Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bus Eireann Possible Strike
Options
Comments
-
Apart from the fact that they would have to compete with a taxpayer funded operator who can get almost €100m of subsidy a year when all grants, such as PSO, cost of vehicles and free travel pass funding and various other schemes are taken into account.
If they were given the same level playing field as Bus Eireann with access to the same publicly owned facilities, subsidy, free travel pass grants and free vehicles I don't see why not.
Bus Eireann operates rural routes because it gets payments that can be approaching €100m a year to fund it's costs such as vehicles, free travel pass use and the overall costs of operating the services. The private operators don't.
It's more true to say the state contracts and pays and supplies the vehicles for Bus Eireann to operate a route between those places because they have deemed that it cannot be run without this funding. Funding to run such route to date has only been made to Bus Eireann.
Unfortunately it is not possible to know as they have never had the opportunity to get free buses, accept the free travel pass and get such route subsidised so we don't know, perhaps we should put them out to tender and see is you are right?
Is it known if other companies have shown an interest in running such services, on condition that they would receive the funding you mentioned, especially the more local, rural services?
Has it been stated by owners of other bus companies that they would like to operate the more local services on condition that they receive the funding that you have mentioned?
If they got the funding that you mention, to operate the routes that to date they have not operated, would such services, be any less expensive to operate?0 -
horseburger wrote: »Is it known if other companies have shown an interest in running such services, on condition that they would receive the funding you mentioned, especially the more local, rural services?
Has it been stated by owners of other bus companies that they would like to operate the more local services on condition that they receive the funding that you have mentioned?
It's worth noting that up to today every single tender that has been issued to the open market for a route has involved a company other than Bus Eireann being involved in winning the tender for that route, despite the fact that they would have to fund infrastructure that BE already has had paid for by the state.
Realistically BE should win any tender that goes out because they have experience of the routes, staff already in place to run them and depot facilities paid for by the taxpayer ready and waiting which gives them an advantage.If they got the funding that you mention, to operate the routes that to date they have not operated, would such services, be any less expensive to operate?
It was stated that BE had 1,378 drivers who worked overtime each day which equaled the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers.
A good number of drivers were being paid for 9.5 hours a day and spending only 5.5 hours a day driving which meant staff were delivering an inefficient service which did not provide value for money to the taxpayer.
Essentially the company was saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, there was approx €25m worth of inefficiencies and excess costs in their business.
Therefore it is entirely possible that another operator with a tighter control on costs could do it for less.0 -
You didn't answer my question.
Why were those Trade Union workers made redundant and salaries reduced?
Could it be because, unless they operate in monopoly that directly inconveniences the public such as IR, then Unions are of little protection to workers terms and conditions?
It's interesting to see people argue Unions are used in the public and state sector to defend their members conditions, yet are quiet when the same Union's members lose out in when dealing with private employers.
It could also be, that the issue voted on could have been worse for the employees, if there were no trade union involvement in the particular issue that you have highlighted.
The point of my mentioning the particular comments by the guy on RTE Liveline, is because he mentioned that other people, are in areas of employment, without trade union recognition, as a way of criticizing the Luas strike, by saying that the Luas strike would inconvenience people who work in areas of employment, that don't recognize trade unions.
It seems to me, that the Luas employees that he was criticizing, would be the ones saying that those employees should have better terms and conditions of employment.
He didn't say that he thinks they should have better terms and conditions. He just said that they have less rights, as a way of criticizing the Luas strike.
He seemed to be suggesting that because people in other areas have less rights, that the Luas employees should put up with having less rights.
Going by what he says, he seems to want a situation, or happy enough to have a situation, where employees, in any sector of employment, are less able, to challenge any changes to their terms and conditions of employment.0 -
It's worth noting that up to today every single tender that has been issued to the open market for a route has involved a company other than Bus Eireann being involved in winning the tender for that route, despite the fact that they would have to fund infrastructure that BE already has had paid for by the state.
Realistically BE should win any tender that goes out because they have experience of the routes, staff already in place to run them and depot facilities paid for by the taxpayer ready and waiting which gives them an advantage.
It was stated that BE had 1,378 drivers who worked overtime each day which equaled the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers.
A good number of drivers were being paid for 9.5 hours a day and spending only 5.5 hours a day driving which meant staff were delivering an inefficient service which did not provide value for money to the taxpayer.
Essentially the company was saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, there was approx €25m worth of inefficiencies and excess costs in their business.
Therefore it is entirely possible that another operator with a tighter control on costs could do it for less.
