Irish Rail - Risk of Strike Action

Sala

Merchant's Quay is closed due to a serious accident. If you're on a bus going up the quays I'm sure they'll detour but to be honest you're better off getting off an walking up if you work on the quays.

Infini

CosmicJay wrote: »

Let's not be disingenuous, Irish Rail staff are not paid pittance. After factoring in pension, salary and travel perks they are quote well paid, show me any other job where a person can complete 8-12 weeks of training and get 40k + a year.

There seems to be a disconnect with reality at Irish Rail.

Never said theyre paid a pittance just people EXPECT that they be paid a pittance. Problem as well is theres nothing but management jobs being advertised the last few years and these can be worth over €100k or more a year.

As for €40k+ A year thats not alot when you consider thats before taxes. You can come out with a good deal less afterwards. Pension for traffic grade is worth a pittance as well. Only good pensions were those in clerical or management as those were on different t&c (these arent entitled to state pension tho because of this). Thinking drivers get a gold plate pension is a myth and always has.

Decuc500

Infini2 wrote: »

Services were not cut AT ALL. That is not sustainable yet the company is compelled by the government to run these services. Thats why I call these losses artificial. If the services had been cut to save money people would be giving out murder.

You mustn't be aware that most Darts in evening rush hour to Howth have been reduced to half size and are now dangerously overcrowded. That's certainly a service cut.

CosmicJay

Infini2 wrote: »

Pension for traffic grade is worth a pittance as well. Only good pensions were those in clerical or management as those were on different t&c (these arent entitled to state pension tho because of this). Thinking drivers get a gold plate pension is a myth and always has.

Everyone has to pay taxes, that's how it is, Irish Rail employee's don't have to pay any extra special taxes over anybody else.

The information I have gained from a driver is that the pension amounts to an extra 11k per year over the state pension. Taking the average payout term of a pension of 33 years. 33 x 11,000 = 363,000. Say they worked there for a solid 40 years until retirement age that is an extra 9,075 per annum.

A private sector employee would have to put in the same amount each year to a private scheme to obtain the same pension.

Sadly our Public Sector/Semi state workers have just gotten incredibly incredibly greedy.

Mycro

Most people seem to believe, and it does seem to be to be the case, that the front line staff have been reduced to a low level in the last few years, but there are still many under-worked people in the admin/clerical jobs. If this is the case, why were these areas not reduced in numbers more than drivers, etc?

The fact that there are lots of posts from people who may be front-line staff here and on other forums complaining about the back-office inefficiencies, but none from the clerical staff to defend that re-enforces this view for me.

Infini

lxflyer wrote: »

Services weren't cut? I must be imagining all those shorter trains going around and the large drop in passenger numbers that happened. Do you seriously expect PSO subsidy to remain constant with a massive drop in passenger numbers?

I'm afraid this post sums it all up perfectly for me - greed and nothing less.

Yet the services still ran. I dont like the fact that they run short trains myself its not fair on the passengers or for staff who have to make sure theres not a crush but theyre still running as opposed to not running at all.

As for the passenger numbers and pso you might not expect them to maintain the same funding but not cut it far below break even or sustainable levels either. Staff on the ground have not been replaced 2300 have left over the last few years.

As for my post its nothing about greed but whenever anyone looks for a pay rise theyre called greedy anyways so I may as well be talking to a wall.

LXFlyer

Infini2 wrote: »

Never said theyre paid a pittance just people EXPECT that they be paid a pittance. Problem as well is theres nothing but management jobs being advertised the last few years and these can be worth over €100k or more a year.

As for €40k+ A year thats not alot when you consider thats before taxes. You can come out with a good deal less afterwards. Pension for traffic grade is worth a pittance as well. Only good pensions were those in clerical or management as those were on different t&c (these arent entitled to state pension tho because of this). Thinking drivers get a gold plate pension is a myth and always has.

