IE Pay Claim

Jamie2k9

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.

IE just need to take it directly to WRC or Labuor Court as there is no point in even attempting to engage directly. While I fully expect the figures requested are so it will drop down by 50% if not more, direct talks will just result in strike's taking place.

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.

Yes the vast majority of the public have suffered more and will not get such increases any time soon.

Work load has increased?

Not a bit, if anything it has reduced for some grades.
-New Trains were computers do all the work
-TMV's at stations, reducing and/or replacing staff
Need I go on.

Are you a train driver?

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.

Not forgetting the savings will be less than expected once the millions lost in strike days, easily above 5 million as it's 500,000 per day.

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.

They lost nothing because there was nothing to lose, remember most would of only been increasing per year of service. It's also a bit rich for expecting the taxpayers to fund a black hole. IE have been very resourceful with funding costs and while I believe they went a little to far, they were needed.

Just booked a train journey between Toulouse and Bordeaux for €15. Why can't Dublin to Cork be as low? Similar distance

It is regularly 14,99 and even 19.99 once booked a few days out.

end of the road

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do understand tendering is not the same all full privatization. All that would happen is other companies predominantly international ones would have the opportunity to bid for the running of different routes/combinations.

the uk system isn't really privatization now, but a form of tendering/franchising. there are some differences in the form of how each model is implemented but the basics are the same.

PeadarCo wrote: »

There would still be a subsidy regardless of who ran it. Personally I'm quite happy that rail services are subsidised. But all shod be justified and all routes should be open to competitive tendering similar to the Luas.

why should all routes be open to competitive tendering when its likely there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

PeadarCo wrote: »

It would make it harder for unions to demand pay increases for the craic.

unions don't demand pay increases for the craic. as we have seen with luas, tendering doesn't stop wage increases being saught.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Because at the moment there seems to no change to the drivers conditions or external options that would necessitate one.

and it's very likely there won't be a change to the drivers conditions with tendering, internal or external. why? because they can earn more abroad and i would bet they would have more perks.

dublinman1990

A spokesperson for IE was on RTE News on Friday night. She mentioned that IE had a Deficit of €135 million.

It seems fair from IE to say that it can't be justified paying an increase with that level of debt on the company when the trade unions are recommending giving a pay rise for IE Drivers that would be higher than LUAS Drivers pay rises.

There is up to 6% of an pay cut that is due to be paid back to them in October and that is the only pay that they should receive & no more.

Bass Reeves

end of the road wrote: »

the uk system isn't really privatization now, but a form of tendering/franchising. there are some differences in the form of how each model is implemented but the basics are the same.

why should all routes be open to competitive tendering when its likely there is nothing to be gained by doing so?



unions don't demand pay increases for the craic. as we have seen with luas, tendering doesn't stop wage increases being saught.



and it's very likely there won't be a change to the drivers conditions with tendering, internal or external. why? because they can earn more abroad and i would bet they would have more perks.

Then what happen in the case of the LUAS claim which we discussed on the LUAS strike thread where the only assumption we could come from with your theory's was that SIPTU either were incompetent or went out to deliberately bankrupt a private company.

We have posters on here that on the LUAS thread were hinting at the better pay and conditions that IE train drivers had compared to LUAS drivers now it is visa versa.

Tendering has huge advantages it prevents out of date wok practices, it forces company's and staff to focus on the SLA's under which the tender was issued. If you look at the LUAS if it was not tendered but was ran by IE what sort of service/mess would we have.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

says who, you? them? Let me guess though nothing factual to back this up, simply they should be paid more just because. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes all you want, the simple fact is IE staff have been stuck on the same salary ( actually it has reduced) for the last 8 years thats 20% of the average working life, in the meantime they have seen others who arguably have a less difficult occupation see their wages increase, this is all the chickens of the last 8 years coming home to roost, I see on journal.ie that Gardai are even looking to strike, the nurses, teachers, traindrivers, bus drivers, it is all starting to kick off people have had enough, from a government point of view I think they made a massive mistake not restarting social partnership talks with a view to a national wage agreement, the alternative is a year or more of disputes, threatened strikes, work to rules and actual strikes, and then it will all kick off again next year, welcome to the new reality, you can say why ? On what basis ? Just because ? It's a loreal pay claim etc etc we heard all that when the LUAS disputes kicked off and they walked away with an €8000 payrises over 3 years at the top level.

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Then what happen in the case of the LUAS claim which we discussed on the LUAS strike thread where the only assumption we could come from with your theory's was that SIPTU either were incompetent or went out to deliberately bankrupt a private company.

We have posters on here that on the LUAS thread were hinting at the better pay and conditions that IE train drivers had compared to LUAS drivers now it is visa versa.

