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

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

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

I can, because overtime can be done on one of an employees days off, or after a break period from a normal shift, that is not true of an extended shift period.
In public transport overtime can sometimes be forced on an employee, due to accidents, incidents or heavy traffic or mechanical failure, you wouldn't expect a tram driver to jump off a tram because his time was up half way out to sandyford would you ?
Besides that you miss the point if the WRC proposal was accepted then their shifts would be longer, no choice wereas currently they have a choice and they could make the money offered by transdev with significantly less extra hours and choose when or if they wanted to do that.

Well give us an example of what has happened since 2009 that makes longer shifts safer now ?

cdebru

Deleted User wrote: »

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

They industrial action I believe when the company refused to negotiate at all beyond 1 to 3%

trellheim

Do not bring safety into this. More money <> more safety. I suggest anyone with a safety concern re LUAS operations should raise them formally and quickly via the appropriate channel rather than a message board as a poor strawman point.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

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

Yeah I'm sure it was just for the press coverage

cdebru

trellheim wrote: »

Do not bring safety into this. More money <> more safety. I suggest anyone with a safety concern re LUAS operations should raise them formally and quickly via the appropriate channel rather than a message board as a poor strawman point.

I don't think you can decide what is or isn't brought up here, the employees have specifically mentioned the extra 2.5 hours as one reason for rejection, it is part of the WRC proposals and is relevant to any discussion on them, irrespective of how it affects the greedy luas drivers argument.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

They industrial action I believe when the company refused to negotiate at all beyond 1 to 3%

So they initiated industrial action based on the refusal of a headline claim that you present as an 'opening gambit'.

Do you consider that strike action also to be part of their 'opening gambit'?

Couldn't this be construed as the drivers trivialising industrial action?

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

I can, because overtime can be done on one of an employees days off, or after a break period from a normal shift, that is not true of an extended shift period.
In public transport overtime can sometimes be forced on an employee, due to accidents, incidents or heavy traffic or mechanical failure, you wouldn't expect a tram driver to jump off a tram because his time was up half way out to sandyford would you ?
Besides that you miss the point if the WRC proposal was accepted then their shifts would be longer, no choice wereas currently they have a choice and they could make the money offered by transdev with significantly less extra hours and choose when or if they wanted to do that.

Well give us an example of what has happened since 2009 that makes longer shifts safer now ?

We'll first of all, is the traffic the same, are the traffic systems exactly the same, are communications the same,is training exactly the same,are work practices exactly the same, is the shift pattern exactly the same, is the equipment exactly the same an on and on.

The point being that things move on and surely issues like this should have been sorted out in the intervening 7 years.

If you don't mind me says so you are trying to make a relatively routine job of driving a tram on a two relatively straightforward routes seem incredibly complicated:p

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

I can, because overtime can be done on one of an employees days off, or after a break period from a normal shift, that is not true of an extended shift period.
In public transport overtime can sometimes be forced on an employee, due to accidents, incidents or heavy traffic or mechanical failure, you wouldn't expect a tram driver to jump off a tram because his time was up half way out to sandyford would you ?
Besides that you miss the point if the WRC proposal was accepted then their shifts would be longer, no choice wereas currently they have a choice and they could make the money offered by transdev with significantly less extra hours and choose when or if they wanted to do that.

Well give us an example of what has happened since 2009 that makes longer shifts safer now ?

The way the trams are timed the only way that would happen is if there was some situation that delayed the tram and a driver will get those minutes back.

There is of course another way and that is by the current trend by drivers to delibrately delay trams so making the trips much longer, adding up to 10 minutes to the Heuston to Busaras section!

This behavour should get them written warnings and then dismissal, if they don't want to work for good money with excellent conditions then they should bugger off and get a job somewhere else

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

So they initiated industrial action based on the refusal of a headline claim that you present as an 'opening gambit'.

Do you consider that strike action also to be part of their 'opening gambit'?

Couldn't this be construed as the drivers trivialising industrial action?

I genuinely believe Emmet that it could be construed as nothing else.

