Luas strike general thread (mandatory: read warning in post #1)

n97 mini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While I don't agree with the strike at all the above outrageous.
That amounts to the company telling employees they are not allowed drink a healthy amount of water a day as it (obviously) will require toilet breaks. 4l of water a day requires a lot more than 3 trips to the toilet.

Employees don't work for 24 hours straight though. They can drink as much as they want when they're not at work.

Grandeeod

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While I don't agree with the strike at all the above outrageous.
That amounts to the company telling employees they are not allowed drink a healthy amount of water a day as it (obviously) will require toilet breaks. 4l of water a day requires a lot more than 3 trips to the toilet.

Read it again.:rolleyes:

Taco Chips

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

While I don't agree with the strike at all the above outrageous.
That amounts to the company telling employees they are not allowed drink a healthy amount of water a day as it (obviously) will require toilet breaks. 4l of water a day requires a lot more than 3 trips to the toilet.

There's no "healthy amount" of water to drink that is supported by consistent medical evidence. You should drink when you're thirsty and don't overload on fluids in one sitting. 3 toilet breaks in a shift is extremely reasonable. Are we in primary school?

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

I don't give a flying fsck. The tail is wagging the dog, again, and I happily burn it off.

I know you don't but some people reside in the real world, where burning off a tail would be considered cruel and stupid.

cdebru

dublinbusdude wrote: »

With Luas Drivers on strike now on Easter Sunday & Monday; will Dublin Bus will change the Sunday service to an Saturday service so people can get in & out of the City for the Easter Rising Centenary on both days???

no

cdebru

listermint wrote: »

The State ? The other Unions ?


There is no public appetite for these demands, Id imagine if you asked other Siptu workers they'd laugh at these fellas too.

This action is ring fenced. These lads are ridiculous they need to cop and and wise up.

whether you agree or not with the pay demands other unions and other union members would know that if they got away with that crack on this strike it would be merely a matter of time before it was used again and again and became standard practise for dealing with industrial disputes. So no I can't see siptu or the rest of the ICTU standing by and allowing their members to be sacked and scabs to be taken on to do their work.

Besides it is not going to happen.

dublinbusdude

Going to be fun now! DART drivers to vote to go on strike on the same weekend!

trellheim

Any old ****e wha' "cuz we've got them over a barrel, dey have to do something like"

Another fine page from Negotiating 101

Cookie_Monster

Grandeeod wrote: »

Read it again.:rolleyes:

why? what part do you think I don't get?
I realise a shift is probably only around 8 of those 24 but that's totally irrelevant to the overall context.

taco chips wrote:

There's no "healthy amount" of water to drink that is supported by consistent medical evidence.

there's a broad consensus of 2l minimum anyway. goole it for as many sources as you care to find.

taco chips wrote:

Are we in primary school?

clearly, if the company feel they need to enforce such a draconian rule just to get back at striking staff.

n97 mini wrote:

They can drink as much as they want when they're not at work.

you should be consuming fluids at a consistent pace over the course of the day, not going long periods without...
proven to help concentration levels too if you are properly hydrated so surely that's a good thing driving a tram

It shouldn't be an issue anyway as termini have toilet access and it's 2 minutes between runs when staff generally aren't doing anything anyway. It's just completely unreasonable to enforce such a rule.

RoyalCelt

I wish transdev could fire all their workers and recruit new ones. It makes my blood boil these lads get paid so much for such a handy job and they go on strike. All the jobless people and all the emigrants and these clowns think they deserve more.

The best thing about the recession was over paid people getting put back in line yet here we have these wanted a ridiculous pay increase. If transdev were swimming in profits I'd agree but they're not. Down with this sort of thing.

Infini

dublinbusdude wrote: »

Going to be fun now! DART drivers to vote to go on strike on the same weekend!

No theyre not. They're only striking if Franks tries forcing the 10min service in without agreement of the drivers and theres no plans of that before april 10th.

cdebru wrote: »

All you would do is inflame the issue, I can't imagine the state would be on for taking on the unions, when they know there are more claims particularly from public sector unionised workers in the pipeline. The state probably needs to get back to collective bargaining if they have any chance of stopping the domino effect.

Yeah the whole things the result of the collective barganing going out the window and thus we revert to a free for all where its every man for themselves.

As for those thinking that transdev should "hire" more workers to undermine the drivers dispute? Thats only gonna escalate things even further. People need to be talking trying to threaten or playing dirty is exactly what turns things ugly.

