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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

BE strike [Read 1st post before posting]

1…5681011…125

Comments

  • #212
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    kub wrote: »
    The Government has no business in this, PSO routes are operated by Bus Eireann, they are paid a subsidy for this by NTA, who also provide the vehicles by the way.
    I hope the end result here is that, the tax payer does not have to carry the can for wastage by both drivers and management.
    I hope reality comes around, I hope BE is put down, just like a sick animal and that all these PSO routes are tendered out to private contractors so we will never see a situation like this again.

    The government have every business in this, it's taxpayer money and public transport. If it were some private bus company sure but to say they have no business in this when the company is pretty much state funded is ridiculous.

    And I'm not sure how well tendering out to private contractors will actually work, we see time and time again how ****ty private sector greed is when we privatise areas of public service, agency staff in the HSE, Eir etc. I'd rather see a cost breakdown of a potential tender for private contractors first before wishing away public services to private companies who's major motivation is profit.


  • #213
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,039 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    roddy15 wrote: »
    First point, you know I'm talking about this current issue. The government need to get involved now like they should have done when the company started losing millions. Not saying to write them a cheque but Shane Ross as transport minister should have intervened. Management clearly can't be trusted to run it correctly and have shot themselves in the foot by letting this strike happen. It's funny how they don't seem to care that by pushing the union to this point they will lose even more money.

    And in regards to the rest of it, as I said in an edit I'm not arguing that BE as a company has major issues in its costs and operations that need to be addressed but coming to workers in the current economic climate and demanding they take millions of euro in pay reductions is not going to get you a "ah sur" response. Strikes were always going to happen in my opinion when government refused to offer any assistance and both sides of the issue were entrenched.
    What exactly do you think should happen then if you don't think the taxpayer should cough up any more money for BE wages?


  • #214
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    roddy15 wrote: »
    The government have every business in this, it's taxpayer money and public transport.

    Indeed and right now the company is not providing value for money to the taxpayer, the state has a right to ensure that the taxpayers get value for money and that public services are operated in a way that do that. Unfortunately at the moment Bus Eireann do not do that.

    The government are standing up for the taxpayer in this.
    If it were some private bus company sure but to say they have no business in this when the company is pretty much state funded is ridiculous.

    Expressway has to be treated as any other commercial company as required under EU law.
    And I'm not sure how well tendering out to private contractors will actually work, we see time and time again how ****ty private sector greed is when we privatise areas of public service, agency staff in the HSE, Eir etc.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, de-regulated privatization leads to the vested interests of shareholders having too much power. Fully public operators lead to the vested interests of the staff having too much power. Neither model is ideal.


  • #215
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    murphaph wrote: »
    What exactly do you think should happen then if you don't think the taxpayer should cough up any more money for BE wages?

    Obviously the cost of running the company should be reduced, I never argued otherwise. If wages need to be looked at they need to be looked at, I'd start at the top though with management obviously. The problem lies when management apparently just walked into a negotiation and started listing off the millions of things that need to be reduced, cut etc. You don't do that if you want unions to stay in talks. The situation they put themselves in is worse now because they aren't making any money at all.

    At the same time though I don't think BE need to actually make a profit, they provide services in many cases that aren't exactly profitable. It's striking a balance, the current loss of money is far too much and long term it's probably not sustainable for us to plug the hole but a company that's under the state shouldn't have its sole goal as turning a profit.

    I know this is kind of a non-answer to many but I'm kind of busy and not overly vested in this to spend time making up my own plan.


  • #216
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    roddy15 wrote: »
    The problem lies when management apparently just walked into a negotiation and started listing off the millions of things that need to be reduced, cut etc. You don't do that if you want unions to stay in talks.

    You do if you're 3 months from insolvency and are realistic about attempting to stay in business.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    You do if you're 3 months from insolvency and are realistic about attempting to stay in business.

    Ignoring the fact that earning no money at all reduces that deadline. I'd rather have those few months for negotiation than just declaring an ultimatum right off the bat and cause the company to come to a halt... Forcing the unions hand just makes matters worse and anyone should know by now that waking into a room telling unions they'll have to swallow millions of euro in cuts will result in them saying "**** you then".


  • #218
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    I've flicked through this thread because I don't have much time in work today but I still don't know why the drivers are striking.

    I did start off initially supporting the drivers because my children use the Expressway service to visit me but a number of things have turned me against them:

    1. They are not being upfront and straight about what exactly they would be losing.

    2. They have been on media giving out about bus pass holders. They don't seem to realise that if bus pass holders weren't on their bus they'd have a lot less custom and therefore would definitely be out of a job.

    3. All this talk of losing overtime is outdated and needs to be got over. NO-ONE is entitled to overtime or bonuses. It's a public service attitude that sucks.

