10 minute Dart frequency: Union and other issues

LXFlyer

Elemonator wrote: »

It's hardly a sense of entitlement. It's called reality and unfortunately for DART drivers, it is not amenable to their feelings.

DART drivers (and Luas drivers for that matter) drivers have very little training requirements (its about 7 weeks, or half a college year!), no years at college breaking your arse to get the job, no student loans to pay off yet think they should be paid a premium wage for an ordinary job. Now that is a real sense of entitlement. I am all for people getting high wages but this simply doesn't work, no matter what rose-tinted glasses you see through. Everyone is entitled to a decent wage but it must reflect the demand for it, the skill level required to do the job, education level required (many jobs require a college education now), experience etc otherwise every single service or product we buy will shoot up in price to cover higher wages.

And by the way, my degree is BCL (Law) with Economics, and I'm breaking my arse with it. So yes I should earn more, I have a higher skill set.

Well before you go on a rant at least bother to check your facts.

Training a new train driver takes 18 months.

They have to know initimately every route they drive, where to initiate braking in the pitch dark whilst travelling at 100mph, locations of level crossings, etc.

It is not an unskilled job.

No it does not require a degree, but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.

kingshankly

From first day to passed out with road knowledge and unit knowledge your talking average of 15 months for a diesel train driver
Half of this is in the class room
So not the same as Luas drivers with regards-replacing them you would have to shut the railway for at least a decade

trellheim

Back on topic.

10 minute Darts. Why dont drivers want to train people.

Are they all on some crazy thing that makes them all refuse cab ridealongs ?

Heisenberg1

trellheim wrote: »

Back on topic.

10 minute Darts. Why dont drivers want to train people.

Are they all on some crazy thing that makes them all refuse cab ridealongs ?

Drivers choose to mentor trainee drivers and are paid an allowance for this. A driver who is not a mentor is under no obligation to take a trainee.

oppenheimer1

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Drivers choose to mentor trainee drivers and are paid an allowance for this. A driver who is not a mentor is under no obligation to take a trainee.

On the Luas dispute thread, people were saying that CIE are tough negotiators and don't cave to the unions. The above is an example on how soft CIE actually are. What company in their right mind would agree to a mentoring clause and allowance, when training new recruits? IR have only themselves to blame here, they bought the rope and made the noose around their neck.

end of the road

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

On the Luas dispute thread, people were saying that CIE are tough negotiators and don't cave to the unions. The above is an example on how soft CIE actually are.

incorrect, it's not an example of such at all as it's not the case. it's simple, drivers can become a mentor driver if they would like to (some are) and those who don't want to don't have to be a mentor driver. frankly, that is how it should be, not everyone would like to have someone in the cab with them while driving. the drivers will be trained.
anyway frankly 10 minute dart needs to be postponed until the infrastructure to back it up is commited to and delivered by government. implementing it now will mean a slower journey for everyone and if something goes wrong, delays as the infrastructure has little if any riggle room.

cdebru

Elemonator wrote: »

It's hardly a sense of entitlement. It's called reality and unfortunately for DART drivers, it is not amenable to their feelings.

DART drivers (and Luas drivers for that matter) drivers have very little training requirements (its about 7 weeks, or half a college year!), no years at college breaking your arse to get the job, no student loans to pay off yet think they should be paid a premium wage for an ordinary job. Now that is a real sense of entitlement. I am all for people getting high wages but this simply doesn't work, no matter what rose-tinted glasses you see through. Everyone is entitled to a decent wage but it must reflect the demand for it, the skill level required to do the job, education level required (many jobs require a college education now), experience etc otherwise every single service or product we buy will shoot up in price to cover higher wages.

And by the way, my degree is BCL (Law) with Economics, and I'm breaking my arse with it. So yes I should earn more, I have a higher skill set.

Are you paying the full cost of your degree ? If not do you think you should ? If not why ? Who do you think pays the full cost of your degree ?

How much extra tax is the average IR or Luas driver paying to put people like yourself through college ? Do you think it would be fairer if you and other studentsb paid for that yourself and IR/luas drivers kept more or their own income negating the need for an increase in pay ?

cdebru

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

On the Luas dispute thread, people were saying that CIE are tough negotiators and don't cave to the unions. The above is an example on how soft CIE actually are. What company in their right mind would agree to a mentoring clause and allowance, when training new recruits? IR have only themselves to blame here, they bought the rope and made the noose around their neck.

