Unions warn of train strike as staff demand pay increase

GM228

joeysoap wrote: »

Something like that takes more than a day or two to organize , so I’d say coincidence. Sho also mentioned that FTA accounted for 7.5% of revenue but 12,5% of travel. Up on the other hand any increase in the FTA would lead to a decrease on the public obligation subsidy.

The FT and PSO payments are separate and have no bearing on each other, in fact both increased this year.

joeysoap

I understand that but she explained that on PSO routes any increase in FTA payments would deccrease the PSO payment as the two combined would remain the same on that route.

I thought she said that FTA was linked to 2012?

GM228

joeysoap wrote: »

I understand that but she explained that on PSO routes any increase in FTA payments would deccrease the PSO payment as the two combined would remain the same on that route.

I thought she said that FTA was linked to 2012?

This is incorrect, PSO basically covers costs of running a service whilst the FT payment is a revenue compensator, they are not linked in any way.

Both increased in Budget 2018, PSO funding increased by 8%, FT funding increased by 12.5%.

joeysoap

So if a PSO route ‘needs’ say €20,000 a year to be viable they get that anyway even if the FTA on that route increases by say €500 pa?

Just trying to get my head around this

GM228

joeysoap wrote: »

So if a PSO route ‘needs’ say €20,000 a year to be viable they get that anyway even if the FTA on that route increases by say €500 pa?

Just trying to get my head around this

That's not really how PSO and FT is calculated.

IE get paid PSO from the DTTAS based on the running costs for providing the entire service. If 1 or 100 people travel it makes no odds to the price of running the service.

CIE (not IE) then get a fixed payment for the FT scheme which is to compensate for lost revenue associated with providing the services of all three companies. CIE then distribute it as they see fit to IE, DB and BE.

Running costs and revenue are two separate things. Whilst PSO will cover the actual cost of operartion, FT does not cover the estimated cost of free travel.

It's a bit more complicated how PSO costs are paid, but that's the explanation in layman's terms.

Hilly Bill

GM228 wrote: »

They were offered decent money and rejected and are heading (potentially) towards an all out strike, I don't believe it was ever about money.

Will the pay rise be done away with now in favour of the €31:50 per day for those willing to do it or will the others want a sweetner for not doing it.?

joeysoap

Thanks GM228

I think the reference to 2012 was in relation to the number of travelers that year using the FTA and this hadn’t been updated since then to take account of more passengers using the FTA now. But she did say that an increase in FTA it would mean a reduction in PSO money as one offset the other.

Anyway as Hilly Billy as gently reminded me, this is off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.

And to answer Hilly Billy in my previous employment ‘trainers’ got a payment - nobody else.

devnull

kingshankly wrote: »

Hilarious over 200 trains a week are covered by rest days

Indeed, that is probably why the status quo suits them just fine.

Lots of chances to earn €€€ from overtime.

GM228

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Will the pay rise be done away with now in favour of the €31:50 per day for those willing to do it or will the others want a sweetner for not doing it.?

€31 is additional to the pay rise. Why would others want a sweetner for not doing it?

GM228

joeysoap wrote: »

Thanks GM228

I think the reference to 2012 was in relation to the number of travelers that year using the FTA and this hadn’t been updated since then to take account of more passengers using the FTA now. But she did say that an increase in FTA it would mean a reduction in PSO money as one offset the other.

But it's incorrect, each year for the last number of years the PSO has increased and bar this years increase FT stayed the same, if it were true the FT would not have increased this year and stayed the same the previous few years, it would have decreased.

joeysoap wrote: »

Anyway as Hilly Billy as gently reminded me, this is off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.

I would disagree that it is off topic because each and every time a dispute and potential strike arises at a CIE subsidiary the unions themselves raise the issue of PSO/FT funding and we have previously discussed it at lenght in this thread and all the other CIE related threads.

kingshankly

There is no chance of an all out strike

GM228

kingshankly wrote: »

There is no chance of an all out strike

Why not?

Jamie2k9

Hilarious over 200 trains a week are covered by rest days

I did say it wouldn't be popular but its time put a stop to the gravy train. While it won't solve the issue of mentoring, a ban on overtime would hit drivers massively and after 3-4 weeks you can be sure some would looking at their positions both on training and financially. Best thing is they couldn't do a thing about it!!

Overtime won't end when the new trainees start but it will probally see some major reductions.

Jamie2k9

GM228 wrote: »

Why not?