So train drivers don't have a defined benefit (final salary) pension scheme?

devnull

Infini2 wrote: »

If the services had been cut to save money people would be giving out murder.

My services have been cut, I have to squeeze on a four carriage DART sometimes that I cannot even get on and the next train is 50 minutes away from my station to my destination whilst carriages sit idle in Fairview depot but according to you that is not happening.

Many Irish rail staff come on here and moan about the prospect of private operators coming in and running the company for their own benefit and agenda rather than that of the public, but the same people see no problem in doing the same themselves and the whole idea of a publicly operated service is that the public come first!

Just saying that more money should be ploughed in then the losses wouldn't be there shows a complete lack of appreciation as to what got the country into the banking and financial crisis in the first place since costs would rapidly rise out of control in the knowledge there was no need for the company to be run effiecently or within budget. It would become a black hole.

KomradeBishop

lxflyer wrote: »

You seem to be blindly ignoring the fact that the country has been in a recession and every element of the public sector (and private sector) have had to have pay cuts and cost cutting to try and keep afloat.

In fact most people in the private sector suffered these six years ago - IE didn't implement pay cuts until 2014

More relevantly (subsidy cut or not) the company's finances are simply in an unsustainable position and there isn't money either in government or in the company to pay for this. It is not the government's job to bail IE out - IE have a responsibility to operate the business in as cost efficient a manner as possible.

The jury is out as to whether that is actually happening.

The current CEO will have his own view on that - ultimately he is responsible to the Board and the Minister, and he may be faced with the reality that this is not sustainable, whether you want to hear that or not.

Yes big talk of a 'giveaway' budget, and there's apparently 'no money available' to budget for this :rolleyes: There is money available - and they went for the election-chance-improving tax cuts instead!

It's the usual pattern of discussion here:
1: Cut funding for an essential service and crapify it.
2: Encourage a narrative, that has people blame the service - whose funding depends upon subsidy (as it should do, for an essential service like this), making it the fault of government not the service - and which can do nothing to resolve the problems without restored payment.
3: Push a narrative for privatization - even though it's the worst of all worlds for a service like this, and would lead to bad results for everyone other than those looking to profit from a monopoly (under guise of false 'tendering', where the process is easily gamed, meaning there is little real competition) on an essential service.

Sorry but no, we don't want a crapified private service here - with the false promise people make of it being better - we want to keep what we have, and just actually fund it properly.

Fair play to the workers pushing for strikes - hope they do this more in the future, so they can have their pay restored - there is more than enough public money available for it.

BoatMad

Infini2 wrote: »

Yea people do need a reality check. Its not the responsibility of the government to bail them out? however it IS the responsibility of the government to fund the services. Subvention was cut by 40%. FORTY PERCENT from 2007 onwards. Services were not cut AT ALL. That is not sustainable yet the company is compelled by the government to run these services. Thats why I call these losses artificial. If the services had been cut to save money people would be giving out murder. These same people are the ones whinging about privatisation whenever theres a strike (theres only been TWO of them in the last 10 odd years, TWO with significant notice yet people complain like they strike every week) but these services are the ones that would be gutted anyways if they did try privatisation. End of the day those debts wouldnt exist if the funding was done right but its not. Thus those debts are infact moneys the taxpayer owes the company and if funding is not done in a way to run them down over time the Taxpayer will get hit with the full whack anyways!

This country suffered pay cuts that should never have happened. The country was forced into a bailout and everyone suffered losses for something they shouldnt have. Yet people didnt go out and protest at the time this came along and got walked over. People give out that those at irish rail didnt suffer cuts probably out of jealousy becauss they managed to hold their ground for so long.

As I said people expect staff working these to work for a pittance even though they can be responsible for the lives of up to a 1000 people at a given time. You dont give that kind of responsibity to someone on a low wage.

railway engine drivers have been striking since railways were founded, primarily because they are essential to the running of the network not because they are right

LXFlyer

Infini2 wrote: »

Yet the services still ran. I dont like the fact that they run short trains myself its not fair on the passengers or for staff who have to make sure theres not a crush but theyre still running as opposed to not running at all.

