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

cdebru

The problem with the pay proposal from transdev is it included a 7% increase in worktime, under their current payscale, if they worked an additional 7% a week it would be paid at time and a half so it would increase pay by 10.5% take any scale on the current scale and add 10.5% and the only one that it works out being better off is those with 14 years service and then only from the second half of 2018, for everyone else they would be better staying on their current pay scale and working the 2.5 hours a week as overtime.
For example someone on year 3 currently earns €37625 under the deal this year they would earn €38378 if however they just did the extra 2.5 hours as overtime each week they would earn €41,575
Next year they would go up to point 4 on the scale and earn €39732 but on the current scale they would be on €38189 but with the extra hours as overtime it would be €42198.
That's not a payrise that is working extra hours for effectively less pay for rejecting this they are labelled as greedy it is all spin.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

The problem with the pay proposal from transdev is it included a 7% increase in worktime, under their current payscale, if they worked an additional 7% a week it would be paid at time and a half so it would increase pay by 10.5% take any scale on the current scale and add 10.5% and the only one that it works out being better off is those with 14 years service and then only from the second half of 2018, for everyone else they would be better staying on their current pay scale and working the 2.5 hours a week as overtime.
For example someone on year 3 currently earns €37625 under the deal this year they would earn €38378 if however they just did the extra 2.5 hours as overtime each week they would earn €41,575
Next year thxey would go up to point 4 on the scale and earn €39732 but on the current scale they would be on €38189 but with the extra hours as overtime it would be €42198.
That's not a payrise that is working extra hours for effectively less pay for rejecting this they are labelled as greedy it is all spin.

Why then is overtime 'built into' the standard wage then.

What you outline should be possible to sort out by any junior HR person

Why the need to strike for multiple period for such issues which would be routinely dealt with in most companies.

Something just doesn't sound right here.

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why then is overtime 'built into' the standard wage then.

What you outline should be possible to sort out by any junior HR person

Why the need to strike for multiple period for such issues which would be routinely dealt with in most companies.

Something just doesn't sound right here.

I don't understand your point ? They are currently paid for 35.44 hours per week the WRC recommendation see that rise by 2.5 hours which is a 7% increase in worktime, under their current contract those 2.5 hours would be paid at time and a half which is 10.5%, but for most workers their would only gradually rise by 8% over 3 years.

At best it could be cost neutral for transdev and in all likelihood depending on where staff are on scales and how many are at particular points it may well actually cost transdev less in salaries over the term of their contract.

BarryD

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.

Hold on, no-one as far as I know is talking of austerity for LUAS staff. They are not having their pay cut. They are being offered a fair wage with reasonable increments in line with inflation for jobs that they willingly took on.

All that is asked is that people behave reasonably and do a proper days work for a fair and reasonable wage. What others earn in different companies is irrelevant.

cdebru

Interesting piece from our acting minister for transport when he was in the Seanad, on luas driver fatigue, apparently what wasn't safe in 2009 in his opinion is now safe under the WRC proposal.

http://paschaldonohoe.ie/luas-driver-fatigue-flagged-as-serious-risk-donohoe/

cdebru

BarryD wrote: »

Hold on, no-one as far as I know is talking of austerity for LUAS staff. They are not having their pay cut. They are being offered a fair wage with reasonable increments in line with inflation for jobs that they willingly took on.

All that is asked is that people behave reasonably and do a proper days work for a fair and reasonable wage. What others earn in different companies is irrelevant.

In real terms under the WRC some of them would as well as a significant cut for new entrants along with increased hours Pascal Donohue deemed unsafe in 2009

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

In real terms under the WRC some of them would as well as a significant cut for new entrants along with increased hours Pascal Donohue deemed unsafe in 2009

What has this to do with pay rates for the job of driving a tram?

This is due to conditions,and 2009 is a long way from now.

If conditions are a problem, sort out the conditions.

Cannot understand why this 7 year old 'issue' suddenly becomes relevant now!

