IE Pay Claim

Jamie2k9

NBRU seeking 8-19% and a separate 6%.

https://twitter.com/NBRU_DUBLIN/status/710824853964722176

PukkaStukka

And so begins the collective domino effect....

One gets something, all must get something :rolleyes:

LXFlyer

Well it's also the fact that the current pay deals in DB, IE and BE are all coming to an end shortly. More coincidence than anything else with respect to the timing of the claims after the LUAS deal.

As before there'll be a lot of noise in public, but the real talking and deal making will be done in negotiations behind closed doors.

Infini

To be honest pay has been frozen since 2008 in the rail (in actual fact its gone down a bit over the strike the previous year). Meanwhile staff levels have dropped and workload has increased. Can you really expect people NOT to be lookin for some increase after all this time? Wait and see how things pan out but I'm either expecting the 10min service to be pushed back further or a possible strike in april. Regardless people pissed off and fed up.

LXFlyer

Infini2 wrote: »

To be honest pay has been frozen since 2008 in the rail (in actual fact its gone down a bit over the strike the previous year). Meanwhile staff levels have dropped and workload has increased. Can you really expect people NOT to be lookin for some increase after all this time? Wait and see how things pan out but I'm either expecting the 10min service to be pushed back further or a possible strike in april. Regardless people pissed off and fed up.

Well given that it took so long for pay cuts to take place in IE while at the same time massive losses were taking place, it's a bit rich to suddenly expect pay to rise again as soon as profits happen.

There is still a massive accumulated deficit in the balance sheet - that just doesn't get swept under the carpet. That still has to be clawed back.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

Well given that it took so long for pay cuts to take place in IE while at the same time massive losses were taking place, it's a bit rich to suddenly expect pay to rise again as soon as profits happen.

There is still a massive accumulated deficit in the balance sheet - that just doesn't get swept under the carpet. That still has to be clawed back.

It's a bit rich expecting the people working at IE to subsidise it for the state, a glance at the terms and conditions in the LUAS compared to those in IE, show LUAS are superior in every area, not one cent did the LUAS staff lose in the recession they were actually paid the raise under towards 2016 national pay deal unlike IE staff.
Instead in IE the state cut the subvention and the staff were left to pick up the slack and their terms and conditions are now miles behind and pretty soon someone driving tram will be paid more, and work less hours that a heavy rail train driver.
The accumulated losses are not the workers fault or their problem, let the state contract it out to transdev if they want, the state will still have to pay for the contract irrespective of who operates it, the only difference would be the government won't get to dump on the workforce just like they didn't get to dump on the LUAS staff for the last 8 years of recession.

Cookie_Monster

cdebru wrote: »

It's a bit rich expecting the people working at IE to subsidise it for the state,

how, exactly are they doing this?

Pay levels are still high relatively speaking and do not need to increase 'just because'

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how, exactly are they doing this?

Pay levels are still high relatively speaking and do not need to increase 'just because'

Pay levels aren't high, and other terms and conditions are so far behind compared to LUAS it is not even funny, for example death in service benefit is 3 years salary in LUAS it is one year in IE, spouses pension is €3250 in IE of which the employee pays half the cost, it's over €14,000 in LUAS and the company pays the entire cost, occupational injury benefit is 4 weeks in IE it's 7 weeks in LUAS, full pay is pensionable at LUAS but only basic pay which is less shift allowances etc is pensionable at IE, after 4 hours overtime in LUAS is paid at double time, in IE it's all at time and a half.
IE employees are making up the difference of what it costs to run the rail and what the government is willing to pay for it, and unlike the LUAS where there is a fixed price contract that transdev has to be paid every year no matter what, the government can just cut IE funding and then it is up to employees to make up the shortfall.

Victor

Infini2 wrote: »

To be honest pay has been frozen since 2008 in the rail

On the flip side, there hasn't been any inflation - prices in December 2015 were 0.2% lower than December 2008.

Meanwhile staff levels have dropped and workload has increased.

While staff numbers have decreased, most trains now only have / need a driver. Many tickets are sold by machines or people use Leap Cards. I honestly don't see an overwork issue.

cdebru wrote: »

It's a bit rich expecting the people working at IE to subsidise it for the state

Most people would see it the other way around. I think you might be being slightly disingenuous on terms and conditions, as there are benefits that CIÉ workers have that Luas workers don't have.

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

It's a bit rich expecting the people working at IE to subsidise it for the state, a glance at the terms and conditions in the LUAS compared to those in IE, show LUAS are superior in every area, not one cent did the LUAS staff lose in the recession they were actually paid the raise under towards 2016 national pay deal unlike IE staff.
Instead in IE the state cut the subvention and the staff were left to pick up the slack and their terms and conditions are now miles behind and pretty soon someone driving tram will be paid more, and work less hours that a heavy rail train driver.
The accumulated losses are not the workers fault or their problem, let the state contract it out to transdev if they want, the state will still have to pay for the contract irrespective of who operates it, the only difference would be the government won't get to dump on the workforce just like they didn't get to dump on the LUAS staff for the last 8 years of recession.

