IE Pay Claim

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

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.

Do you honestly think that's going to happen?

That's frankly naive in the extreme.

You might have mentioned lower fares, but in all the grumblings you and your colleagues have made here, I've not noticed one of you recognise that we, your customers, have borne the lion's share of the burden.

It tends to grate a bit when you read threads like this.

Infini

lxflyer wrote: »

Do you honestly think that's going to happen?

That's frankly naive in the extreme.

You might have mentioned lower fares, but in all the grumblings you and your colleagues have made here, I've not noticed one of you recognise that we, your customers, have borne the lion's share of the burden.

It tends to grate a bit when you read threads like this.

And yet at the end of it it was the government who cut the subsidy and the nta who increased the fares. The cie companies dont control their fares theyre all controlled by the government so theyre the ones who would be the ones to take it up with. I agree fares shouldnt be pushed on the customer but subvention cuts and fare increases were ultimately done by those 2 parties.

trellheim

But so what. My point - if you read it - was there absolutely no point whatever in the NTA increasing the sub at the moment as the unions will just view it as gravy. No more, mo less. IE are currently trying to get drivers to agree to 10 min freq but all the Unions see is Gravy.

Yes the sub was cut and fares increased by the State. We all know that. Massive, massive water under the bridge.

I'm here cos I have to pay for your gravy. This thread is not about infrastructure, or in the infra forum, its specifically titled IE pay claims.; don't try and put strawmen in over

Just to set the record absolutely straight : I am a train user , I am not a member of a Union or connected in any other way to this dispute.

Didnt IE make a pay agreement only recently or was that just BE and DB ?

end of the road

trellheim wrote: »

But so what. My point - if you read it - was there absolutely no point whatever in the NTA increasing the sub at the moment

it's the NTA'S job to improve quality of services. from what i can see they are not doing so, or at least not as much as they should be. if they want service improvements they have to increase subsidy and specify where it is spent.

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

Do you honestly think that's going to happen?

That's frankly naive in the extreme.

You might have mentioned lower fares, but in all the grumblings you and your colleagues have made here, I've not noticed one of you recognise that we, your customers, have borne the lion's share of the burden.

It tends to grate a bit when you read threads like this.

Hang on a minute, it grates even more that your anger is directed to the wrong people, CIE workers didn't bankrupt the country, yet they have been asked to carry can for it for the last 8 years, are fares too high yes, no question but you know why that is, continual reductions in subvention, removal of the fuel rebate and a spiral of cutting services and lower passenger numbers as a result.
As I pointed out previously that model wasn't followed at luas and it's passenger numbers rebounded much quicker than CIE, but even still the NTA kept increasing luas fares, even when the service was making a profit for the RPA/NTA, it's a form of stealth tax they go up as the NTA see demand as being elastic. so by all means be angry but direct it at the right place and remember the trade unions primary purpose for existing is to look after their members not to campaign for customers.

cdebru

trellheim wrote: »

But so what. My point - if you read it - was there absolutely no point whatever in the NTA increasing the sub at the moment as the unions will just view it as gravy. No more, mo less. IE are currently trying to get drivers to agree to 10 min freq but all the Unions see is Gravy.

Yes the sub was cut and fares increased by the State. We all know that. Massive, massive water under the bridge.

I'm here cos I have to pay for your gravy. This thread is not about infrastructure, or in the infra forum, its specifically titled IE pay claims.; don't try and put strawmen in over

Just to set the record absolutely straight : I am a train user , I am not a member of a Union or connected in any other way to this dispute.

Didnt IE make a pay agreement only recently or was that just BE and DB ?

Pay cuts at IE, DB and BE were the most recent events there has been no pay increases for 8 years, only cuts to pay, and conditions.

There is no gravy, there are just people working hard and trying to survive and not seeing any end in sight to the spiral we have been in for the last 8 years.

trellheim

That is not what I asked. I asked was there a pay agreement made recently.; when was the last time Unions and Management at IE came to an agreement.

cdebru

trellheim wrote: »

That is not what I asked. I asked was there a pay agreement made recently.; when was the last time Unions and Management at IE came to an agreement.