Do you think Bus Éireann would be able to keep most of its current drivers, if the proposed changes are brought in, where they would only paid for the time they are driving.
As I understand it, what has been happening, is that drivers are being scheduled to run particular services throughout the day, where they have long gaps in between the services they are driving. These long gaps must be very frustrating.
The idea of waiting around to operate your next service, and knowing you won't get paid for the time you are waiting around, must be more frustrating than driving a service stuck in traffic.0 -
Kopparberg, I'm genuinely shocked and sorry to hear that!
I'm not surprised at all that the public is pissed off with the ongoing strikes and I did warn that that would happen. But I'm shocked to hear people treating other individuals like that. I disagree with a lot of what the unions have been doing, but I know that most drivers are super nice people, who do a very difficult job and absolutely deserve respect for it.
No one should ever be treated like that. I'd keep in mind that people who are abusive towards you like that, reflects on the type of person they are.
I don't know if their is collusion, I very much doubt it, but I've said it before and I'll say it again, it does feel like union bosses are walking their members down the garden path.
I think staff are being very poorly represented by their unions. The whole approach by the transport unions here seems to be completely out of touch with reality of modern Ireland and kind of insane. I think if they keep this up with constant strikes it is likely to lead to the destruction of the union movement and probably the break up of the CIE companies.
I honestly don't want to see the unions destroyed, but I do think they need to be reformed badly, more strategic, more professional, less political (but more politically savy). More like the transport unions in Germany, rarely go on strike, yet manage to negotiate good t&c's for their members behind closed doors, but also highly involved in trying to make their companies more efficient and effective.
I know EOTR believes that unions don't need public support. I think he is dead wrong. The union movement in Ireland in the 1920's was built with massive public support. But a few decades ago it started to lose public support and the unions have shrunken greatly since then. But now public support has gone from apathy about unions to being actively hostile against them and that is very dangerous for the ongoing health of the union movement IMO.
It gives the government the public support to slowly disassemble the union/CIE power.
I think the staff at CIE companies need to form a new union. One that is apolitical, but politically savy, one whose primary goal is to get the best deal for their members, while working to make their company profitable and keeping the public onside. A union that is aware that it needs to carefully balance the needs of it's members, with the needs of the government, company and public.
the government will never be able to do anything to the unions. if the members want union membership they will continue to have it whatever the government tries to do and any attempt to attack union members will be faught. breaking up CIE will just be breaking up CIE, the unions will be in the new companies whether it be at the start or down the line. but they won't be going anywhere.
the extreme element of the public may support the government trying to damage the unions and their members and in turn workers rights, but it will be ultimately to their detriment more then the unions.
those of us who are union members will not allow our rights terms and conditions to be downgraded to satisfy extremists who are unwilling to improve their own situation and who instead want everyone else to be dragged down to their level. because if we allow it, what other rights will people lose next.
if public support had any effect in relation to unions and strikes then the luas drivers would have got nothing. greyhound workers and dunnes workers would have got a good deal. the opposite happened.It's worth noting that up to today every single tender that has been issued to the open market for a route has involved a company other than Bus Eireann being involved in winning the tender for that route, despite the fact that they would have to fund infrastructure that BE already has had paid for by the state.
Realistically BE should win any tender that goes out because they have experience of the routes, staff already in place to run them and depot facilities paid for by the taxpayer ready and waiting which gives them an advantage.
the program has to justify it's existence. if be and db won all the routes there would be no actual point to it, so other companies have to get some just so it can be said they got some routes. but whether those companies ultimately were the better option is something we aren't ever going to know.It was stated that BE had 1,378 drivers who worked overtime each day which equaled the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers.
A good number of drivers were being paid for 9.5 hours a day and spending only 5.5 hours a day driving which meant staff were delivering an inefficient service which did not provide value for money to the taxpayer.
Essentially the company was saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, there was approx €25m worth of inefficiencies and excess costs in their business.
Therefore it is entirely possible that another operator with a tighter control on costs could do it for less.
except profit has to be taken into account when it comes to private operators. they may get a fixed fee to operate the routes but if that is just to cover the costs and the operator makes no profit then the fee is ultimately not going to be attractive and the routes not worth bidding for.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22090
end of the road wrote: »the government will never be able to do anything to the unions. if the members want union membership they will continue to have it whatever the government tries to do and any attempt to attack union members will be faught. breaking up CIE will just be breaking up CIE, the unions will be in the new companies whether it be at the start or down the line. but they won't be going anywhere.