Hang on a minute.

The three CIE Group companies (not unlike most businesses in this country) experienced a massive drop in business when the recession hit, and as a result farebox revenue dropped significantly.

Most businesses in this country then initiated cost cutting, and this included the main cost in their businesses, payroll.

In other words they matched the cost cutting measures with the slump in revenue from a time perspective.

While CIE did initiate cost cutting across the group, the group companies however, did not make significant cuts to payroll until several years later - now the unions instantly want those cuts restored once profits reappear despite the fact that the companies were playing catch up in the first place.

What sort of approach is that to running a business?

The accumulated losses are there in part due to the unions using every delay tactic in the book to stop pay cutting measures being implemented.

There is a timing issue here - the unions delayed pay cuts for as long as they could despite ongoing losses (in particular at IE), and then want to restore them immediately? That's akin to buttering your bread on both sides.

I'm sorry to have to be blunt about this, but in any business staff costs are generally the biggest overhead, and if revenue collapses then payroll costs will have to be cut back too. Staff in any business are not immune from the impact of revenue collapsing.

The PSO subsidy was reduced due to services being cut back and far less passengers being carried - do you seriously expect it to stay the same when passenger numbers collapse?

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

Most people would see it the other way around. I think you might be being slightly disingenuous on terms and conditions, as there are benefits that CIÉ workers have that Luas workers don't have.

So you will have no problem pointing out the benefits

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

Hang on a minute.

The three CIE Group companies (not unlike most businesses in this country) experienced a massive drop in business when the recession hit, and as a result farebox revenue dropped significantly.

Most businesses in this country then initiated cost cutting, and this included the main cost in their businesses, payroll.

In other words they matched the cost cutting measures with the slump in revenue from a time perspective.

While CIE did initiate cost cutting across the group, the group companies however, did not make significant cuts to payroll until several years later - now the unions instantly want those cuts restored once profits reappear despite the fact that the companies were playing catch up in the first place.

What sort of approach is that to running a business?

The accumulated losses are there in part due to the unions using every delay tactic in the book to stop pay cutting measures being implemented.

There is a timing issue here - the unions delayed pay cuts for as long as they could despite ongoing losses (in particular at IE), and then want to restore them immediately? That's akin to buttering your bread on both sides.

I'm sorry to have to be blunt about this, but in any business staff costs are generally the biggest overhead, and if revenue collapses then payroll costs will have to be cut back too. Staff in any business are not immune from the impact of revenue collapsing.

The PSO subsidy was reduced due to services being cut back and far less passengers being carried - do you seriously expect it to stay the same when passenger numbers collapse?

Hang on a second, it is public transport not a "normal business" it costs pretty much the same to run an empty train as a full one, it costs the same money to man a station whether 5 trains a hour pass through or 3, whether those trains are full or half full or empty,
So you need to decide is it a necessary public service or just a normal business because a normal business will just cease trading when it is no longer profitable to stay open. Revenue dropped at LUAS as well, it lost 3 million passengers between 2007 and 2009 but it never reduced services, and it never cut costs in fact it's employees actually had payrises those years it also never reduced services and it bounced back and started growing again unlike the CIE companies who cut services, cut costs and continued to lose customers for much longer because the service had deteriorated and continued to deteriorate as more subvention was taken away and now we are paying for it as the service isn't there despite a rising demand because you can't just turn it back on.
So yes I seriously expect public transport to be funded in good times and bad the results are there in black and white for anyone to see with the different funding models.

Victor

cdebru wrote: »

So you will have no problem pointing out the benefits

Luas staff are allowed free travel on Luas service. As I understand it, Irish Rail staff are allowed a CIÉ all-service ticket for something like €300.

Luas staff get an annual medical check-up. As I understand it, Irish Rail staff get full medical cover.

Most Luas operations (not infrastructure) staff spend a lot more time outdoors than Irish Rail staff.

Perhaps you could post the full Irish Rail terms and conditions and we can do a comparison?

cdebru wrote: »

Revenue dropped at LUAS as well, it lost 3 million passengers between 2007 and 2009 but it never reduced services, and it never cut costs in fact it's employees actually had payrises those years it also never reduced services

You might tell that to the Transdev staff that were made redundant. About a year after the Saggart branch opened and it was realised that take-up on Belgard-Saggart and Ballyogan Wood-Bride's Glen were much weaker than expected, services were cut back and staff were made redundant as their probationary periods were about to expire. Quite a few new staff were left go.

it bounced back and started growing again unlike the CIE companies who cut services, cut costs and continued to lose customers for much longer because the service had deteriorated and continued to deteriorate as more subvention was taken away and now we are paying for it as the service isn't there despite a rising demand because you can't just turn it back on.