AFAIK IE didn't make an agreement and implemented a pay cut without agreement

Grandeeod

Infini2 wrote: »

And yet at the end of it it was the government who cut the subsidy and the nta who increased the fares. The cie companies dont control their fares theyre all controlled by the government so theyre the ones who would be the ones to take it up with.

The CIE companies request the fare increases. The NTA approves it at, above or below the requested increase. In 2012 the NTA actually granted an increase above that requested in one particular area of the service.

As for the subsidy, if IE have supposedly made staff cuts, cost cuts etc. how does a reduced subsidy become an issue?

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

I'm here cos I have to pay for your gravy. This thread is not about infrastructure, or in the infra forum, its specifically titled IE pay claims.; don't try and put strawmen in over

Just to set the record absolutely straight : I am a train user , I am not a member of a Union or connected in any other way to this dispute.

Didnt IE make a pay agreement only recently or was that just BE and DB ?

Lets just be clear noones personally sending you a bill for 100m to run the railway and the taxpayer argument is a faulty one because at the end of the day EVERYONE is a taxpayer not just you and that includes the rail workers. In addition the government parties over the years never pay enough into services either across the board when rather than tax cuts we shouuld be funding our services instead of losing good peolle abroad where they do pay people properly.

As foe your other question, No there wasnt any pay agreement the last proper one was years and years ago the towards 2016 agreement that was never fulfilled. The strikes in 2014 were over the company forcing through pay cuts and when that was settled there was supposed to be groups set up between the 2 sides to talk about issues but which never went anywhere.

Since Franks came along things have just gradually gotten worse in terms of relations. Those in management tend to go on a power trip as well at times though from what Ive heard its specifically Franks himself making things more volatile by being confrontational and combative instead of reasoning with people.

The thing about this though is because the company has made changes in the past and staff didnt get recognition its gotten to the point that all trust is gone. At this point the drivers view the 10min rosters as both a mess and a productivity issue. When you add in previous agreements going nowhere you get to the point that noones willing to give anymore until everything gets sorted.

One thing to remember is that if theres a walkout by drivers on april 10th it'll be because the company tries forcing in the 10min service service unilaterally. The union hasnt actually issued strike notice over pay atm only that drivers will not agree until the rosters AND pay issues are resolved. It will also be the drivers only walking off the job as well from what I know of atm the ground staff havent heard any word atm of everyone going on strike.

trellheim

The strikes in 2014 were over the company forcing through pay cuts and when that was settled

Thanks - that was what I was looking for. I'd give it a few years before rising up if I was you until theres cash to pay for it. IE clearly dont' have the cash. NTA wont' cough up cos it won't fund any service improvements.

Unless there's some magic dosh I am unaware of. sure if one side is living in cloud cuckoo land sure why don't we all.

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

Thanks - that was what I was looking for. I'd give it a few years before rising up if I was you until theres cash to pay for it. IE clearly dont' have the cash. NTA wont' cough up cos it won't fund any service improvements.

Unless there's some magic dosh I am unaware of. sure if one side is living in cloud cuckoo land sure why don't we all.

Dunno whats the point in responding tbh if this is all i get.... tunnel vision.

trellheim

i have re-read your posts and I am unaware of any points I've missed in the responses. I stand by it

1) Should the subvention be increased - well, that depends - it's not just a yes.
2) Does a subvention increase result in service improvements - no, not at the moment, NTA would be crazy to, it'll all go in gravy - witness the current issue where NBRU think they can force the managements hand just because the tram drivers got a vote on a deal. You want proof, its all there. Please don't insult any of our intelligences by suggesting passengers will see anything out of it.

If even a single concession would be made the union would be forever trying to get that little bit more of the good stuff - and how does this help the passenger -- well, it doesn't really.

markpb

Infini2 wrote:

Dunno whats the point in responding tbh if this is all i get.... tunnel vision.

It's not tunnel vision, it's just that people have different ways of looking at things. Some of the things you say might sound perfectly normal to you but don't work that way for other people.

The company I work for made some bad decisions and those all came home to roost just before the recession started here. They told us what had happened and that downsizing would happen. People were made redundant, some perks (like paid maternity pay) were removed and everyone took on extra work. There was no discussion, no holding out years delaying the inevitable, no strike because people didn't like the change in work practices. It just happened, the company survived and now is doing very well.

