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

cson

Anita Blow wrote: »

If it was a bargaining ploy, they would have accepted the 20% pay increase which is more than double any other sectors are expected to get over the same period. Instead, they rejected it because they wanted more. That isn't sensible bargaining, it's greed.

But let's look at their other demands in addition to the 53% pay increase they wanted:

- 4-6 extra annual leave days

- Double-time for overtime as opposed to time & a half

- Double the employer's pension contribution from 5 to 10%

- Overtime pay for drivers if they happen to be driving while there is an event on (Such as a concert in the 3Arena) despite the fact that this carries no extra workload

- Paid 100 euro if they have to transfer between Sandyford & Red Cow and be owed an hour in lieu

- Increase in the annual bonus from 6.5% to 10% (Very nice of themselves to award themselves a higher bonus)

- Free GP service

Transdev have said that the simply cannot afford this and I'm sorry but anybody who believes a company can afford a substantial pay increase and all these additional benefits is living in the clouds.

Wow.

Didn't realise all the extras they're looking for!

Some people have enough cheek for a second arse it seems.

Nonetheless, I really hope Transdev hold firm here, I'm all for workers rights but that's taking the piss tbqh.

cdebru

Is I'm all for workers rights but, the equivalent of I'm not a racist but, IE you're really not all for workers rights, because anyone who bothered to look at this beyong the spin headlines wouldn't be so down on the luas employees.

markpb

cdebru wrote: »

Is I'm all for workers rights but, the equivalent of I'm not a racist but, IE you're really not all for workers rights, because anyone who bothered to look at this beyong the spin headlines wouldn't be so down on the luas employees.

Employees have the right to a fair wage for a fair days work, not to be discriminated against, to have a safe work place, to the legal minimum wage and rest period and to a maximum working hours.

Most of those are very clear cut, the only one that's subjective is the first. A lot of people think that Luas drivers are paid reasonably well. Yes, there are unsociable hours and shift work but it's balanced out by requiring relatively little in the way of training or previous experience. Employees generally get a high salary if it's hard to hire people to do job and it's not hard to hire Luas drivers.

Of course the current drivers have every right to ask for a higher salary and can go on strike until they get it but it would be foolish to try to play this as a "workers rights" game.

tabbey

cdebru wrote: »

Is I'm all for workers rights but, the equivalent of I'm not a racist but, IE you're really not all for workers rights, because anyone who bothered to look at this beyong the spin headlines wouldn't be so down on the luas employees.

If you had any interest in workers rights, you would support the people who had their pay cut during the downturn, as well as those who lost their jobs.

The Luas staff are among a very small group who made no sacrifice. They took the jobs in 2004, at the peak of the boom, if their pay and conditions were not good then, they would not have taken the jobs.

Since then everybody else has had their pay cut, even Irish Rail staff had a small cut in the last couple of years, although modest compared with people at large.

The Luas claim was outrageous, greedy, the essence of bullying, the law of the jungle.
It should not have been entertained, but Transdev at the behest of government and WRC influence gave in to this blackmail.

These selfish greedy leeches do not deserve jobs.
They do not deserve the support of any citizen with a social conscience.

I fail to understand your persistent support for this indefensible group of bullies.

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

Is I'm all for workers rights but, the equivalent of I'm not a racist but, IE you're really not all for workers rights, because anyone who bothered to look at this beyong the spin headlines wouldn't be so down on the luas employees.

Just have a read of this
http://www.transdevireland.ie/assets/files/LUAS%20Transdev%20T's%20and%20C's.pdf

And that is the old pay rates before this deal. By the way I have asked this before but I have not got an answer yet. Do the LUAS drivers have better or worse pay and conditions compared to DB and IR in your opinion.

Grandeeod

tabbey wrote: »

I fail to understand your persistent support for this indefensible group of bullies.