A big problem with Irish Rail was that in many cases they couldn't compete with the motorways and express coaches. This wasn't helped by a long history of poor customer service and the fact that most cuts in service were to front-line staff.

Cookie_Monster

cdebru wrote: »

Pay levels aren't high,

they are, there is no debating this. 52k quoted online as an average. This is a very good wage, 50% above average industrial wage. Yes it is has a higher skill and experience level than many jobs but its still a good wage.

and other terms and conditions are so far behind compared to LUAS it is not even funny, for example death in service benefit is 3 years salary in LUAS it is one year in IE, spouses pension is €3250 in IE of which the employee pays half the cost, it's over €14,000 in LUAS and the company pays the entire cost, occupational injury benefit is 4 weeks in IE it's 7 weeks in LUAS, full pay is pensionable at LUAS but only basic pay which is less shift allowances etc is pensionable at IE, after 4 hours overtime in LUAS is paid at double time, in IE it's all at time and a half.

are you comparing everything here or just cherry picking?

IE employees are making up the difference of what it costs to run the rail and what the government is willing to pay for it, and unlike the LUAS where there is a fixed price contract that transdev has to be paid every year no matter what, the government can just cut IE funding and then it is up to employees to make up the shortfall.

you still haven't explained how employees are making up the shortfall.

So yes I seriously expect public transport to be funded in good times and bad the results are there in black and white for anyone to see with the different funding models.

that is a fair enough expectation but simply paying staff more with little real justification is a massive misuse of scarce funds.

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

Hang on a second, it is public transport not a "normal business" it costs pretty much the same to run an empty train as a full one, it costs the same money to man a station whether 5 trains a hour pass through or 3, whether those trains are full or half full or empty,
So you need to decide is it a necessary public service or just a normal business because a normal business will just cease trading when it is no longer profitable to stay open. Revenue dropped at LUAS as well, it lost 3 million passengers between 2007 and 2009 but it never reduced services, and it never cut costs in fact it's employees actually had payrises those years it also never reduced services and it bounced back and started growing again unlike the CIE companies who cut services, cut costs and continued to lose customers for much longer because the service had deteriorated and continued to deteriorate as more subvention was taken away and now we are paying for it as the service isn't there despite a rising demand because you can't just turn it back on.
So yes I seriously expect public transport to be funded in good times and bad the results are there in black and white for anyone to see with the different funding models.

With respect, if you are seriously suggesting that the CIE Group of companies are in a cocoon that is at all times to be immune and protected from the effects of the economy, then there's not much hope for having any reasoned debate. Every sector of public expenditure has had to cope with cuts in state funding and I'm afraid that public transport isn't in a vacuum.

It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

markpb

cdebru wrote:

Hang on a second, it is

So much text, so much deliberately avoiding the question lxflyer asked and points they were making.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

With respect, if you are seriously suggesting that the CIE Group of companies are in a cocoon that is at all times to be immune and protected from the effects of the economy, then there's not much hope for having any reasoned debate. Every sector of public expenditure has had to cope with cuts in state funding and I'm afraid that public transport isn't in a vacuum.

It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

What cuts were made to LUAS ? How much did the RPA cut from the contract with veolia/transdev ? Nothing, because there is a contract, I'm suggesting that CIE should be treated equally, you can't run a service and plan when you never know how much funding you will have from one year to the next.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they are, there is no debating this. 52k quoted online as an average. This is a very good wage, 50% above average industrial wage. Yes it is has a higher skill and experience level than many jobs but its still a good wage.

are you comparing everything here or just cherry picking?


you still haven't explained how employees are making up the shortfall.

that is a fair enough expectation but simply paying staff more with little real justification is a massive misuse of scarce funds.

It's not simply paying them more, it is that CIE staff have fallen behind, they have suffered cuts to wages and conditions.



Comparing what there is to compare, everything holidays 24 days in LUAS , 23 in IE, wedding leave in LUAS 3 days, IE doesn't exist, compassionate leave LUAS 5 days, IE 3 days, attendance performance bonus LUAS 6.5%, IE doesn't exist.

Pensionable pay LUAS 42k before proposed increases to 50k
IE 44k, BE 32k, DB 32k

IE do have a GP scheme which they pay half the cost of and LUAS don't have that afaik.

Victors claim of full medical cover is wrong doesn't exist in IE, CIE have a medical department but that is for the company not the employees.
I have never heard of an all services travel ticket for €300 it could be true someone from IE could advise.

