Bus Eireann strike - services have resumed (Read first post)

devnull · 10-05-2013 01:02PM

It's not the job of the government to do 100% of what people want though is it. It's the job of them to do what is best for the country and sometimes that involves making unpopular decisions.

If you asked 50,000 people on the streets would they like tax hikes, spending cuts or cutbacks to budgets most of them would say no because nobody is going to vote to have less money or pay more tax are they?

The same in business, sometimes tough decisions have to be taken that people don't want to take, but circumstances dictate. You can't bury your head in the sand and do nothing and hope it will go away.

That is what Fianna Fail did, if they acknowledged the problems the country had far earlier, when the warning signs were there we'd all have less debt around our necks right now but they left it far too late and now everyone has to deal with the consequences.

Lapin · 10-05-2013 01:08PM

According to Newstalk right now, Bus Éireann drivers are on €47k a year and haven't taken a cut since 2008.

Nurses have taken 2 cuts since then and earn €34k.

A newly recruted Garda will have to work for 17 years before reaching the salary of a Bus Éireann driver.

Something stinks here.

Bits_n_Bobs · 10-05-2013 01:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

who the hell do you think you are, how dare you show contempt for public sector workers, and suggest that our boys and girls driving the busses for our state operator should be sacked for taking a legal and vital course of action that is only been taken as a last resort, and then you have the audacity to suggest that BE should be folded and replaced by private operators and new drivers interviewed adding insult to injoury just because you want to turn ireland into a place where workers have very few rights and have no choice but to except any old thing, BE is not luas, the current situation to luas is fine for that and should be only exclusive to that, ireland needs state run operators along with the private operators, a situation we have apart from the railways, the working conditions BE drivers have are vital to make sure we get the best tallent for the job, our state operators will not be replaced with a luas style operation as state run operators are vital to make sure places private operators don't wish to serve have some access to public transport

Was that meant to be ironic or have I overestimated the poster??

kingshankly · 10-05-2013 01:10PM

I doubt bus drivers basic pay is 47k

devnull · 10-05-2013 01:14PM

The only figures I've come across before are what is in the accounts until December 2011.

Salaries: €130,598,000
Staff: 2,605

Average pay = €50,133

Of course it is not possible to break that down by role within the company, since such figures are not published in the accounts so anything else is guesswork. You'd think management would push the average pay up, whilst part time workers would push it down.

end of the road · 10-05-2013 01:16PM

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Was that meant to be ironic or have I overestimated the poster??

no, it was exactly what it said on the tin, i felt his "sack them" attitude for taking a legitimate action was discusting and i took him up on it, i didn't need to write it aggressively but my point still stands

gbob · 10-05-2013 01:23PM

Lapin wrote: »

According to Newstalk right now, Bus Éireann drivers are on €47k a year and haven't taken a cut since 2008.

Nurses have taken 2 cuts since then and earn €34k.

A newly recruted Garda will have to work for 17 years before reaching the salary of a Bus Éireann driver.

Something stinks here.

After more than a decade in the job my gross salary is 33k. Almost a third of that is spent on keeping my son in college and another quarter pays my mortgage. I can't afford another pay cut while taxes and the cost of living are going up every day. It's time to say no the unlawful decisions to cut pay without agreement.

When senior management see the light and start cutting their own salaries, maybe the company can return to profitability.

Peppa Pig · 10-05-2013 01:24PM

end of the road wrote: »

considering such a thing could possibly cause some civil unrest, i'm not surprised that they wouldn't do it

Why would there be civil unrest, if the government found a way to accommodate the travelling public?

schemingbohemia · 10-05-2013 01:36PM

Bus Eireann drivers now the scape goats for the goverments fk up.

IMF calling the shots.. and forcing the hand.

In reality i do believe any figures that this govt issues - they have no creditibility and whats more they massage the figures to suit their agenda.

Fair play to NBRU for taking a stance. I wish them well.

All in all we should have a national bus service that is supplemented by the state.

Going down the road of privatisation again and squeezing every last drip of blood from workers all in the name of profit.

Good luck to all involved and they have my support.

This has nothing to do with the IMF, where do you get that from?

The facts are that BE is losing €5m a year, it's subsidy for the PSO services is falling, the money for the free travel scheme has stayed the same even though the numbers with passes has increased significantly and passenger numbers are falling due to the downturn in the economy.