At this stage, it reminds me of this. (Worth a watch as it makes sense.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtn8oAMsvSE

punisher5112

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Just have a read of this
http://www.transdevireland.ie/assets/files/LUAS%20Transdev%20T's%20and%20C's.pdf

And that is the old pay rates before this deal. By the way I have asked this before but I have not got an answer yet. Do the LUAS drivers have better or worse pay and conditions compared to DB and IR in your opinion.

Irish rail are at the top, luas then Be-DB

Grandeeod

punisher5112 wrote: »

Irish rail are at the top, luas then Be-DB

CIE is a complex issue. The rail side of things has been a big problem for over 60 years. This luas dispute is directly linked to the earnings of IE train drivers. It's a legacy issue, but you won't read much on this forum from luas driver supporters, about this aspect, because they already know that its about a race to absolute state control of luas and it suits them.

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Just have a read of this
http://www.transdevireland.ie/assets/files/LUAS%20Transdev%20T's%20and%20C's.pdf

And that is the old pay rates before this deal. By the way I have asked this before but I have not got an answer yet. Do the LUAS drivers have better or worse pay and conditions compared to DB and IR in your opinion.

I have already said they have far superior conditions compared to DB or IE, they have superior pay to DB but not IE afaik

cdebru

punisher5112 wrote: »

Irish rail are at the top, luas then Be-DB

On strict pay terms you are correct but in conditions outside pay luas would be better off

cdebru

tabbey wrote: »

If you had any interest in workers rights, you would support the people who had their pay cut during the downturn, as well as those who lost their jobs.

The Luas staff are among a very small group who made no sacrifice. They took the jobs in 2004, at the peak of the boom, if their pay and conditions were not good then, they would not have taken the jobs.

Since then everybody else has had their pay cut, even Irish Rail staff had a small cut in the last couple of years, although modest compared with people at large.

The Luas claim was outrageous, greedy, the essence of bullying, the law of the jungle.
It should not have been entertained, but Transdev at the behest of government and WRC influence gave in to this blackmail.

These selfish greedy leeches do not deserve jobs.
They do not deserve the support of any citizen with a social conscience.

I fail to understand your persistent support for this indefensible group of bullies.

I support any worker trying to improve their lot.

Grandeeod

cdebru wrote: »

I support any worker trying to improve their lot.

Well why don't you start a few threads in different forums expressing that opinion. Or do you just support the public transport proletariat?

markpb

cdebru wrote: »

I support any worker trying to improve their lot.

But you do realise it's a zero sum system? If everyone gets pay rises, the cost of living goes up rendering those pay rises useless.

It's even worse than that. If everyone gets pay rises, we lose our competitiveness, stop attracting inward investment and make it harder for us to export. If we can't export, companies will close and workers will lose their jobs.

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

I support any worker trying to improve their lot.

I translate that into layman's language.

I think that any worker especially those in the public service should look for as much pay as possible. They should look for as much extra benifits and conditions and it is immaterial to cdebru how this will effect workers that cannot do this. It is immaterial to cdebru if this results in higher tax and less services to Joe Public. It is immaterial that other will have to work longer and will not have access to pensions. I cdebru believes that we can tax everybody to the hilt so long as those worker in protected employment can get paid way above the norm even those they have great pay and conditions already

I believe that Taxpayers are a great big tit to be suckled at and it is immaterial what debt we leave the next generation.

cdebru

markpb wrote: »

But you do realise it's a zero sum system? If everyone gets pay rises, the cost of living goes up rendering those pay rises useless.

It's even worse than that. If everyone gets pay rises, we lose our competitiveness, stop attracting inward investment and make it harder for us to export. If we can't export, companies will close and workers will lose their jobs.

You do realise that we need wage increases, it will encourage consumer confidence, increase spending and grow the economy which in turn will lower our debt to GDP, and make our debt more manageable and encourage confidence in the Irish economy and lower our borrowing rates and encourage foreign direct investment.

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I translate that into layman's language.