Sure, unions may continue to exist and of course people have the right to be a member of a union and rightfully so.
However if CIE is broken up, you know perfectly well that unions lose a great deal of power. For instance the staff of GoAhead going on strike on 10% of routes, is a very different and less politically impactful then the whole of DB going on strike across 100% of routes.
The unions end up having far less power to hold the country at ransom then.end of the road wrote: »the extreme element of the public may support the government trying to damage the unions and their members and in turn workers rights, but it will be ultimately to their detriment more then the unions.
those of us who are union members will not allow our rights terms and conditions to be downgraded to satisfy extremists who are unwilling to improve their own situation and who instead want everyone else to be dragged down to their level. because if we allow it, what other rights will people lose next.
The above sort of talk is exactly the type of extremist talk that will simply drive a wedge further between the general public and unions and will lead to the public supporting the government weakening union power and breaking up and privatising CIE.
Don't you see that talk like this is what pushes away moderates who might support you?
It is talk like this and the actions of the unions is even starting to make union members question if their union leaders have their best interests at heart and has lead to a massive decrease in union membership.
Their seem to be far too much talk of "them" versus "us" from the unions and some union members. Too much talk about fighting the "man". Weither the "man" is company management or the government or the NTA or the public.
Forgetting that these aren't some distance foreign imposed power, but your own neighbours, fellow Irish people and your democratically elected government!
The attitude is not healthy at all. It creates a "us" versus "them" atmosphere which simply isn't going to lead to open and honest negotiations.
Do you honestly think the government will sit down to negotiations with unions when the unions call ministers etc. names in the press. Of course not, they will be treated as a threat by the government and something to be weakened and sidelined.
And that is why the staff of these companies will in the long term end up getting a much rawer deal then if their unions had a healthy relationship with their company and government and public like unions in some other countries do.
Where the government sees the union as something they can deal with in an open manner and negotiate with and give and take a little to come out with a decent deal for all.
IMO that style would get staff a vastly better deal and lead to proper long term stability and investment, rather then be weakened and broken up.
The unions approach IMO is very short sighted and will damage unions in this country.
I genuinely feel sorry for the staff caught up in these political games by unions.0 -
Sure, unions may continue to exist and of course people have the right to be a member of a union and rightfully so.
However if CIE is broken up, you know perfectly well that unions lose a great deal of power. For instance the staff of GoAhead going on strike on 10% of routes, is a very different and less politically impactful then the whole of DB going on strike across 100% of routes.
you are assuming it would just be go ahead's 10%. i have put it out there before that what will likely happen, is the unions will rais cross company issues at the same time over all companies, meaning a 100% route withdrawel of labour would still be just as likely.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22090
end of the road wrote: »you are assuming it would just be go ahead's 10%. i have put it out there before that what will likely happen, is the unions will rais cross company issues at the same time over all companies, meaning a 100% route withdrawel of labour would still be just as likely.
I believe that is illegal, no? I'm not a lawyer, but as we saw from the BE strike, wildcat pickets on DB depots were quickly lifted after DB threatened legal action against the union.
I suspect that different companies would have different t&c's and arrangements (pay, rosters, etc.) with their employees, so you wouldn't have the same issues across companies and you couldn't legally arrange a cross company strike like that, not without opening the union up to legal action.
I'm sure others have a better insight on this then me, but that seems to be the consensus.
Plus it has never happened with London Bus, has it? There have been strikes with one company and some percentage of routes, but never all companies.
We have even seen it with Luas. Originally it was supposed to be part of IR. But now it is separate. Yes, both IR and Luas have gone out on strike. But at different times and thus less disruptive then if both DART and Luas were out at the same time.
We have even seen that on intercity bus services. BE Expressway goes on strike and you don't see Aircoach/Citylink/etc. joining them, of course not, quiet the opposite, they lay on extra buses for all the extra demand.
Or AerLingus goes on strike, 30 years ago it would shut down the country. Today people shrug their shoulders, complain and book a flight on Ryanair, etc.
