perspective is needed.

Mycro

lxflyer wrote: »

I do fully understand your point of view, but you seem convinced that you are entitled to an explanation here.

I don't think that you are going to get it.

Why should any driver, or indeed anyone else, feel under an obligation to post here and answer questions posed about their terms of employment?

It's a random internet board!!

A sense of perspective is needed.

Thanks - I think you are correct. However, I think every member of the travelling public is entitled to an explanation as to why their travel plans were disrupted for two days in a little over two weeks. Generally in the case of public disputes, the issues are well-known and understood by all. Consider the teachers or nurses unions as a good example.

So far, the lack of explanation for the drivers' claims baffles me. It may be the case that there's nobody here who knows the details, and the media don't either and I'm baffled by this. The only explanation I can think of is that there is no valid case. I give up.

Hilly Bill

The reasons was given, a breakdown of those reasons is not needed.

Wild Garlic

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The reasons was given, a breakdown of those reasons is not needed.

Why so?

end of the road

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Why so?

because all ready stated its between the union/management/the labour court.

Wild Garlic

end of the road wrote: »

you were all ready given that answer.

Sorry, don't get ya

billyhead

With the strike on Friday called off at the last minute would holders of annual tickets or monthly tickets for the train be able to claim a refund if they did not know it was called off and arranged alternative transport i.e the bus

Hilly Bill

Yes, they will get a refund.

Infini

mickmmc wrote: »

In recent weeks Irish Rail have upped their game on the PR front and won the battle this time; the company released details of the 7.9% increase to the media which put the unions on the back foot. Also, Franks pulled the rabbit out of the hat last week by writing to the drivers and sending the letter to their homes prior to the talks. That letter really undermined the unions.

A few years ago the HSE brought a HR director (since left) in from the private sector and he applied the same tactic as Franks by writing to employees directly during disputes. It drove the unions mad.

I doubt its called upping your game when the first one to throw their toys out of the pram was Franks. Neither is negotiating with false pretences by looking to agree then changing your mind a few minutes later. All that does is make the company look like asshats.

Its already been made clear that supposed increase is for future increases. The issue here is its related to past productivity that the company hasnt lived up to their end.

As for sending out letters that wont drive the unions mad it'll just piss the drivers off more and make things harder to get any agreement.

Mycro

Infini2 wrote: »

Its already been made clear that supposed increase is for future increases. The issue here is its related to past productivity that the company hasnt lived up to their end.

How is training to drive a new type of train considered a productivity increase, and why should the company pay more for this?

Wild Garlic

Infini2 wrote: »

I doubt its called upping your game when the first one to throw their toys out of the pram was Franks. Neither is negotiating with false pretences by looking to agree then changing your mind a few minutes later. All that does is make the company look like asshats.

Its already been made clear that supposed increase is for future increases. The issue here is its related to past productivity that the company hasnt lived up to their end.

As for sending out letters that wont drive the unions mad it'll just piss the drivers off more and make things harder to get any agreement.

What past productivity. Is it still a secret. If people can't give a specific example of the alleged past productivity/extra duties their point is BS.

end of the road

Mycro wrote: »

How is training to drive a new type of train considered a productivity increase, and why should the company pay more for this?

i'd doubt that is even true. on the off chance it is, it won't happen.

Wild Garlic wrote: »

What past productivity. Is it still a secret. If people can't give a specific example of the alleged past productivity/extra duties their point is BS.

it isn't.

Infini

Mycro wrote: »

How is training to drive a new type of train considered a productivity increase, and why should the company pay more for this?

It's doubtful that driving a new train alone would be an issue for a pay rise. Theres probably something else at play here and thats even if this is one of the reasons.

Wild Garlic wrote: »

What past productivity. Is it still a secret. If people can't give a specific example of the alleged past productivity/extra duties their point is BS.

