BE strike [Read 1st post before posting]

L1011 · 03-04-2017 08:17PM

Gael23 wrote: »

Surely any talks would be conditional on strikes being suspended?

Under normal rules, yes. I would question whether BE are in a financial state to resume operations without breaching rules on trading insolvent now, though.

StringerBell · 03-04-2017 08:35PM

Someone mentioned today there was something on the news last night (from a government spokesman) about if the routes etc go out to private companies that they would be able to get subvention for the expressway routes, but BE can't as they are a public company. That when pressed on why this is the case the response on multiple occasions was, thats just the way it is.

Is that correct?

Peppa Pig · 03-04-2017 08:36PM

Gael23 wrote: »

Surely any talks would be conditional on strikes being suspended?

Noone on 6 One told Dobbo that the drivers had nothing to lose by staying out on strike during any talks. This is because if it dragged on a bit longer they would have no jobs anyway as BE would be gone.
Strange logic, but its the first time a union leader has admitted that all these guys could end up on the dole.

Sad thing is Noone and O'Leary won't be heading to the DSP offices either way, they will still have their six figure incomes.

Brendan Bendar · 03-04-2017 08:40PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Noone on 6 One told Dobbo that the drivers had nothing to lose by staying out on strike during any talks. This is because if it dragged on a bit longer they would have no jobs anyway as BE would be gone.
Strange logic, but its the first time a union leader has admitted that all these guys could end up on the dole.

Sad thing is Noone and O'Leary won't be heading to the DSP offices either way, they will still have their six figure incomes.

Doubt if Noone is on six figures.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Either way was not convincing with Dobbo, tie undone and feeling the pressure.

Very bad mistake made by the wildcats.

L1011 · 03-04-2017 08:43PM

StringerBell wrote: »

Someone mentioned today there was something on the news last night (from a government spokesman) about if the routes etc go out to private companies that they would be able to get subvention for the expressway routes, but BE can't as they are a public company. That when pressed on why this is the case the response on multiple occasions was, thats just the way it is.

Is that correct?

Vaguely

The only way the Expressway routes could get subvention is if they became PSO routes, which is effectively impossible with an existing private operator (even if that operator is bleeding to death).

There are a small number of PSO services where Expressway was withdrawn from towns - due to bypasses - and were tendered with subsidy. Old M3/M8/M9 corridors that I know of.

I suspect that BE would be perfectly entitled to tender for a PSO offer for withdrawn Expressway routes. They wouldn't get it, due to the cost base and strike-happy workforce.

BuilderPlumber · 03-04-2017 08:48PM

Listening to the likes of Noone and O'Leary trying to justify this disgrace is sickening. The vast majority of the public have been furious with their hardline extremist actions that abused our laws (or lack of to be more precise) on industrial action and their outright illegal actions (even under our poor code of law wrt strikes) on Friday shows how little they respect the state and the public.

This mess addresses a need for legal reform on dealing with extremism and roguery in industrial disputes as well as them being hijacked by political entities like the AAA/Solidarity. The law should recognise the right to strike but also to limit how these strikes play out and to outlaw so-called sympathy strikes. A skeleton service should exist especially for people who need to get from A to B for work, exams, etc. Also, the link between unions and national party politics should be separated. I feel that a lot of these unions are mouthpieces for AAA and other such organisations and they all think they are Lech Walesa in their own egotistical heads (they are an insult to him more like it) and are making their cause to sound more just than it actually is (a lot of BE drivers have it good compared to many others).

end of the road · 03-04-2017 09:00PM

L1011 wrote: »

Vaguely

The only way the Expressway routes could get subvention is if they became PSO routes, which is effectively impossible with an existing private operator (even if that operator is bleeding to death).

There are a small number of PSO services where Expressway was withdrawn from towns - due to bypasses - and were tendered with subsidy. Old M3/M8/M9 corridors that I know of.

I suspect that BE would be perfectly entitled to tender for a PSO offer for withdrawn Expressway routes. They wouldn't get it, due to the cost base and strike-happy workforce.

of course they would get it. they don't have a strike happy work force and realistically any company both private and public can have a strike. the cost base issue is being dealt with by management at be cutting the benefits and the unions insuring the tendering cannot bring savings via driving down terms and conditions.