Bass Reeves

I think the government should consider tendering out a second inter city rail service. This would grow business like Ryanair/Aer Lingus competition. Maybe even at the end of it we get the bonus of being able to sell IE to someone:rolleyes:.

The reality is that IE has priced itself out of the market. If free travel was ever done away with it could be closed down. At present a Single day return from CK/DN is 52 euro, LK/DN is 40 and GY/DN is 46.5. Family returns are 100, 82.5 and 73.5 respectively. Open return are 30-50% more expensive. These are online savers, it seems if you turn up and book then it is 80,63 and 40 euro respectively.

People vote with there cars. Very few travel on the train unless there employer is paying for it or they are commuting and get monthly/yearly tickets on tax savers. However tax saver is a hidden subsidy mainly to the LUAS IE and DB and is more benfical to those on the high tax rate. In reality it is a mainly Dublin based tax incentive.

I say close down all except the DART and surburban rail, tender that out to a Transdev type operation. Then start tendering out bus routes and let all operators that are interested compete for the contracts

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

What cuts were made to LUAS ? How much did the RPA cut from the contract with veolia/transdev ? Nothing, because there is a contract, I'm suggesting that CIE should be treated equally, you can't run a service and plan when you never know how much funding you will have from one year to the next.

This isn't about the LUAS - but as you ask services were cut back on both lines and as per above people made redundant.

At the end of the day this is about CIE Group and I don't really see what LUAS has to do with it - it's a different company. If people in CIE want their pay/conditions then there is nothing stopping them going to work for them.

Victor

cdebru wrote: »

What cuts were made to LUAS ? How much did the RPA cut from the contract with veolia/transdev ? Nothing, because there is a contract, I'm suggesting that CIE should be treated equally, you can't run a service and plan when you never know how much funding you will have from one year to the next.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2012032800013

Now, I think you owe me the Irish Rail pay agreement.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

This isn't about the LUAS - but as you ask services were cut back on both lines and as per above people made redundant.

At the end of the day this is about CIE Group and I don't really see what LUAS has to do with it - it's a different company. If people in CIE want their pay/conditions then there is nothing stopping them going to work for them.

No that was an adjustment to the SLA within the first year of operation, the original plan for both extensions was to support the planned residential developments along those lines that never happened because of the downturn, the RPA had the opportunity to alter the SLA on those lines and they took it because the business wasn't there to support it, but the rest of the LUAS and after that initial alteration to the SLA was made to the extensions nothing else was cut.
I really don't care what you see or don't see, what people in CIE see is their wage falling further and further behind for what is a more difficult job and unfortunately despite the extension to the luas I doubt they will have space for about 9000 CIE employees so they are going to have to make things better where they are.

hmmm

I don't see why the public shouldn't pay 5 euro for their Dublin Bus tickets. What's the problem, they have no choice because there is no competition - just increase the ticket price and give the staff the wages they want.

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2012032800013

Now, I think you owe me the Irish Rail pay agreement.

Those were not cuts to the contract, they were adjustments to the service level agreement as per the contract in the first year of operation of the extension and took place in 2012 after the LUAS had recovered it's lost passenger numbers not in response to falling numbers, there were no cuts to services when LUAS was actually losing passengers, unlike the 3 CIE companies for example in 2009 DB cut 10% of its services and got rid of 290 employees, LUAS cut nothing that year and expanded its services in 2011 before adjusting those extensions in 2012 in response to demand.

cdebru

hmmm wrote: »

I don't see why the public shouldn't pay 5 euro for their Dublin Bus tickets. What's the problem, they have no choice because there is no competition - just increase the ticket price and give the staff the wages they want.

No there is a choice, the state wants and needs public transport, it has to be paid for, if it is important enough then the state has to support it, the alternative is more congestion, more pollution and even more indirect costs.

Cookie_Monster

cdebru wrote: »

I really don't care what you see or don't see, what people in CIE see is their wage falling further and further behind for what is a more difficult job

falling further and further behind what? Still well ahead of average wage, ahead of Luas, well ahead of NI rates, ahead of the deflation that Victor pointed out...

you still haven't explained how staff are subsidising IE. Its a union dominated closed shop that pays above average wages for the type of roles it requires, how this is a subsidy in your eyes is incomprehensible.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

falling further and further behind what? Still well ahead of average wage, ahead of Luas, well ahead of NI rates, ahead of the deflation that Victor pointed out...

you still haven't explained how staff are subsidising IE. Its a union dominated closed shop that pays above average wages for the type of roles it requires, how this is a subsidy in your eyes is incomprehensible.

Basic salary in BE and DB is less than the average wage in Ireland, and less than the wages and terms and conditions in luas,

You don't understand how staff are subsidising it ?costs of running the service are x custumers pay less than x government don't pay the difference staff are paid less to make up the difference.