Could the NBRU sustain another 3 weeks out (not that it will get to that).

end of the road

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I did say it wouldn't be popular but its time put a stop to the gravy train. While it won't solve the issue of mentoring, a ban on overtime would hit drivers massively and after 3-4 weeks you can be sure some would looking at their positions both on training and financially. Best thing is they couldn't do a thing about it!!

Overtime won't end when the new trainees start but it will probally see some major reductions.

the thing is that idea could also work out in the driver's favour and badly for the company, so it may not be the best idea to try that option. the drivers may decide it's worth losing the overtime for the company to have less driver availability, which would possibly lead to canceled services meaning no payments from the NTA.

Jamie2k9

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is that idea could also work out in the driver's favour and badly for the company, so it may not be the best idea to try that option. the drivers may decide it's worth losing the overtime for the company to have less driver availability, which would possibly lead to canceled services meaning no payments from the NTA.

Always a risk but the reality is drivers are not giving up rest days because they don't want to discommode the public but because they have an incentive and in most cases they can't afford to turn it down. Unions wouldn't be able to withstand public pressure for a protracted period of time and if they need to they have power to get a deal over the line.

Like BE overtime has gotten out of control and once it does its difficult to end it. Anyway its to much of a ballsy move so won't happen.

end of the road

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Unions wouldn't be able to withstand public pressure for a protracted period of time and if they need to they have power to get a deal over the line.

to be fair i'd have to disagree. public pressure is so small to be insignifficant really so the unions would be able to get on with it for a long time on that score. the drivers losing money on the other hand would be the prohibiting factor against a protracted strike.

Infini

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I did say it wouldn't be popular but its time put a stop to the gravy train. While it won't solve the issue of mentoring, a ban on overtime would hit drivers massively and after 3-4 weeks you can be sure some would looking at their positions both on training and financially. Best thing is they couldn't do a thing about it!!

Overtime won't end when the new trainees start but it will probally see some major reductions.

Wouldn't be 100% sure that's gonna work. Ban overtime? Sure but then what happens when you find how badly the company is exposed due to repeated staff cuts over the last 10 years? It would also leave other safety critical positions exposed as well and if something were to happen.....

Rootsblower

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Always a risk but the reality is drivers are not giving up rest days because they don't want to discommode the public but because they have an incentive and in most cases they can't afford to turn it down. Unions wouldn't be able to withstand public pressure for a protracted period of time and if they need to they have power to get a deal over the line.

Like BE overtime has gotten out of control and once it does its difficult to end it. Anyway its to much of a ballsy move so won't happen.

Can you please provide evidence that most drivers can’t afford to give up working rest days please.

BTW the pressure put on drivers to work rest days especially from April to November is incredible in some instances bordering on bullying.

gooddarts10

Rootsblower wrote: »

Can you please provide evidence that most drivers can’t afford to give up working rest days please.

BTW the pressure put on drivers to work rest days especially from April to November is incredible in some instances bordering on bullying.

They say no to everything else why can’t they say no to rest days and if they are being bullied into working rest days they should finish the training of the 32 trainee drivers so they can help lighten their load.
The grade is driven by greed plain and simple

Cookie_Monster

Rootsblower wrote: »

BTW the pressure put on drivers to work rest days especially from April to November is incredible in some instances bordering on bullying.

Also makes a mockery of any safety culture IE claim to have as well, drivers constantly working over time is not safe, end of.

Rootsblower

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Also makes a mockery of any safety culture IE claim to have as well, drivers constantly working over time is not safe, end of.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a driver. I have never been a mentor. I don’t want to mentor. I don’t want any extra money to mentor and I believe this is what most drivers think.

Infini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Also makes a mockery of any safety culture IE claim to have as well, drivers constantly working over time is not safe, end of.

Remember there was that article a good while back about staff unwilling to report near misses and such because of such drastic lack of trust in management (of who some elements try to bully their own way because power etc leading to loss of trust and unwillingness to cooperate because of such.)

Jamie2k9

Wouldn't be 100% sure that's gonna work. Ban overtime? Sure but then what happens when you find how badly the company is exposed due to repeated staff cuts over the last 10 years? It would also leave other safety critical positions exposed as well and if something were to happen.....

Not certain but enough to put the pressure to sort the issue once and for all.

Rootsblower wrote: »

Can you please provide evidence that most drivers can’t afford to give up working rest days please.

BTW the pressure put on drivers to work rest days especially from April to November is incredible in some instances bordering on bullying.