Graham · 03-04-2017 09:09PM

end of the road wrote: »

the cost base issue is being dealt with by management at be cutting the benefits and the unions insuring the tendering cannot bring savings via driving down terms and conditions.

You appear to be missing the point that this whole mess is because the unions/members refuse to accept anything that addresses the cost base issue.

BuilderPlumber · 03-04-2017 09:12PM

bk wrote: »

Entitled to go out in strike, yes of course.

Entitled to block other services from running, no absolutely not. Surrounding GoBE buses and threatening drivers and passengers (second strike they have done this now), no absolutely not.

And management are completely available to talk whenever they want. It is the BE staff who are out on strike and refusing to talk.

Have to agree 100%. They are entitled to strike but the nature of this strike from the very start showed that this was going to be no ordinary strike. The first things it did was abuse what is legal by giving very short notice and then by having it indefinite and complete withdrawal of services. Then things got worse with the totally disgraceful and illegal GoBE incident. Surrounding these buses and threatening them was little removed from engaging in violence. It shows that extremist elements are at play behind this. Staging illegal wildcat strikes that blocked trains and Dublin Bus and the DART from running was more of this and this happened the 2 Fridays of it.

Extremism in unions and industrial disputes can be a very dangerous trend. Certain union people are too closely aligned to national politics entities most commonly the AAA crowd. They should be totally separate to this. As with the water protests, politicians of a certain persuasion hijack them and this is where a lot of the more extremist views come out of.

bk · 03-04-2017 09:25PM

StringerBell wrote: »

Someone mentioned today there was something on the news last night (from a government spokesman) about if the routes etc go out to private companies that they would be able to get subvention for the expressway routes, but BE can't as they are a public company. That when pressed on why this is the case the response on multiple occasions was, thats just the way it is.

Is that correct?

Not really, someone is confused there!

So BE Expressway routes are purely commercial routes and commercial routes operated by BE or a private company (e.g. Aircoach, Citylink, etc.) get zero subsidy.

The only routes that get a subsidy currently are BE PSO routes.

If BE were to shutdown Expressway, then it is likely the routes would be offered on a purely commercial basis with no subsidy.

It is possible that some of the more marginal Expressway routes might not have any other company interested in it due to too low passenger figures and thus the NTA might decide to re-issue the route as a PSO route with subsidy, if there is a social need for the route.

However I really don't think that would happen with the majority of Expressway routes.

On the other hand, they are many BE PSO routes that clearly shouldn't be PSO routes at all. Routes like the 109 that are massive money makers and should really be turned into commercial routes with no subsidy and two operators competing on them.

L1011 · 03-04-2017 09:25PM

end of the road wrote: »

of course they would get it. they don't have a strike happy work force and realistically any company both private and public can have a strike. the cost base issue is being dealt with by management at be cutting the benefits and the unions insuring the tendering cannot bring savings via driving down terms and conditions.

The cost base is the workforce. The workforce who have gone on strike to ensure it isn't cut.

How are BE unions going to ensure a private operator isn't going to tender cheaper, exactly?

end of the road · 03-04-2017 09:46PM

L1011 wrote: »

The cost base is the workforce. The workforce who have gone on strike to ensure it isn't cut.

How are BE unions going to ensure a private operator isn't going to tender cheaper, exactly?

the unions are currently doing what they can to insure that tendering can't drive down terms and conditions as part of the 10% tendering program currently being undertaken by the NTA. by insuring tendering can't drive down terms and conditions they will be insuring that all operators have a level playing field. it won't stop an operator tendering cheeper then be but they won't be able to drive down terms and conditions to do so assuming the union can insure against such.

L1011 · 03-04-2017 09:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

the unions are currently doing what they can to insure that tendering can't drive down terms and conditions as part of the 10% tendering program currently being undertaken by the NTA. by insuring tendering can't drive down terms and conditions they will be insuring that all operators have a level playing field. it won't stop an operator tendering cheeper then be but they won't be able to drive down terms and conditions to do so assuming the union can insure against such.

You haven't explained how the unions can have any impact there. You've just said they're doing, well, something. That you can't define.

Graham · 03-04-2017 09:51PM

end of the road wrote: »

the unions are currently doing what they can to insure that tendering can't drive down terms and conditions as part of the 10% tendering program currently being undertaken by the NTA. by insuring tendering can't drive down terms and conditions they will be insuring that all operators have a level playing field. it won't stop an operator tendering cheeper then be but they won't be able to drive down terms and conditions to do so assuming the union can insure against such.