As for the passenger numbers and pso you might not expect them to maintain the same funding but not cut it far below break even or sustainable levels either. Staff on the ground have not been replaced 2300 have left over the last few years.

As for my post its nothing about greed but whenever anyone looks for a pay rise theyre called greedy anyways so I may as well be talking to a wall.

It is greed when a company is on the verge of bankruptcy - this series of posts just demonstrates that the reality of that hasn't even remotely hit home.

For the record that's precisely the situation that my employer faced and we all had to take 10-20% pay cuts until things righted themselves.

So please don't lecture me about this.

devnull

Decuc500 wrote: »

You mustn't be aware that most Darts in evening rush hour to Howth have been reduced to half size and are now dangerously overcrowded. That's certainly a service cut.

It's even worse on the Malahide branch where it is impossible to get on the 5.54 from Connolly to Malahide even before it reaches the city centre on some day and virtually 75% of that train is going to the Malahide Branch.

A large number of commuters are now getting the 5.47 to Howth, getting off at Howth Junction and then getting on the Malahide train at Howth Junction where there is some space. Partly that is because the next Malahide Branch train is not for another 50 minutes after the 5.54 I would assume.

So if you are on that train I apologise for overcrowding your service to swap onto Malahide sets, but it's through fear of not being able to get on at the latest service (NB: I don't get on at Connolly but was just referencing that as a reference point)

LXFlyer

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes big talk of a 'giveaway' budget, and there's apparently 'no money available' to budget for this :rolleyes: There is money available - and they went for the election-chance-improving tax cuts instead!

It's the usual pattern of discussion here:
1: Cut funding for an essential service and crapify it.
2: Encourage a narrative, that has people blame the service - whose funding depends upon subsidy (as it should do, for an essential service like this), making it the fault of government not the service - and which can do nothing to resolve the problems without restored payment.
3: Push a narrative for privatization - even though it's the worst of all worlds for a service like this, and would lead to bad results for everyone other than those looking to profit from a monopoly (under guise of false 'tendering', where the process is easily gamed, meaning there is little real competition) on an essential service.

Sorry but no, we don't want a crapified private service here - with the false promise people make of it being better - we want to keep what we have, and just actually fund it properly.

Fair play to the workers pushing for strikes - hope they do this more in the future, so they can have their pay restored - there is more than enough public money available for it.

I never once mentioned privatisation - nor do I see it as a realistic option.

But you don't believe that the company should be run in the most cost effective manner and with best commercial practices?

Infini

Mycro wrote: »

Most people seem to believe, and it does seem to be to be the case, that the front line staff have been reduced to a low level in the last few years, but there are still many under-worked people in the admin/clerical jobs. If this is the case, why were these areas not reduced in numbers more than drivers, etc?

The fact that there are lots of posts from people who may be front-line staff here and on other forums complaining about the back-office inefficiencies, but none from the clerical staff to defend that re-enforces this view for me.

Clerical are office jobs theyre not for platforms (tho thats the companys fault for having it this way). Theyre also on different rates as well. Traffic grade (depotmen, drivers etc) have been on different pay rates since 2002 or so when that new deal was done.

devnull

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes big talk of a 'giveaway' budget, and there's apparently 'no money available' to budget for this :rolleyes: There is money available - and they went for the election-chance-improving tax cuts instead!

So what you're saying is that you are not happy that they cut tax and USC rates that benefited everyone in the state and all of the money should have just been focused on your company?

Sounds like greed to me.

devnull

Infini2 wrote: »

Clerical are office jobs theyre not for platforms (tho thats the companys fault for having it this way). Theyre also on different rates as well. Traffic grade (depotmen, drivers etc) have been on different pay rates since 2002 or so when that new deal was done.

Sounds like any normal company to me.