A good proportion of drivers particularly those who live in the GDA and are not on top wages will in a lot of cases have families to support and considering things like rent and that wages are not back pre 2007 levels most wouldn't turn down a few extra shifts.

As for the pressure, you are right but I don't believe its a major thing as if it was its something unions would be taking issue with.

Also makes a mockery of any safety culture IE claim to have as well, drivers constantly working over time is not safe, end of.

Don't be ridiculous, typical driver rostered for 36-39 hour week will only spend 20-24 hours driving. Driving DART and some commuter may be more but most drivers don't do 24 hours driving per week.

In comparison a Luas shift is around 9h15m of almost continuous driving. While not wanting to get into light v heavy rail from a safety prospective I would be more concerned with tram drivers working a lot of rest days.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a driver. I have never been a mentor. I don’t want to mentor. I don’t want any extra money to mentor and I believe this is what most drivers think.

Firstly its great that another driver had the courtesy to mentor you. That aside have you have issues with rules/responsibility of mentoring if it were to become compulsory or just not bothered doing it.

Remember there was that article a good while back about staff unwilling to report near misses and such because of such drastic lack of trust in management (of who some elements try to bully their own way because power etc leading to loss of trust and unwillingness to cooperate because of such.)

Wasn't such reporting addressed already and remember if you have legitimate safety concerns you are free to report them to the RSC.

Colonel Claptrap

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Also makes a mockery of any safety culture IE claim to have as well, drivers constantly working over time is not safe, end of.

I worked in a job where the workload steadily became busier, causing the overtime to increase until everyone on the team was ready to crack or leave. Several colleagues went out on stress leave which further compounded the problem as even more work had to be spread around a smaller team of people.

We didn't have time to advertise roles, carry out interviews or induct new people so we just plodded along for months, barely getting the job done on time. The wage bill went through the roof and the team atmosphere was toxic.

If somebody had told me they had 30 partially trained, abled and willing staff, already familiar with the company, ready to parachute in and relieve us of some of the workload I would have bitten their hand off.

If drivers really care about the safety of passengers and their colleagues, then surely this is an obvious way to reduce their overtime. It would also give the younger lads a chance of earning a few bob and progressing their careers.

Rootsblower

It was never assumed that a driver took another driver on road knowledge, I was refused myself by a couple of drivers back in the day. It was every drivers prerogative whether they took a trainee or not. Not bothered to mentor myself and I don’t take qualified drivers on road knowledge either. I have a wife and kids and a mortgage I am the sole earner in the household. I can’t afford for someone else to make a mistake on my train and put my livelihood at risk.

It has happened on 2 occasions I know of where trainees have had incidents while learning with the qualified driver bearing the responsibility. Each incident was totally the trainees fault. One of the incidents the driver wasn’t even in the cab the trainee took it upon himself to move the train.

It has also happened where a newly qualified driver had an incident and blamed their mentors showing them the wrong way to do things. This resulted in all the mentors being questioned under scrutiny of various managers. I dont want the potential of this happening to me.

jimmycrackcorm

Rootsblower wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a driver. I have never been a mentor. I don’t want to mentor. I don’t want any extra money to mentor and I believe this is what most drivers think.

Then you should leave the job for someone who can. You're not being asked to oversee neuro-surgery. If you're incapable of giving simple advice while a newbie driver is learning then it just calls your ability into question.

Wouldn't we all be better off closing Irish Rail and getting a private company in who would have no problem getting drivers who would be more than happy to impart their "Knowledge".

The truth is that the union is only able to do this because they hold the railway infrastructure ransom to the public. The BE strike was broken precisely because the union thought they could do that only to learn that the private sector stood up to the plate. Drivers should feel ashamed for blocking 10-minute DART services for their own selfish reasons.

Working class heroes

Rootsblower wrote: »

Can you please provide evidence that most drivers can’t afford to give up working rest days please.

BTW the pressure put on drivers to work rest days especially from April to November is incredible in some instances bordering on bullying.

That’s nonsense, can you back that up?

Bubbaclaus

Can someone please explain this dispute to me? In my job it's just the done thing that we mentor and train the new hires when asked to do so. It's not in our contracts and we don't get paid extra to do It, it's just considered normal?

Why isn't this a normal thing in Irish rail?

Working class heroes

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Can someone please explain this dispute to me? In my job it's just the done thing that we mentor and train the new hires when asked to do so. It's not in our contracts and we don't get paid extra to do It, it's just considered normal?

Why isn't this a normal thing in Irish rail?

It is normal in Irish Rail. Just not for drivers.