It is a nice theory, but the reality we see on the ground seems to be very different.0 -
I believe that is illegal, no? I'm not a lawyer, but as we saw from the BE strike, wildcat pickets on DB depots were quickly lifted after DB threatened legal action against the union.
db weren't on strike and their staff weren't in dispute with their employer.I suspect that different companies would have different t&c's and arrangements (pay, rosters, etc.) with their employees, so you wouldn't have the same issues across companies and you couldn't legally arrange a cross company strike like that, not without opening the union up to legal action.
you couldn't arrange a cross company strike on the basis of a couple of companies having issue. however, if the staff in each company via their union happen to decide that there are issues with pay and rosters for example then you have the conditions for a full cross company strike. the unions will probably seek to harmonise conditions across all companies as time goes on, after all ireland is a small country and it's likely there will be only a couple of companies operating all the tendered routes anyway so it's much easier for everyone to have the same conditions so that staff stick around. the privates will play ball as they will want to continue to make some profit.I'm sure others have a better insight on this then me, but that seems to be the consensus.
Plus it has never happened with London Bus, has it? There have been strikes with one company and some percentage of routes, but never all companies.
there have been a few large cross company strikes in london i believe over the years. quite substantial disruption as well.We have even seen it with Luas. Originally it was supposed to be part of IR. But now it is separate. Yes, both IR and Luas have gone out on strike. But at different times and thus less disruptive then if both DART and Luas were out at the same time.
We have even seen that on intercity bus services. BE Expressway goes on strike and you don't see Aircoach/Citylink/etc. joining them, of course not, quiet the opposite, they lay on extra buses for all the extra demand.
they lay on some extra busses, but it's unlikely they are ever enough to take all those disrupted by bus eireann strikes. a small few they will be able to take, but the companies aren't made of busses and don't have spare busses lying around. it's often over estimated how many busses are actually laid on. it's not a huge amount.
but either way, multiple companies across subsidized services just to supposibly make a strike a bit disruptive is unlikely to be financially viable for long. 2 or 3 maybe but that's probably it, and conditions will eventually be harmonised as it's essentialy 1 operation.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »there have been a few large cross company strikes in london i believe over the years. quite substantial disruption as well.
Can you provide an example?they lay on some extra busses, but it's unlikely they are ever enough to take all those disrupted by bus eireann strikes. a small few they will be able to take, but the companies aren't made of busses and don't have spare busses lying around. it's often over estimated how many busses are actually laid on. it's not a huge amount.
Generally they will contract in companies who do not operate scheduled services or have a dedicated private hire fleet to use on these additional services, the privates have been doing this throughout the last few strikes, Bernard Kavanagh and Callinans are just two of the operators that have had over half a dozen vehicles out each on recent strike days.but either way, multiple companies across subsidized services just to supposibly make a strike a bit disruptive is unlikely to be financially viable for long. 2 or 3 maybe but that's probably it, and conditions will eventually be harmonised as it's essentialy 1 operation.
It might work like that in the public sector but it doesn't in the private.
Having been involved in companies that have bought others or been merged into one another a lot of HR Departments will go nowhere near harmonization and instead will simply change contracts when people are promoted instead rather than modifying across the board.
The reason is that often you will have different people with different perks for example Worker A has 25 days holiday with 1.5x pay for a weekend and double pay for a bank holiday whilst Worker B has 23 days holiday but double pay for the weekend and triple pay for a bank holiday.
No company will simply drag every term and condition up to the highest common denominator because it would not be affordable so instead contracts are changed at promotion time or when someone new is hired because doing any other way would mean someone will lose out somewhere and it's not worth the unrest it causes.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sure, unions may continue to exist and of course people have the right to be a member of a union and rightfully so.
However if CIE is broken up, you know perfectly well that unions lose a great deal of power. For instance the staff of GoAhead going on strike on 10% of routes, is a very different and less politically impactful then the whole of DB going on strike across 100% of routes.
The unions end up having far less power to hold the country at ransom then.
The above sort of talk is exactly the type of extremist talk that will simply drive a wedge further between the general public and unions and will lead to the public supporting the government weakening union power and breaking up and privatising CIE.
Don't you see that talk like this is what pushes away moderates who might support you?
It is talk like this and the actions of the unions is even starting to make union members question if their union leaders have their best interests at heart and has lead to a massive decrease in union membership.
Their seem to be far too much talk of "them" versus "us" from the unions and some union members. Too much talk about fighting the "man". Weither the "man" is company management or the government or the NTA or the public.
Forgetting that these aren't some distance foreign imposed power, but your own neighbours, fellow Irish people and your democratically elected government!
The attitude is not healthy at all. It creates a "us" versus "them" atmosphere which simply isn't going to lead to open and honest negotiations.
Do you honestly think the government will sit down to negotiations with unions when the unions call ministers etc. names in the press. Of course not, they will be treated as a threat by the government and something to be weakened and sidelined.