There's always different structures for different departments in nay company.

devnull

KomradeBishop wrote: »

we want to keep what we have, and just actually fund it properly.

Actually in the budget the funding was increased.

That is before you mention the funding for the Phoenix Park Tunnel.

Infini

lxflyer wrote: »

I never once mentioned privatisation - nor do I see it as a realistic option.

But you don't believe that the company should be run in the most cost effective manner and with best commercial practices?

Problem is there has been cost effective meaures taken with the agreement of the drivers and other staff but when it came for the company to live up to its end its dithering and making excuses expecially when these losses are artifical due to underfunding.

I agree as well privatisaion will never work but theres an agenda from part of those in goverment to try and get it.

KomradeBishop

lxflyer wrote: »

It is greed when a company is on the verge of bankruptcy - this series of posts just demonstrates that the reality of that hasn't even remotely hit home.

For the record that's precisely the situation that my employer faced and we all had to take 10-20% pay cuts until things righted themselves.

So please don't lecture me about this.

The company isn't on the verge of 'bankruptcy', it's umbilically tied to the state (it's like saying the Gardai are on the verge of bankruptcy) - the 'bankruptcy' bollocks, is just being used to spin a narrative, for trying to treat the company as if it should be private - and thus should be replaced with a wholly privatized service.

Government can increase funding at any time - and given the massive level of cuts, they have to - the fact that IE is semi-private, doesn't change anything: The issue of whether funding is sustainable, is wholly up to government, just as it is for any other public service.

end of the road

CosmicJay wrote: »

Sadly our Public Sector/Semi state workers have just gotten incredibly incredibly greedy.

no they haven't.

KomradeBishop

lxflyer wrote: »

I never once mentioned privatisation - nor do I see it as a realistic option.

But you don't believe that the company should be run in the most cost effective manner and with best commercial practices?

I don't think you're qualified to know what is 'cost effective' when you know nothing of the companies accounts, tbh.

It's the usual populist nonsense where people scoff at any idea of increasing funding, for a service that has had massive cuts so far.

You've already done the maths: The services have been cut and they are operating at a significant 'loss' - there won't be an improvement in services or their balance sheet, until the funding that was taken away from them, is restored.

That increasingly looks like it's not going to happen, without strikes and the threat of them - though in the end, that is probably going to be used as an excuse for further privatizing.

Infini

devnull wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you are not happy that they cut tax and USC rates that benefited everyone in the state and all of the money should have just been focused on your company?

Sounds like greed to me.

There shouldve been less about tax cuts and more reinvestment of the moneys back into the infrastructure expecially with the likes of law enforcement health education and infrastructure including rail. An extra 12-15mil in subvention would at least create a break even enviroment. Thats also a pittance when you have a budget of 1.5 billion at your disposal. Pay the drivers what theyre due then look for more savings from that. The drivers at the end of the day called this strike only because the company refused to be honest and made excuses.

devnull

Infini2 wrote: »

Problem is there has been cost effective meaures taken with the agreement of the drivers and other staff but when it came for the company to live up to its end its dithering and making excuses expecially when these losses are artifical due to underfunding.

Funding was increased for the first time in several years in the budget.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Government can increase funding at any time - and given the massive level of cuts, they have to - the fact that IE is semi-private, doesn't change anything: The issue of whether funding is sustainable, is wholly up to government, just as it is for any other public service.

The idea that every time a company over-runs it's budget or makes a loss we just increase the funding so it doesn't is so economically flawed I can't quite believe that is being proposed here.

As has been said in this thread before the company should be run in the most cost effective manner just throwing extra money at it every time it makes a loss does the complete opposite.

Mycro

Infini2 wrote: »

Clerical are office jobs theyre not for platforms (tho thats the companys fault for having it this way). Theyre also on different rates as well. Traffic grade (depotmen, drivers etc) have been on different pay rates since 2002 or so when that new deal was done.

I understand that and my question is still - is there inefficiency in clerical areas, and why have they not been cut more in terms of numbers? That's where some money can be found for staff on platforms, trains, and dare-I-say it, customer information announcers.