Industrial action should be a last resort action.

This seems to have been a first resort action after tossing in an outrageous claim as an 'opening gambit'

Luckily the public can see through the smokescreen .

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We'll first of all, is the traffic the same, are the traffic systems exactly the same, are communications the same,is training exactly the same,are work practices exactly the same, is the shift pattern exactly the same, is the equipment exactly the same an on and on.

The point being that things move on and surely issues like this should have been sorted out in the intervening 7 years.

If you don't mind me says so you are trying to make a relatively routine job of driving a tram on a two relatively straightforward routes seem incredibly complicated:p

OK you really have missed the point, they were sorted out, but transdev are trying to undo it with the WRC proposals, it was judged to be unsafe it was changed and transdev are trying to row back on some of those changes.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

OK you really have missed the point, they were sorted out, but transdev are trying to undo it with the WRC proposals, it was judged to be unsafe it was changed and transdev are trying to row back on some of those changes.

Why is this only being used as their excuse for striking now?

It will be a poor enough summer for Luas staff with the loss of their beloved no strike bonus and also losing pay for all those strike days.

cdebru

Deleted User wrote: »

So they initiated industrial action based on the refusal of a headline claim that you present as an 'opening gambit'.

Do you consider that strike action also to be part of their 'opening gambit'?

Couldn't this be construed as the drivers trivialising industrial action?

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

We know how things go.

Have you ever heard of any claim for a 53% increase in any other arena in Industrial Relations in Ireland ?

Opening gambit or not?

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Why is this only being used as their excuse for striking now?

It will be a poor enough summer for Luas staff with the loss of their beloved no strike bonus and also losing pay for all those strike days.

It's not it only came out in the WRC proposals and was on trade union TV as one of the reasons for rejection on good Friday or the next day.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

LUAS Drivers make a request (through SIPTU) which we've all seen at this stage.

Transdev refused to entertain the ludicrous request, and implores a sense of reality of expectations, and offer a range which may be achievable.

LUAS driver's next course of action chosen was not to reduce their request, but to go on strike (which imo was extraordinarily reckless considering the next step).

After initiating a strike, they then reduced their request by almost half.

Am I right so far in terms of the timeline?

It appears that a group of workers initiated industrial action before reducing their requested increase from an enormous figure by a factor of almost 50%, which considering the initial request still left an enormous increase (relative to all available metrics) requested.

I find it very easy to consider that a trivialisation of industrial action.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

It's not it only came out in the WRC proposals and was on trade union TV as one of the reasons for rejection on good Friday or the next day.

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We know how things go.

Have you ever heard of any claim for a 53% increase in any other arena in Industrial Relations in Ireland ?

Opening gambit or not?

It's a huge number because it is a 5 year deal, you break it down over 5 years and take into account it's an opening gambit. Personally I think it was a mistake, for the exact reasons given here it made them look unrealistic and greedy and was never a serious proposition.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

If you claim it is nonsense, you might be so good as to point out what is factually incorrect then?

Infini

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

Oh really? Because from what Ive seen the workers simply arent taking any nonsense from the management. The deal looked good on the surface but the details that came out showed it to be a very shallow one. The fact the deal was practically rejected 99% shows as much.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

It's a huge number because it is a 5 year deal, you break it down over 5 years and take into account it's an opening gambit. Personally I think it was a mistake, for the exact reasons given here it made them look unrealistic and greedy and was never a serious proposition.

And the question I asked was......?

trellheim

The fact the deal was practically rejected 99% shows as much

No it doesn't . Any pay deal the union had a hand in negotiating should not be rejected out of hand in that fashion, and shows something else is way off. Either theres no trust in the union or its not doing its job. Neither option make the union/worker relations look good.

And before someone says " well it was the best they could come up with" - they could have walked any time they wanted if they didn't like the smell.

Brendan Bendar

trellheim wrote: »

No it doesn't . Any pay deal the union had a hand in negotiating should not be rejected out of hand in that fashion, and shows something else is way off. Either theres no trust in the union or its not doing its job. Neither option make the union/worker relations look good.