And that is why the staff of these companies will in the long term end up getting a much rawer deal then if their unions had a healthy relationship with their company and government and public like unions in some other countries do.
Where the government sees the union as something they can deal with in an open manner and negotiate with and give and take a little to come out with a decent deal for all.
IMO that style would get staff a vastly better deal and lead to proper long term stability and investment, rather then be weakened and broken up.
The unions approach IMO is very short sighted and will damage unions in this country.
I genuinely feel sorry for the staff caught up in these political games by unions.
Many of the current government representatives do a good job of creating an us vs them situation and division.
Regina Doherty displaying ignorance by accusing drivers of going on an unofficial strike, getting her photo taken with Ray Hernan without bothering to hear what the drivers views were.
Then when people replied on her facebook page, to her accusations, she had nothing to say.
http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/roundup/articles/2017/10/13/4147173-unions-slam-doherty-over-unofficial-dispute-claim/
http://www.thejournal.ie/unions-bus-eireann-regina-doherty-3644945-Oct2017/
https://www.facebook.com/reginadoherty.ie/photos/a.677428902390336.1073741828.677425502390676/1147753962024492
Leo Varadkar, talking about social welfare cheats, and more recently trying to downplay homelessness and the lack of housing provision.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homelessness-in-ireland-is-not-normal-says-charity-head-1.3293358
The item below, by Hugh Linehan, quotes Fr Peter McVerry and Br Kevin Crowley:
"Fr McVerry said “I am furious at what Eileen Gleeson said and at what the Taoiseach said the other day,” in a reference to Leo Varadkar’s claim that the homelessness rate in Ireland was low by international standards.
Fr McVerry said Ms Gleeson’s comments were an insult to homeless people, many of whom had become homeless because their landlord evicted them not because of bad behavior".
"Ms Gleeson repeated her assertion that voluntary groups were not a solution to the homelessness problem. “Soup and a sandwich are not going to solve the problem.”
"However, Brother Kevin Crowley strongly criticised Ms Gleeson’s comments, noting the Capuchin Day Centre had seen a huge increase in people seeking assistance. So far this year it had given out 64,745 food parcels and provided 237,452 meals."
He pointed out that people were afraid to go to shelters because of theft and drugs. “It is appalling how some people are treated in hostels.”
“I am appealing to the Taoiseach to do something about the housing situation,” he added, expanding on criticism which he levelled against Mr Varadkar in a letter to The Irish Times".
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/campaigners-appalled-and-furious-at-homeless-comments-1.3292712
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/homelessness-the-new-normal-1.3291814
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/volunteers-giving-only-food-to-homeless-not-helpful-official-says-1.3292063
https://www.pmvtrust.ie/news-media/facts-and-figures/0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,494 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22090
end of the road wrote: »you couldn't arrange a cross company strike on the basis of a couple of companies having issue. however, if the staff in each company via their union happen to decide that there are issues with pay and rosters for example then you have the conditions for a full cross company strike. the unions will probably seek to harmonise conditions across all companies as time goes on, after all ireland is a small country and it's likely there will be only a couple of companies operating all the tendered routes anyway so it's much easier for everyone to have the same conditions so that staff stick around. the privates will play ball as they will want to continue to make some profit.
To be honest, again that doesn't sound legal. I don't think you can force a certain pay wage and conditions across different companies. I've never heard of it happening in any other industry!
Also you are assuming a few things, which may not be true.
You are assuming that the same union is operating across companies, it may not be. That would certainly complicate things.
You are also assuming that the staff of different companies all feel the same way and support one another, they may well not. For instance staff of company a might love their company and have no issues with their t&c's, while staff at company b hate theirs. Each group of staff would have to vote on strike action individually.
Either way you have greatly weakened the unions and their power base.
Again, I will say you have some great theories, but I see little reality of these ideas on the ground in the UK or Ireland. In fact quiet the opposite.0 -
horseburger wrote: »Leo Varadkar, taking about social welfare cheats, and more recently trying to downplay homelessness and the lack of housing provision.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homelessness-in-ireland-is-not-normal-says-charity-head-1.3293358
The item below, by Hugh Linehan, quotes Fr Peter McVerry and Br Kevin Crowley:
"Fr McVerry said “I am furious at what Eileen Gleeson said and at what the Taoiseach said the other day,” in a reference to Leo Varadkar’s claim that the homelessness rate in Ireland was low by international standards.
Fr McVerry said Ms Gleeson’s comments were an insult to homeless people, many of whom had become homeless because their landlord evicted them not because of bad behavior".