BoatMad

Infini2 wrote: »

Problem is there has been cost effective meaures taken with the agreement of the drivers and other staff but when it came for the company to live up to its end its dithering and making excuses expecially when these losses are artifical due to underfunding.

I agree as well privatisaion will never work but theres an agenda from part of those in goverment to try and get it.

Theres no agenda to privatise IR and none that would prove commercially viable

IR received massive capital grants well in excess of those justified by the tiny numbers of passengers actually using the service, particular interurban rail

CosmicJay

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The company isn't on the verge of 'bankrupty,' it's umbilically tied to the state (it's like saying the Gardai are on the verge of bankruptcy) - the 'bankruptcy' bollocks, is just being used to spin a narrative, for trying to treat the company as if it should be[/b] private - and thus should be replaced with a wholly privatized service.

Government can increase funding at any time - and given the massive level of cuts, they have to - the fact that IE is semi-private, doesn't change anything: The issue of whether funding is sustainable, is wholly up to government, just as it is for any other public service.

You seem to forget that as a country we almost went bankrupt, bailout, massive wipe out of jobs, unemployment to 15%. Irish Rail staff barely noticed it, no layoff's or even any pay cuts until 2014.

As many other posters have said here before its completely base level greed, sheer entitlement and complete contempt for the public.

Dublin Bus managed to turn a profit this year, only after deeply cutting costs and actually getting its house in order, Irish Rail seems to be the Greece of Irish Semi-state bodies. Give us more money because f**k you that's why.

The level of money sunk into Irish Rail is in no way justified by the crappy crappy service it provides.

KomradeBishop

devnull wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you are not happy that they cut tax and USC rates that benefited everyone in the state and all of the money should have just been focused on your company?

Sounds like greed to me.

I suppose anyone who disagress with you here, must personally works for IE :rolleyes:
Don't bother trying to spin me as working for IE again, until you have even the slightest sliver of evidence to back it - though I'm going to string-out acknowledging one way or the other, just to see how blatantly you want to use that accusation as a rhetorical tool.

Sorry but, wanting a crapified public service, and to withhold pay from public service workers, just so you can have a tax cut: That's greed.

devnull

Infini2 wrote: »

There shouldve been less about tax cuts and more reinvestment of the moneys back into the infrastructure expecially with the likes of law enforcement health education and infrastructure including rail.

So again, you believe the state should invest in areas that just by co-incidence include one of those that you work in rather than every single working man and woman in this country?

Greed.

An extra 12-15mil in subvention would at least create a break even enviroment. Thats also a pittance when you have a budget of 1.5 billion at your disposal.

There are many sectors that are struggling for funding and many people in the state who are in the same boat, should we tell the people that are living on the breadline that we are not giving you tax cuts, because people who are paid more than you are going to see benefit of extra money instead?

Greed Again

Pay the drivers what theyre due then look for more savings from that. The drivers at the end of the day called this strike only because the company refused to be honest and made excuses.

So basically what you are saying that the drivers should be given more money but savings should be found from everyone else in the company?

Greed again.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you are not happy that they cut tax and USC rates that benefited everyone in the state and all of the money should have just been focused on your company?

Sounds like greed to me.

he's not an IE employee

KomradeBishop

devnull wrote: »

Funding was increased for the first time in several years in the budget.



The idea that every time a company over-runs it's budget or makes a loss we just increase the funding so it doesn't is so economically flawed I can't quite believe that is being proposed here.

As has been said in this thread before the company should be run in the most cost effective manner just throwing extra money at it every time it makes a loss does the complete opposite.

This is a public service, not a 'company' in any sense other than a technicality - public services are intentionally run at a loss, because that's how they prioritize social benefit over profitability.

You don't have any understanding of economics, if you think governments have to run at a profit - they generally never have in all of history (budget surpluses have always been a relatively short lived thing).