Public transport strikes

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.

cdebru

Patrick2010 wrote: »

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.

No I'm saying public support doesn't matter, what matters is who can inflict the most and who can withstand the most, ESB workers are derided regularly, have little public support, but they are some of the best paid workers in the state, why ? Because they can inflict so much.

Luas workers don't have as much power to inflict damage as their service realistically only affect relatively small areas of Dublin, but they still have some power, whether they win or not will ultimately boil down to the damage and disruption they cause and how much pain they can endure. Public support would be nice and I'm sure they would welcome it but it won't decide matters.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

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

No I don't think it did.

cdebru

amdublin wrote: »

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.

Read my other posts, how would public opinion make any difference, if it makes any difference at all it will be because people get peed off with the disruption to their daily lifes and want it resolved so they can go about their business, it doesn't really matter who they blame they just want it fixed.

LuckyLloyd

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.

First they came for the LUAS drivers and I did not complain, for I was not a LUAS driver.

And I totally agree with those pointing out how ludicrous it is for the operator of a non complex, demand over capacity and ultra modern light rail service to be LOSING money, particularly when the actual profit margin is so high. To support same as a good model because 'private sector good / public sector bad' thinking is flawed to say the least.

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

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.

Ultimately all am asking and its a question you've avoided is why have the LUAS drivers done to deserve a pay increase? Why should the company pay more? How would the LUAS run better if they got the pay increases. The company is loss making. The fact that the LUAS as a whole is profitable is irrelevant. The employees work for the service provider Even though it nice to see the government get a return on its investment.

It might come as a shock but this is what normally happens in the privare sector, you pay the going rate for the people you want. Certain skills and experience attract a certain wage. If you join the LUAS you're quiet obviously limited in the amount of transferable skills you can learn and take into another job.

The reason we haven't had much industrial unrest over the last 30 years is because changes in technology have meant people have had to constantly update their skill sets to stay relevant. Unions aren't great long term thinkers. Great at protecting workers in the short term but leave them high and dry once the inevitable change happens.

cdebru

PeadarCo wrote: »

Ultimately all am asking and its a question you've avoided is why have the LUAS drivers done to deserve a pay increase? Why should the company pay more? How would the LUAS run better if they got the pay increases. The company is loss making. The fact that the LUAS as a whole is profitable is irrelevant. The employees work for the service provider Even though it nice to see the government get a return on its investment.

It might come as a shock but this is what normally happens in the privare sector, you pay the going rate for the people you want. Certain skills and experience attract a certain wage. If you join the LUAS you're quiet obviously limited in the amount of transferable skills you can learn and take into another job.

The reason we haven't had much industrial unrest over the last 30 years is because changes in technology have meant people have had to constantly update their skill sets to stay relevant. Unions aren't great long term thinkers. Great at protecting workers in the short term but leave them high and dry once the inevitable change happens.

The usual tired old skill sets updating nonsense, people have to realise not everyone is or can or wants to work in IT, or to be constantly updating their skillset. This nonsense is peddled out to justify poor conditions or low pay, if only these people would just update their skillset they wouldn't have to be worried about how sh1t their current job is.
Technology is not the be all and end all, and it is certainly not the reason we have had industrial peace for the last 30 years.

Lastly I have no idea what any luas employee has done to deserve any pay rise no more than you have any idea why they don't deserve a payrise, nor is separating profit from operator irrelevant, it is basically an accountancy trick on similar lines of the Clerys separating the assets from the operations. Unions are 100% right not to accept this.

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

The usual tired old skill sets updating nonsense, people have to realise not everyone is or can or wants to work in IT, or to be constantly updating their skillset. This nonsense is peddled out to justify poor conditions or low pay, if only these people would just update their skillset they wouldn't have to be worried about how sh1t their current job is.
Technology is not the be all and end all, and it is certainly not the reason we have had industrial peace for the last 30 years.

Lastly I have no idea what any luas employee has done to deserve any pay rise no more than you have any idea why they don't deserve a payrise, nor is separating profit from operator irrelevant, it is basically an accountancy trick on similar lines of the Clerys separating the assets from the operations. Unions are 100% right not to accept this.

Most areas of worker require you to regularly update your skillset. IT is just an extreme example. Most professions require CPD. In most area's new technology/products/regulations regularly come along that you have to learn to use to stay competitive, be you a plumber,builder, lawyer etc. The people who learn these skills first in an industry tend to have an advantage from a job point of view. People who are slow/refuse to learn ultimately find themselves unemployed/out of business.

What happened with Clerys is different. That was a situation where both companies were owned by the same group but were two seperate entities from a legal point of view. Operationally you'd be right to argue they were effectivelty the one company. Your not going to argue that the LUAS operater is a subsidary of CIE. Now if you were talking about Bus Eireann I'd understand your point.

It should be pointed out over the last 30 years the level of union representation has declined especially in the private sector. Thats been good and bad for employees depending on peoples skill sets.

If you don't know what LUAS drivers have done to deserve a pay increase why support them. They're like the Dunnes workers who had clear and easy to understand reasons. People like them I'd support. LUAS drivers who try to blackmail the taxpayer for no good reason I don't support.

amdublin

cdebru wrote: »

Read my other posts, how would public opinion make any difference, if it makes any difference at all it will be because people get peed off with the disruption to their daily lifes and want it resolved so they can go about their business, it doesn't really matter who they blame they just want it fixed.

Not in this instance in my opinion. People want it resolved so that they are not affected. And that resolution they want for the drivers is nothing at all like what the drivers want. The drivers and union would want to get a grip.


P.s. you mentioned esb workers bring derided in another post. I've never seen that. In fact I have never seen the anger before about any strike as I have seen from people about the luas driver s - and it's not because they are being affected by the strike, it's because of the gall of the drivers amd what they are asking.

cdebru

amdublin wrote: »

Not in this instance in my opinion. People want it resolved so that they are not affected. And that resolution they want for the drivers is nothing at all like what the drivers want. The drivers and union would want to get a grip.


P.s. you mentioned esb workers bring derided in another post. I've never seen that. In fact I have never seen the anger before about any strike as I have seen from people about the luas driver s - and it's not because they are being affected by the strike, it's because of the gall of the drivers amd what they are asking.

People want it resolved end of the day they don't give a sh1t if the luas drivers get a 50% pay cut or a 50% pay rise as long as the flipping luas turns up in the morning. Now you are probably right that people may well be peeved at luas drivers but the reality is the only way this is really going to be sorted is in a pay rise of some description, that anger will just as easily be directed at transdev, the RPA , the department of transport and government if they are being seen to do nothing, now all the strong talk about what should be done , sack em all , automate it etc are not going to happen, so in the real world this will have to be resolved eventually and that is going to be either a a long protracted bitter dispute, that halts luas services for weeks or months until the employees crumble and return to work or some compromise and late night sessions at the WRC. I know which one my money is on.

amdublin

We will have to agree to disagree. From my experience amd conversations no one wants those drivers to get 50% rise.
1-3% fine.