Cookie_Monster

cdebru wrote: »

You don't understand how staff are subsidising it ?costs of running the service are x custumers pay less than x government don't pay the difference staff are paid less to make up the difference.

paid less than what or who???

They're paid far better than most comparable European train drivers especially NI which is an excellent direct comparison.

Just because they, the union and you think they should be on astronomic wages without any genuine reasoning does not make it so.

Clearly I don't understand how you are coming up with such a bizarre concept, i don't think anyone else on this forum does either.

markpb

Cookie_Monster wrote:

Clearly I don't understand how you are coming up with such a bizarre concept, i don't think anyone else on this forum does either.

It's actually quite simple for CIE employees and their fans:

Company is doing well - employees deserve a pay rise because they did so well

Company is doing badly - not the employees fault, blame the management, the poor employees probably deserve a pay rise.

Other companies get a pay rise - cie employees deserve a pay rise for parity

Other companies take a pay cut - you can't compare them to us. Also, can we have a pay rise?

Entire economy tanks - not our fault, blame the bankers, no pay cuts here. Also deny that anyone else suffered any cuts.

Small part of the economy recovers - pay rise time, we did our part

And, as someone said already on another thread:

Bus drivers want parity with tram drivers

Tram drivers want parity with train drivers

Train drivers want parity with stock traders

The only way is up, baby, for you and me now.

tritium

Infini2 wrote: »

To be honest pay has been frozen since 2008 in the rail (in actual fact its gone down a bit over the strike the previous year). Meanwhile staff levels have dropped and workload has increased. Can you really expect people NOT to be lookin for some increase after all this time? Wait and see how things pan out but I'm either expecting the 10min service to be pushed back further or a possible strike in april. Regardless people pissed off and fed up.

This is true for a lot of industries. A friend in a (state owned) bank recently told me their pay had been frozen since 2007. Will there be any of this rational analysis when they go looking for their 10%-20%?

Victor

cdebru wrote: »

Those were not cuts to the contract, they were adjustments to the service level agreement as per the contract in the first year of operation of the extension and took place in 2012

So, you suddenly know all about what I was saying, despite protestations that it didn't happen.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

paid less than what or who???

They're paid far better than most comparable European train drivers especially NI which is an excellent direct comparison.

Just because they, the union and you think they should be on astronomic wages without any genuine reasoning does not make it so.

Clearly I don't understand how you are coming up with such a bizarre concept, i don't think anyone else on this forum does either.

Northern Ireland have the worst paid train drivers in the UK, train drivers in the UK can earn upto 60k sterling while IE traindrivers are earning 42k sterling.
Oddly your choice of northern Ireland reinforces my point, it being the only state run train company in the UK and the poorest paid drivers.

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

So, you suddenly know all about what I was saying, despite protestations that it didn't happen.

I suggest you go back and look at what I said I said LUAS lost 3 million passengers from 2007 to 2009 and did not make any cuts to wages or services in that period in fact LUAS employees received the 6% rise under the nation pay agreement towards 2016 in 2009 which IE employees still haven't received 7 years later.

Luas made an adjustment to the service level on the extensions in 2012 which had only opened in 2011, that is not a cut back in response to the loss of passengers in the 2008/2009 period as the service wasn't opened then, it is not a cut back in response to a loss of passengers at all it is an adjustment in line with demand after measuring demand in the first year of operation.

cdebru

tritium wrote: »

This is true for a lot of industries. A friend in a (state owned) bank recently told me their pay had been frozen since 2007. Will there be any of this rational analysis when they go looking for their 10%-20%?

Which bank ?

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I think the government should consider tendering out a second inter city rail service.

a second inter city rail service? no inter city rail services are being tendered for the moment if at all. it's doubtful any will be

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This would grow business like Ryanair/Aer Lingus competition. Maybe even at the end of it we get the bonus of being able to sell IE to someone.

how would it grow business like ryanair, and what "competition" would it bring? it won't bring competition on the railways thats for sure, and rail is all ready in competition with road. and why the hell would we want to "sell it to someone begorra"
maybe you should have a little read of what happened when our friends across the water "sold" everything off including the infrastructure to "someone" it makes interesting reading, but not really for this thread.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The reality is that IE has priced itself out of the market.