A company that wanted future employees to be trained properly, not everyone is a natural born teacher/mentor and the drivers never applied for a job as a teacher they are employed as train drivers it makes sense to select the appropriate employees to mentor/train new employees.

Heisenberg1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

On the Luas dispute thread, people were saying that CIE are tough negotiators and don't cave to the unions. The above is an example on how soft CIE actually are. What company in their right mind would agree to a mentoring clause and allowance, when training new recruits? IR have only themselves to blame here, they bought the rope and made the noose around their neck.

It's not has simple as that . A Train driver is safety critical role were you need to be concentrating at all times, if a trainee is in the cab and asking questions this can distract them, if they miss something or fail to carry out a part of there duites they take the blame, they are paid an allowance for this added risk and some drivers don't think it's worth the small allowance they get for this.

trellheim

. A Train driver is safety critical role were you need to be concentrating at all times, if a trainee is in the cab and asking questions this can distract them, if they miss something or fail to carry out a part of there duites they take the blame, they are paid an allowance for this added risk and some drivers don't think it's worth the small allowance they get for this.

BS

If it was safety critical it should have been raised to the regulator and a decision taken. Look at WCR in the UK over the Wooton Bassett SPAD - complete shutdown until things were made safe.

Magically all drivers stop doing cab ridealongs ? Get up the yard, that stuff won't play here. IE on the ball here . Legitimate - one or two drivers who work best without distraction - meh . Everyone ? Pull the other one.

end of the road

trellheim wrote: »

BS

If it was safety critical it should have been raised to the regulator and a decision taken. Look at WCR in the UK over the Wooton Bassett SPAD - complete shutdown until things were made safe.

Magically all drivers stop doing cab ridealongs ? Get up the yard, that stuff won't play here. IE on the ball here . Legitimate - one or two drivers who work best without distraction - meh . Everyone ? Pull the other one.

your right, IE is on the ball by facilitating those who may not want people in their cab, and allowing for those who don't mind. it depends on the individual driver as it should. there is no obligation for every driver to be a mentor driver, and that is perfectly fair enough.

cdebru

trellheim wrote: »

BS

If it was safety critical it should have been raised to the regulator and a decision taken. Look at WCR in the UK over the Wooton Bassett SPAD - complete shutdown until things were made safe.

Magically all drivers stop doing cab ridealongs ? Get up the yard, that stuff won't play here. IE on the ball here . Legitimate - one or two drivers who work best without distraction - meh . Everyone ? Pull the other one.

You missed the point, he was explaining why mentoring is a voluntary thing rather than a part of their regular duties as train drivers.

Obviously IE staff have adopted a non cooperation stance with the company until such time as the company address issues their union have raised on their behalf, IE management have taken the view that this is a union orchestrated campaign, the unions have denied this.

Social media, group chats on various messaging apps make contact between people who work together but may have limited contact much easier and doesn't necessitate unions to organise or orchestrate these kind of events, IE may be correct that 20 odd drivers didn't separately come to the decision they won't mentor, that doesn't necessarily mean however that they are following a union instruction.

Sam Russell

Has the random train length got anything to do with this bad relations with management?

I notice trains at 9:30 in the morning are 6 or 4 coaches but at 10 or 11 in the morning are 8 coaches. Now, these 8 carriage trains are filled with about 6 people per coach so it is not passenger demand. The same happens on Saturdays and Sundays. Do IR publish what size train set runs on each sheduled train time? From where I see it, it is random.

Elemonator

cdebru wrote: »

Are you paying the full cost of your degree ? If not do you think you should ? If not why ? Who do you think pays the full cost of your degree ?

How much extra tax is the average IR or Luas driver paying to put people like yourself through college ? Do you think it would be fairer if you and other studentsb paid for that yourself and IR/luas drivers kept more or their own income negating the need for an increase in pay ?

As I matter of a fact, I am paying the full cost of my degree. I volunteered that much. Your average student pays 3000 euro of their fees every year so no one person pays for it. And then students pay for transport and possibly accommodation on top of that. The pay increase for drivers will eventually be passed onto the customer for no increase in quality or frequency of services.