LuckyLloyd

RoyalCelt wrote: »

I wish transdev could fire all their workers and recruit new ones. It makes my blood boil these lads get paid so much for such a handy job and they go on strike. All the jobless people and all the emigrants and these clowns think they deserve more.

The best thing about the recession was over paid people getting put back in line yet here we have these wanted a ridiculous pay increase. If transdev were swimming in profits I'd agree but they're not. Down with this sort of thing.

The LUAS (a non complex, two track and over demand dedicated light rail transport) is swimming in profit. That Transdev are running at a loss in that context is utterly ridiculous. This strike is about more than pay - it is highlighting fundamental flaws in the tendering process.

The failure of Transdev to even begin discussion is also increasingly incorrect.

Brendan Bendar

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The LUAS (a non complex, two track and over demand dedicated light rail transport) is swimming in profit. That Transdev are running at a loss in that context is utterly ridiculous. This strike is about more than pay - it is highlighting fundamental flaws in the tendering process.

The failure of Transdev to even begin discussion is also increasingly incorrect.

Well Kieran Mulvey doesn't seem to think that under the circumstances there is any basis for talks either.

Looks like some more sensible heads are emerging from the Luas workers at last and the more conflict thirsty people are beginning to realise they have little public support for what seems on paper a very spurious claim.

PeadarCo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The LUAS (a non complex, two track and over demand dedicated light rail transport) is swimming in profit. That Transdev are running at a loss in that context is utterly ridiculous. This strike is about more than pay - it is highlighting fundamental flaws in the tendering process.

The failure of Transdev to even begin discussion is also increasingly incorrect.

To be honest the whole thing shows how great the tendering process is and why it should be replicated across the public transport network. It makes sure the LUAS is run efficiently. It exposes the LUAS drivers and unions to competitive forces thereby ensuring the taxpayer that their getting value for money.

The profit that the LUAS is making can be put to repaying the upfront of building the line and helping out actual vulnerable people i.e. the homeless, our creaking healthcare system, education system the list could go and on. Basically the people who years ago unions when unions were interested in helping the vulnerable spent their time standing up for.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Brendan Bendar wrote:

This is what you voted for, no sympathy whatsoever.

Brendan Bendar wrote:

This is what you voted for.

Why do you keep repeating this. It contains as much logic as a stick.

n97 mini wrote:

They don't. We have 7,500 and we're not at war. If the event of flooding the army is sent in, so we can spare a few.

You want the army to drive trams? Should they wear dpm or number 1's.

Lol, why would the army drive the trams? "because we have 7,500 of them" isn't an answer.

Pity we didn't invest in a better cycling infrastructure. Cycle tracks don't go on strike

n97 mini

The pro-strike types on this thread keep telling us that by hiring in someone else to do the job and undermine the strike would "only make things worse". Has this ever been done in Ireland? I don't believe it has, so we have no experience to go on.

Most people will be familiar with how Ronald Reagan dealt with the air traffic controllers. His action was very successful and within a very short time everything was moving again.

Heidi Echoing Varnish wrote: »

You want the army to drive trams? Should they wear dpm or number 1's.

Lol, why would the army drive the trams? "because we have 7,500 of them" isn't an answer.

That's a fairly dim response. There is a long history of armed forces providing cover during strikes.

oppenheimer1

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The LUAS (a non complex, two track and over demand dedicated light rail transport) is swimming in profit. That Transdev are running at a loss in that context is utterly ridiculous. This strike is about more than pay - it is highlighting fundamental flaws in the tendering process.

The failure of Transdev to even begin discussion is also increasingly incorrect.

The ticket fares generated by Luas go straight to TII. What transdev get paid is set out in their contract to provide the service with TII.

Essentially what you're saying is only the staff should profit from the Luas, even though it was the state made the investment and built the system?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

n97 mini wrote: »

That's a fairly dim response. There is a long history of armed forces providing cover during strikes.

Could you provide some examples of this maybe?

I didn't realise that working in the private sector during a strike was a role of the Irish Army.

trellheim

Could you provide some examples of this maybe?

I didn't realise that working in the private sector during a strike was a role of the Irish Army.

The Defence Forces will carry out tasks, as ordered. Aid to Civil power is a defined role.

cardinal tetra

One of the journalists covering the story has said the drivers have gone to the union today insisting on a 68% increase to cover the cost of the strikes and bonus they lost out on due to the strikes.

Shut it down. shut the whole thing down. I'll walk.

