Public transport strikes

Stephen15

With more luas strikes do you public transport should be banned from striking like the guards, doctors and the fire brigade. While I respect the right to strike I believe that it should be put into law that during a limited service at peak times, this how it works in a lot of European countries I believe it would still cause enough disruption but it would still allow commuters to get to work. The system should work as a one day for example with a two hour break at peak times. Opinions?

kildarecommuter

Stephen15 wrote: »

With more luas strikes do you public transport should be banned from striking like the guards, doctors and the fire brigade. While I respect the right to strike I believe that it should be put into law that during a limited service at peak times, this how it works in a lot of European countries I believe it would still cause enough disruption but it would still allow commuters to get to work. The system should work as a one day for example with a two hour break at peak times. Opinions?

Which European countries apart from Tory Britain have these restrictions?

Stephen15

kildarecommuter wrote: »

Which European countries apart from Tory Britain have these restrictions?

Italy definitely has a law regarding strikes that a limited service must be provided. I'm fairly sure Germany and France has similar

kildarecommuter

No there shouldn't be restrictions on workers withdrawing their labour and striking should they wish.
They are required by law to serve 7 days notice anyway.
It would be a dangerous precedent and undemocratic to restrict any group of workers from the right to strike.

kildarecommuter

Stephen15 wrote: »

With more luas strikes do you public transport should be banned from striking like the guards, doctors and the fire brigade. While I respect the right to strike I believe that it should be put into law that during a limited service at peak times, this how it works in a lot of European countries I believe it would still cause enough disruption but it would still allow commuters to get to work. The system should work as a one day for example with a two hour break at peak times. Opinions?

No restriction on Firefighters or Doctors striking once they comply with the relevant legislation.

LuckyLloyd

Workers should have the right to withdraw their labour.

n97 mini

I wonder what would have happened if the Luas operators had refused to recognise the union from the start, ala Ryanair.

Del.Monte

Much as I'm in favour of the 'idea' of trade unions I can see the Luas ending up a basket case like CIE if this isn't nipped in the bud. Basket case so.

Idbatterim

Much as I'm in favour of the 'idea' of trade unions I can see the Luas ending up a basket case like CIE if this isn't nipped in the bud. Basket case so.

unlike CIE who have the government in their pocket, Transdev arent run simply for the employees benefit. They are there to make a profit!

Stephen15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Workers should have the right to withdraw their labour.

While I generally agree with that statement. I would think that they should run some kind of a skeleton service. Maybe have a few trams running around the peak times just to get people in and out of work/school/college.

kildarecommuter

n97 mini wrote: »

I wonder what would have happened if the Luas operators had refused to recognise the union from the start, ala Ryanair.

Then depending on how many members of the union work there they might have had a strike for union recognition ala 999 workers

n97 mini

I think that when the audited accounts show that a company is making a loss and can't meet demands that strikes should be outlawed.

Many business in Ireland closed completely as companies simply weren't able to meet demands and striking only worsened their position.

PhaseTen

What really angers me about this is that it undermines the very legitimate and important role that organised trade unions can play by looking for what seems to be ridiculous money just because they think they have power to cause disruption during a general election.

The trade unions should be doing more to improve the lot of people who are stuck on zero hour contracts, minimum wage payments, never ending cycles of 18 month contracts and so on.

The labour problems in Ireland are not to be found amongst well paid, highly unionised public transport staff and this is exactly why trade unions and also, by association, the Labour Party is rapidly losing any sense of connection with the real people who actually face real problems.

It's also further undermining public transport investment (what government or private investor is going to want to deal with this down the line if they expand the system?), undermines confidence in public transport (people resort to going back to cars again) and also undermines usage by hiking the costs.

These workers are *not* on bad money by any standards.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

I think that when the audited accounts show that a company is making a loss and can't meet demands that strikes should be outlawed.

demands and striking only worsened their position.

no, strikes should not be outlawed under any circumstance.

Valetta

n97 mini wrote: »

I think that when the audited accounts show that a company is making a loss and can't meet demands that strikes should be outlawed.

Many business in Ireland closed completely as companies simply weren't able to meet demands and striking only worsened their position.

Don't agree with strikes at all. Grown up people should be able to work thinks out without tossing their toys out of the pram.