With regards the tax subject, lets take your average Luas driver salary of about 36,000 euros. They will lose about 8,000 on taxes very roughly. About 1000 euros will go on education and that includes colleges but also secondary and primary schools amongst other things, so the full 1000 does not go towards colleges and degrees. So 12.5pc of taxes go on education for those earnings.

So lets take your average student who emerges from college and gets a good job and pays taxes. Most of our taxes are spent on social programmes, 32.2pc on pensions. Who taps into the pensions? The drivers. I somehow think they will come out ahead compared to the amount their taxes paid for each individual student.

Most students in Ireland today probably won't even see a state pension, as the population lives longer and grows.

cdebru

Elemonator wrote: »

As I matter of a fact, I am paying the full cost of my degree. I volunteered that much. Your average student pays 3000 euro of their fees every year so no one person pays for it. And then students pay for transport and possibly accommodation on top of that. The pay increase for drivers will eventually be passed onto the customer for no increase in quality or frequency of services.

With regards the tax subject, lets take your average Luas driver salary of about 36,000 euros. They will lose about 8,000 on taxes very roughly. About 1000 euros will go on education and that includes colleges but also secondary and primary schools amongst other things, so the full 1000 does not go towards colleges and degrees. So 12.5pc of taxes go on education for those earnings.

So lets take your average student who emerges from college and gets a good job and pays taxes. Most of our taxes are spent on social programmes, 32.2pc on pensions. Who taps into the pensions? The drivers. I somehow think they will come out ahead compared to the amount their taxes paid for each individual student.

Most students in Ireland today probably won't even see a state pension, as the population lives longer and grows.

Students on average pay about 20% of the cost of their course, ie €3000 for some that €3000 would be a much higher percentage of the actual cost for some a much lower than 20% cost of their course, yeah they have to pay for transport and accommodation so what they are adults, you don't think taxpayers should be funding every element of their life do you ?


No 32% of what the government spends goes on social protection that includes all social welfare payments less than a third of that is spent on state pensions, for which the average PAYE worker will have paid tax and prsi for over 40 years towards

Now we have no guarantee any student will stay here and pay anything back into the system from which they so richly benefited, and the irony that so many here talk about snouts in the trough but have no problem with working class people funding their 3rd level education which most of their own children will never benefit from, and then they have the brass neck to bemoan those same taxpayers who they have no problem dipping their wages to fund their education for having the audacity to look for a wage increase to keep their head above water.


You would think these students would have a bit more appreciation for the people paying for the education which will some day earn them more money than those working class taxpayers could even dream of.

Dublin 6 99% going to college
Dublin 4 84%

Dublin 10 16%
Dublin 17 15%

cdebru

Sam Russell wrote: »

Has the random train length got anything to do with this bad relations with management?

I notice trains at 9:30 in the morning are 6 or 4 coaches but at 10 or 11 in the morning are 8 coaches. Now, these 8 carriage trains are filled with about 6 people per coach so it is not passenger demand. The same happens on Saturdays and Sundays. Do IR publish what size train set runs on each sheduled train time? From where I see it, it is random.

I'd imagine it depends where you are travelling from afaik in general larger length trains run from the south side during rush hour, so would be north side heading back south side post 10am. And vice versa on south side they would have smaller length trains post rush hour which were the trains from north side during rush hour.

It appears random but the 8 coach train didn't just start it's day at 10 or 11 am it would have been presumably full to the gills during rush hour heading towards where you board post rush hour.

Cookie_Monster

Surely there is a clause in IE contracts something to the effect to "as well as any other duties reasonably required by the Employer" same as nearly every employment contract on earth. Training staff would fall under that, nothing unreasonable about asking an employee to train another.

Sam Russell

cdebru wrote: »

I'd imagine it depends where you are travelling from afaik in general larger length trains run from the south side during rush hour, so would be north side heading back south side post 10am. And vice versa on south side they would have smaller length trains post rush hour which were the trains from north side during rush hour.

It appears random but the 8 coach train didn't just start it's day at 10 or 11 am it would have been presumably full to the gills during rush hour heading towards where you board post rush hour.

My point is that the train length on a particular service varies day to day - with no relationship to the number of passengers on board.