    4. One of the bus drivers on Expressway is extremely rude and lazy, gets pissed off because he has to stop at Newlands like it's such a big inconvenience to him while he's sitting comfortably in his seat. All he has to do is pull over and press a button.

    Unfair to judge maybe on one driver but come on lads, you want the public to stand by you then be polite to the public.


  • #219
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »
    What cost cutting measurements did management implement? That's what this strike is about isn't it? The unilateral imposition of cost cutting? Is it just reducing overtime by 3 hours a week? Or is there something substantial?

    The unions are looking for pay increase as well.

    http://buseireann.ie/news.php?id=2246&month=Feb
    The company has attempted to negotiate with the unions and has put every conceivable issue on the table without pre-conditions in an effort to address the financial crisis and ensure longer term competitiveness. The unions response to date has been to refuse to negotiate any change to terms and conditions, insist on a pay rise and seek compensation for staff who may have had a reduction in overtime earnings over the last few weeks.


  • #220
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    roddy15 wrote: »
    Ignoring the fact that earning no money at all reduces that deadline. I'd rather have those few months for negotiation than just declaring an ultimatum right off the bat and cause the company to come to a halt... Forcing the unions hand just makes matters worse and anyone should know by now that waking into a room telling unions they'll have to swallow millions of euro in cuts will result in them saying "**** you then".
    And when BE is placed into examinership as it will have to be shortly the examiner will tell the unions the same, while rapidly cutting the workforce and only giving statutory redundancy. Never mind if they go straight to winding the company up.
    Dangerous game from the unions.


  • #221
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    roddy15 wrote: »
    Obviously the cost of running the company should be reduced, I never argued otherwise. If wages need to be looked at they need to be looked at, I'd start at the top though with management obviously.

    It has already been outlined that management would be making a contribution, however the normal place to start would be the place that is providing the worst value for money and hemorrhaging money. A situation where people are working 1.5 hours overtime every day yet still only spending just over half their day driving for the core hours is a colossal waste of taxpayers money.

    The other arm which appears to be losing the company the most money is the administrative department who has an inverted pyramid of staff, where you have more staff members the higher you go up the chain which is again not sustainable and is the result of people being promoted based on service rather than the actual company requirements.

    The fact is that the driving grade alone is contributing to the costs of the company being over €25m than they would be, on the same terms and conditions without any cut to any pay or allowances if the rotas were redesigned to provide better value for money to the taxpayer and also to the company itself.
    The problem lies when management apparently just walked into a negotiation and started listing off the millions of things that need to be reduced, cut etc. You don't do that if you want unions to stay in talks. The situation they put themselves in is worse now because they aren't making any money at all.

    The situation is worse for everyone whilst the current situation goes on, implying the fact that the company is losing money isn't a problem of the workers and just the management is typical of the rhetoric we have heard in this dispute, that essentially the staff have nothing to do with it's all everyone elses fault and never theirs. A more mature way of dealing with it would be to realise that everyone is in it together.
    At the same time though I don't think BE need to actually make a profit, they provide services in many cases that aren't exactly profitable. It's striking a balance, the current loss of money is far too much and long term it's probably not sustainable for us to plug the hole but a company that's under the state shouldn't have its sole goal as turning a profit.

    Do you understand that the company is essentially split into two arms, one that operates PSO routes and the other one that operates commercial routes?

    Aside from the company inefficiency and the issues with the admin grade being a huge drain on resources, the drivers not providing taxpayer value for money and their low productivity which requires un-necessary overtime that vastly increases costs and fares on commercial services, the other element is the fact that the commercial management of the business in the past did not develop the services enough stating that express services were not viable, private operators proved they were and Bus Eireann got left behind because of piss poor management.
    I know this is kind of a non-answer to many but I'm kind of busy and not overly vested in this to spend time making up my own plan.

    Indeed, that is right, you've stated that the government don't necessarily have to pay, the staff shouldn't have to take the burden, but there are costs inefficiencies that need to be corrected but you have no idea how to make them.

    Congratulations on managing to totally lose any credibility you had.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    The unions are looking for pay increase as well.

    http://buseireann.ie/news.php?id=2246&month=Feb

    You trust the company itself to be straight with the facts? That's a lot of trust there... Damaging public opinion of the other party is something both sides want.


  • #223
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,449 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Those morons were looking for 21% or so, pay increases a few months ago! The worse the situation gets, the better the result for the taxpayer


  • #224
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    roddy15 wrote: »
    Ignoring the fact that earning no money at all reduces that deadline..

    The company have to take action to ensure that the company does not trade in a way that could be considered as being against company law, if directors of a company do not trade in this way they could be prosecuted or be disqualified from being directors of a company for a number of years.