Having said that, I can't see any evidence of the 700k losses they claim.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

no, strikes should not be outlawed under any circumstance.

I think that view is limited to a certain demographic, thankfully. One only has to look at Waterford city to see how strikes, in that case it was dockers, can destroy a place.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

I think that view is limited to a certain demographic, thankfully.

yes, those who believe in employees having that ultimate insurence policy.

doc11

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Workers should have the right to withdraw their labour.

Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of employment it's seems reasonable that you let an employer find new workers more amenable to existing terms.

kildarecommuter

doc11 wrote: »

Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of employment it's seems reasonable that you let an employer find new workers more amenable to existing terms.

The reason workers formed Trade Unions in the first place !

end of the road

doc11 wrote: »

Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too.

they shouldn't. otherwise we end up with a slippery sloap.

Vic_08

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't. otherwise we end up with a slippery sloap.

That could be dangerous, especially in the prison showers.

Cookie_Monster

kildarecommuter wrote: »

The reason workers formed Trade Unions in the first place !

because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

when was the last strike in Ireland that wasn't about more money, you know about actual worker safety or improving conditions only?

Vic_08

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

Those who pay their dues every week don't think so.

There is also the small matter that legislation can be changed at will by whoever is in Leinster house and isn't it funny how those who claim that unions are not necessary always seem to be the very same people claiming that legislation protecting workers rights is also bad.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98779005&postcount=139

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

doesn't solve the issue though because of the ridiculous TUPE rules.

To be fair, most of them can wait more than 4 minutes before contradicting themselves but I suppose time is money and all that, what with the Luas on strike you probably have to set off soon for work.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

when was the last strike in Ireland that wasn't about more money, you know about actual worker safety or improving conditions only?

I don't know about you but more money would certainly improve my conditions, could light the fire with tenners rather than fivers, that red flame makes the drawing room feel much more homely than the harsh grey flame.

Idbatterim

What really angers me about this is that it undermines the very legitimate and important role that organised trade unions can play by looking for what seems to be ridiculous money just because they think they have power to cause disruption during a general election.

transdev shouldnt go anything before the election, its a week away at this stage. The unions thought the government would get involved, put pressure on transdev to agree at whatever cost, to get this annoyance out of the way due to the timing and that would beit. The usual strategy that worked with Aherne and co. There can be no going back to this, it will open the flood gates. They have shut the line for four days, what one or two more. If the union thought the GE would give them leverage, let them be in for a surprise...

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

unions haven't become redundant. workers in a number of industries still choose to use unions as both representers, negotiators, and enforcers of employment law. that is their right. for many workers, it is an insurence policy. other people choose not to be in a union, and that is also their right.

doc11

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

when was the last strike in Ireland that wasn't about more money, you know about actual worker safety or improving conditions only?

Without a union you'd be funding any legal representation and advice out of your own pocket

Infini

doc11 wrote: »

Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of employment it's seems reasonable that you let an employer find new workers more amenable to existing terms.

Sorry but no. Employers are even quicker at exploiting when they want to. Unions are there for a reason wether you like it or not.

Cookie_Monster

Vic_08 wrote: »

Those who pay their dues every week don't think so.

been there, done that. got no benefit from it whatsoever, just the usual protect the older members by screwing the younger ones.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98779005&postcount=139
To be fair, most of them can wait more than 4 minutes before contradicting themselves but I suppose time is money and all that, what with the Luas on strike you probably have to set off soon for work.

a good example of the union protecting their own at the expense of everyone else. Why should any employer be forced to take on the dead wood from a previous one. This is one of the most unfair protectionist pieces of drivel legislation I've ever come across.

I don't know about you but more money would certainly improve my conditions, could light the fire with tenners rather than fivers, that red flame makes the drawing room feel much more homely than the harsh grey flame.

money doesn't solve everything, especially if it's coming from an unsustainable source. but yeah, **** the company, as long as I get what I want in the short term, nothing else matters.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

been there, done that. got no benefit from it whatsoever, just the usual protect the older members by screwing the younger ones.

a good example of the union protecting their own at the expense of everyone else. Why should any employer be forced to take on the dead wood from a previous one. This is one of the most unfair protectionist pieces of drivel legislation I've ever come across.




money doesn't solve everything, especially if it's coming from an unsustainable source. but yeah, **** the company, as long as I get what I want in the short term, nothing else matters.