Tendering has huge advantages it prevents out of date wok practices, it forces company's and staff to focus on the SLA's under which the tender was issued. If you look at the LUAS if it was not tendered but was ran by IE what sort of service/mess would we have.

Well if you compare, pay and terms and conditions the staff at LUAS would have significantly less pay and have significantly reduced terms and conditions, including pension, sick pay, occupational injury pay, attendance and performance bonus, holidays, compassionate leave, wedding leave etc if CIE were running the LUAS .

kingshankly

Northern Ireland train drivers earn more than their southern counterparts have a shorter working week better sick pay and a superannuation pension since the got their new deal two years ago

Peppa Pig

cdebru wrote: »

It's a loreal pay claim etc etc we heard all that when the LUAS disputes kicked off and they walked away with an €8000 payrises over 3 years at the top level.

Someone on €42K will be on €50k in 3 years time. How do you arrive at that?

This is all I can find, have you a link to show the drivers on the max scale will get 18% in the next 3 years.

It is understood that drivers will get a pay rise between 8.2pc and 18.3pc over 33 months, or up to 6pc a year, depending on their position on the pay scale in return for flexibility in a number of work practices.

Indo

cdebru

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Someone on €42K will be on €50k in 3 years time. How do you arrive at that?

This is all I can find, have you a link to show the drivers on the max scale will get 18% in the next 3 years.

Indo

14 years service those on the top scale for 5 years in 2018 will go to the new higher pay level of 50k, there is no link because the deal hasn't been published in full.

Peppa Pig

cdebru wrote: »

14 years service those on the top scale for 5 years in 2018 will go to the new higher pay level of 50k, there is no link because the deal hasn't been published in full.

Ah yeah - it's a long service increment or something for those with long service.

cdebru

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Ah yeah - it's a long service increment or something for those with long service.

Yup as part of the pay deal, so an extra 8000 over less than 3 years.

howiya

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It is regularly 14,99 and even 19.99 once booked a few days out.

Cheapest price tomorrow is 37.99. The cheapest fare between Toulouse and Bordeaux tomorrow is 15.00. Both price samples taken now.

One poster has said passengers shouldn't expect cheap rail travel but it appears it is possible in other countries. Maybe their financing model is different. Or maybe they realise cheaper fares entice people away from buses

Jamie2k9

howiya wrote: »

Cheapest price tomorrow is 37.99. The cheapest fare between Toulouse and Bordeaux tomorrow is 15.00. Both price samples taken now.

One poster has said passengers shouldn't expect cheap rail travel but it appears it is possible in other countries. Maybe their financing model is different. Or maybe they realise cheaper fares entice people away from buses

France fund rail travel at a unrealistic rate. Just look at the metro subsidy in Paris for example. Nobody should expect low fares less than 24 hours out.

Train will always be the pricey mode of transport. Dublin-Cork fare structure is clearly working for IE so why would they drop dares and case overcrowding of existing services.

cdebru

howiya wrote: »

Cheapest price tomorrow is 37.99. The cheapest fare between Toulouse and Bordeaux tomorrow is 15.00. Both price samples taken now.

One poster has said passengers shouldn't expect cheap rail travel but it appears it is possible in other countries. Maybe their financing model is different. Or maybe they realise cheaper fares entice people away from buses

According to Wikipedia the French Government unbelievably paid €13.2 billion in 2013 in subsidies to run the French railway might explain why train fares are cheaper there.

howiya

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

France fund rail travel at a unrealistic rate. Just look at the metro subsidy in Paris for example. Nobody should expect low fares less than 24 hours out.

Train will always be the pricey mode of transport. Dublin-Cork fare structure is clearly working for IE so why would they drop dares and case overcrowding of existing services.

The company hasn't a pot to piss in. How is it clearly working? There's bus companies queuing up on Patricks Quay to bring potential IE passengers to Dublin

howiya

cdebru wrote: »

According to Wikipedia the French Government unbelievably paid €13.2 billion in 2013 in subsidies to run the French railway might explain why train fares are cheaper there.

Well if wikipedia say it, it must be true...

How much is the subsidy per passenger journey? What difference in the subsidy given to IE would it take to make Dublin to Cork readily available at €15?

The level of subsidy is only one part of the equation. Improved commercial performance is the other.

Cookie_Monster

howiya wrote: »

Well if wikipedia say it, it must be true...

How much is the subsidy per passenger journey? What difference in the subsidy given to IE would it take to make Dublin to Cork readily available at €15?

The level of subsidy is only one part of the equation. Improved commercial performance is the other.

Indeed, simple calcs:

France
13.2bn subsidy / 1,122 m passenger km + 32bn freight km tonnes = 39c per passenger/freight tonne km

Ireland
117.4m subsidy / 16.9m passenger km + 99.8m freight km tonnes = 1.01 per km

So despite the larger subsidy it clearly far more efficiently spent in France.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Indeed, simple calcs:

France
13.2bn subsidy / 1,122 m passenger km + 32bn freight km tonnes = 39c per passenger/freight tonne km

Ireland
117.4m subsidy / 16.9m passenger km + 99.8m freight km tonnes = 1.01 per km

So despite the larger subsidy it clearly far more efficiently spent in France.

