horseburger wrote: » Like you really think the management of a company is going to use the word threat in a statement in a publicity press release for the media, where they try and insinuate that everyone else is at fault?
oppenheimer1 wrote: » No one is threatening anything. BÉ have simply stated a fact, that if they do not stop losing money they will go insolvent. You keep using "threat" to imply that it is a management choice to go insolvent. It's disingenuous in the extreme
devnull wrote: » Can you please show me a direct quote from a Bus Eireann statement or spokesperson that uses the word "threat" ?
Bass Reeves wrote: » It will cost nothing extra to put routes out to tender. The tenders would come in cheaper than paying BE.
murphaph wrote: » Of course they could. This is exactly what should be done. No cutbacks in the subsidy but you'd get far better value for money. Our money. We'd have better public transport for the same spend.
Allinall wrote: » Where is the threat in that statement? Can you point it out?
horseburger wrote: » I used the term threat, because that is exactly what it is. You know very well what I was talking about. Stop trying to distract, from the fact, that you totally misrepresented what I had written. Here is the Bus Éireann statement to which I had referred. "Due to the perilous state of the Company’s finances and the failure to reach agreement with unions at the Workplace Relations Committee (WRC) last week, the Board of Bus Éireann considered the matter in detail at its meeting today and approved proposals for immediate cost savings to be implemented from Monday, March 6th". "These measures are vital to ensure that the Company remains solvent, and can continue to trade as a going concern". "The Company must deal with its challenges directly, and the Board have a duty to ensure Bus Éireann is financially sustainable and therefore must take the necessary steps to secure this". "Further dialogue aimed at urgently resolving these challenges would be welcome."http://buseireann.ie/news.php?id=2248&month=Feb
devnull wrote: » Because I feel that arguing about what threat and the derivatives of that word means (can't believe we're having this discussion on C+T) I thought I would provide a definition for everyone from the dictionary. The underlined part is very important. threat (noun) A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. Do you believe that Bus Eireann is saying they will inflict pain, injury, damage or other hostile actions on the union if they will not take the cuts or make the changes the management have proposed? If so: You are saying that BE management are going to make the company insolvent because of the fact they do not get their own way, even though insolvency doesn't work this way. It's not a choice a company makes, it happens when company cannot service it's obligation If not: You do not appear to know what the word threat means and your definition of it disagrees with what I can find in a dictionary and the dictionary has the final say on what a word means I think. However I'm not going to say any more on the matter, because we will never agree and we're getting off topic of the core issues, which I'm mindful of may well be the tactic you are employing here, the more time we talk about what words means, the less we talk about the issues in the company.
VG31 wrote: » I have a question for those who are knowledgeable about this. The most commonly stated reason against privatisation of Bus Eireann/Dublin Bus is that unprofitable routes will be lost. Could the government not partially fund these routes under PSO contracts? This is done in many countries. It would surely cost less than the subsidy to BE/DB. Aer Lingus is a private company yet they operate Dublin to Kerry and Donegal to Dublin and Glasgow flights under a PSO arrangement.
end of the road wrote: » no thanks, not let bus eireann go to the wall. this tax payer doesn't personally wish to pay for their routes to be put out to tender, especially when it is only wanted by someone because they are upset that they can't get good pay like the bus eireann drivers. there is no chokehold by unions, and i'm certainly not held over a barrel by them and never have been, dispite being a keen user of public transport for years. if you want good pay, then join a union. otherwise you can't complain that others are doing better then you.
end of the road wrote: » they aren't striking for things way over what they are entitled to, as if they weren't entitled to what they earned they wouldn't have it. like i said if you can't get what they get that is your fault and your problem and not theirs. and no it isn't blackmail.
end of the road wrote: » to sack them for not crossing a picket would be against workers rights, it is against one's rights to be forced to cross a picket against their will. IE and DB won't be going out on strike anyway, unless there are issues with the pension down the line which would effect all the companies.
end of the road wrote: » horseburger never said otherwise. what the company said is exactly what he posted.
VG31 wrote: » I have a question for those who are knowledgeable about this. The most commonly stated reason against privatisation of Bus Eireann/Dublin Bus is that unprofitable routes will be lost.