How do you imagine unions keeping costs inflated at BE is going to keep competition at bay?

tayto lover · 03-04-2017 09:52PM

I'm told that the Unions put together a package of proposals to seriously cut down on expenses and save the company a lot of money.
However the company didn't even read or examine them and went ahead with the cuts anyway.
The company seems to have an agenda.
I'm of the opinion that they want to force closure and open up again by re-hiring the younger drivers on reduced wages, letting the older higher-paid go for good and ditching the non-sustainable routes.

It might work for them but it's a lousy way of running a company and will harm the company in the future.

oppenheimer1 · 03-04-2017 09:54PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm told that the Unions put together a package of proposals to seriously cut down on expenses and save the company a lot of money.
However the company didn't even read or examine them and went ahead with the cuts anyway.
The company seems to have an agenda.
I'm of the opinion that they want to force closure and open up again by re-hiring the younger drivers on reduced wages, letting the older higher-paid go for good and ditching the non-sustainable routes.

It might work for them but it's a lousy way of running a company and will harm the company in the future.

If that were true the Unions would have been crowing about it in the media.

L1011 · 03-04-2017 09:56PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm told that the Unions put together a package of proposals to seriously cut down on expenses and save the company a lot of money.
However the company didn't even read or examine them and went ahead with the cuts anyway.
The company seems to have an agenda.
I'm of the opinion that they want to force closure and open up again by re-hiring the younger drivers on reduced wages, letting the older higher-paid go for good and ditching the non-sustainable routes.

It might work for them but it's a lousy way of running a company and will harm the company in the future.

Pretty sure it would have been splashed across the media and shouted from the rooftops if they had anything even vaguely realistic. That we've not heard a thing suggests they don't even have outlines.

There are very few costs to cut except pay costs - and the union has fought tooth and nail against some of the ones that aren't (fuel consumption tracking for instance).

Remember they were asking for pay *rises* - that'd eat the other cost savings entirely.

jimmycrackcorm · 03-04-2017 10:29PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Noone on 6 One told Dobbo that the drivers had nothing to lose by staying out on strike during any talks. This is because if it dragged on a bit longer they would have no jobs anyway as BE would be gone.
Strange logic, but its the first time a union leader has admitted that all these guys could end up on the dole.

Someone should tell him that if they quit arsing about most of them would have good secure jobs.

end of the road wrote: »

the unions are currently doing what they can to insure that tendering can't drive down terms and conditions as part of the 10% tendering program currently being undertaken by the NTA. by insuring tendering can't drive down terms and conditions they will be insuring that all operators have a level playing field. it won't stop an operator tendering cheeper then be but they won't be able to drive down terms and conditions to do so assuming the union can insure against such.

First of all the union are doing what they can to stop the workers driving! Why should these cossetted workers be treated any differently to the vast majority of use who live in the real world.

You also seem to imply that it's a bad thing that realism sets in, when there are plenty of people working driving private buses who are happy to do the job for decent pay. They may think it would be nice to spend half their working day only driving half the time and earning the other half claiming overtime for being out sick, but they're not out striking in favour of trying to emulate it.

There will be plenty of people who will happily want to do these jobs on wages that correctly reflect what they should be earning.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 03-04-2017 10:46PM

L1011 wrote: »

Under normal rules, yes. I would question whether BE are in a financial state to resume operations without breaching rules on trading insolvent now, though.

The cruical thing here is timing: do BE have enough on their side before they have to start issuing P45s?. I fear that they may not. :rolleyes:

eeguy · 03-04-2017 11:05PM

After watching the news I have to say my heart goes out to the drivers. 11 days walking around in a circle with a sign. No pay, no sign of a resolution, just constant waffle from unions and fear of redundancy from management.