"Ms Gleeson repeated her assertion that voluntary groups were not a solution to the homelessness problem. “Soup and a sandwich are not going to solve the problem.”
"However, Brother Kevin Crowley strongly criticised Ms Gleeson’s comments, noting the Capuchin Day Centre had seen a huge increase in people seeking assistance. So far this year it had given out 64,745 food parcels and provided 237,452 meals."
He pointed out that people were afraid to go to shelters because of theft and drugs. “It is appalling how some people are treated in hostels.”
“I am appealing to the Taoiseach to do something about the housing situation,” he added, expanding on criticism which he levelled against Mr Varadkar in a letter to The Irish Times".
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/campaigners-appalled-and-furious-at-homeless-comments-1.3292712
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/homelessness-the-new-normal-1.3291814
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/volunteers-giving-only-food-to-homeless-not-helpful-official-says-1.3292063
Whilst helping the unfortunate people who are homeless in the state is certainly an issue that warrants further discussion, ultimately it is off-topic for this forum.
Please can we stick to the topic at hand and do not reply to this post.
- Moderator0 -
end of the road wrote: »
they lay on some extra busses, but it's unlikely they are ever enough to take all those disrupted by bus eireann strikes.
Wrong. During the BE strikes, private bus companies to Donegal coped with the extra demand, even posting messages on social media saying they would do their best to absorb the extra demand. I would have been stuck in Dublin if it hadn't been for the private alternative.
I will never travel BE again.0 -
end of the road wrote: »
you couldn't arrange a cross company strike on the basis of a couple of companies having issue. however, if the staff in each company via their union happen to decide that there are issues with pay and rosters for example then you have the conditions for a full cross company strike. the unions will probably seek to harmonise conditions across all companies as time goes on
Very illegal, penalties include prison sentences.0 -
Very illegal, penalties include prison sentences.
Of course its illegal. However, it will not stop some posters still putting it forward as a possibility well, just because they really have no other argument. If it happened, SIPTU or the NRBU would be brought up before the courts and asked to either stop this illegal behaviour or be award costs against them to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of euro as compensation for lost earnings.0 -
Of course its illegal. However, it will not stop some posters still putting it forward as a possibility well, just because they really have no other argument. If it happened, SIPTU or the NRBU would be brought up before the courts and asked to either stop this illegal behaviour or be award costs against them to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not millions of euro as compensation for lost earnings.
not via the method i suggested, as there would actually be genuine issues in the companies.
anyway the unions wouldn't have the money to pay compensation, so there would be no point in awarding costs/compensation as it would never be paid.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »not via the method i suggested, as there would actually be genuine issues in the companies.
anyway the unions wouldn't have the money to pay compensation, so there would be no point in awarding costs/compensation as it would never be paid.
Your living in a fantasy world. Not everyone wants to be living in some sort of world where they are fighting daily fights with their employer of this or that.
A good case, Take Aer Lingus or Ryanair. Has it ever happened that both sets of employees in these companies have gone on strike together at the same time? No, it has not.
You have been asked for examples of this happening in London and the UK, where you claimed that this occurred, so please share with us exact details.
Otherwise you are spoofing as per usual and arguing because you have nothing left.
I personally would love to see SIPTU or the NRUBU try this as it would bankrupt both of them.0 -
A good case, Take Aer Lingus or Ryanair. Has it ever happened that both sets of employees in these companies have gone on strike together at the same time? No, it has not.
not a valid comparison as they aren't all working for the exact same quango/body.I personally would love to see SIPTU or the NRUBU try this as it would bankrupt both of them.
i'm sure you would, but it isn't going to happen. staff are entitled to instruct their union to get them a pay rise. if we take your view at face value just for argument sake, realistically the unions have no money or nothing of worth, so trying to get compo would be flogging a dead horse.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »not a valid comparison as they aren't all working for the exact same quango/body.
i'm sure you would, but it isn't going to happen. staff are entitled to instruct their union to get them a pay rise. if we take your view at face value just for argument sake, realistically the unions have no money or nothing of worth, so trying to get compo would be flogging a dead horse.
They claim to have a war chest of €20 million to support striking workers in CIE Group companies, which might cover the cost of a legal action in the unlikely event they tried cross company strikes.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »not a valid comparison as they aren't all working for the exact same quango/body.
Doesn't matter, the employees are contracted to BE, GO-Ahead or whoever. Not the NTA or TII. If an employee is unhappy with the T&C's on offer from any of them they can move, leave or try an enact change from their direct employer.
