nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Stephen15

So since the last thread on this got closed and dosen't appear to be reopening any time soon. Heres a new one for you.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

punisher5112

Stephen15 wrote: »

Tbh I don't get how it is possible to grab the steering wheel of an in service DB bus with the perspex screen in the way.

Or are you like some DB drivers who use it as an armrest with one hand on the steering wheel . But seriously I have noticed a large amount drive with the perspex either half way down or the full way down if threats are such an issue why don't 100% of drivers drive with it the full way up 100% of the time.

I won't say how but especially the newer sg it's very easy this is with the screen up by the way.

When's it's up it's near impossible to hear passengers state payment or destination.

I didn't use it for years do now though....
It's not from the attacks I use it either it's helping keep me well and less chance of getting sick from as# hats sneezing and coughing right in on top of me.

Tickityboo

Stephen15 wrote: »

Tbh I don't get how it is possible to grab the steering wheel of an in service DB bus with the perspex screen in the way.

Or are you like some DB drivers who use it as an armrest with one hand on the steering wheel . But seriously I have noticed a large amount drive with the perspex either half way down or the full way down if threats are such an issue why don't 100% of drivers drive with it the full way up 100% of the time.

Because the cabs are very small and having the screen up makes it feel very claustrophobic.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

I won't say how but especially the newer sg it's very easy this is with the screen up by the way.

When's it's up it's near impossible to hear passengers state payment or destination.

I didn't use it for years do now though....
It's not from the attacks I use it either it's helping keep me well and less chance of getting sick from as# hats sneezing and coughing right in on top of me.

Is that not what the small holes in it are for so the driver and passengers can communicate with one another or is this not effective enough.

The cab design on DB does look poor mind you compared to continental models. A lot of buses on the have a much larger wrap around cab which is fully transparent reducing the blind spot on the left hand side.

punisher5112

Stephen15 wrote: »

Is that not what the small holes in it are for so the driver and passengers can communicate with one another or is this not effective enough.

The cab design on DB does look poor mind you compared to continental models. A lot of buses on the have a much larger wrap around cab which is fully transparent reducing the blind spot on the left hand side.

Dealing with people with headphones on, who just whisper anyway and all traffic sounds and bus engine it's very hard to hear unless they speak properly.

The holes wouldn't help much at all.

dublinbuster

soundman45 wrote: »

Bus eireann announced today that they are looking for 200 drivers across the country. If go ahead need approx 300 drivers it's good news for drivers surely as these are well paid secure jobs now on offer.

they are hiring only because drivers are leaving in droves,

dublinbuster

GM228 wrote: »

Yes there was to be a "job evaluation exercise" between DB and "the light rail system" as per the agreement, but it did not have any specific mention to the new LUAS pay scales which is the point I'm making, nor did it have any terms of reference, last I heard this has not happened.

who to believe
a anonymous internet poster who may or may or may not have a agenda
or
2 bus drivers who have read a document and then voted on it?

dublinbuster

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ask yourself the big questions..particularly regarding Shift Work...Weekend Work.... :eek: LATE Weekend Work :eek:and long days with irregular break patterns.

.

hours and shifts can be woeful, your social life will take a huge hit
wife/girlfriend will moan about not going out together at weekend as you are working, but for some this might be a bonus

with drink driving laws even more stiff for professional drivers , forget about having a few beers if you are working early next day

dublinbuster

Stephen15 wrote: »

Tbh I don't get how it is possible to grab the steering wheel of an in service DB bus with the perspex screen in the way.

Or are you like some DB drivers who use it as an armrest with one hand on the steering wheel . But seriously I have noticed a large amount drive with the perspex either half way down or the full way down if threats are such an issue why don't 100% of drivers drive with it the full way up 100% of the time.

some genius tough it would be a good idea to have the demisters on the sg bus blowing all the time, a lot of them are stuck on heat setting, on a warm day the bus gets very hot, now imaging if the heating was on back in the passenger area, well its like the heating is on all the time in the cab, hot air coming out of the demisters that cant be turned off.

dublinbuster

the same drivers are in trouble with passengers week in week out
you start the job and you do everything by the book, this leads to problems, and off you go to see the boss on a thursday.
you soon learn to turn a blind eye to all sorts of shenanigans on board the bus, or you are told by senior drivers to turn a blind eye, as soon as you do this the job becomes instantly easier, no more problems or complaints that require a visit to the boss.
90% of drivers take this attitude, they are what DB would call good drivers.
10% just cant turn a blind eye, they take it personal that someone is fare dodging or anti social, some insist on doing the job by the book, and some are just plane thick.
this 10% are the ones always in trouble.
if your a driver, mellow out, drive the bus, thats all you got to do, why worry about fare evasion? DB/NTA dont, look at the lack of ticket checking.
if there is anti social activity, keep driving, dont get involved unless a passenger complains about it, this rarely ever happens. So mellow out and drive the bus.
years into the job, im a zen master, you could let a bomb off on the bus and i would not notice it, i regularly get passengers getting off the bus who comment "i dont know how you stick it, the baby screaming/drunk party upstairs". i would not notice it until it was brought to my attention, and as soon as the door shuts and i drive off i forget all about it.

GM228

dublinbuster wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

Yes there was to be a "job evaluation exercise" between DB and "the light rail system" as per the agreement, but it did not have any specific mention to the new LUAS pay scales which is the point I'm making, nor did it have any terms of reference, last I heard this has not happened.

who to believe
a anonymous internet poster who may or may or may not have a agenda
or
2 bus drivers who have read a document and then voted on it?

There is no "agenda", I'm not sure why there may even be a hint of any possible agenda to be honest.

Yes, who to believe?

Well, many regulars here will know my unique position when it comes to WRC/LC issues, if you were around in the past you will know that I have been able to post (word for word) the details of various recommendations and deals including the DB, BE, IE and LUAS deals long before even the media and staff themselves have got hold of them, the details of which were later confirmed by the media and when the documents became officially available, and why do you think that may be?

So back to the question of who to believe, two bus drivers who may or may not have read the document or someone who was involved in the process (at a higher than bus driver level) and has the document in their hand?

Perhaps you have read and voted on the document, I don't doubt you have, but if so it's a case that you mis-remember it or the union put their own spin on it for the bus drivers, I don't know, but what it actually states is:-

WRC C-161262 wrote:

6. In relation to the Trade Unions' contentions that the terms and conditions of Dublin Bus Drivers have fallen behind their counterparts in the light rail system, the parties agree to engage in a job evaluation exercise to be carried out by a mutually agreed independent expert. The terms of reference, which should include a conclusion date, will be agreed by all relevant parties. The outcome will be considered by all relevant stakeholders.

Look familiar?

The important point I made was the deal had no terms of reference and so saying it specifically referenced to LUAS pay scales is completely incorrect. It's just unfortunate that the document is (to the best of my knowledge) not available anywhere online to the general public so I can link it, I have looked but can't find one.

WRC documents usually are not available as opposed to LC recommendations and the DB deal was based on a WRC brokered deal as opposed to a LC recommendation.

dublinbuster

GM228 wrote: »

WRC documents usually are not available as opposed to LC recommendations and the DB deal was based on a WRC brokered deal as opposed to a LC recommendation.

based on WRC deal
so might be different than the WRC deal
incoming pay rise confirmed?i

GM228

dublinbuster wrote: »

based on WRC deal
so might be different than the WRC deal
incoming pay rise confirmed?i

There was one WRC deal which was voted on and accepted (following rejection of a previous LC recommendation). It provided for the pay rises etc, that is a direct quote from the accepted deal.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

There is no "agenda", I'm not sure why there may even be a hint of any possible agenda to be honest.

Yes, who to believe?

Well, many regulars here will know my unique position when it comes to WRC/LC issues, if you were around in the past you will know that I have been able to post (word for word) the details of various recommendations and deals including the DB, BE, IE and LUAS deals long before even the media and staff themselves have got hold of them, the details of which were later confirmed by the media and when the documents became officially available, and why do you think that may be?

So back to the question of who to believe, two bus drivers who may or may not have read the document or someone who was involved in the process (at a higher than bus driver level) and has the document in their hand?

Perhaps you have read and voted on the document, I don't doubt you have, but if so it's a case that you mis-remember it or the union put their own spin on it for the bus drivers, I don't know, but what it actually states is:-

6. In relation to the Trade Unions' contentions that the terms and conditions of Dublin Bus Drivers have fallen behind their counterparts in the light rail system, the parties agree to engage in a job evaluation exercise to be carried out by a mutually agreed independent expert. The terms of reference, which should include a conclusion date, will be agreed by all relevant parties. The outcome will be considered by all relevant stakeholders.

Look familiar?

The important point I made was the deal had no terms of reference and so saying it specifically referenced to LUAS pay scales is completely incorrect. It's just unfortunate that the document is (to the best of my knowledge) not available anywhere online to the general public so I can link it, I have looked but can't find one.

WRC documents usually are not available as opposed to LC recommendations and the DB deal was based on a WRC brokered deal as opposed to a LC recommendation.

Apologies for my use of the term Wage Scale in post #988,which may have given you the impression that I simply scrawled an X beside whatever wording my Union Official instructed me to....;)

It's actually kinda true,as the 2015 agreement contained a committment from both parties to carry out a comparative exercise with reference to the then new Tram Drivers wage scale.

The Unions have not yet outlined whether this process has actually begun.

You corrrectly challenged this,however,I would suggest that the agreement's reference to Drivers "Terms & Conditions",not only includes Wages,but a far broader selection of issues.

It is a fact,that this paragraph is an integral component of the Agreement,(accepted by both parties) and any refusal or or reluctance to abide by this would have repercussion for not only the parties directly involved,but also for the integrity of the WRC process itself.

Making a distinction between "Wages" and "Terms & Conditions" is dancing on a pinhead in the context of what we are discussing here.

I'm certainly not questioning your bona-fides on the WRC agreement issue,and I can readily confirm and endorse your many and accurate posts over a long period,however the tone of this discussion appears to be veering to suggesting that Busdrivers find detail difficult to deal with or digest.

All I can say is that I fully expect item 6,the Job Evaluation Exercise, to be progressed,as agreed,or to have a full explanation as to the reasons for not doing so.

This,of itself does'nt equate to an automatic pay rise for Bus Drivers,but it's fair to say it would not reduce expectations of one.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

Apologies for my use of the term Wage Scale in post #988,which may have given you the impression that I simply scrawled an X beside whatever wording my Union Official instructed me to....

I didn't think you simply put an X beside any particular vote choice as dictated by or otherwise, however I did get the impression you were stating that there was specific reference to the LUAS pay scales, and to be fair your post....

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's actually kinda true,as the 2015 agreement contained a committment from both parties to carry out a comparative exercise with reference to the then new Tram Drivers wage scale.

....is what gave that impression. I was not sure if this was due to the vote being nearly two years ago and a vague recollection of the mention of T&Cs gave a misremembered impression of such, and I'm sure there are other bus drivers here in C&T who are reading this who may also have a vague recollection of the wording and take from the post that that was a specific point of the agreement.

At least we have clarified the point though

AlekSmart wrote: »

You corrrectly challenged this,however,I would suggest that the agreement's reference to Drivers "Terms & Conditions",not only includes Wages,but a far broader selection of issues.

You see this is where the issue arises in relation to the agreement, the parties did not agree to discuss or evaluate "terms and conditions", the parties agreed to conduct a "job evaluation" and nothing more, this evaluation came about due to the unions contention that bus drivers T&Cs fell behind LUAS drivers T&Cs, but an actual discussion of T&Cs is not specifically stated, nothing is when there are no terms of reference included as part of the agreement.

WRC C-161262 wrote:

6. In relation to the Trade Unions' contentions that the terms and conditions of Dublin Bus Drivers have fallen behind their counterparts in the light rail system, the parties agree to engage in a job evaluation exercise to be carried out by a mutually agreed independent expert. The terms of reference, which should include a conclusion date, will be agreed by all relevant parties. The outcome will be considered by all relevant stakeholders.

Yes it states in relation to, but, the nub of what was agreed is simply to do a job evaluation and not an evaluation of any specific T&C.

In fact the agreement could have specifically stated wages amongst other things, but when it leaves the terms of reference to be agreed outside the scope of the agreement then nothing written within the agreement itself is to form part of an evaluation unless agreed afterwards, and this is the important thing to note. I have seen many documents like this where due to the wording certain expectations were raised, but what was delivered was the total opposite, but, when scrutinised were actually in accordance with what was actually written in an agreement.

It does not help when unions put their own spin on things either and are very suggestive of what a particular point means, especially when there is some ambiguity as to what it actually means, I’m involved in industrial relations long enough to know this to be all too true all too many times, I also know that the shop stewards in DB at the time of the vote in October 2016 specifically told their members that the LUAS pay scales WILL be up for discussion after the agreement despite there being no specific guarantees in the agreement.

If I'm honest paragraph 6 of the agreement is IMO poorly worded (and has actually been scrutinised by some at the WRC by the way). The use of the word stakeholders for example is an issue as it implies a greater audience to consider the evaluation than simply the agreeing parties.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is a fact,that this paragraph is an integral component of the Agreement,(accepted by both parties) and any refusal or or reluctance to abide by this would have repercussion for not only the parties directly involved,but also for the integrity of the WRC process itself.

Agreed, but all the agreement provides for is an evaluation and consideration of such evaluation, not a basis for a potential pay rise, although that’s what it will no doubt eventually become, the problem is the agreement stated the evaluation should be considered…..

It fell short of stating what it should be considered for, in such a document that’s a dangerous thing to do as it can be interpreted in many ways, should it be considered for a wage increase, or should it be considered for other monetary/perk related benefits etc.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Making a distinction between "Wages" and "Terms & Conditions" is dancing on a pinhead in the context of what we are discussing here.

I disagree, there is a huge distinction, yes wages are part of your T&Cs, but, they are only one part of your T&Cs and a mention of T&Cs does not mean wages will be included, T&Cs could mean many other non-wages issues for example. As already outlined wages are not specifically up for discussion unless agreed by the parties.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm certainly not questioning your bona-fides on the WRC agreement issue,and I can readily confirm and endorse your many and accurate posts over a long period,however the tone of this discussion appears to be veering to suggesting that Busdrivers find detail difficult to deal with or digest.

If I gave that impression I do apologise, that is not what I’m trying to say, it is possible however as I outlined that some are mis-informed or misremember and that was my line of though.

I note that you highlighted my “at a higher than bus driver level” part of my post. I would like to note that I did not mean this to direct criticism or insult towards bus drivers if that’s the impression given, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I was trying to make the point that my interest in the issue was not in relation to the party mentioned or the parties concerned.

AlekSmart wrote: »

All I can say is that I fully expect item 6,the Job Evaluation Exercise, to be progressed,as agreed,or to have a full explanation as to the reasons for not doing so.

Indeed and no doubt it will.

AlekSmart wrote: »

This,of itself does'nt equate to an automatic pay rise for Bus Drivers,but it's fair to say it would not reduce expectations of one.

Indeed, and I suspect that any evaluation will be used where possible by either side in any negotiations.

AlekSmart

If I'm honest paragraph 6 of the agreement is IMO poorly worded (and has actually been scrutinised by some at the WRC by the way). The use of the word stakeholders for example is an issue as it implies a greater audience to consider the evaluation than simply the agreeing parties.

I believe the use of the word "stakeholders" in the agreement was/is quite pertinent.
As you say,the more commonly used term would be "parties",which would usually be Employees & Employer.
You may also recall,during the lead-up to the dispute,and indeed during it,one of the charges levelled against the Minister for Transport was his reluctance to engage on the issues under dispute.
I will be quite interested to learn the eventual makeup of the "stakeholder" representatives,and I suggest it will be greater than two....:)

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

I believe the use of the word "stakeholders" in the agreement was/is quite pertinent.
As you say,the more commonly used term would be "parties",which would usually be Employees & Employer.
You may also recall,during the lead-up to the dispute,and indeed during it,one of the charges levelled against the Minister for Transport was his reluctance to engage on the issues under dispute.
I will be quite interested to learn the eventual makeup of the "stakeholder" representatives,and I suggest it will be greater than two....:)

Indeed stakeholder is an all encompassing term usually meaning more than two in such a situation, the unions used the word stakeholder quite a lot, not just with the DB dispute, but with all of the transport sector disputes.

And yes the Minister, the Department of Transport and the NTA were all mentioned under that umbrella by the unìns.

The problem with the use of the word is it implies a greater audience than those who actually accepted the deal which you just don't or should not do, you obviously can't bound a third party, but it potentially leads to the belief that the DTTAS and NTA must also consider the evaluation which is an incorrect assessment.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed stakeholder is an all encompassing term usually meaning more than two in such a situation, the unions used the word stakeholder quite a lot, not just with the DB dispute, but with all of the transport sector disputes.

And yes the Minister, the Department of Transport and the NTA were all mentioned under that umbrella by the unìns.

The problem with the use of the word is it implies a greater audience than those who actually accepted the deal which you just don't or should not do, you obviously can't bound a third party, but it potentially leads to the belief that the DTTAS and NTA must also consider the evaluation which is an incorrect assessment.

Oh,I dunno.....Politics and Politicians can often throw up scenarios in which odd things happen,particular if the timing is strategic enough.

As you say,them pesky Unions did (often) attempt to secure greater direct involvement from Minister,department,and the NTA.

Whilst Minister Ross did indeed play a blinder,it is of note that none of these "third parties" rushed to deny,or even play down the possibility of their involvement further along in the process.

I would'nt exactly be switching off the lights in their offices just yet.....;)

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whilst Minister Ross did indeed play a blinder,it is of note that none of these "third parties" rushed to deny,or even play down the possibility of their involvement further along in the process.

Why would they deny it? By even gracing it with a denial, you kind of agreeing that you are a stakeholder. You just end up getting drawn into it.

By saying nothing at all, you are distancing yourself from it.

dublinbuster

Aircoach, BE, DB all hiring drivers at the same time as Go Ahead, the problem for Go Ahead is the first 3 are paying substantially more money to drivers, could be a problem for Go Ahead to get and retain drivers.
How many drivers have applied to work to drive for Go Ahead, but will now jump ship to Aircoach , BE, DB for more money?

loyatemu

when do GoAhead start running services (I'm sure it's in the thread somewhere, but it's 1000 posts long now)?

[Deleted User]

loyatemu wrote: »

when do GoAhead start running services (I'm sure it's in the thread somewhere, but it's 1000 posts long now)?

October

Contrails

dublinbuster wrote: »

Aircoach, BE, DB all hiring drivers at the same time as Go Ahead, the problem for Go Ahead is the first 3 are paying substantially more money to drivers, could be a problem for Go Ahead to get and retain drivers.
How many drivers have applied to work to drive for Go Ahead, but will now jump ship to Aircoach , BE, DB for more money?

BE and DB pay a fair wage alright. What are aircoach like?

Imo the Go ahead wage is a joke and a false economy. More men and women for the Family Income Supplement queue.

dublinbuster

Contrails wrote: »

BE and DB pay a fair wage alright. What are aircoach like?

Imo the Go ahead wage is a joke and a false economy. More men and women for the Family Income Supplement queue.

have been told week wage is higher than DB/BE due to built in OT.

[Deleted User]

DB and BE clearly state wages paid. Aircoach pay well but have a 4yr pay scale. Dublin coach pay €110 day rate. Airport hopper ads say 10.50 per hour on other websites it says 25k or 33k dunno which is true I'd like to drive the hopper if wages were decent.

[Deleted User]

Forgot to say apparently one well known operator on express corridor pays drivers 80 per day after taxes.

L1011

I've seen hopper drivers getting tips from American tourists at the Clayton before - wouldn't make as job decision on that possibility though!

.G.

dublinbuster wrote: »

the same drivers are in trouble with passengers week in week out
you start the job and you do everything by the book, this leads to problems, and off you go to see the boss on a thursday.
you soon learn to turn a blind eye to all sorts of shenanigans on board the bus, or you are told by senior drivers to turn a blind eye, as soon as you do this the job becomes instantly easier, no more problems or complaints that require a visit to the boss.
90% of drivers take this attitude, they are what DB would call good drivers.
10% just cant turn a blind eye, they take it personal that someone is fare dodging or anti social, some insist on doing the job by the book, and some are just plane thick.
this 10% are the ones always in trouble.
if your a driver, mellow out, drive the bus, thats all you got to do, why worry about fare evasion? DB/NTA dont, look at the lack of ticket checking.
if there is anti social activity, keep driving, dont get involved unless a passenger complains about it, this rarely ever happens. So mellow out and drive the bus.
years into the job, im a zen master, you could let a bomb off on the bus and i would not notice it, i regularly get passengers getting off the bus who comment "i dont know how you stick it, the baby screaming/drunk party upstairs". i would not notice it until it was brought to my attention, and as soon as the door shuts and i drive off i forget all about it.

Exactly how I was when I drove them. Couldn't give a rats what went on as long as I was able to do my days work without having my head melted. Getting from A to B safely was all I was arsed with. I collected whatever fares people wanted to pay me and had no interest in where they got off after that.

Its the companies job to protect their revenue not the drivers, they aren't arsed with it and never have been so why should the driver be.

I got fed up with the shifts and life as a junior driver in the end so went on my way but I enjoyed maneuvering those beasts about town while I was there. If anyone has an interest in doing it I'd encourage them to give it a go, nothing to lose, but you really won't know if you can hack the shift patterns until you do it, everything else that goes on just ignore it and you'll have a peaceful working life.

devnull

Go-Ahead are now recruiting or will shortly begin recruiting for several more positions:

Head of Operations (Applications Close Tuesday 22nd May 2018)
Depot Supervisors (Planned Recruitment - June)
Controllers (Planned Recruitment - June)
Revenue Protection Officers (Planned Recruitment - July)

Interesting that they're hiring RPOs, hope they are more visible than the Dublin Bus ones.

punisher5112

devnull wrote: »

Go-Ahead are now recruiting or will shortly begin recruiting for several more positions:

Head of Operations (Applications Close Tuesday 22nd May 2018)
Depot Supervisors (Planned Recruitment - June)
Controllers (Planned Recruitment - June)
Revenue Protection Officers (Planned Recruitment - July)

Interesting that they're hiring RPOs, hope they are more visible than the Dublin Bus ones.

Db has 4 yes 4 rpu checkers

devnull

punisher5112 wrote: »

Db has 4 yes 4 rpu checkers

So in essence even if Go-Ahead hire just one revenue protection officer they are going to have double the number of RPOs per bus than Dublin Bus has now.