Your figures are a little confused

France passenger kilometres is 83914 million freight is 32000 million, add together is 115,914 million
times
13,200,000,000÷ 115,914,000,000= 0.113877 rounded up to 11.4 cent per km

Irish rail is 1695 million passengers kilometres and 100 million kilometre tonnes added together is 1,795 million

117,400,000÷1,795,000,000= 0.06540 rounded is 6.5 cent per kilometre


Open to correction if any wants to check the maths, figures are taken from http://ilcad.uic.org/IMG/pdf/synopsis_2014.pdf

If I'm correct to match French subsidy IE would need to get a subsidy of around 210 million roughly

cdebru

howiya wrote: »

Well if wikipedia say it, it must be true...

How much is the subsidy per passenger journey? What difference in the subsidy given to IE would it take to make Dublin to Cork readily available at €15?

The level of subsidy is only one part of the equation. Improved commercial performance is the other.

13,200,000,000÷ 1,220,000,000 passengers comes out at about €10.81 per passenger journey

117,000,000÷38,000,000= comes out at about €3.08 per passenger journey. The previous post gives another way of comparing subsidies but whatever way you shake it compared to france, Irish rail is under funded.

Bass Reeves

I think it is well worth reading the total article before you quote from it. And also to read about SCNF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

You cannot ignore the freight aspect as it is a large part of the overall package. However it is declining but you also have to factor in SCNF is an international company that sells rail stock abroad. The French government has removed control of the actual rail network from SCNF even though SCNF still maintains it. The rail network has an monopoly on long distance travel, however it is to lose this and coach operators will be allowed to compete with it. However with its pricing structure it is hard to see coach operators making much headway.

What amount of freight is equivalent to a passenger. Cookie monster did the sums at 1 ton equal to one passenger. So he divided the 13.2billion subsidy 1.22 billion passengers km to 32 billion freight ton km to come up with an approx 40c/km subsidy for french rail. Irish rail subvention is 117.4 million, cookie monster divided this by 16.9 million passenger km and 99.8 million freight ton km and he came up with a euro/km subsidy. If we change the maths and make 2 tons of freight equivalent to one passenger the figures are 77c/km for french rail and 1,76/km for IE subsidy/km. You need to go well above a factor of 20/1 before the figures start to turn in IE's favour

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I think it is well worth reading the total article before you quote from it. And also to read about SCNF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

You cannot ignore the freight aspect as it is a large part of the overall package. However it is declining but you also have to factor in SCNF is an international company that sells rail stock abroad. The French government has removed control of the actual rail network from SCNF even though SCNF still maintains it. The rail network has an monopoly on long distance travel, however it is to lose this and coach operators will be allowed to compete with it. However with its pricing structure it is hard to see coach operators making much headway.

What amount of freight is equivalent to a passenger. Cookie monster did the sums at 1 ton equal to one passenger. So he divided the 13.2billion subsidy 1.22 billion passengers km to 32 billion freight ton km to come up with an approx 40c/km subsidy for french rail. Irish rail subvention is 117.4 million, cookie monster divided this by 16.9 million passenger km and 99.8 million freight ton km and he came up with a euro/km subsidy. If we change the maths and make 2 tons of freight equivalent to one passenger the figures are 77c/km for french rail and 1,76/km for IE subsidy/km. You need to go well above a factor of 20/1 before the figures start to turn in IE's favour

No he used apples and oranges he used passenger journeys and freight ton km compared to passenger kilometres and freight ton km and then on top of that he counted passenger kilometres in ireland as 16.9 million when in actual fact it is 1695 million which radically alters the sums.

Now what was that we were saying about kids piggy banks ?:D

Cookie_Monster

yeah, sorry the IE & SNCF passenger numbers were for actual passenger, not passenger km. misleading figure from their annual report.

In which case it does make IE slightly better than SNCF.

But as others have mentioned there are other factors as well to allow for. SNCF has 10 time the network size, has far far higher speeds as well which lead to shorter journey times which lead to higher productivity in the wider economy. You'd never be able to quantify that though

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah, sorry the IE & SNCF passenger numbers were for actual passenger, not passenger km. misleading figure from their annual report.

In which case it does make IE slightly better than SNCF.

But as others have mentioned there are other factors as well to allow for. SNCF has 10 time the network size, has far far higher speeds as well which lead to shorter journey times which lead to higher productivity in the wider economy. You'd never be able to quantify that though

Slightly better ? Seriously if SNCF had the same level of subvention as IE their subvention in 2014 would have been just over 7.5 billion as opposed to 13.2 billion, that is 5.7 billion euro a year in the difference, that is not slightly better, what condition do you think the French railway would be in with a 5.7 billion euro cut to funding ? Do you think they would still have those €15 tickets ?