No one is going to entertain a strike, because their employer took on a tender and it doesn't give them enough goodies, so they are going to picket the NTA.
So, you have been asked numerous times for examples of your lofty theory and have provided none, I take you were talking out of turn and more or less making it up as you went along.0 -
-
It's what's needed to be honest.An all out strike of all three companies.0
-
-
end of the road wrote: »they lay on some extra busses, but it's unlikely they are ever enough to take all those disrupted by bus eireann strikes. a small few they will be able to take, but the companies aren't made of busses and don't have spare busses lying around. it's often over estimated how many busses are actually laid on. it's not a huge amount.
but either way, multiple companies across subsidized services just to supposibly make a strike a bit disruptive is unlikely to be financially viable for long. 2 or 3 maybe but that's probably it, and conditions will eventually be harmonised as it's essentialy 1 operation.Wrong. During the BE strikes, private bus companies to Donegal coped with the extra demand, even posting messages on social media saying they would do their best to absorb the extra demand. I would have been stuck in Dublin if it hadn't been for the private alternative.
I will never travel BE again.
Are you referring to McGinley Coaches, which covers the Letterkenny to Dublin route, which stops at some of the towns that are also served on the Bus Éireann 32 route, and who also operate a Derry Dublin route which has a stop at Ardee, Monaghan and Dublin Airport?
Its Letterkenny Dublin service does not operate as frequently, daily, as the Bus Éireann number 32 service, which has nine services to and from Letterkenny and Dublin every day.
http://buseireann.ie/timetables/1478276752-32.pdf
http://www.johnmcginley.com/_route_a.html
http://www.johnmcginley.com/_route_b.html
http://www.johnmcginley.com/_route_mov.html
http://www.johnmcginley.com/docs/timetable.pdf
McGinley's don't operate, as far as I know, a route to and from Dublin City Centre, Dublin Airport and Donegal Town, Enniskillen and Ballyshannon.
If this is the bus company to which you refer, while you were able to get an alternative service during the strike in March and April, there were people to and from Donegal Town, Ballyshannon, Enniskillen and Cavan and Virginia, who did not have an alternative.
As I understand it, during the strike, private coaches were permitted, by the NTA, to run extra buses at the particular times that they are licensed to operate services, but that they were not permitted to operate a service at times, other than the times they are scheduled to operate.
It seems to me, that if that rule is the case, that it is reasonable of end of the road to suggest that during the strike in March and April, that McGinley's would have been unable to accommodate everyone.
I think that might be the case - considering that McGinley Coaches do not operate a daily service between Letterkenny and Dublin, as frequently as the Bus Éireann number 32 daily service - that there would have been passengers to and from Letterkenny and Dublin, who might normally get Bus Éireann services at times that McGinley's were not operating, and if they tried to get McGinley's services, that passengers being left behind, is a strong possibility.
It is possible, as suggested by end of the road, that McGinley's were not able to accommodate everybody, if they had their regular passengers, as well as the passengers who would have usually taken the number 32 service.
At the time of the strike, Sillan Tours put a note on its facebook page, that it would be prioritizing regular passengers, which suggests that it was preparing for having to leave people behind who use the 109 Bus Éireann services, indicating that it could not accommodate everyone.
Did McGinley's also enact such a policy, of permitting regular passengers first?
You mentioned that private coaches coped with the extra demand, but then you mentioned that private coaches posted messages on social media saying that they would do their best to absorb the extra demand.
Saying that they would do their best, sounds to me that they were not expecting to be able to accommodate everyone.
That sounds to me, as end of the road suggested, that the other coach companies were not able accommodate everyone.0 -
Yes they ran extra coaches on the times they are scheduled. Not any additional times. They had no policy of regulars only.
I hope your post is not a critism of the efforts of private coach operators during that time.0 -
Yes they ran extra coaches on the times they are scheduled. Not any additional times. They had no policy of regulars only.
I hope your post is not a critism of the efforts of private coach operators during that time.
Why would you think that what I asked was a criticism? I have mentioned on numerous occasions, in different discussions on boards.ie, that private coaches run very good services.
I was pointing out that it is very possible that private operators would not have been able to accommodate everybody during the bus strike in March and April, if they had their regular customers, as well as people, who would have been regular users of Bus Éireann services.
I suggest this, with regard to the way that Bus Éireann, very often, run more daily services, to and from locations, than daily services to and from those same locations, that are operated by other companies. An example is the number of daily services that Bus Éireann operate between Letterkenny and Dublin, compared to the number of daily services that are operated by McGinley Coaches.