It aint like its being kept secret. I aint a driver so Im not gonna be able to give specific details only share what I know from talking to them myself. Its perfectly reasonable as well to deduce that the whole productivity reason for pay increases is an umbrella statement as well because theres rosters and arrangements involved that might be too numerous and varies to give a specific reason here.

End of the day if the unions are going to the labour court as well its possible they do have a strong argument and its perfectly possible theres previous labour court agreements from the past that are involved too that the company have reneged on. Ultimately none of us will know for sure unless it comes out in the media or the labour court itself so theres little point in pushing for answers none of us actually have.

GM228

From RTE News

Labour Court issues rail dispute proposals


The Labour Court has issued proposals aimed at resolving the Ianród Éireann dispute which disrupted transport for thousands of passengers last month.

The 520 drivers have been in dispute with Ianród Éireann in pursuit of payment for productivity measures conceded in recent years. They are also seeking a shorter working week.

The dispute triggered a three-hour strike on last month's bank holiday, though a second scheduled strike was called off at the 11th hour after both sides agreed to attend the Labour Court.

Following yesterday's hearing, Labour Court Chairman Kevin Duffy has recommended that Ianród Éireann management and unions should engage in further talks about issues of productivity.

He proposed a process of negotiation on productivity, taking into account all changes and efficiencies generating verifiable and auditable savings which continue to accrue to the company, but which have not previously been compensated for.

However, he noted that measures that were taken into account in earlier collective agreements should be disregarded.

He proposed the establishment of a management/union working party facilitated by an agreed independent expert in the field of productivity measurement. He set an indicative time frame of four months for this work.

On the working hours issue, Mr Duffy recommended that a comparison or "benchmarking" exercise should be undertaken to examine the totality of terms and conditions applicable to locomotive drivers in the UK and Northern Ireland equivalent undertakings proposed by the unions. Those drivers enjoy a shorter working week.

However, he stressed that this exercise would be carried out without prejudice to the position of either party on what should follow from the results of that exercise.

Again, he recommended that it should be undertaken by a working party facilitated by the Workplace Relations Commission and with the assistance of such expert independent advisors as may be considered necessary.

He said the outcome should form the basis for further negotiations between the parties.

However, Mr Duffy stressed: "It should be clearly understood that participation in this exercise cannot be construed as implying a commitment to make adjustment in the terms and conditions of those associated with this claim on foot of the information obtained."

He concluded by saying that if these processes do not resolve the dispute, the parties may refer the issues back to the Labour Court for a final recommendation.

NBRU General Secretary Dermot O'Leary welcomed the ruling, but said it was ironic that the Labour Court has recommended exactly what they asked the company to do at the Workplace Relations Commission talks which failed.

He said it was a sad indictment on the current state of industrial relations at Ianród Éireann that it took an unfortunate and totally unnecessary dispute to get to this point.

The NBRU will now ballot members on the Labour Court recommendation, which could take around two weeks.

In a statement tonight, Ianród Éireann said it "welcomes the constructive proposals by the Labour Court to allow for the issues referred to the Court to be independently assessed in their totality rather than through any narrow or selective focus, and we look forward to engaging constructively in that process".

GM228

Jamie2k9

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/union-warns-of-ballot-for-strike-at-dublin-bus-in-row-over-pensions-1.2964624

Separately, trade unions will press for pay increases for staff at Iarnród Éireann in talks with management, which are due to commence at the Workplace Relations Commission on Monday.

Unions at Iarnród Éireann had sought increases of about 20 per cent, though a more realistic objective is likely to be the annual 3.75 per cent increase secured by staff in Dublin Bus following a strike last autumn.

A spokesman for Iarnród Éireann said the company was happy to engage constructively with trade unions on the issue of earnings.

However the company said it had to ensure that it could “respond to increases in demand, while being acutely aware that we remain one misstep away from insolvency due to accumulated deficits from recent years”.

Continued efficiency and flexibility were essential, the company said, if it was to be in position to respond to improved wages.

Brendan Bendar

Another lot looking for transport increases

IR 21%

Hilly Bill

Some bump in a thread :-).