Could the government not partially fund these routes under PSO contracts? This is done in many countries. It would surely cost less than the subsidy to BE/DB. .
horseburger wrote: » That is not what I was arguing about. You are missing the point. devnull, yesterday, implied that I had stated that Bus Éireann threatened that it would make the company insolvent. I did not state that. I said that Bus Éireann were threatening, that if the proposed cutbacks were not implemented, that the company would be insolvent. I said this in a post where I included two RTE news items as a reference to what I had mentioned. I did not state, what was implied that I had stated, by devnull.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102774131&postcount=869
Allinall wrote: » They stated a fact. Not threatened.
end of the road wrote: » Mebuntu wrote: » Any employee of DB and IE refusing to work while BE workers are on strike should be sacked. Refusal to work is a very serious matter and the BE dispute is none of their business. to sack them for not crossing a picket would be against workers rights, it is against one's rights to be forced to cross a picket against their will.
Mebuntu wrote: » Any employee of DB and IE refusing to work while BE workers are on strike should be sacked. Refusal to work is a very serious matter and the BE dispute is none of their business.
horseburger wrote: » I never said that. I said that Bus Éireann threatened, that if it didn't implement cutbacks, that the company would be insolvent. That is a totally different thing, from what you said, that I had stated. I never said what you smart-assedly implied that I said, and then you started questioning me about insolvency, attempting to divert the discussion. "Let's just agree to leave it at that".
Arthur Daley wrote: » We subsidise all sorts nowadays. Practically every farm in the country. Property developers, landlords, banks. It's the way this country has always worked. So not sure why an example is being made of bus eireann. And why now.
devnull wrote: » Nobody can threaten that a company will be insolvent, it simply is when it cannot meet it's obligations that is the point I was making. Lets just agree to leave it at that.
Corca Baiscinn wrote: » Also he keeps saying that the loss-making element is the commercial inter-city sector but is that not because of the pso obligation to stop at every hamlet between Sligo and Dublin say even on an "express" service
horseburger wrote: » Just reading back the thread. You did not read my post. I said: "Bus Éireann is threatening that the company will be insolvent if it doesn't cut back on the services, that it has proposed discontinuing, which are the services to which I was referring". I did not say that Bus Éireann threatened to make the company insolvent, if the proposed cutbacks were not implemented. You implied that I said that Bus Éireann will make the company insolvent, if it doesn't implement the proposed cutbacks. I did not say that. You implied I said something which I did not state, and started questioning me about insolvency. But I guess that was an attempt by you to divert the discussion.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102774131&postcount=869
Corca Baiscinn wrote: » I understand why it would be counter-productive for the Minister to go riding in on his white charger brandishing a chequebook but I'm curious re the veracity of his answers at the Oireachtas committee yesterday re the subsidy to BE. He claimed that the subsidy increased this year and last year by X% or X million euro. But does anybody know if that figure is an absolute increase or simply covers the increase in the numbers entitled to free travel?
devnull wrote: » Friend of mine on the Dublin Bus home tonight heard two drivers talking at Parnell Square for a driver change discussing how many people are calling in sick on Monday 'so far' Be prepared.
devnull wrote: » Nobody is threatening with making the company insolvent if it doesn't cut back on services. A company being insolvent is not something that somebody does to spite the other side or threatens to do to score a cheap point or a dig over the over side it's something that happens when a company performs financially in a way that it cannot meet it's obligations as a company. A way of avoiding this is reducing costs, which the unions prevent them doing. The people in the unions and on the drivers side fail to grasp this, the company is in the mire, the company are not just calling their bluff that it is the case of using it as a tool to beat the staff with to push through reforms, it is true, and the sooner the drivers come out of cloud cuckoo land and start to realise that sooner or later it's going to be cuts or jobs, and with the route closures it's probably already heading towards the later.
end of the road wrote: » to sue them out of existence would be a waste of money, as they could likely have a number of ways around the issue. they could possibly refund the members and therefore have no money and cannot pay, and they could probably relaunch after a little bit and remove all liabilities of the former union. whatever would happen, the NBRU wouldn't be going anywhere.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Allow Bus Eireann go to the wall, like all inefficient businesses, state run or not. Then put every route out to tender and award to the most competent and efficient private operator. The important thing here is to remove the chokehold of unions, so we are not all held over a barrel everytime they want a payrise or refuse to give up their perks.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Striking to get pay and perks way above what you are entitled to based on your skillset is essentially blackmail. Its the type of blackmail that has screwed the taxpayer for generations in this country.
oppenheimer1 wrote: » Each and every worker that phones in sick should be made undergo an assessment by the company doctor and face sanction if found not to be ill. Additionally, NBRU should be sued out of existence of this happens.