What you got is probably not something you can put your hands on, it could be the maintenance of wages, terms and conditions, it could be you weren't bullied into breaking the law, or just bullied in general etc,

Why would the previous operator have dead wood ? How would the new operator know who was dead wood ?

What is the unsustainable source ? Luas is working well, passenger numbers are growing why would it be unsustainable to increase wages ? Outsourced contracts are a device to distance the direct employer from the actual profits not that dissimilar from the clerys trick of moving the assets to a separate entity.

Captain Chaos

cdebru wrote: »

What is the unsustainable source ? Luas is working well, passenger numbers are growing why would it be unsustainable to increase wages ?

Passenger numbers are growing but Transdev lost 700K last year. There is your unsustainable source.

Transdev are not even making money. Probably all the extra security they have to hire because of the massive increase of scum that use but don't pay for the service.

Infini

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Passenger numbers are growing but Transdev lost 700K last year. There is your unsustainable source.

Transdev are not even making money. Probably all the extra security they have to hire because of the massive increase of scum that use but don't pay for the service.

Tram loses money even when more people using the service. That aint right. Theres something funny going on and afink its something to do with that "new" contract they signed last year.

cdebru

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Passenger numbers are growing but Transdev lost 700K last year. There is your unsustainable source.

Transdev are not even making money. Probably all the extra security they have to hire because of the massive increase of scum that use but don't pay for the service.

If transdev bid too low to make money then that is their own stupidity, but the luas is not losing money the outsourced separate entity is, its an accountancy trick to separate the profits from the operator.
That's if you even believe the accounts, accounts can be made to say anything especially when you know you have an upcoming dispute on wages, its an old trick you front load some costs, decrease the years you depreciate assets over, make provisions for future losses etc etc etc.

Elemonator

Public transport is semi-skilled and yet demands monstrous wages. If you are say the Luas and hold the monopoly on light rail transport in Dublin, you should be banned from holding elongated strikes.

Full stop.

cdebru

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/luas-to-make-profit-again-in-2015-a-year-ahead-of-target-30553688.html

A quote from Rory O'Connor the acting Chief executive of the RPA

He explained that the €150m contract will cover all of the operations and maintenance of the Luas system.
"We will probably take in €180m, so that's a good deal for us.

So transdev are being paid 150 million over 5 years to operate the luas, but the RPA expect to take in 180 million
So there is an expected 30 million surplus (profit ) for the " owner" of the business, transdev estimate if the full claim was met it would cost €6 million a year or 30 million over 5 years.

So claims that it is unsustainable or that fares would have to rise are false, the problem is the system of fixed price contracts separates the profit from the operator.

doc11

cdebru wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/luas-to-make-profit-again-in-2015-a-year-ahead-of-target-30553688.html

A quote from Rory O'Connor the acting Chief executive of the RPA

He explained that the €150m contract will cover all of the operations and maintenance of the Luas system.
"We will probably take in €180m, so that's a good deal for us.

So transdev are being paid 150 million over 5 years to operate the luas, but the RPA expect to take in 180 million
So there is an expected 30 million surplus (profit ) for the " owner" of the business, transdev estimate if the full claim was met it would cost €6 million a year or 30 million over 5 years.

So claims that it is unsustainable or that fares would have to rise are false, the problem is the system of fixed price contracts separates the profit from the operator.

Why should the profit be given to employees anyway, it's not a co-op. Anyway do you think Transdev should get to use the Luas for nothing? the 30million is more or less the rent on the infastructure/a return on signficant capital expenditure building it.

cdebru

doc11 wrote: »

Why should the profit be given to employees anyway, it's not a co-op. Anyway do you think Transdev should get to use the Luas for nothing? the 30million is more or less the rent on the infastructure/a return on signficant capital expenditure building it.

I think you are missing the point, transdev get paid to "use" the luas, the argument is a pay rise is not sustainable because transdev claim to have lost money last year, people also claim that any increase in wages would result in higher fares, I'm merely pointing out that the RPA are predicting a surplus that would cover the entire cost of the full claim if it was awarded without raising fares beyond whatever the RPA have already forecast fares to be, that is also on top of whatever profit transdev make.
Now it should also be noted that siptu are looking for a phased increase so even if they got everything they wanted it would be phased so wouldn't use all the predicted surplus, nor would I guess any luas employee honestly expects their full claim to be awarded.

n97 mini

cdebru wrote: »

So claims that it is unsustainable or that fares would have to rise are false, the problem is the system of fixed price contracts separates the profit from the operator.