    See:
    http://www.dilloneustace.com/download/1/Directors%20Duties%20when%20a%20Company%20is%20Facing%20Insolvency.pdf

    If the company stood by and continued to do nothing to arrest the situation the directors could have some serious problems down the line. By taking action and steps to arrest the financial meltdown, they are fully complying with these requirements, the law will not hold them responsible for the fact that their employees did not play along.


  • #225
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,039 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    roddy15 wrote: »
    Obviously the cost of running the company should be reduced, I never argued otherwise. If wages need to be looked at they need to be looked at, I'd start at the top though with management obviously. The problem lies when management apparently just walked into a negotiation and started listing off the millions of things that need to be reduced, cut etc. You don't do that if you want unions to stay in talks. The situation they put themselves in is worse now because they aren't making any money at all.

    At the same time though I don't think BE need to actually make a profit, they provide services in many cases that aren't exactly profitable. It's striking a balance, the current loss of money is far too much and long term it's probably not sustainable for us to plug the hole but a company that's under the state shouldn't have its sole goal as turning a profit.

    I know this is kind of a non-answer to many but I'm kind of busy and not overly vested in this to spend time making up my own plan.
    I'm afraid it is a non-answer.

    Expressway must compete as a private company effectively as there are EU rules in place to prevent government subsidy here (and with good cause...there is no need for a subsidy as there are plenty of private alternatives).

    The PSO routes are not profitable, so the state currently gives BE free busses and a subsidy to run them.

    The state should not have to "turn a profit" but the individual arms of the state should indeed function in an as cost effective manner as possible. BE falls well short of this.

    The biggest cost is due to wages, stemming from totally inefficient working practices/rotas, that require huge overtime for already well paid (well above private sector rates) drivers.

    Management can pretend to get rid of "admin waste" before slowly working down to the real problem (meanwhile the company loses more and more money) or they can cut to the chase (albeit belatedly) and inform the staff that their own wages and work practices are the main problem and must be tackled. immediately to stave off bankruptcy.

    Ultimately there is absolutely no reason why the state needs to own or operate busses. The only thing that matters is that the services are provided. Who provides them is irrelevant.


  • #226
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    roddy15 wrote: »
    You trust the company itself to be straight with the facts? That's a lot of trust there... Damaging public opinion of the other party is something both sides want.
    So were the union lying when they said this
    The NBRU and SIPTU have said that their members in Bus Éireann will engage in a "consultative process" to formulate a strategy in relation to pay increases workers are seeking.
    In a statement this evening, union representatives accused the company of showing contempt to both the Labour Court and its employees.
    Management and unions attended the Labour Court yesterday to address a union pay claim, believed to be worth up to 21%.
    However, it is now believed the submission handed in by unions called for similar pay increases to those given to Dublin Bus.
    That amounts to 11.25% over three years - significantly less than the earlier claim for 21%.
    That was less than four months ago


  • #227
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    devnull wrote: »
    Did they say what changed?

    Yeah the train drivers found out they wouldn't be getting paid.


  • #228
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    According to twitter, 12pm train from Dublin to Cork cancelled.

    Irish Rail told someone it was running when they asked
    Passenger arived at Heuston.
    Manager confirmed wth union no train was running
    Irish Rail have confirmed themselves that next train is 1pm.


  • #229
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    devnull wrote: »
    The company have to take action to ensure that the company does not trade in a way that could be considered as being against company law, if directors of a company do not trade in this way they could be prosecuted or be disqualified from being directors of a company for a number of years.

    See:
    http://www.dilloneustace.com/download/1/Directors%20Duties%20when%20a%20Company%20is%20Facing%20Insolvency.pdf

    If the company stood by and continued to do nothing to arrest the situation the directors could have some serious problems down the line. By taking action and steps to arrest the financial meltdown, they are fully complying with these requirements, the law will not hold them responsible for the fact that their employees did not play along.

    This has gone on for ages though. They've stood by until the last minute it seems giving them little time to actually negotiate effectively.


  • #230
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    roddy15 wrote: »
    You trust the company itself to be straight with the facts? That's a lot of trust there... Damaging public opinion of the other party is something both sides want.

    So are the drivers looking for a raise or not? And why can't anyone just give a straight answer?

    If they are looking for a raise btw then I don't support them in any way shape of form, you can't get blood from a stone and if a company is loss making then you can't have a raise.

    Don't like it you find a better paid job elsewhere.


  • #231
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    roddy15 wrote: »
    This has gone on for ages though. They've stood by until the last minute it seems giving them little time to actually negotiate effectively.

    There have been several weeks of negotiations including two long sittings in the WRC going on for around a week each, sometimes until late at night.