On the other hand, Irish Rail staff resisted any pay cuts or redundancies for years, whinged endlessly about less staff doing more work and made up frankly stupid "increased productivity" excuses (longer trains, more frequent trains). Striking for all those things might seem like the right thing to do and you might thing that most private sector employees need to join a union but the reality is that what you see as normal is (rightly or wrongly) seen as antiquated and downright bizarre by most of your customers.

cdebru

markpb wrote: »

It's not tunnel vision, it's just that people have different ways of looking at things. Some of the things you say might sound perfectly normal to you but don't work that way for other people.

The company I work for made some bad decisions and those all came home to roost just before the recession started here. They told us what had happened and that downsizing would happen. People were made redundant, some perks (like paid maternity pay) were removed and everyone took on extra work. There was no discussion, no holding out years delaying the inevitable, no strike because people didn't like the change in work practices. It just happened, the company survived and now is doing very well.

On the other hand, Irish Rail staff resisted any pay cuts or redundancies for years, whinged endlessly about less staff doing more work and made up frankly stupid "increased productivity" excuses (longer trains, more frequent trains). Striking for all those things might seem like the right thing to do and you might thing that most private sector employees need to join a union but the reality is that what you see as normal is (rightly or wrongly) seen as antiquated and downright bizarre by most of your customers.

The company you work for made bad decisions, that is unfortunate for you, however the position of CIE was not created by bad decisions within the company, rather bad decisions in other companies sank the economy and the government gave them a double whammy by cutting subvention, removing fuel rebates etc so income was attacked on both sides by decisions made elsewhere, with it falling to the workforce and the remaining customers to pick up the slack for others people's poor decision making skills.

trellheim

I'd be interested in some facts to back a pay claim up

has anyone got any like number of hours worked over and above etc , what extra burden the drivers are taking ?

Jamie2k9

NBRU to ballot for action immediately while SIPTU holding a meeting about a vote but referred the claim to the WRC.

Surly with the existing agreement in place IE could get an injunction to prevent any action over pay. Remember it was the unions and drivers who signed up to the 24 month deal.

Indo reports strikes if they happen will be a few hours and not full days.

LuckyLloyd

Bus Drivers next...

cdebru

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

NBRU to ballot for action immediately while SIPTU holding a meeting about a vote but referred the claim to the WRC.

Surly with the existing agreement in place IE could get an injunction to prevent any action over pay. Remember it was the unions and drivers who signed up to the 24 month deal.

Indo reports strikes if they happen will be a few hours and not full days.

On what basis could IE get an injunction ? If the ballot is held correctly and sufficient notice given that's it.

Cookie_Monster

'upwards of 25%'
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-rail-staff-consider-strike-action-as-unions-seeking-pay-increases-of-25pc-34662272.html

:eek:

Jamie2k9

cdebru wrote: »

On what basis could IE get an injunction ? If the ballot is held correctly and sufficient notice given that's it.

Fact both sides agreed salaries in the form of a 24 month agreement in October 2014, I would be very surprised if it wasn't legally binding and striking would be a breach of that contract.

trellheim

http://www.siptu.ie/media/pressreleases2016/fullstory_19798_en.html

SIPTU refers Irish Rail pay claim to WRC
Date Released: 26 April 2016

SIPTU has referred its claim for a substantial pay increase for its members in all grades of Irish Rail to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

SIPTU has referred its claim for a substantial pay increase for its members in all grades of Irish Rail to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

Management was informed in a letter from SIPTU representatives today that its refusal to engage meaningfully on the pay claim over recent weeks has resulted in its referral to the WRC.

“We have requested the restoration of all of the pay and other terms and conditions under the cost containment agreement which ends in October this year. We have also convened an urgent meeting of the SIPTU National Rail Committee for Thursday (28th April) to discuss the possibility of a ballot for strike action for all grades in Irish Rail given the refusal of management to engage meaningfully on these concerns.”

Same union refused to entertain WRC on the LUAS drivers "lets all be sensible here " and fact complained bitterly about WRC .... does no-one see the crazy here ?

cdebru

trellheim wrote: »

http://www.siptu.ie/media/pressreleases2016/fullstory_19798_en.html



Same union refused to entertain WRC on the LUAS drivers "lets all be sensible here " and fact complained bitterly about WRC .... does no-one see the crazy here ?