I'd say management will give them an ultimatum. Everyone either accepts the terms or they all get laid off. You can say what you want about greed, but it's not greed that's keeping those lads on the picket.

end of the road · 03-04-2017 11:22PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

First of all the union are doing what they can to stop the workers driving! Why should these cossetted workers be treated any differently to the vast majority of use who live in the real world.

they aren't treated any differently and they do live in the real world, there is only 1 world.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You also seem to imply that it's a bad thing that realism sets in, when there are plenty of people working driving private buses who are happy to do the job for decent pay.

pay that is similar to be.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

They may think it would be nice to spend half their working day only driving half the time and earning the other half claiming overtime for being out sick, but they're not out striking in favour of trying to emulate it.

those are just claims by the company with no independant evidence to verify it. the claims may be true or they may not be.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There will be plenty of people who will happily want to do these jobs on wages that correctly reflect what they should be earning.

yes, the be core wages, which are similar to some of the privates. they correctly reflect what they should be, and are earning. for the pittence you would like bus drivers to get, there won't be anyone happy to do the job.

n97 mini · 03-04-2017 11:25PM

eeguy wrote: »

After watching the news I have to say my heart goes out to the drivers. 11 days walking around in a circle with a sign. No pay, no sign of a resolution, just constant waffle from unions and fear of redundancy from management.

I'd say management will give them an ultimatum. Everyone either accepts the terms or they all get laid off. You can say what you want about greed, but it's not greed that's keeping those lads on the picket.

Unions sold them a pup. Management have already laid out the problems. They can accept reality or keep dreaming.

end of the road · 03-04-2017 11:27PM

eeguy wrote: »

I'd say management will give them an ultimatum. Everyone either accepts the terms or they all get laid off.

that would potentially constitute a form of threatening/bullying behaviour in my view. it would also inflame tensions. management can't force the drivers to accept the terms, the drivers are the only ones who can make the decisian, unless the company goes first.

n97 mini wrote: »

Unions sold them a pup. Management have already laid out the problems. They can accept reality or keep dreaming.

the unions sold them nothing. it was the staff who decided to vote for action.

n97 mini · 03-04-2017 11:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

for the pittence you would like bus drivers to get, there won't be anyone happy to do the job.

??? They're the highest paid bus drivers in the country. Ergo there are plenty of bus drivers already working for less.

Graham · 03-04-2017 11:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

that would potentially constitute a form of threatening/bullying behaviour in my view. it would also inflame tensions. management can't force the drivers to accept the terms, the drivers are the only ones who can make the decisian, unless the company goes first.

Advising somebody of the facts is bullying?

Dyr · 03-04-2017 11:31PM

What was the goBE incidents? You would assume that company would take steps to protect customers/employees?

eeguy · 03-04-2017 11:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

that would potentially constitute a form of threatening/bullying behaviour in my view. it would also inflame tensions. management can't force the drivers to accept the terms, the drivers are the only ones who can make the decisian, unless the company goes first.

That's what I mean, accept the terms of the company folds. If such an event occurs then I can see it becoming every man for himself, fighting to get whatever positions remain after the "efficiencies".

n97 mini · 03-04-2017 11:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

the unions sold them nothing. it was the staff who decided to vote for action.

NBRU in particular encouraged them down the path they're on. Fortunately their neo-Marxist releases on their website for all and sundry to see.

end of the road · 03-04-2017 11:35PM

n97 mini wrote: »

??? They're the highest paid bus drivers in the country. Ergo there are plenty of bus drivers already working for less.

i never stated anything otherwise, however the less isn't that much less, ergo your point is invalid.

eeguy wrote: »

That's what I mean, accept the terms of the company folds. If such an event occurs then I can see it becoming every man for himself, fighting to get whatever positions remain after the "efficiencies".

yes i see what you mean. i guess time will tell what will actually happen.

n97 mini wrote: »

NBRU in particular encouraged them down the path they're on. Fortunately their neo-Marxist releases on their website for all and sundry to see.

there are no neo-Marxist releases on their website, and what releases are there aren't proof that the union encouraged anything.

lawred2 · 03-04-2017 11:46PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm told that the Unions put together a package of proposals to seriously cut down on expenses and save the company a lot of money.
However the company didn't even read or examine them and went ahead with the cuts anyway.
The company seems to have an agenda.
I'm of the opinion that they want to force closure and open up again by re-hiring the younger drivers on reduced wages, letting the older higher-paid go for good and ditching the non-sustainable routes.

It might work for them but it's a lousy way of running a company and will harm the company in the future.

Either what was produced was so laughable that even the unions withdrew them for fear of public ridicule or nothing was produced whatsoever..

There is no way that the unions would keep quiet publically about a credible package of savings that has just been dismissed out of hand..

BE strike [Read 1st post before posting]

Comments