Unions warn of train strike as staff demand pay increase

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Then you should leave the job for someone who can.

not his job to. if he doesn't wish to mentor then it's his choice.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You're not being asked to oversee neuro-surgery.

irrelevant.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If you're incapable of giving simple advice while a newbie driver is learning then it just calls your ability into question.

no it doesn't. it simply says that he does not wish to be responsible for someone else.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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".

no as it wouldn't be financially viable, and a private company wouldn't solve any of the issues on the railway. we have the uk railway to thank for proving all the pitfalls of private companies running subsidized rail services rather then a state company.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

the be strike wasn't broken, it ended because a deal was put on the table and negotiations happened. the private sector barely stood up to the plate at all in real terms. they operated what extra they could but it was only on a few routes and it wasn't anything near the capacity removed by be not operating. they did what they could but their bit is massively over-stated and exaggerated in my opinion.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Drivers should feel ashamed for blocking 10-minute DART services for their own selfish reasons.

they shouldn't as they have nothing to feel ashamed for. the driver's reasons for not mentoring are not selfish but very legitimate.

Evil-1

Rootsblower wrote: »

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.

At last an explanation of the problem that actually makes sense, under those circumstances I would not take trainees either, really this should be brought into the public debate as until I saw this I too felt that refusal to mentor was unreasonable, it never dawned on me that responsibility for trainee's actions would be placed on the mentoring driver, that is unreasonable.

jimmycrackcorm

end of the road wrote: »

the be strike wasn't broken, it ended because a deal was put on the table and negotiations happened. the private sector barely stood up to the plate at all in real terms. they operated what extra they could but it was only on a few routes and it wasn't anything near the capacity removed by be not operating. they did what they could but their bit is massively over-stated and exaggerated in my opinion.

Sure it wasn't broken.;)

devnull

Evil-1 wrote: »

At last an explanation of the problem that actually makes sense, under those circumstances I would not take trainees either, really this should be brought into the public debate as until I saw this I too felt that refusal to mentor was unreasonable, it never dawned on me that responsibility for trainee's actions would be placed on the mentoring driver, that is unreasonable.

The reason that Irish Rail cannot give mentors the blanket assurances that they will not be held responsible under any circumstances when they are mentoring staff in a safety critical role is because they have to cover themselves for any potential situations when a new staff member makes a mistake as the result of being told or taught grossly incorrect information or practices by a mentor which could potentially lead to a very serious incident.

In these circumstances it is right that a mentor should be held to account if they gave their trainees advice or information that led to an accident. If you are training people in a safety critical role and they make errors because they have been incorrectly trained by their mentors then the company has to have comeback for that.

Simply saying how the people I'm mentoring turn out and perform in the job is nothing to do with me does not wash - the whole point of mentoring is to steer people on the right track and help them settle in and gain confidence and to do their jobs correctly so mistakes do not happen.

I'm not saying that staff should be held responsible for all mistakes that new employees make - clearly they shouldn't. But at the same time a company cannot offer blanket assurances that they will never be held responsible because it means that a mentor who teaches bad practice / procedures cannot be held to account.

jimmycrackcorm

Evil-1 wrote: »

At last an explanation of the problem that actually makes sense, under those circumstances I would not take trainees either, really this should be brought into the public debate as until I saw this I too felt that refusal to mentor was unreasonable, it never dawned on me that responsibility for trainee's actions would be placed on the mentoring driver, that is unreasonable.

By that measure then we shouldn't have any prison officers, or Gardai, because it's too dangerous to do the job or mentor new people.

There are literally thousands of jobs that require mentorship (let's call it limited overseeing in this real case) that involves even a minor modicum of risk.

What are these incidents that upset the drivers so much? the truth is it's just weaselling in the face of being able to hold the public to ransom. It's blackmailing at best and incompetence at worst.

GM228

Working class heroes wrote: »

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.

To be fair in so called safety critical professions the concept of voluntary training exists due to the nature of the job and potential issues which can arise.

It is standard practice industry wide for train driving, doctors, nurses, pilots etc.

GM228

Evil-1 wrote: »

At last an explanation of the problem that actually makes sense, under those circumstances I would not take trainees either, really this should be brought into the public debate as until I saw this I too felt that refusal to mentor was unreasonable, it never dawned on me that responsibility for trainee's actions would be placed on the mentoring driver, that is unreasonable.