It has already been explained that both sides are bound by a contract and that the govt would be sued if it decided mid contract to give more money to the operator.

Infini

n97 mini wrote: »

It has already been explained that both sides are bound by a contract and that the govt would be sued if it decided mid contract to give more money to the operator.

Contracts are renegotiable. They just dont want to get into it because want to avoid taking responsibility for a mess they created.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

It has already been explained that both sides are bound by a contract and that the govt would be sued if it decided mid contract to give more money to the operator.

And I'm pointing out the obvious limitations of the contract model, there is money there to award the full claim without charging customers one penny more ( that's not suggesting the full claim should be awarded merely pointing out the reality).
Instead we are in a deadlock where the operator is handstied by a contract but the luas is making money that could easily satisfy any pay claim and still leave a profit for the operator and the owner.
Now if any other company was making a profit but had contracted out its operations to the lowest bidder who was refusing to offer a pay deal to the employees on the basis of the contract restrictions, we would have multiple political parties and others talking about greedy capitalists, using underhand methods to take all the profit at the expense of those who labour to make the profit, but the state does it and there is nothing can be done its all contracts.
Amazing how contracts can be cast aside when employers want to impose pay cuts, those contracts between an employer and employee are easily cast aside.

One of the problems with this contracting model has been revealed, the state which implemented it has to find a way out of it as well as ensuring it doesn't repeat the error in the future.

Patrick2010

So basically you are saying the LUAS workers should get any profit from the operation of the LUAS, not the government who could use it on far more needed projects rather than inflating the wages of already well paid workers.

Workers who from todays papers are already taking the p*** with their latest loo break tactics to delay the LUAS.

amdublin

Are the luas drivers and their union aware they have practically no support from the public?

My fb and twitter feed us full of people giving out about them. And comparing their salaries to other highly qualified jobs.

50% increases are ridiculous.

n97 mini

Infini2 wrote: »

Contracts are renegotiable. They just dont want to get into it because want to avoid taking responsibility for a mess they created.

When they expire. Govt has already (correctly) stated if they change the terms mid contract the other parties who tendered and failed will sue.

n97 mini

cdebru wrote: »

One of the problems with this contracting model has been revealed,

I'm not sure there is a problem with the contract when the staff are demanding very steep pay increases. If anything the contract is saving the company from just giving into demands, as would be the case in CIE.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm not sure there is a problem with the contract when the staff are demanding very steep pay increases. If anything the contract is saving the company from just giving into demands, as would be the case in CIE.

I guess that depends on how you see this working out, if you expect or hope for the unions to be completely defeated and accept 1 to 3 % then tying the hands of the operator probably seems like a great solution, if you think or hope that eventually this will be sorted out, then the continued deadlock is only further disrupting customers, and leading to increasing bitterness on all sides and doesn't bode well for the future of the luas.
The money is there to do a deal all sides can be happy with, they need to work out how they do that quickly.

cdebru

amdublin wrote: »

Are the luas drivers and their union aware they have practically no support from the public?

My fb and twitter feed us full of people giving out about them. And comparing their salaries to other highly qualified jobs.

50% increases are ridiculous.

Why would it matter if they had public support ? When do ESB workers have public support ? Yet they usually find a solution with just the threat of a strike, why ? Because of the damage they can inflict, the disruption they could cause, that's what matters far more than public support.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

When they expire. Govt has already (correctly) stated if they change the terms mid contract the other parties who tendered and failed will sue.

So the workers can never really achieve any improvement in terms and conditions, as it is tied into a contract over which they have zero input, and when this contract expires the operator can't increase their bid to allow for improved conditions as they may be just outbid by a competitor who doesn't allow for any improvement, and the workers will be tied into another 5 years. Gradually they will fall behind other workers whose employers aren't so restricted until they find it difficult to recruit and retain staff.
But this is not a weakness in the model of contracting? Seriously ?