It would appear to me that the driver decides which train to take out - I have no justification for this other than the randomness of train length.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

My point is that the train length on a particular service varies day to day - with no relationship to the number of passengers on board.

It would appear to me that the driver decides which train to take out - I have no justification for this other than the randomness of train length.

Let's knock this on the head straight away. Drivers do not choose which train to take out.

There are set rosters for a mix of four, six and eight car trains.

You have to understand that trains are out all day long once again now. While it might seem daft to have an eight car set out at 11am you need to look at the entire day's roster for that set which may involve services when the full set is required either during both peak periods or when schoolchildren are going home. At weekends there can be sporting or other events on during the day that may require the larger sets and hence they would be on services earlier/later in the day where that capacity would seem to be overkill.

Bear in mind also that the four car sets and two car sets are non-compatible, so in the case of the four car sets its either four car or eight car.

If a particular train is shorter one day than the next it will be down to a maintenance issue.

Set swapping can only take place at Connolly and Bray - that limits the options for when shorter and longer trains can be swapped in and out.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Surely there is a clause in IE contracts something to the effect to "as well as any other duties reasonably required by the Employer" same as nearly every employment contract on earth. Training staff would fall under that, nothing unreasonable about asking an employee to train another.

Ah come on you know better than that, your duties under your contract are by express and implied terms detailed in your contract as well as custom and practise, it has been custom and practise. ( and probably by collective agreement) that this is voluntary you can't unilaterally make it compulsory because no one volunteers, bland statements about and other duties are not a catch all for an employer to change job description or custom and practise at will.

BoatMad

spacetweek wrote: »

Please don't speculate. The 10-min DARTs will begin in a few months.

hmm, Im not speculating , IE announced it was not implementing them

spacetweek

BoatMad wrote: »

hmm, Im not speculating , IE announced it was not implementing them

What.
In that case what was the resignalling project for?

Elemonator

cdebru wrote: »

Students on average pay about 20% of the cost of their course, ie €3000 for some that €3000 would be a much higher percentage of the actual cost for some a much lower than 20% cost of their course, yeah they have to pay for transport and accommodation so what they are adults, you don't think taxpayers should be funding every element of their life do you ?


No 32% of what the government spends goes on social protection that includes all social welfare payments less than a third of that is spent on state pensions, for which the average PAYE worker will have paid tax and prsi for over 40 years towards

Now we have no guarantee any student will stay here and pay anything back into the system from which they so richly benefited, and the irony that so many here talk about snouts in the trough but have no problem with working class people funding their 3rd level education which most of their own children will never benefit from, and then they have the brass neck to bemoan those same taxpayers who they have no problem dipping their wages to fund their education for having the audacity to look for a wage increase to keep their head above water.


You would think these students would have a bit more appreciation for the people paying for the education which will some day earn them more money than those working class taxpayers could even dream of.

Dublin 6 99% going to college
Dublin 4 84%

Dublin 10 16%
Dublin 17 15%

The government commit 8,000 roughly for each college student. Their contributions are 3500 when you include the registration fee, levy and "contribution", so thats closer to 30pc. And no absolutely not, I think the grant should be replaced in favour of student loans after seeing the wanton waste of it over the years. But it costs me 146 a month to get to college on the train, that is sheer madness. And that will only increase as DART drivers ask for more and Irish Rail is already an economic basket case, needed 195 million of a subsidy last year. There is only a handful of countries such as the UK in the EU that pay for that extortion. I studied on an exchange programme to Germany last year and the travel cost nothing. The local students and I only had to pay 250 for university. In some German universities, it was 75 euro a semester. This may seem off topic but heres my point. That 250 includes the cost of a public transport ticket. With that ticket, you can use all modes of public transportation half a year at no charge.

With the tax situation, its not like workers are treated unfairly. The public paid taxes for their education too. I think the State pension pays out about 219/229 euro a week depending on your age (non contributory), so about 12,000 a year on average. Taking 36,000 a year, drivers will probably pay 2,500 a year towards social programmes, same number for education. Third of that is 830ish. Giving the average life expectancy is 80 years in Ireland, do the maths and its not they have been hard done by.