That would be normal and it oddly enough was never an issue between 2005 and 2015.

Topgear on Dave

Bebemans friend wrote: »

Begrudgery of staff who stand up for their rights in this thread is really sickening.

Genuinely I am scratching my head at a situation that in any other company (an expansion of services and employment) would be celebrated.

In IE it seems to be just too difficult for everybody.


Im also wondering if using capital funding to expand rail services is really the best use of tax payers money if other alternatives can be used.

Iv used great rail services in other countries and would be supportive of expanding rail in the right circumstances but this 2 year dispute and delay has me fairly perplexed. Why put cash into IE if it will be wasted?

IngazZagni

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.

Do you not have trainers? Who trains you? Do you not have checks to assure you are up to standard? Who does this? Create a position where part of your job is to mentor future drivers. Pay them a training allowance to do this. What's the big deal?

end of the road

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Im also wondering if using capital funding to expand rail services is really the best use of tax payers money if other alternatives can be used.

absolutely it is as the other alternatives are not sustainible or cost effective long term, and cost more ultimately in terms of infrastructure, being road based.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Why put cash into IE if it will be wasted?

you are putting cash into the railway, not into IE. you are putting cash into the railway because ultimately it's the most cost effective and sustainible form of transport compared to road based transport.

jimmycrackcorm

end of the road wrote: »

you are putting cash into the railway, not into IE. you are putting cash into the railway because ultimately it's the most cost effective and sustainible form of transport compared to road based transport.

No, it isn't. We already see from the strike threats that it is infrastructure that's primary purpose is to suit the corrupt few instead of the actual public.

The future is going to be autonomous shared road transport that is very flexible and union free. The sooner the better for those of us being blackmailed by the unions.

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

No, it isn't. We already see from the strike threats that it is infrastructure that's primary purpose is to suit the corrupt few instead of the actual public.

no it's infrastructure to serve the people.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The future is going to be autonomous shared road transport that is very flexible and union free.

it's only going to be part of the future as road transport unlike rail will always need it's infrastructure to be continuously expanded which won't be cost effective or sustainible long term so would need to be kept to the absolute necessity, hence rail will always be needed. but that's probably a discussion for another thread.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The sooner the better for those of us being blackmailed by the unions.

you are not being blackmailed by the unions. inconvenienced because of the odd strike, sure, been there myself plenty of times.

Cookie_Monster

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

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.

what do they do the rest of the time and why is efficiency so bad?
Apologies I was not aware how little driving time a shift contains, that seems nuts!

Evil-1

devnull wrote: »

The reason that Irish Rail cannot give mentors the blanket assurances that they will not be held responsible under any circumstances when they are mentoring staff in a safety critical role is because they have to cover themselves for any potential situations when a new staff member makes a mistake as the result of being told or taught grossly incorrect information or practices by a mentor which could potentially lead to a very serious incident.

In these circumstances it is right that a mentor should be held to account if they gave their trainees advice or information that led to an accident. If you are training people in a safety critical role and they make errors because they have been incorrectly trained by their mentors then the company has to have comeback for that.

Simply saying how the people I'm mentoring turn out and perform in the job is nothing to do with me does not wash - the whole point of mentoring is to steer people on the right track and help them settle in and gain confidence and to do their jobs correctly so mistakes do not happen.

I'm not saying that staff should be held responsible for all mistakes that new employees make - clearly they shouldn't. But at the same time a company cannot offer blanket assurances that they will never be held responsible because it means that a mentor who teaches bad practice / procedures cannot be held to account.

In general I agree, but there needs to be a balance in terms of who is responsible for what, from what I can see the whole problem could be solved by creating a post like, I dont know, Training Inspector maybe?

Jamie2k9

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what do they do the rest of the time and why is efficiency so bad?
Apologies I was not aware how little driving time a shift contains, that seems nuts!

Well you drive x, y and z services to Dublin in the morning and for example you could have anywhere from 30 mins to 3 hours free before your scheduled to drive a return service. As I said commuter drivers probally have less down time but intercity ones don't drive a massive amount but are in work.

For example I know drivers who work a shift from 14.00-20.00 however they must travel as a passenger to Dublin to drive a return train home and only drive for just over 2 hours of the whole shift. This working of one service and traveling home as a passenger happens a lot. Other times you may swap trains on route.

Its not exactly inefficiently but rather the lowish frequency means they have a lot of free time.

Working class heroes

GM228 wrote: »

To be fair in so called safety critical professions the concept of voluntary training exists due to the nature of the job and potential issues which can arise.

It is standard practice industry wide for train driving, doctors, nurses, pilots etc.

Agreed. But there are other safety critical grades, Signalperson for example, that involves mentoring and there doesn’t seem to be any issues there.

Working class heroes

end of the road wrote: »

absolutely it is as the other alternatives are not sustainible or cost effective long term, and cost more ultimately in terms of infrastructure, being road based.



you are putting cash into the railway, not into IE. you are putting cash into the railway because ultimately it's the most cost effective and sustainible form of transport compared to road based transport.

Nonsense as usual.

Hilly Bill

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's because they don't want to be held accountable if the trainee makes a mistake whilst they are in the cab with them.

Hilly Bill

GM228 wrote: »

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

If they are getting a pay rise and still not mentoring then that's the sweetner.

Hilly Bill

Rootsblower wrote: »

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.

Why are you looking for a pay rise again then?

Hilly Bill

devnull wrote: »

The reason that Irish Rail cannot give mentors the blanket assurances that they will not be held responsible under any circumstances when they are mentoring staff in a safety critical role is because they have to cover themselves for any potential situations when a new staff member makes a mistake as the result of being told or taught grossly incorrect information or practices by a mentor which could potentially lead to a very serious incident.

In these circumstances it is right that a mentor should be held to account if they gave their trainees advice or information that led to an accident. If you are training people in a safety critical role and they make errors because they have been incorrectly trained by their mentors then the company has to have comeback for that.

Simply saying how the people I'm mentoring turn out and perform in the job is nothing to do with me does not wash - the whole point of mentoring is to steer people on the right track and help them settle in and gain confidence and to do their jobs correctly so mistakes do not happen.

I'm not saying that staff should be held responsible for all mistakes that new employees make - clearly they shouldn't. But at the same time a company cannot offer blanket assurances that they will never be held responsible because it means that a mentor who teaches bad practice / procedures cannot be held to account.

If a driver was teaching bad practice then maybe they shouldn't be a driver in the first place.

Rootsblower

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why are you looking for a pay rise again then?

I am not looking for a pay rise. I just don’t want to be mentor driver.

GM228

Working class heroes wrote: »

Agreed. But there are other safety critical grades, Signalperson for example, that involves mentoring and there doesn’t seem to be any issues there.

I'm not sure other grades are comparable, mentoring is not applicable to other roles, signalman for example are fully trained and passed competant as a signalman before they go to a particular location, they then get experience in the location they are to work in and are passed for that locations operation, CTC for example whereas a driver is trained by a mentor and passed competant at a later stage.

GM228

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It's because they don't want to be held accountable if the trainee makes a mistake whilst they are in the cab with them.

But, they had no problem being accountable between 2005-2015, that is the reason the original €23 per day came about.

GM228

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If they are getting a pay rise and still not mentoring then that's the sweetner.

The pay rise had nothing to do with mentoring though, the 1.15% was specifically for past productivity.

GM228

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why are you looking for a pay rise again then?

Who said drivers want a pay rise for mentoring?

Hilly Bill

GM228 wrote: »

The pay rise had nothing to do with mentoring though, the 1.15% was specifically for past productivity.

Which was what exactly as opposed to the rest of us?

Hilly Bill

Rootsblower wrote: »

I am not looking for a pay rise. I just don’t want to be mentor driver.

How did you get the road knowledge? Did you just go on your own?

Working class heroes

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not sure other grades are comparable, mentoring is not applicable to other roles, signalman for example are fully trained and passed competant as a signalman before they go to a particular location, they then get experience in the location they are to work in and are passed for that locations operation, CTC for example whereas a driver is trained by a mentor and passed competant at a later stage.

When they are gaining experience at a certain location they do so whilst a Signalperson is on duty and like the situation with the drivers the Signalperson on duty is responsible for the working of that cabin/route. There is even an allowance available for a Signalperson to provide such mentoring.

Rootsblower

Hilly Bill wrote: »

How did you get the road knowledge? Did you just go on your own?

No I did road knowledge with other qualified drivers. As I previously stated, on more than one occasion drivers refused to take me as was their right and still is.