[/QUOTE]

the problem is also that people expect ultra cheep train travel. 10 euro to go from cork to dublin. that is never going to happen whoever runs it.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If free travel was ever done away with it could be closed down.

so could bus eireann and even much of dublin bus. would people really want that? because even if it was to happen the rest of the public services still wouldn't get any more money or have their issues solved.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I say close down all except the DART and surburban rail

and why would we do that exactly? because "shur da trains all run empty begorra" which isn't true. or is it "shur we will have a few quid more for" <incert particular service here> yet the same service will no doubt still be the same down the line because of politics. such a nonsense ideal belongs in the 1960s. it was nonsense then and it is nonsense today. the vast vast majority of the rail network is viable and very necessary. in my view, anyone who wishes for everything outside dart to go is not a true supporter of public transport. where existing, road and rail options are the only exceptable ideal.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

start tendering out bus routes and let all operators that are interested compete for the contracts

for what exactly.

end of the road

hmmm wrote: »

What's the problem, they have no choice because there is no competition

and on a lot of the routes i find it doubtful that there ever will be. but we will wait and see.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

IE. Its a union dominated closed shop

no, no it isn't. it hasn't been for a long time.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that pays above average wages for the type of roles it requires

for certain jobs, yes . like, train driving. they do want to keep the drivers after all.

howiya

end of the road wrote: »

the problem is also that people expect ultra cheep train travel. 10 euro to go from cork to dublin. that is never going to happen whoever runs it.

Why should people not expect cheap train travel?

Cookie_Monster

cdebru wrote: »

Northern Ireland have the worst paid train drivers in the UK, train drivers in the UK can earn upto 60k sterling while IE traindrivers are earning 42k sterling.
Oddly your choice of northern Ireland reinforces my point, it being the only state run train company in the UK and the poorest paid drivers.

what point? They're paid the going rate for NI as a whole. They have drivers so clearly what they pay is not an issue and attracts staff.

You still have not explained how paying staff 50k+ to drive a train is in fact a subsidy from those staff to the company.

Bass Reeves

end of the road wrote: »

a second inter city rail service? no inter city rail services are being tendered for the moment if at all. it's doubtful any will be



how would it grow business like ryanair, and what "competition" would it bring? it won't bring competition on the railways thats for sure, and rail is all ready in competition with road. and why the hell would we want to "sell it to someone begorra"
maybe you should have a little read of what happened when our friends across the water "sold" everything off including the infrastructure to "someone" it makes interesting reading, but not really for this thread.



the problem is also that people expect ultra cheep train travel. 10 euro to go from cork to dublin. that is never going to happen whoever runs it.



so could bus eireann and even much of dublin bus. would people really want that? because even if it was to happen the rest of the public services still wouldn't get any more money or have their issues solved.



and why would we do that exactly? because "shur da trains all run empty begorra" which isn't true. or is it "shur we will have a few quid more for" <incert particular service here> yet the same service will no doubt still be the same down the line because of politics. such a nonsense ideal belongs in the 1960s. it was nonsense then and it is nonsense today. the vast vast majority of the rail network is viable and very necessary. in my view, anyone who wishes for everything outside dart to go is not a true supporter of public transport. where existing, road and rail options are the only exceptable ideal.



for what exactly.

I see we are still at multi-quoting the one post, partially replying and not giving an analysis.

I did not say any intercity service was being tendered I said the Government ''should consider 'tendering out a second intercity service'', there is one there at present and it is way too high priced. Neither did I say CK/DN should be 10 euro but neither should a return it be 50-80 euro depending on how you book. Most people traveling on intercity trains or buses buy return tickets.

In theory rail is in competition with road but it is not reacting to it. It is being subvented and is not trying to grow numbers traveling. It too easy to leave Limerick or Cork with an nearly empty train and fill it from Portarlington on with suburban commuters. Competition nearly always grows numbers. Look at Bus Eireann it has had to react to the inter city bus companies that are now competing with it. Numbers of people traveling on buses has grown expodentially with competition.

Not only that it has had the knock on effect where Bus Eireann now provides way better service between cities and large town's and between large towns itself. The reason for that is it need to protect its routes and revenue sources. However it is noticeable where it has no competition the fare's are higher.

Free travel is a hidden subsidy by doing away with it or having partial charging( maybe 30-50% of normal fare it would partially normalize the service. By doing this along with tendering out both city suburban bus routes and rural low frequency routes this would help to increase competition on these bus routes. After all the drivers are safe they can be tuped across to new service providers. The advantage of tendering is in case of a labour dispute you would only have partial stoppages of buses, this would allow competing services to up there frequency and grab market share, it would force management and workers to not allow frivilous issue to cause disputes and it might stop unions playing politics like as what may have happened in the LUAS dispute.


A reasoned analytical reply is expected

Taco Chips

But fundamentally, why should wages be continuously increased despite inflation being nil over the last few years? You can't just pump more money into employee wages without expanding services or productivity, it's going to drive up the costs of the rest of the economy (i.e, the people who are contributing most of the tax to cover these costs in the first place). That is FF spend approach to budgets and we know where that ended up. It's a terrible practice and Ireland is going to price itself out of competition again with attitudes like this. The smart approach would be to reduce costs in other areas like employee health cover, over time and giving them a greater take home indirectly.