I have to stay in Ireland should I go into law which is my preferred option, most European countries are civil law systems while former British Empire and Commonwealth countries are common law. 13,500 graduates left Ireland last year (that number is still falling). About 72,000 graduate in Ireland yearly by my calculations. So only 18pc of grads wave bye bye. So most stay and more will stay in the coming years. They had leave, Ireland had nothing to offer for the guts of 7 years and there still isn't much. Those students couldn't find jobs, those working class people did. In 2005, in excess of 55% went onto college (I think that figure is very small, 98pc of students in my secondary went onto college) and expected to grow at approximately 1% per annum for the next decade. So there's a majority already. There is grants around for everyone to go, again no particular sector of society is hard done by. Plenty of people in my course who are from working class and middle class backgrounds, some with no working parent.

The top 5pc of earners pay 55pc of the tax this country earns too. DART drivers earn about 50,000 a year, way above the average wage even when adjusted for part time workers. That's a good wage and I'd be happy with that. I know families personally who earn 45,000 or less and they survive. I also know a DART driver who bemoans the strikers and who has also enough money to go to America with his family. To introduce the 10 minute DART service, drivers are looking for an increase of up to 25pc. That would make their average salary 62,500 for let's say semi-skilled job. They are hardly broke as it is. They are already paid by the tax payer.

GM228

BoatMad wrote: »

hmm, Im not speculating , IE announced it was not implementing them

They didn't say they weren't implementing it, just that is was postponed due to "union intransigence"!

end of the road

Elemonator wrote: »

Irish Rail is already an economic basket case, needed 195 million of a subsidy last year.

195 million of a subsidy and you call it a basket case? really? come on now. sure, it sounds like a lot of money but for a rail network its actually very little money. in fact, in railway terms it's cheep as chips to the tax payer. not so much to the passenger admittidly.

Elemonator wrote: »

There is only the UK in the EU that pay for that extortion.

fixed that a tad for you. ireland's fares are nothing like most of britain's fares which i would agree are definitely extortion, over here we just pay high fares. (no i'm not suggesting paying high fares is fine) but i understand why it happens. the government want the burdin of paying for the service to be on the passenger (i don't agree with that stance but it is what it is)

Elemonator wrote: »

I studied on an exchange programme to Germany last year and the travel cost nothing. The local students and I only had to pay 250 for university. In some German universities, it was 75 euro a semester. This may seem off topic but heres my point. That 250 includes the cost of a public transport ticket. With that ticket, you can use all modes of public transportation half a year at no charge.

you know why that is? because the relevant authorities subsidise it enough to make it happen.

Elemonator

end of the road wrote: »

195 million of a subsidy and you call it a basket case? really? come on now. sure, it sounds like a lot of money but for a rail network its actually very little money. in fact, in railway terms it's cheep as chips to the tax payer. not so much to the passenger admittidly.



fixed that a tad for you. ireland's fares are nothing like most of britain's fares which i would agree are definitely extortion, over here we just pay high fares. (no i'm not suggesting paying high fares is fine) but i understand why it happens. the government want the burdin of paying for the service to be on the passenger (i don't agree with that stance but it is what it is)



you know why that is? because the relevant authorities subsidise it enough to make it happen.

For the scale of IR, it is a basket case. 195 million is half its operating revenue. As for the passenger, you are quite right

GM228

Elemonator wrote: »

For the scale of IR, it is a basket case. 195 million is half its operating revenue. As for the passenger, you are quite right

Where did you get the €195m figure from?

end of the road

Elemonator wrote: »

For the scale of IR, it is a basket case. 195 million is half its operating revenue.

no, no it really isn't a basket case. 195 million may be half it's operating revenue but in railway terms it really is small money. like i said, it sounds a lot of money but when you really look into it it actually isn't that much.

oppenheimer1

end of the road wrote: »

no, no it really isn't a basket case. 195 million may be half it's operating revenue but in railway terms it really is small money. like i said, it sounds a lot of money but when you really look into it it actually isn't that much.

In railway terms, its small money because its a tiny network relative to the size of other countries. Proportionally speaking its a huge amount.

The reason for it is of course: too many staff, with many of these in the wrong roles, overpaid staff and a lack of investment in technology

cdebru

end of the road wrote: »

no, no it really isn't a basket case. 195 million may be half it's operating revenue but in railway terms it really is small money. like i said, it sounds a lot of money but when you really look into it it actually isn't that much.

The subvention was 117 million last year not 195 million