    It's not like they started yesterday, calling it last minute is laughable.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    pilly wrote: »
    Yeah the train drivers found out they wouldn't be getting paid.
    I heard Roy Keane stared at them through Skype, called them a bunch of langers and told them to drive fans to tonight's match. As the call faded the stare got more intense.
    Could be wrong though, maybe lack of pay wiped away their sympathy.


  • #233
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    So were the union lying when they said this
    That was less than four months ago

    Four months ago is different to what unions would have talked about in talks though in the last few weeks.

    "The unions response to date has been to refuse to negotiate any change to terms and conditions, insist on a pay rise and seek compensation for staff who may have had a reduction in overtime earnings over the last few weeks"

    Response to date implies the unions haven't given an inch in the last talks. But then listen to the radio and unions are saying they were willing to negiotate a number of areas where efficiencies could be made.

    Personally I think both are lying.


  • #234
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,539 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    yes, because they will be paid to do it, just like BE are currently, obviously. And with lower costs then BE would have they'd make money. Why wouldn't they, the only reason not to would be if the NTA didn't provide the buses (like they gift to BE) and they couldn't source them quick enough.

    A guaranteed payment fro a pso route regardless of number carried surely must be preferential to the unknown of a fully commercial route?!


    because the routes are mostly loss making. the couple of PSO routes that aren't, likely break even or make money. for the loss making routes, it doesn't matter how low costs are, most of the routes just aren't financially viable.
    pjohnson wrote: »
    Respecting stupidity only breeds more stupidity. The morons do need to get thought a lesson they clearly dont understand basic business concepts. They hear a business is loosing a disastrous amount of money but mentally deficient decide to strike and refuse to accept any reduction. Let them kill the company and try surviving in the real world.

    the non-morons don't need to be thought anything as there is nothing to be thought. they will have all the facts and based on the information, will have made a decisian individually as to whether strike action is the best course for them. they are surviving in the real world, the real world is the only world, the ideal world where nobody does better then someone else doesn't exist.
    Pkiernan wrote: »
    The whole company, management and union employees will hopefully reap what if has sown.
    BE must be allowed to collapse.

    it mustn't as people would be without service likely for a very long amount of time and the possible other consiquences to the users that may come.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #235
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    roddy15 wrote: »
    Four months ago is different to what unions would have talked about in talks though in the last few weeks.
    How do you know- were you there?
    FFS BE even offered them a basic pay increase if they agreed to the non core reductions.


  • #236
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,896 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    end of the road wrote: »
    because the routes are mostly loss making. the couple of PSO routes that aren't, likely break even or make money. for the loss making routes, it doesn't matter how low costs are, most of the routes just aren't financially viable.

    You don't think that the cost of running a service has any influence on if it is viable or not?


  • #237
    SkepticQuark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭SkepticQuark


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    How do you know- were you there?
    FFS BE even offered them a basic pay increase if they agreed to the non core reductions.

    In the art of taking points out of context I see. Read my post fully next time. That goes to all the people thanking your post too. Instead of pouncing on particular sentences at a time like some irritating cat, take the actual post as a whole...

    We don't know who offered what either. Talk to unions they say BE wasn't negiotating but they were, talk to BE and you get the opposite.


  • #238
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    end of the road wrote: »
    it mustn't as people would be without service likely for a very long amount of time and the possible other consiquences to the users that may come.
    But you've been telling us this for the last two years at every transport strike.
    end of the road wrote:
    you can get to work and school. car, taxi, bike, horse, walk. yes its difficult but not impossible. sometimes the terms need to be changed, improving pay and conditions happens all the time


  • #239
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    end of the road wrote: »
    because the routes are mostly loss making. the couple of PSO routes that aren't, likely break even or make money. for the loss making routes, it doesn't matter how low costs are, most of the routes just aren't financially viable.



    the non-morons don't need to be thought anything as there is nothing to be thought. they will have all the facts and based on the information, will have made a decisian individually as to whether strike action is the best course for them. they are surviving in the real world, the real world is the only world, the ideal world where nobody does better then someone else doesn't exist.



    it mustn't as people would be without service likely for a very long amount of time and the possible other consiquences to the users that may come.

    If BE have routes that are not financial viable they should drop the route and the staff accordingly. If there is a need for the route the NTA will put it out to PSO and BE can compete for it.

    The problem for BE is that it's cost base is so high it wouldn't be able to win a lot of the PSO routes and it would​be unable to get rid of excess staff. This would compound the problem.

    If this stand off goes on for more than a few days and the union doesn't back down, I feel BÉ will close down Expressway.


  • #240
    Wichita Lineman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,742 ✭✭✭✭Wichita Lineman


    Multiple trains cancelled for later this afternoon so the drivers are not too bothered about not being paid by IR it seems.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,039 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    But you've been telling us this for the last two years at every transport strike.
    Checkmate.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement