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
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.
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.
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".
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.
Allinall wrote: » They stated a fact. Not threatened.
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
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. .
end of the road wrote: » horseburger never said otherwise. what the company said is exactly what he posted.
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.
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.
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" ?
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.
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
Allinall wrote: » Where is the threat in that statement? Can you point it out?
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.
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?
Bass Reeves wrote: » Yes they are. This is the issue in BE. Overtime is seen as a right by workers not as a management tool of the company. In essence the workers are managing the company not the managers.
Bass Reeves wrote: » You are incorrect here. DB and IE would be entitled to dismiss any workers not crossing the picket line. Neither have been served with notice of a dispute. Rather what we see is a crude attempt by the NBRU and SIPTU to circumvent the law regarding third party picketing. DB, IE and BE should suspend there sick pay scheme straight away like the LUAS did to prevent it's abuse by workers. After that DB and IE should notify there workers of there duties regarding attendance and inform them of the conquences of not attending work. If the unions want to play hardball then so should the management of these companies.
Allinall wrote: » So it's not a threat, rather stating a fact. You are the only one that used the word "threat". Why?
end of the road wrote: » the uk thought the same. the people now want re-nationalisation of the railway, and even the busses in many cases.
end of the road wrote: » i have saw no evidence from anywhere for that, as other companies have to make a profit as per their duty to their shareholders and we have a duty to insure it should we expect them to take the time to operate our routes.
the managers are managing the company. they haven't managed it well but they manage it.
the uk thought the same. the people now want re-nationalisation of the railway, and even the busses in many cases.
Bass Reeves wrote: » Like many another lefties you do not understand the duty of care that those on the board of BE have. If the trade recklessly ( trading when they know they are losing money that could make the company insolvent). The CEO, CFO, the company secretary and the board could be prosecuted and send to fail for such action. Those on the board could be disbarred from serving again as director's. The senior management are doing is following the law and preventing the company from trading recklessly
horseburger wrote: » You are completety, utterly, missing the point of my rely to devnull. devnull smart assedly misrepresented what I had stated and implied I said something of Bus Éireann which I did not state. Please read my clarifications above and then you will know the issue to which I am referring.
marienbad wrote: » Am I not correct in saying the senior management not warning of or taking steps to avoid insolvency are breaking the law ?
NBRU general-secretary Dermot O’Leary said the country was now on “the cusp of a national travel dispute” and other services could end up affected. “There’s going to be contagion. As much as I’d like to stop the contagion, I don’t know if I’ll be able to to stop it.”
The NBRU member, who is based in the Waterford depot which oversees services from Dungarvan and Wexford as well as Clonmel, accepted “there are certain times of the day when you have few passengers” but he said there were other times when it was busy. He said there were three drawbacks to the withdrawal of the X7 route: the industrial relations impact which would see drivers earmarked for redundancy and others having changes to their working conditions; the “rural network being dismantled in front of our very eyes”; and the effect it and other route cuts could have on the free travel service. For a senior citizen, if there’s no bus going through their area the free travel pass is going to be no use to them,” Mr Fitzgerald said.