CramCycle

cardinal tetra wrote: »

One of the journalists covering the story has said the drivers have gone to the union today insisting on a 68% increase to cover the cost of the strikes and bonus they lost out on due to the strikes.

Shut it down. shut the whole thing down. I'll walk.

Which journalists said this? I struggle to believe that they would be so naive. If they even got close to there original amount it would more than cover the cost of the strike pay lost and the bonus lost. At this point it's not even a weeks pay so not even 2% lost, plus their bonus. If they get any increase it will more than likely cover this much.

cardinal tetra

The new proposal encorporates 3% for every day they strike.

so that would be the 4 days gone previously and the 8th March with a reassessment after Easter.

This one is gonna run and run. unlike the service that is supposed to be provided.

CramCycle

cardinal tetra wrote: »

The new proposal encorporates 3% for every day they strike.

so that would be the 4 days gone previously and the 8th March with a reassessment after Easter.

This one is gonna run and run. unlike the service that is supposed to be provided.

But that is equivalent to treating every strike day as a week.

It's insanity,

end of the road

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be honest the whole thing shows how great the tendering process is and why it should be replicated across the public transport network.

if it does, i'm not seeing it. the area's luas run in are mostly high density, and the system gets high usage. of course it is going to make money regardless of who runs it.

PeadarCo wrote: »

It makes sure the LUAS is run efficiently. It exposes the LUAS drivers and unions to competitive forces thereby ensuring the taxpayer that their getting value for money.

what "competitive forces" and how do those forces insure "value for money"
how is it run "efficiently" by being tendered verses if it wasn't? it has few junctions, and has no conflict with freight or permanent way vehicles, loco moves and so on like the heavy rail network.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The profit that the LUAS is making can be put to repaying the upfront of building the line and helping out actual vulnerable people i.e. the homeless, our creaking healthcare system, education system the list could go and on. Basically the people who years ago unions when unions were interested in helping the vulnerable spent their time standing up for.

no, i suspect it can only be put to one of those. as in paying back the cost of building. that would be the most important thing. we have general taxation for health and homelessness. stopping it's miss management should help.

end of the road

Heidi Echoing Varnish wrote: »

Pity we didn't invest in a better cycling infrastructure. Cycle tracks don't go on strike

i would rather invest in public transport instead.

n97 mini wrote: »

Most people will be familiar with how Ronald Reagan dealt with the air traffic controllers. His action was very successful and within a very short time everything was moving again.

and? this isn't the 1980s anymore chap. how (in my view an extremist and a terrorist but thats for another thread) dealt with people who (as far as i know) couldn't legally strike is irrelevant.

n97 mini wrote: »

That's a fairly dim response. There is a long history of armed forces providing cover during strikes.

well, its actually a very good one if i do say so myself. you haven't or won't answer any of his questions.

Infini

n97 mini wrote: »

Most people will be familiar with how Ronald Reagan dealt with the air traffic controllers. His action was very successful and within a very short time everything was moving again.

This is ireland not 'murica that kind of responce you think would solve this dispute would only serve to escalate a strike in one company to a national strike in all of them not to mention cause even more problems.

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

i would rather invest in public transport instead.



and? this isn't the 1980s anymore chap. how (in my view an extremist and a terrorist but thats for another thread) dealt with people who (as far as i know) couldn't legally strike is irrelevant.



well, its actually a very good one if i do say so myself. you haven't or won't answer any of his questions.

TD Brìd Smith mentioned support for the Luas drivers after being elected.

I think this is the start of a season of discontent,given the ' colour' of the the TDs recently elected.

Time for anyone with a few bob to be looking Southwards, I would suggest.

trellheim

This is ireland not 'murica that kind of responce you think would solve this dispute would only serve to escalate a strike in one company to a national strike in all of them not to mention cause even more problems.

Reagan could fire the Controllers because their strike was illegal ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) and the union thought they could get away with it, they encountered a very harsh learning curve. [ Banned from federal service for life ]

I don't think anyone here is condoning or encouraging illegal activity. I'd stop for a long, long pause, before I encouraged anyone to take illegal industrial action, because you are playing with people's actual livelihoods.

end of the road

trellheim wrote: »

Reagan could fire the Controllers because their strike was illegal ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968) and the union thought they could get away with it, they encountered a very harsh learning curve. [ Banned from federal service for life ]

i thought president clinton lifted that bann?

oppenheimer1

end of the road wrote: »

i would rather invest in public transport instead

On the one hand you say you would rather invest in public transport, yet on the other you say the drivers should get a massive pay increase.

You can't have it both ways, which is it?