Victor

In 2012 Luas operated 3.84 million vehicle km. In 2013 Luas operated 3.54 million vehicle km.

cdebru wrote: »

I suggest you go back and look at what I said I said LUAS lost 3 million passengers from 2007 to 2009 and did not make any cuts to wages or services in that period in fact LUAS employees received the 6% rise under the nation pay agreement towards 2016 in 2009 which IE employees still haven't received 7 years later.

What you actually said (my emphasis) was:

cdebru wrote: »

Revenue dropped at LUAS as well, it lost 3 million passengers between 2007 and 2009 but it never reduced services, and it never cut costs in fact it's employees actually had payrises those years it also never reduced services

But now you admit that there were reductions and staff were made redundant.

Yes, there was a modest reduction in passenger numbers in 2008-2009, on the back of previous strong growth. However, much of the drop in passenger numbers in 2009 was down to the curtailment of services during the time the section from Abbey Street to Connolly was closed for construction work on the Docklands extension.

Why would they reduce staff numbers in 2008-2009 when they knew they would need more staff when the extensions to Docklands, Bride's Glen and Saggart were opening over 2009-2011?

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I did not say any intercity service was being tendered I said the Government ''should consider 'tendering out a second intercity service''

i never said you did. i explained that none were being tendered at the moment. so, how can they consider tendering out a second 1 when there hasn't been a first 1 tendered in the first place? all inter city services in ireland are run by IE in the south and NIR in the north, the enterprize being a joint venture.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Free travel is a hidden subsidy by doing away with it or having partial charging( maybe 30-50% of normal fare it would partially normalize the service.

based on what exactly? how do you know it would "normalise the service" it could very easily drive people away making the service unviable for the rest.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

By doing this along with tendering out both city suburban bus routes and rural low frequency routes this would help to increase competition on these bus routes.

how would it help increase competition? rural low frequency routes can barely justify one operator never mind competition. even some of the city suburban routes don't have enough of a userbase to allow competition. you cannot run rural busses the same as inter city bus services which will have plenty of potential custom. same with lower suburban routes.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The advantage of tendering is in case of a labour dispute you would only have partial stoppages of buses

which would make no difference to people unless they have access to 2 different routes going to the same place. only a certain number of people have that opportunity. for the rest, it's that route and that is it.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

this would allow competing services to up there frequency and grab market share

how can competing services increase frequency and grab market share considering (if what little we do know is the case) they will get a fixed payment from the NTA to operate the service, and will have the current NTA owned busses. the NTA won't have lots of capacity waiting around just incase. it's also very doubtful we will have multiple operators on the same routes. again, your making the mistake of using what happens with the inter city busses and putting that onto suburban/city and rural bus services which are very different.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

it would force management and workers to not allow frivilous issue to cause disputes and it might stop unions playing politics like as what may have happened in the LUAS dispute.

but luas was tendered and yet as you believe "frivilous issues were allowed to cause disputes"
and it didn't "stop unions playing politics" so, how would it be different this time?

Victor

cdebru wrote: »

Which bank ?

I'm guessing all of them.

Meanwhile http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/bank-of-ireland-staff-to-get-2-2-pay-rise-in-2016-1.2474013

Bank of Ireland staff to get 2.2% pay rise in 2016

Increase will be followed by a further 2.6% in 2017

Infini

Taco Chips wrote: »

But fundamentally, why should wages be continuously increased despite inflation being nil over the last few years?

Inflation might be close to 0 but taxes and other stealth charges are most certainly not. If anything most people in the €32~70k bracket have been hit significantly since 2008. Since pay has been frozen since then and even dropped the amount of money workers have to themselves after bills and that are paid for is far less than nearly a decade ago. With the economy and that recovering along with changes to work and so on of course people are gonna look for a pay rise.

Victor

end of the road wrote: »

the problem is also that people expect ultra cheep train travel. 10 euro to go from cork to dublin. that is never going to happen whoever runs it.

But look at what the competition are doing.

Infini2 wrote: »

Inflation might be close to 0 but taxes and other stealth charges are most certainly not.

The consumer price index includes your "stealth charges".

If anything most people in the €32~70k bracket have been hit significantly since 2008.

Before that, Bertie was subsidising / bribing people with tax on borrowed money.

Since pay has been frozen since then and even dropped the amount of money workers have to themselves after bills and that are paid for is far less than nearly a decade ago.

Tell that to the people who have been unemployed for much of that period..

With the economy and that recovering along with changes to work and so on of course people are gonna look for a pay rise.

Sure, but 53%?

Taco Chips

Infini2 wrote: »

Inflation might be close to 0 but taxes and other stealth charges are most certainly not. If anything most people in the €32~70k bracket have been hit significantly since 2008. Since pay has been frozen since then and even dropped the amount of money workers have to themselves after bills and that are paid for is far less than nearly a decade ago. With the economy and that recovering along with changes to work and so on of course people are gonna look for a pay rise.