BarryD

cdebru wrote: »

Interesting piece from our acting minister for transport when he was in the Seanad, on luas driver fatigue, apparently what wasn't safe in 2009 in his opinion is now safe under the WRC proposal.

http://paschaldonohoe.ie/luas-driver-fatigue-flagged-as-serious-risk-donohoe/

Ah come on, they're currently working a 35.5 week and they claim they're tired??

Try being self employed, work 60 hr weeks with NO guarantee of work or payment or pension or free health care or .................

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

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.

What do you mean that people like me are to blame for the the crash we had in 2007. I am a PAYE worker like yourself all during the noughties I only got national wage agreement pay rises because I was not exposed to the false boom that went on. You are right the Celtic tiger was not the issue, the Celtic tiger was well over in 2002, we had stopped concentrating on the export market and had started to build houses for the fun of it, we had a government with social partnership that proposed that broke this country with there greed.

Remember Joe O'Toole ''bench marking was an like an ATM''. A few posters here are always cite jealousy over pay and condition as the reason for threads like this. It was pay jealousy by PS and protected employments that helped ( not by itself) break this country. They can never accept that during a boom that private sector will climb faster than there but fall back during a recession. The last recession is the first time that PS and protected employments has to shoulder part of the burden of a downturn other than by extra taxes.

I remember in 2006 in a pub one night with two people one was a teacher the other a landscaper. The owner of the pub joined us. All three were glad that the crash was coming it normalize things. I made the point that we better hope that it was not as bad as David Williams was I explained that there would be very few winner if he was right. I also explained that they were more exposed than they taught. The publican often talks to me about it.

cdebru wrote: »

The problem with the pay proposal from transdev is it included a 7% increase in worktime, under their current payscale, if they worked an additional 7% a week it would be paid at time and a half so it would increase pay by 10.5% take any scale on the current scale and add 10.5% and the only one that it works out being better off is those with 14 years service and then only from the second half of 2018, for everyone else they would be better staying on their current pay scale and working the 2.5 hours a week as overtime.
For example someone on year 3 currently earns €37625 under the deal this year they would earn €38378 if however they just did the extra 2.5 hours as overtime each week they would earn €41,575
Next year they would go up to point 4 on the scale and earn €39732 but on the current scale they would be on €38189 but with the extra hours as overtime it would be €42198.
That's not a payrise that is working extra hours for effectively less pay for rejecting this they are labelled as greedy it is all spin.

You cannot equate overtime with normal pay rates

cdebru wrote: »

I don't understand your point ? They are currently paid for 35.44 hours per week the WRC recommendation see that rise by 2.5 hours which is a 7% increase in worktime, under their current contract those 2.5 hours would be paid at time and a half which is 10.5%, but for most workers their would only gradually rise by 8% over 3 years.

At best it could be cost neutral for transdev and in all likelihood depending on where staff are on scales and how many are at particular points it may well actually cost transdev less in salaries over the term of their contract.

No they are not paid for 35.44 hours/week they are contracted for a 39 hour week. However because of the limit on there shifts at present they only work 35.44. So it is safe to work an extra 1-2 hours OT on a shift but it is unsafe to work it if it is rostered. So in reality the WRC have up held Transdev right to get them to work there contracted hours.

devnull

I always found it interesting that many unions relate many disputes to "Pay and Safety" issues, but when they get the pay aspect of their concerns, they suddenly go very quiet about the "safety" aspect they are also claiming to be striking about.

It's the same as a few years ago a lot of Hospital ED consultants said they couldn't have longer working weeks since it will cause them excess fatigue. The same consultants later signed up for extra hours working for private hospitals A&E's such as the Blackrock Clinic.

cdebru

BarryD wrote: »

Ah come on, they're currently working a 35.5 week and they claim they're tired??

Try being self employed, work 60 hr weeks with NO guarantee of work or payment or pension or free health care or .................

Are you driving a tram ? You would have to raise that with Pascal Donohue I just pointes to him saying it wasn't safe in 2009 but he has no problem with it now ? Is safety being compromised in the interest of profit ?

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

I always found it interesting that many unions relate many disputes to "Pay and Safety" issues, but when they get the pay aspect of their concerns, they suddenly go very quiet about the "safety" aspect they are also claiming to be striking about.

It's the same as a few years ago a lot of Hospital ED consultants said they couldn't have longer working weeks since it will cause them excess fatigue. The same consultants later signed up for extra hours working for private hospitals A&E's such as the Blackrock Clinic.

Afaik luas drivers campaigned for years that their shifts were too long and they were reduced in line with a safety report that Pascal Donohue endorsed and now they want to roll back on that, is it not reasonable to ask why Pascal didn't think it was safe when he was in opposition but now has no issue with longer shifts ?

foggy_lad

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What has this to do with pay rates for the job of driving a tram?

This is due to conditions,and 2009 is a long way from now.

If conditions are a problem, sort out the conditions.

Cannot understand why this 7 year old 'issue' suddenly becomes relevant now!

The union have lost all credibility in the industry and with the citizens of the state so this grasping at straws no matter how old and decomposed they are will become common.

The strike seems to have been a great success with the public, who went about their business as usual and got along very well without these leeches.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

Afaik luas drivers campaigned for years that their shifts were too long and they were reduced in line with a safety report that Pascal Donohue endorsed and now they want to roll back on that, is it not reasonable to ask why Pascal didn't think it was safe when he was in opposition but now has no issue with longer shifts ?

Lint to that report??

devnull

It's a lot easier to be in opposition that is in power.

Some parties in this state know that very well.

end of the road

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.

your second sentence is not another way of stating the first sentence. your first sentence may be accurate but neither of us know.

devnull wrote: »

I always found it interesting that many unions relate many disputes to "Pay and Safety" issues, but when they get the pay aspect of their concerns, they suddenly go very quiet about the "safety" aspect they are also claiming to be striking about.

maybe because they are dealt with and sorted out during the talks?

devnull wrote: »

It's the same as a few years ago a lot of Hospital ED consultants said they couldn't have longer working weeks since it will cause them excess fatigue. The same consultants later signed up for extra hours working for private hospitals A&E's such as the Blackrock Clinic.

that doesn't make any potential safety concerns in general by the unions less valid, or invalid though.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

It's a lot easier to be in opposition that is in power.

Some parties in this state know that very well.

So are you saying the minister for transport was less than honest when he accepted and endorsed this safety report ?

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

So are you saying the minister for transport was less than honest when he accepted and endorsed this safety report ?

Have you a link to that report?

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

Are you driving a tram ? You would have to raise that with Pascal Donohue I just pointes to him saying it wasn't safe in 2009 but he has no problem with it now ? Is safety being compromised in the interest of profit ?

While we accept that it is interesting to note that things have changed since.

cdebru wrote: »

Afaik luas drivers campaigned for years that their shifts were too long and they were reduced in line with a safety report that Pascal Donohue endorsed and now they want to roll back on that, is it not reasonable to ask why Pascal didn't think it was safe when he was in opposition but now has no issue with longer shifts ?

end of the road wrote: »

your second sentence is not another way of stating the first sentence. your first sentence may be accurate but neither of us know.



maybe because they are dealt with and sorted out during the talks?



that doesn't make any potential safety concerns in general by the unions less valid, or invalid though.

While we accept all of the above it is interesting to note that things have changed since. Drivers and there unions find it safe to drive a few hours onto there shifts at the OT rate. So what is the difference between that and driving the couple of extra hours they are already being paid for.I think this is the real reason that the ballot was not passed. It had little to do with new rates pay for new drivers.

I imagine that this is because that most new drivers will come from revenue protection officers or supervisors and these will transfer across at there present pay rates. No the real issue is being asked to work the hours they are contracted for.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Lint to that report??

I don't have one you could perhaps contact Pascal Donohue about a copy of it he said this at the time, so presumably he had seen it.

Fine Gael Seanad transport spokesman Paschal Donohoe said he was "very concerned" at the report. He said: "We need to ensure that the Luas is as safe as possible, and that actions are being taken by staff and management to ensure passenger safety."

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

While we accept that it is interesting to note that things have changed since.





While we accept all of the above it is interesting to note that things have changed since. Drivers and there unions find it safe to drive a few hours onto there shifts at the OT rate. So what is the difference between that and driving the couple of extra hours they are already being paid for.I think this is the real reason that the ballot was not passed. It had little to do with new rates pay for new drivers.

I imagine that this is because that most new drivers will come from revenue protection officers or supervisors and these will transfer across at there present pay rates. No the real issue is being asked to work the hours they are contracted for.

Do they ? How do we know this ? Do they work straight through on overtime or would they have a break before starting overtime ?

I think it wasn't passed for numerous reasons one because they would be working time, that was unpaid for, so as such there is no increase in pay.

2 it would be disingenuous to look for a reduced shift on safety grounds and then work a longer one for extra money.

3 the significant cuts to new entrants and the unfairness of newer people basically paying for more senior employees to have a raise.


I'm sure there are other reasons as well though

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What has this to do with pay rates for the job of driving a tram?

This is due to conditions,and 2009 is a long way from now.

If conditions are a problem, sort out the conditions.

Cannot understand why this 7 year old 'issue' suddenly becomes relevant now!

I don't know how you can't understand it, apparently an independent report accepted and endorsed by our minister for transport recommended reducing the maximum shift, which happened sometime around 2010, the company as part of the WRC proposals wants to row back on that in return for a minor pay increase.

Has there been another independent review that contradicts the original one or what has changed in those 7 years ?

foggy_lad

So while other workers have a cuppa and walk or 40winks the Luas staff are able to stave off tiredness with the magical time and a half rate!

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

it.


You cannot equate overtime with normal pay rates



No they are not paid for 35.44 hours/week they are contracted for a 39 hour week. However because of the limit on there shifts at present they only work 35.44. So it is safe to work an extra 1-2 hours OT on a shift but it is unsafe to work it if it is rostered. So in reality the WRC have up held Transdev right to get them to work there contracted hours.

Not equating overtime with normal pay, I'm giving the actual cost of the extra hours, and what the company would have to pay those staff for those hours and what they are offering is significantly less than that.

I'm not saying they would work them or not, it's possible to work those hours in the form of working a day off every 3 or 4 weeks and the employees would be significantly better of by doing so for example, but if they accepted the WRC they would have no choice but to work them with out being paid appropriately for them, if you asked for a raise and your employer offered you 2% but you had to increase your hours by 7% would that seem like a good deal or a bad deal to you ?

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

So while other workers have a cuppa and walk or 40winks the Luas staff are able to stave off tiredness with the magical time and a half rate!

Who said that ?

cson

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.

Do you think their demands are fair? Yes or No question.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

I don't know how you can't understand it, apparently an independent report accepted and endorsed by our minister for transport recommended reducing the maximum shift, which happened sometime around 2010, the company as part of the WRC proposals wants to row back on that in return for a minor pay increase.

Has there been another independent review that contradicts the original one or what has changed in those 7 years ?

What I can't understand is that you can't work 39x hours on normal pay, but you can if some is overtime.

That's if I have understood it correctly.

I quite sure a lot has changed between 2007 and now

cdebru

cson wrote: »

Do you think their demands are fair? Yes or No question.

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

Did they take any strike action before this 'opening gambit' was revised downwards? (Industrial action and/or work-to-rule?)

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

So they were playing games and wasting the time of all concerned because they wanted to get into the papers with their ridiculous pay claims?

Here is a newspaper article from the herald from 2009 about their hours when they worked 40 hours a week but that went to between 35 and 45, also there was an issue over the amount of driving between breaks being 4 hours 15 minutes but the company reduced this to 3 hours 45 as this was industry best practice at the time!

http://www.herald.ie/news/luas-probe-raises-tired-drivers-fear-over-shifts-27929830.html