What I thought was of note, during the strike, were the reports on RTE and other media outlets, that gave the impression that Bus Éireann customers throughout the country had alternative options of private companies.
It was not the case, that there were other services operating as alternative options, throughout the country.
There were alternative options, only in certain areas of the country.
There was no alternative private coach service between Donegal Town, Cavan and Dublin. Nor was there an alternative private coach option between Cavan, Virginia, Kells and Dublin. Neither was there an alternative option between Drogheda and Navan and Trim, and no alternative option for getting to and from Ashbourne, Ratoath, Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells from Dublin and Dublin Airport, late in the evening and throughout the night.
There were options to get to and from Dublin and Ashbourne and Ratoath, on the Ashbourne Connect service, but there were no options to get to or from Ashbourne or Ratoath, and locations like Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells, and no options to get to and from Ashbourne, Ratoath, Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells, and Dublin Airport. These locations are served on the Bus Éireann 109A service.
I thought that those media reports on the issues of alternative services during the Bus Éireann strike, were misleading.
When one considers that Bus Éireann operates more daily services to and from Letterkenny and Dublin, than the McGinley's service, is it possible that you might use the Bus Éireann service again, at some stage in the future, at a time that McGinley's does not operate a service?
For example, if someone going to and from Ashbourne and Dublin, or Balbriggan and Dublin, state that after the strike that they will never use Bus Éireann again, because they can get an alternative service, to and from both locations and Dublin, in the morning to Dublin and home again in the evening, that is fine for them, if the timetable suits them.
It doesn't mean that those services are convenient for people who are required to be in Dublin later on the evening in the case of Balbriggan, and throughout the night in the case of Ashbourne, where anyone for Ashbourne and Ratoath have a 24 hour service to and from Dublin with the Bus Éireann 103 and 109A services.
Someone from Ashbourne who might have been annoyed with Bus Éireann during the strike, might have stated that they will never use Bus Éireann again, and use the Ashbourne Connect service instead. But, at some point in the future, they might wish to get from Ashbourne to and from Dublin Airport, in which case, they can use the 24 hour Bus Éireann 109A service. They might be at Dublin Airport at 2am some night looking to get back to Ashbourne, at a time when the Ashbourne Connect service does not operate. in this case, they can use the 109A service back to Ashbourne.
I didn't hear these differences being stressed, about alternatives to Bus Éireann, in the media news reports that I heard, at the time of the bus strike last March and April.
http://www.balbriggan.info/balbriggan-express-191-bus-timetable/
https://www.yougo.ie/0 -
Yes they ran extra coaches on the times they are scheduled. Not any additional times. They had no policy of regulars only.
that's not being disputed. what's being disputed is the over exaggeration by a couple of posters of how much capacity other companies were actually able to get.I hope your post is not a critism of the efforts of private coach operators during that time.
even if it was, which it wasn't, then so what? he would be entitled to criticise those companies if he believed he had a reason to do so.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »that's not being disputed. what's being disputed is the over exaggeration by a couple of posters of how much capacity other companies were actually able to get.
even if it was, which it wasn't, then so what? he would be entitled to criticise those companies if he believed he had a reason to do so.
Oh good, your back.
Care to back up your assertions, that multi-company type strikes occurred in the UK with examples?0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh good, your back.
Care to back up your assertions, that multi-company type strikes occurred in the UK with examples?
On the issue of alternative options, which is the issue being discussed in the post you quoted, I outlined, in my earlier post, a number of examples, where there were no alternative options of services by other coach companies.
Perhaps a strike, as outlined in this article below, in The Guardian on 4th September 2017, is an example relevant to the point being made by end of the road, where employees from three different rail operators took action on a particular issue?
It states, in the article, dated 4th September 2017, that:
"Rail workers at three train operators are staging fresh strikes on Monday in disputes over the role of guards and driver-only trains. The action will disrupt travel as people return to work after the holidays and schools reopen".
"Members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) at Southern, Merseyrail and Arriva Rail North will walk out amid worsening industrial relations in the industry".
"The Southern dispute started more than 16 months ago, with the RMT taking more than 30 days of strike action. The threat of industrial action against the industry’s newest franchise holder is also looming".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/04/travel-disruption-looms-as-workers-at-three-train-operators-go-on-strike
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/22/southern-railway-rmt-union-14-days-strike-action0
Advertisement