BE strike [Read 1st post before posting]

StringerBell wrote: »

They haven't kept quiet about it.

If they've published their proposals can you link to it please? If not how exactly have they not been keeping quiet about it?

According to the NBRUs press releases they were willing to contribute less than 0.5 million when BE had said they need 6 million.

It is recognised that any reduction in payroll that is necessary (and we accept that it is) due to the eradication of inefficiencies, may result in some staff not retaining a similar earning capacity into the future, we went on to say that; any losses that may be incurred, can be addressed as a component of any potential discussions.

You then go on in your correspondence, to dismiss the notion of some savings from ad-hoc overtime as amounting ‘to less than €0.5 million in a full year’

This less than €0.5m is approximately 8.3% of the €6 million projected losses as outlined to Staff by the then CEO Martin Nolan in September last.

An amount not to be sneered at I would suggest, if you were solely concentrating on the Expressway deficit of course.

http://nbru.ie/union/index.php/press-release/nbru-write-to-the-acting-ceo-regarding-bus-eireann-proposal-to-immediately-implement-cuts-to-staff-pay-and-conditions-breaching-of-longstanding-collective-agreements/

They also suggest that the company find more money elsewhere...

http://nbru.ie/union/index.php/press-release/nbru-writes-to-the-acting-ceo-of-bus-eireann-regarding-media-reports-of-a-41-increase-in-losses-at-expressway/

The apparent determination of Bus Éireann to force its own Staff onto the picket lines to fix a deficit of either €6 or €9 million, from a an overall annual spend of €330 million, of which €133 million is payroll, is presenting difficulties for our members in terms of fully understanding what it is actually going on here.

Maybe you, as Acting CEO will be of assistance here by explaining the following:

 Can you break down and pinpoint exactly how the losses at Expressway have increased by 41% in a twelve month period?

 Can you provide figures for the Revenue losses at Expressway for February 2016 and the corresponding figures for February 2017?

 Can you explain in as much detail as is possible why it is that Bus Éireann are pursuing a savings target of €30 million of which €12 million is from payroll?

 Can you explain why the offer of extensive, time bound discussions around efficiencies, from which short term savings can be found has apparently been spurned by Bus Éireann?

 Is the alleged €9 million loss for 2016 an actual operational loss are is this an accounting loss made up of other variables?

 What is the operational profit/loss for each Expressway region in the country?

 Is there any superfluous spending outside of payroll that could be targeted instead?

 Have you considered other options that would alleviate the immediate cash flow and solvency issues and create a headroom for detailed and comprehensive discussions?

BE aren't ignoring these suggestions. The drivers and the unions are ignoring the fact that their proposed savings are too small

Zebra3 wrote: »

Pay rises for our beloved, honest TDs.

Grants and subsidies galore for horse racing and greyhounds.

No money to fund BÉ though.

There is money to fund bus eireann though.
Just not for their loss making expressway routes which are commercial services.
It would be illegal state aid to fund expressway

Zebra3 wrote: »

Pay rises for our beloved, honest TDs.

Grants and subsidies galore for horse racing and greyhounds.

No money to fund BÉ though.

Why fund loses

But of course , everyone the horses and dogs get an increase, BE employees should get a wage increase

Great logic

If BE employees would like a TD s salary then drop driving busses and starting printing posters !!

Zebra3 wrote: »

Pay rises for our beloved, honest TDs.

Grants and subsidies galore for horse racing and greyhounds.

No money to fund BÉ though.

Are you aware of how BE is funded?

kiaronh wrote: »

It's time wasting. They know full well that if BE had 6 million of "superfluous spending" that they could cut they'd have cut that before picking a fight with the unions.

I can't see any specific or practical ideas from the NBRU to deal with the other 5.5 million in savings BE need.

There's a deliberate mis-representation of the economic situation by the unions

Based on the 2015 report which is the last published figures we have available ,

* BE stated it broke even on PSO routes , that's as expected ( even if you except the PSO contribution is covering those poor work practices )

* BE stated that lack of competitive position started in expressway as a result of a removal of the pay reductions agreed in 2012 and also as a result of private competition, despite that it grew revenue by 1% ( so one presumes the issue is that competition is preventing fare increases )

* BE Had a surplus in 2013., but losses in 2014 (4 million) , 15 ( 7 million ) , 16 and presumably into 2017 , unsupported claims state losses in 2016 where 12 million , clearly the problem is getting worse

* A large part of the issue is the poor net current assets position, excerbated by large depreciation write downs due to new bus purchases. BE net current assests were 16 million, in 2015 , with at that time accumulated losses of 12 million . I suspect BE has been insolvent for months now.

The issue with BE isn't cash, which the union keep saying it is , ( as it the gov should give BE more money ) BE has adequate liquidity , it made a small operating profit in 2015 after all , then wiped out by depreciation

Subvented Cash can't fix BEs position, that something the unions are deliberately avoiding.

This can't be fixed by opening a chequebook , because cash only delays the inevitable . BE must either withdraw from commercial competitive routes ( redundancies ) , or seek significant cost reductions in its major operating cost , (salaries &wages cuts)
.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I could be mistaken but I think it actually was considered state aid but given how a country can't really operate without a banking sector it was seen as necessary to do it regardless of if it was state aid or not. Seriously, a collapse of the banking sector would destroy a country (just look at what happened when Ulster Bank had technical issues and that was not any where near as bad as a collapse of the banking sector would be) , a collapse of bus eireann will just inconvenience a certain amount of people.

It wasn't state aid. Firstly the state didn't selectively intervene and secondly in Anglos case , the situation was a guarantee of losses while the bank was shut down by the state ( the state bought the bank )


State aid is when you give normally competitive business selective money

end of the road wrote: »

because they will make money out of it. they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. so i'm afraid it's no proof of being better off with only private operators. we need a state owned 1 as well.

They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. Neither do BE either.

It simply doesn't matter who runs the buses once people can get from A to B

end of the road wrote: »

because they will make money out of it. they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. so i'm afraid it's no proof of being better off with only private operators. we need a state owned 1 as well.

Nowhere has it been shown that a publically owned bus company is required to run a bus service ( subsidised routes or not )

end of the road wrote: »

because they will make money out of it. they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. so i'm afraid it's no proof of being better off with only private operators. we need a state owned 1 as well.

Why? Because you say so?

Is there any reason to believe the WRC intervention can agree a deal?

Seems to me the correct resolution here is to wind up Expressway, with whatever consequent redundancy impacts occur as a result of that decision. The rest of the BE service offering is maintained and a smaller semi state company operates services that are primarily non commercial. Unions can like it or lump it I guess, but that seems to me to be the most realistic outcome that ultimately serves the public need.

I do support Unions and I think workers need to have the right to organise and work leverage to their own advantage but I think this situation has been irretrievable from the start. Management should have been proactively dealing with the issue 18 - 24 months ago and essentially forced a Union showdown at that time. They let it go on too late, and the staff are now taking a desperate course of action because they believe if they concede death by a thousand cuts will occur in the wake of these specific changes.

The rational course of action for most BE staff now, particularly those engaged in the Expressway part of the business, is to accept the current impositions by management (which will ultimately fall short of what's required) and start aggressively seeking alternative full time employment.