I think that any worker especially those in the public service should look for as much pay as possible. They should look for as much extra benifits and conditions and it is immaterial to cdebru how this will effect workers that cannot do this. It is immaterial to cdebru if this results in higher tax and less services to Joe Public. It is immaterial that other will have to work longer and will not have access to pensions. I cdebru believes that we can tax everybody to the hilt so long as those worker in protected employment can get paid way above the norm even those they have great pay and conditions already

I believe that Taxpayers are a great big tit to be suckled at and it is immaterial what debt we leave the next generation.

No unlike others I'm not an austerity junkie, some people in this country have a sadistic ( not masochistic) almost erotic desire to inflict austerity to the extent that they don't really care if it is what Ireland needs they just like the whole kick they get from inflicting it on people.

No I make no distinction between public and private, it is a false distinction used as a diversionary tactic to pit one set of workers against another while those with actual power and influence rape the country for as much as they can and sweet heart deals whether it is bank debt write offs or large public contracts, continue unabated usually it is the same people who benefit from both.
But as it happens Luas employees happen to be private sector workers so the fake division falls flat on its face.

dr.fuzzenstein

cdebru wrote: »

You do realise that we need wage increases, it will encourage consumer confidence, increase spending and grow the economy which in turn will lower our debt to GDP, and make our debt more manageable and encourage confidence in the Irish economy and lower our borrowing rates and encourage foreign direct investment.

Celtic Tiger 2.0 here we come! I'll take €60k! Your logic is flawless, if every single man jack of us gets a 20% pay increase, we will all be 20% better off without any drawbacks. Wow, those Union chaps are economic geniuses.
I always wanted that holiday-villa in Bulgaria. It's OK, I think the last time we did this, it went really well, so I think you're on to something here.

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

You do realise that we need wage increases, it will encourage consumer confidence, increase spending and grow the economy which in turn will lower our debt to GDP, and make our debt more manageable and encourage confidence in the Irish economy and lower our borrowing rates and encourage foreign direct investment.

In theory yes but if these wage increases unbalance the economy and we lose our competitive advantage then we will lose employment or else have too many servicing our internal economy. This increases our debt to GDP. We did this already it was from 2002-2008.

cdebru wrote: »

No unlike others I'm not an austerity junkie, some people in this country have a sadistic ( not masochistic) almost erotic desire to inflict austerity to the extent that they don't really care if it is what Ireland needs they just like the whole kick they get from inflicting it on people.

No I make no distinction between public and private, it is a false distinction used as a diversionary tactic to pit one set of workers against another while those with actual power and influence rape the country for as much as they can and sweet heart deals whether it is bank debt write offs or large public contracts, continue unabated usually it is the same people who benefit from both.
But as it happens Luas employees happen to be private sector workers so the fake division falls flat on its face.

Greece, Spain and Italy are not austerity junkie either and we see what is happening there. Neither am I by the way. I believed Eamon Gilmore when he said the Labour way or Frankfurt way. I have been through two awful recessions in my life. From 1980-1990 and from 2007-20015. Both were caused by Government borrowing for extra services however most of it was swallowed by pay demands for PS workers and unemployment benefit.

Yes there is government waste and the more taxpayers money they get the more they waste. In reality the government had a choice let the banks go bankrupt and see what happened. In the case of AIB those who owed AIB shares lost everything, in the case of BOI they lost about 95% of there peak value. . The banks as an entity exist but those that had shares lost virtually everything. Those that had investments in Anglo and INBS lost everything

Unfortunately the government did/could not burn the bond holders. Maybe they should have tried to call Merkel's bluff, Greece did, it ended in Greek ashes not Angela ashes that was a different fairy tale.


If you look at my post I did not mention PS workers only I said and I quote

I think that any worker especially those in the public service should look for as much pay as possible

those worker in protected employment can get paid way above the norm


Protected employment is any monopoly employment such as the LUAS. In theory it is private sector but it workers have virtual security of tenure due to tupe law

cdebru

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Celtic Tiger 2.0 here we come! I'll take €60k! Your logic is flawless, if every single man jack of us gets a 20% pay increase, we will all be 20% better off without any drawbacks. Wow, those Union chaps are economic geniuses.
I always wanted that holiday-villa in Bulgaria. It's OK, I think the last time we did this, it went really well, so I think you're on to something here.

Are you denying wage inflation will lead to consumer confidence, increased spending and ease our debt to GDP ratio, continuing austerity and wage stagnation, along with low inflation bordering on deflation is more dangerous for us, it is funny that you equate Celtic tiger with the property boom bust, the truth is that the property boom was not the Celtic tiger, and one of the problems with the property boom was people buying into group think on property and soft landings and not thinking for themselves the irony that the reaction to that is group think on austerity and wage stagnation.

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In theory yes but if these wage increases unbalance the economy and we lose our competitive advantage then we will lose employment or else have too many servicing our internal economy. This increases our debt to GDP. We did this already it was from 2002-2008.



Greece, Spain and Italy are not austerity junkie either and we see what is happening there. Neither am I by the way. I believed Eamon Gilmore when he said the Labour way or Frankfurt way. I have been through two awful recessions in my life. From 1980-1990 and from 2007-20015. Both were caused by Government borrowing for extra services however most of it was swallowed by pay demands for PS workers and unemployment benefit.

Yes there is government waste and the more taxpayers money they get the more they waste. In reality the government had a choice let the banks go bankrupt and see what happened. In the case of AIB those who owed AIB shares lost everything, in the case of BOI they lost about 95% of there peak value. . The banks as an entity exist but those that had shares lost virtually everything. Those that had investments in Anglo and INBS lost everything

Unfortunately the government did/could not burn the bond holders. Maybe they should have tried to call Merkel's bluff, Greece did, it ended in Greek ashes not Angela ashes that was a different fairy tale.


If you look at my post I did not mention PS workers only I said and I quote

I think that any worker especially those in the public service should look for as much pay as possible

those worker in protected employment can get paid way above the norm


Protected employment is any monopoly employment such as the LUAS. In theory it is private sector but it workers have virtual security of tenure due to tupe law

Again read my post on group think, people like yourself are as guilty of it now as they were in the property bubble of the 00s, you are just in negative group think instead of learning from the crash, you have learned nothing all you are doing is repeating the mistakes but in the negative this time.
The "Celtic tiger" wasn't the problem, national wage agreements weren't the problem, the problem was cheap credit and a Government that poured petrol on a property market that was already over heating, the rest of the economy started chasing that property bubble that's why wages, and prices went off the scale and national wage agreements had to follow in that space and the government dependent on the taxes generated by the bubble were not in a position to apply any kind of brake and instead needed to keep it going.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

<snip>
The "Celtic tiger" wasn't the problem, national wage agreements weren't the problem, the problem was cheap credit and a Government that poured petrol on a property market that was already over heating, the rest of the economy started chasing that property bubble that's why wages, and prices went off the scale and national wage agreements had to follow in that space and the government dependent on the taxes generated by the bubble were not in a position to apply any kind of brake and instead needed to keep it going.

That is why the workers want and "need" to get such an unreasonable increase!

They all spent well above their means on big cars, houses, foreign villas etc and now that the banks want the bills paid they are looking for the country to bail them out!

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Unfortunately the government did/could not burn the bond holders. Maybe they should have tried to call Merkel's bluff, Greece did, it ended in Greek ashes not Angela ashes that was a different fairy tale.

1 country alone not bailing out banks was not going to have any effect on angela's ideals. it was only going to destroy that country. had a few countries refused then we might have got somewhere, but we will never know. we are where we are.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

That is why the workers want and "need" to get such an unreasonable increase!

They all spent well above their means on big cars, houses, foreign villas etc and now that the banks want the bills paid they are looking for the country to bail them out!