So because LUAS employees rejected a WRC proposal, SIPTU shouldn't try and use the industrial relations machinery of the state to resolve a separate dispute is that your point ? You think SIPTU should jump straight to industrial action ?

cdebru

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Fact both sides agreed salaries in the form of a 24 month agreement in October 2014, I would be very surprised if it wasn't legally binding and striking would be a breach of that contract.

but both sides agreed the salary prior to that and management sought a unilateral change to that contract, it was legally binding but they still strong armed a pay cut onto their employees. All strikes are effectively a breach of contract in Ireland but not illegal

trellheim

My point was that you cannot abuse the machinery and then turn round the next day and expect no notice to have been taken. Please tell me you can see this.

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

My point was that you cannot abuse the machinery and then turn round the next day and expect no notice to have been taken. Please tell me you can see this.

Problem though is while it might be the same union in terms of siptu its not the same section. Different reps for example Paul Cullen is the usual rep for the Siptu members on the rail.

Other thing as well is atm the NBRU is balloting for strike action now and while the main reason seems to be the pay issue it might be actually because Franks lately seems to be going out of his way to antagonise the drivers lately since he basically got told off over the 10min service and this might be in part a reaction to it. Really pathetic management the last thing you do is go out of your way to be an arsehole to your own staff as all you accomplish is burn any and all repect you have and ultimately noone will even be willing to deal with you.

trellheim

Problem though is while it might be the same union in terms of siptu its not the same section. Different reps for example Paul Cullen is the usual rep for the Siptu members on the rail.

Indeed - and for the most part I agree - but it was Jack O Connor who jumped on the airwaves as the Grand Mufti of SIPTU making what was a valid point by Mulvey into an unseemly spat, and reinforcing my point ( In my opinion, of course ) that this was biting the hand that feeds.

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

Indeed - and for the most part I agree - but it was Jack O Connor who jumped on the airwaves as the Grand Mufti of SIPTU making what was a valid point by Mulvey into an unseemly spat, and reinforcing my point ( In my opinion, of course ) that this was biting the hand that feeds.

In fairness as well the luas dispute is on a significantly more bitter level than anything in the cie companies over the last 20 years. I can see where mulvey might feel the need to express his own opinion at times but when things are that bad your better off keeping clear and adopting a strictly neutral position.

Whats happening in this case is alot of the problems and issues that have been building up over the years are finally spilling over and manifesting like this. I myself wouldnt personally be bothered with a pay rise bar increases in line with inflation but would rather see an increase in staff. Other things I can see being a problem is they want to close nearly ALL the booking offices now which is a joke because they think the leap card will handle everything when it will in effect turn into a free for all.

oppenheimer1

cdebru wrote: »

So because LUAS employees rejected a WRC proposal, SIPTU shouldn't try and use the industrial relations machinery of the state to resolve a separate dispute is that your point ? You think SIPTU should jump straight to industrial action ?

Well Jack O'Connor questioned the integrity of the head of the WRC. Why bother with it if they don't believe in its integrity.

oppenheimer1

Infini2 wrote: »

In fairness as well the luas dispute is on a significantly more bitter level than anything in the cie companies over the last 20 years. I can see where mulvey might feel the need to express his own opinion at times but when things are that bad your better off keeping clear and adopting a strictly neutral position.

Whats happening in this case is alot of the problems and issues that have been building up over the years are finally spilling over and manifesting like this. I myself wouldnt personally be bothered with a pay rise bar increases in line with inflation but would rather see an increase in staff. Other things I can see being a problem is they want to close nearly ALL the booking offices now which is a joke because they think the leap card will handle everything when it will in effect turn into a free for all.

Thats because, finally, the transport unions have come up against a company that will not roll over and take it, a company that's at arms length from the state.

And your argument regarding the ticket offices doesn't hold water either. The unions couldn't give a damn about the travelling public and whether their leap cards work or not. All they want is higher wages and better conditions for their members and will use problems real or imagined to advance their cause. Its a tactic used by all unions in this country - exploit some public failing to win concessions, whether or not the concessions make things better or worse. For example you had A&E nurses winning extras holidays and promotions over the overcrowding crisis - things that will lead to reduced front line staffing numbers and actually make the situation worse!