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

So the workers can never really achieve any improvement in terms and conditions, as it is tied into a contract over which they have zero input, and when this contract expires the operator can't increase their bid to allow for improved conditions as they may be just outbid by a competitor who doesn't allow for any improvement, and the workers will be tied into another 5 years. Gradually they will fall behind other workers whose employers aren't so restricted until they find it difficult to recruit and retain staff.
But this is not a weakness in the model of contracting? Seriously ?

Workers can seek improvement, they can leave if they feel they're able to get a better job. Nobody is chaining them to a life contract. The great thing about the contract is that the LUAS only has to pay the least amount it needs to obtain people who are able to drive it. Basically like every other company in the private and large parts of the semi-states sectors.

The LUAS drivers have great pay and conditions for the amount of qualifications as it is. Now a smart driver could take advantage of that and do a part time course to enable them to look beyond the LUAS as a resource of employment. Many people have to do part time courses to stand still in there area's of employment IT being a prime example.

Patrick2010

cdebru wrote: »

Why would it matter if they had public support ? When do ESB workers have public support ? Yet they usually find a solution with just the threat of a strike, why ? Because of the damage they can inflict, the disruption they could cause, that's what matters far more than public support.

Because they are low paid?, because they can't survive on what they earn? or because they are a monopoly who know the damage loss of electricity can cause to society?.
Its good that the LUAS is being run by a private company because otherwise you can guarantee the government would be under pressure to pay them more taxpayers money.
Are you seriously arguing that the highest paid workers in the country should be the ones working in essential services who can bring the country to a standstill?. Compared to ordinary workers in private industry whose companies don't have the state available to bankroll their wage bill.

amdublin

cdebru wrote: »

Why would it matter if they had public support ? When do ESB workers have public support ? Yet they usually find a solution with just the threat of a strike, why ? Because of the damage they can inflict, the disruption they could cause, that's what matters far more than public support.

I've never heard of esb workers asking for 50%???

Public support is surely a big factor in gauging your chances of getting what you want or not. I.e. are you barking up the wrong tree

In this case it seems the luas workers and their union are barking mad. How on earth can they feel justified in their ridiculous demands.

And now this ridiculousness of taking increased bathroom breaks. The gall of some people is unbelievable. They are extremely well paid with good benefits. Putting aside the job they do they are on very good wages. Considering the job they do they are on excellent wages.

n97 mini

cdebru wrote: »

So the workers can never really achieve any improvement in terms and conditions, as it is tied into a contract over which they have zero input, and when this contract expires the operator can't increase their bid to allow for improved conditions as they may be just outbid by a competitor who doesn't allow for any improvement, and the workers will be tied into another 5 years. Gradually they will fall behind other workers whose employers aren't so restricted until they find it difficult to recruit and retain staff.
But this is not a weakness in the model of contracting? Seriously ?

Should the customer be negotiating with the the supplier's employees' unions? Isn't that what happened under Communism?

cdebru

PeadarCo wrote: »

Workers can seek improvement, they can leave if they feel they're able to get a better job. Nobody is chaining them to a life contract. The great thing about the contract is that the LUAS only has to pay the least amount it needs to obtain people who are able to drive it. Basically like every other company in the private and large parts of the semi-states sectors.

The LUAS drivers have great pay and conditions for the amount of qualifications as it is. Now a smart driver could take advantage of that and do a part time course to enable them to look beyond the LUAS as a resource of employment. Many people have to do part time courses to stand still in there area's of employment IT being a prime example.

No completely different, because in the vast majority of private sector companies as business improves and profit levels improve, employers can pay more to encourage and reward their employees, to attract the right kind of employees, and to retain their current experienced employees, but fixed price contracts mean these employees are locked in and the only improvements possible if any are what was budgeted for 5 years ago, irrespective of whole well the company and its employees are performing.
These type of disputes are going to become more and more prevalent, people decrying the greed of the employees are the same people who decried national wage agreements, but national wage agreements are what kept a lid on these kinds of claims and disputes, now it is a free for all and those with more power can demand more money, this is not the last of these disputes it is merely the beginning, we have had relative industrial peace for the last nearly 30 years, because of national pay deals and the recession, but as we emerge from the recession when wages have been stagnant for the best part of a decade, and with no structure for agreements these kinds of disputes will become more common place.