Is it ? I don't think so, I think despite what the CPI might say about the cost of living in Ireland, most people in Dublin do not recognise that, between property tax, USC, water charges, other price increases like rent etc that the wages that haven't increased for years are extremely difficult to manage on.

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

1 country alone not bailing out banks was not going to have any effect on angela's ideals. it was only going to destroy that country. had a few countries refused then we might have got somewhere, but we will never know. we are where we are.

So!

The thread has now gone from evaluating the pay claim of a bunch of tram drivers, who already are well paid looking for an initial 53% increase to discussing the macro economics of the free world.

Sure why don't we all give ourselves say 40% pay rises, no, make that 60% to be on the safe side,then bobs yer uncle, we will have plenty of dosh for everything, economy will be booming, I'm fed up of this austerity crack,so I am.

Oh dear......oh dear.... Oh dear.

dr.fuzzenstein

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

So!

The thread has now gone from evaluating the pay claim of a bunch of tram drivers, who already are well paid looking for an initial 53% increase to discussing the macro economics of the free world.

Sure why don't we all give ourselves say 40% pay rises, no, make that 60% to be on the safe side,then bobs yer uncle, we will have plenty of dosh for everything, economy will be booming, I'm fed up of this austerity crack,so I am.

Oh dear......oh dear.... Oh dear.

I don't think he's arguing that?
His point is, Greece alone couldn't burn the banks, but if every country had stood up to them it might have been different. it could also have been worse.
But that is a purely academic argument at this stage.

Brendan Bendar

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I don't think he's arguing that?
His point is, Greece alone couldn't burn the banks, but if every country had stood up to them it might have been different. it could also have been worse.
But that is a purely academic argument at this stage.

Not criticising you,as you only are referring to the post, but I'm being being just a bit cynical at how a thread dealing with a couple of hundred striking tram drivers morphs into a detailed discussion on major global economics:p

Wht we have here is a small group of semi-skilled workers for whatever reason trying to re-align Ireland's transport policy.

My point really is let's not get too carried away and let's try to concentrate on this dispute and the agendas behind it.

devnull

The Agenda is to kill any possible tendering of transport services in the future.

Or to put it another way:
The Agenda is to make sure that the staff continue to have their interests above the public.

Brendan Bendar

devnull wrote: »

The Agenda is to kill any possible tendering of transport services in the future.

Or to put it another way:
The Agenda is to make sure that the staff continue to have their interests above the public.

There is a very good possibility that you are correct in that opinion.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

The Agenda is to kill any possible tendering of transport services in the future.

Or to put it another way:
The Agenda is to make sure that the staff continue to have their interests above the public.

The problem with that is that tendering of the luas to transdev has actually been very advantageous to the employees compared to, other employees in the public transport sector.
Arguably if CIE had been given the responsibility of managing the luas network then most of the pay and conditions if not all would be worse than they currently have, including pensions, holidays, work time, shift spreads,sick leave, compassionate leave, wedding leave, bonuses and of course basic pay and overtime rates. They also would have been unlikely to have survived the recession with no cuts, nor have been paid the national wage agreement 6% in 2009.

I think there is an issue with contracting but I doubt the employees in transdev would appreciate the alternative either nor are they secretly campaigning to be in CIE.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

The problem with that is that tendering of the luas to transdev has actually been very advantageous to the employees compared to, other employees in the public transport sector.
Arguably if CIE had been given the responsibility of managing the luas network then most of the pay and conditions if not all would be worse than they currently have, including pensions, holidays, work time, shift spreads,sick leave, compassionate leave, wedding leave, bonuses and of course basic pay and overtime rates. They also would have been unlikely to have survived the recession with no cuts, nor have been paid the national wage agreement 6% in 2009.

I think there is an issue with contracting but I doubt the employees in transdev would appreciate the alternative either nor are they secretly campaigning to be in CIE.

When you put it all like that you have to wonder how on earth they see fit to even ask for what they did, let alone refuse what was offered!