They have faster trains and shorter journey times for the exact reason that the French actually invest in their railways we don't, we just do enough to keep it ticking over or shut it down.

Cookie_Monster

cdebru wrote: »

They have faster trains and shorter journey times for the exact reason that the French actually invest in their railways we don't, we just do enough to keep it ticking over or shut it down.

but increasing subvention just to pay higher wages is not really investing in railways either, is it...

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but increasing subvention just to pay higher wages is not really investing in railways either, is it...

The people who operate the railway are also a vital part of the infrastructure, you can double track and resignal and buy the best rolling stock but feck all good without people, but that point aside an increase to the level of subsidy on a par with the SNCF would not just go in higher pay even if you met in full the unions pay claim, improvements to speed, lower fares, more services etc would also generate more traffic and more income etc.

Infini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but increasing subvention just to pay higher wages is not really investing in railways either, is it...

The subvention needs to be seriously increased, the subvention does more than just pay wages its needed to maintain services and quality. Whats happened over the last decade is they cut the subvention and told the company to "save money" but the problem there is cutting the subvention only causes reduction in service quality the lower you go.

They went for cheaper and less reliable stuff over things that actually worked. Hell as an example a few years ago they supplied staff with safety shoes that could last a few years then because of "cutbacks" they went and bought "cheaper" safety shoes that fell apart after a few months. Drivers ended up sending them back because they weren't up to the task. Accountability is fine and all but the old addage "you get what you pay for" is never more truer, whats the point in getting "cheaper" when the quality drops and costs you more in the long run. Franks himself is essentially a hatchet man only put there to run the place down by cutting everything. Improvements are all well and good but if theyre of lesser quality and wear down or need to be replace more often its not really savings as your repair and replacement costs end up spiking.

LXFlyer

I rather like the way that all of the staff posting here are conveniently forgetting about their customers, particularly those with season tickets, who have been hit with far higher percentage ticket price increases than staff wages were cut.

Should we all be demanding ticket price reductions as well?

trellheim

The subvention needs to be seriously increased, the subvention does more than just pay wages its needed to maintain services and quality. Whats happened over the last decade is they cut the subvention and told the company to "save money" but the problem there is cutting the subvention only causes reduction in service quality the lower you go.

They went for cheaper and less reliable stuff over things that actually worked. Hell as an example a few years ago they supplied staff with safety shoes that could last a few years then because of "cutbacks" they went and bought "cheaper" safety shoes that fell apart after a few months. Drivers ended up sending them back because they weren't up to the task. Accountability is fine and all but the old addage "you get what you pay for" is never more truer, whats the point in getting "cheaper" when the quality drops and costs you more in the long run. Franks himself is essentially a hatchet man only put there to run the place down by cutting everything. Improvements are all well and good but if theyre of lesser quality and wear down or need to be replace more often its not really savings as your repair and replacement costs end up spiking.

In the current climate what possible advantage to the service users would accrue if the NTA increased the subvention . NTA can plainly see it will just be jumped on by unions.

Oh look the unions were sitting down on the 10 min frequency but as soon as there's a sniff of a tram drivers fart the'yre up and away.

bit of gravy for doing nothing extra. What's not to like . Remember folks - L'Oreal... because I'm worth it.

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

In the current climate what possible advantage to the service users would accrue if the NTA increased the subvention . NTA can plainly see it will just be jumped on by unions.

Oh look the unions were sitting down on the 10 min frequency but as soon as there's a sniff of a tram drivers fart the'yre up and away.

bit of gravy for doing nothing extra. What's not to like . Remember folks - L'Oreal... because I'm worth it.

Read the post again rather than jumping onto the rabble rabble wagon. I put it there why it should be increased and its not just about wages. You get what you pay for. If the goverment actually put a similar level of subvention as france into the network it wouldnt be just going to pay wages it would go into both hiring the needed staff as well as the actual infrastructure and hardware which is seriously lacking. The 10min plan is also relying on 34y+ stock thats nearing the end of its life (40yrs) and is also more costly to maintain and repair as it is with older hardware.

Only have to look at the stupidity of FG letting the DU expire as an example of how stupid the planning in thjs country can be towards rail its no wonder Dublins high up on the congestion index.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

I rather like the way that all of the staff posting here are conveniently forgetting about their customers, particularly those with season tickets, who have been hit with far higher percentage ticket price increases than staff wages were cut.

Should we all be demanding ticket price reductions as well?

Perhaps read some posts before jumping in with both feet, I specifically said that an increased subvention could be used for lower fares and improved services.