And before someone says " well it was the best they could come up with" - they could have walked any time they wanted if they didn't like the smell.

Absolutely correct trell.
This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

And rejected by 99%!!

Tells this poster only one thing, there's a bunch anxious for conflict and highly militant hard core amongst the workforce.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it looks.

foggy_lad

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Absolutely correct trell.
This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

And rejected by 99%!!

Tells this poster only one thing, there's a bunch anxious for conflict and highly militant hard core amongst the workforce.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it looks.

There's a few likely looking "Comrades" in those trade union TV videos!

trellheim

This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

To keep things factual, I don't remember them "recommending" it but it WAS the deal they negotiated at the WRC . They didn't take a position on it which dumbfounded me - what was the 27 hours in the smoke-filled room for then ? ( for me its straight back to "union not doing the job it gets its dues for" , IMHO - freedom to walk away was always there and it could hardly have looked worse - consider where we are now. ).

Keep front and foremost - the other unions tongues panting for this deal - and LUAS turned it down; remember last week we had the other unions breaking off all sorts of negotiations so they could try and screw this deal from their management who they prayed would supinely roll over

Train to fkup city no matter which way you spin it, for the workers and for the wider TU movement.

Brendan Bendar

trellheim wrote: »

To keep things factual, I don't remember them "recommending" it but it WAS the deal they negotiated at the WRC . They didn't take a position on it which dumbfounded me - what was the 27 hours in the smoke-filled room for then ? ( for me its straight back to "union not doing the job it gets its dues for" , IMHO - freedom to walk away was always there and it could hardly have looked worse - consider where we are now. ).

Keep front and foremost - the other unions tongues panting for this deal - and LUAS turned it down; remember last week we had the other unions breaking off all sorts of negotiations so they could try and screw this deal from their management who they prayed would supinely roll over

Train to fkup city no matter which way you spin it, for the workers and for the wider TU movement.

Yes, I feel you are correct, just 'put to' the workers.

Apologies.

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

who are these union thugs you speak of?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Absolutely correct trell.
This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

And rejected by 99%!!

Tells this poster only one thing, there's a bunch anxious for conflict and highly militant hard core amongst the workforce.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it looks.

or it simply tells us, that the deal was not a good deal in terms of the details.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

who are these union thugs you speak of?

The same type of militant gougers and wasters that terrorised Greyhound office workers leaving some of them in tears. Those type of thugs are not wanted by any employer but the unions are happy to facilitate them and fight for them.

Infini

foggy_lad wrote: »

The same type of militant gougers and wasters that terrorised Greyhound office workers leaving some of them in tears. Those type of thugs are not wanted by any employer but the unions are happy to facilitate them and fight for them.

Considering the kind of carry-on that went on there I wouldn't even go there that's a whole different ballgame.

Bass Reeves

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.

An opening gambit really they looked for 53% and settled for 10% some gambit.

cdebru wrote: »

They industrial action I believe when the company refused to negotiate at all beyond 1 to 3%

1-3%/year which is where both party's ended up at

cdebru wrote: »

I don't think you can decide what is or isn't brought up here, the employees have specifically mentioned the extra 2.5 hours as one reason for rejection, it is part of the WRC proposals and is relevant to any discussion on them, irrespective of how it affects the greedy luas drivers argument.

2.5 hour extra will still leave them working only a 38 hours week they are being paid for 39 hour/week

cdebru wrote: »

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

If it is soft, sticks to your shoes and smells like bullsh!t it is usually bullsh!t

cdebru wrote: »

It's a huge number because it is a 5 year deal, you break it down over 5 years and take into account it's an opening gambit. Personally I think it was a mistake, for the exact reasons given here it made them look unrealistic and greedy and was never a serious proposition.

No it was not for a 5 year deal these boys taught they were living in the Uk in the seventies where retrospective claims were all the go. They wanted the claim from January 2015.

CramCycle

I presume not all LUAS drivers are members of the union, I was employed in places that were unionised before but never joined one.

So is that 99% of the unionised members or arre they all in the union?