And the answer to that is to make indirect savings by lowering costs in the economy. Not necessarily by tax but looking at areas where there is a high spending burden like rent, medical costs, childcare costs. There needs to be a consistent stable tax base, so cutting USC and income tax is not a good idea. Neither is demanding wage top ups because that prices us out of things on an international level. If you pump up wages that money has to be recovered some how, either by government subsidy (i.e, diverting money away from health, education) or by raising ticket fares (placing more burden on the rest of the tax contributors). There needs to be a dynamic equilibrium here, not just brainless demands for more money. Unions are obviously not in the business of such joined up thinking, preferring populist soundbites that appease their representees.

Infini

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I did not say any intercity service was being tendered I said the Government ''should consider 'tendering out a second intercity service'', there is one there at present and it is way too high priced.

Tendering wont solve anything to be honest. Railway in general is loss making because of poor population distribution as well as design. Problem is that its made worse by a general goverment policy to favour roads over everything else. The general thinking seems to treat the rail like a company to make money. Really it should be treated as an INFRASTRUCTURE because at the end of it thats what it truly is. Something to get people around in large numbers.

To make the rail be even close to truly profitable would require significant planning and investment both on the rail AND in urban development. An example would be the Navan to Clonsilla spur. If they bothered to actually invest and build the rest of this along with planning major town and housing developments around the stops that are planned this would be a profitable return long term. But that kind of thinking seems to be absent. Roads are good for moving freight and such but too many cars leads to congestion something the rail counters by being able to move large amounts of people at once.

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

I'm guessing all of them.

Meanwhile http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/bank-of-ireland-staff-to-get-2-2-pay-rise-in-2016-1.2474013

State owned bank was the claim, bank of Ireland is not state owned

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

In 2012 Luas operated 3.84 million vehicle km. In 2013 Luas operated 3.54 million vehicle km.

What you actually said (my emphasis) was:
But now you admit that there were reductions and staff were made redundant.

Yes, there was a modest reduction in passenger numbers in 2008-2009, on the back of previous strong growth. However, much of the drop in passenger numbers in 2009 was down to the curtailment of services during the time the section from Abbey Street to Connolly was closed for construction work on the Docklands extension.

Why would they reduce staff numbers in 2008-2009 when they knew they would need more staff when the extensions to Docklands, Bride's Glen and Saggart were opening over 2009-2011?

You are nit picking, the statement was LUAS lost 3m passenger journeys it is nonsense to suggest they were due to abbey St to Connolly station, and there was no cut in services, because of that 3 million lost passengers, in actual fact there was an expansion of services, the cut in services in 2012 was not due to a drop in passenger numbers it was a realignment of services on the new extended service.
I specifically gave the years that LUAS lost passengers you are talking about a whole different scenario 3 years after the event.

So to be specific LUAS did not have its funding cut because of the recession did it ? luas did not cut services in response to falling passenger numbers in 2008/2009 did they ?
Now LUAS passenger numbers recovered and start to grow again from 2010 onwards where as the companies who had funding cut and then cut services continued to lose customers

PeadarCo

Infini2 wrote: »

Tendering wont solve anything to be honest. Railway in general is loss making because of poor population distribution as well as design. Problem is that its made worse by a general goverment policy to favour roads over everything else. The general thinking seems to treat the rail like a company to make money. Really it should be treated as an INFRASTRUCTURE because at the end of it thats what it truly is. Something to get people around in large numbers.

To make the rail be even close to truly profitable would require significant planning and investment both on the rail AND in urban development. An example would be the Navan to Clonsilla spur. If they bothered to actually invest and build the rest of this along with planning major town and housing developments around the stops that are planned this would be a profitable return long term. But that kind of thinking seems to be absent. Roads are good for moving freight and such but too many cars leads to congestion something the rail counters by being able to move large amounts of people at once.

The advantage with tendering is that it puts a big focus on day to day running costs meaning wages.Its the reason why people like yourself and unions would be against it. Between this thread and the Luas thread all thats been shown is that Irish transport workers are very well paid and would be one of the first areas tackled by any government serious about dealing with waste in the public/semi state sector.

At the same time I'd agree with the poor investment in the railways. While the motorways were badly needed surely running new rails beside them would be needed. But in the long run if you can fly to London for cheaper than an intercity train in some cases whats the point in investing in something thats too expensive for most people to use on a regular basis.

PeadarCo

howiya wrote: »

Why should people not expect cheap train travel?

Remember the unions in the past would have said the same about air travel. The question I'd like to know is how will the user to better off? What will drivers do as a result that would make the product better