The figures just don't add up, so what's your solution? It seems to me that the Unions never have a problem with a Labour Court recommendation when it suits them but do when it doesn't. The solution proposed by the LRC seems at a high level fair enough, reductions in non-core pay allowances and added working time for some - not even much only for those working 36 hours a week to 39 hours a week, and a reduction in holidays. That's it, no forced redundancies, no across the board pay cut. If they strike over that, they're truly delusional.

devnull · 10-05-2013 01:36PM

Bus Eireann drivers now the scape goats for the goverments fk up. IMF calling the shots.. and forcing the hand.

Yes, that is because the country is spending more money than it is bringing in and that was because the previous government spent two years saying they could fix the problems when the whole time they were just building up more and more debt. If this was tackled much earlier the IMF may not even be here, and if they were we'd have needed far less than 85bn.

All in all we should have a national bus service that is supplemented by the state. Going down the road of privatisation again and squeezing every last drip of blood from workers all in the name of profit.

The State has no more money to give since they need to balance the books. Right now we are spending more than we are bringing in. You do realise that if the country continues to spend more money than it is bringing in the debt will get bigger, not smaller, and bigger debt means even more cuts, sure you kick the can down the road a few more years, but when the can does eventually come back to you, it's a much bigger can.

Not sure what profit has to do with this again, although it would not surprise me if the whole strike was hijacked for political gain rather than dealing with the core issues as has happened in the past. The country is spending more money than it is bringing in, that is not profit, it is a loss and it needs to be addressed, just throwing more and more money at things blindly that we cannot afford is half the reason the country is in this mess.

bk · 10-05-2013 01:39PM

end of the road wrote: »

considering the government don't take public support for something into account for anything i can't see them taking it into account should they decide to privatise BE, if they decide to go ahead with doing such a thing it will be because of their own agenda

Really?!!

So when the government was looking to cut the old age pension and medical card entitlement, the tens of thousands of OAPs demonstrating on the streets didn't cause them to quickly back down?

The reality is a politician will never force anything unless it has public support or at least the public don't care.

ProudDUB · 10-05-2013 01:52PM

Ok, open declaration time. I am the daughter of a man who worked for one of the semi state transport companies all of his working life. I have the greatest respect for the people like him, who worked shift work, on weekends, bank holidays, often outdoors in all kinds of weather and hazardous situations. I think that people who work largely 9-5 office jobs don't realize the stresses that having a job like than have have on an individual and families involved. They earn their money. Every single penny of it.

That being said, I honestly think that some of the people on here live on a different planet to me. Sunday pay, meal allowances, getting pissed off at being asked to work a 39 hour week. On what planet can people possibly be living on, if they think that it ok to go on strike to protect things that folks like me, who are on a salaried job in the private sector, or who are self employed, would never in a million years get to enjoy? And oh yeah, they want me to fund it too. WTF? In this day and age, how is that ok or fair?

In over 20 years in the work force, I have never had an employer pay for the food that I consume during the course of a working day. Never. Not once. I am lucky if I only have to work 45 hrs a week. Normally it's closer to 50. If I ever work a 36 hours week, is because I took a day off, or I was sick. Don't even get me started on what what reaction my boss would give me if I told him I wanted additional pay to work on weekends. Seriously folks, it feels like I am speaking a different language to what others here are speaking when it comes to working condition that we feel that we are "entitled" to.

howamidifferent · 10-05-2013 01:57PM

Stop 'tackin de wurkurs ! :P

end of the road · 10-05-2013 02:01PM

bk wrote: »

Really?!!

So when the government was looking to cut the old age pension and medical card entitlement, the tens of thousands of OAPs demonstrating on the streets didn't cause them to quickly back down?

who knows where this government is concerned, the pensioners protesting isn't going to look good for the government, however public support for privatisation of a company is a different story, if the government is going to go down the route of privatisation it will be because the government wants to, truth is most of the public don't care either way about privatisation of BE, they have more important things to think about, should their be public support for privatisation in a lot of cases it will be from those who have a hatred of public sector workers just because their doing better then them (such people do exist, whether you believe that or not is up to you)

bk · 10-05-2013 02:08PM

Of course the government will only go down the privatisation route if that is what they want to do.

But what I'm saying is that they would only go down this route if they thought the majority of the public support it or at least don't care.

If the government thought tens of thousands of people were going to come out in support of BE, then they wouldn't dream of doing it.

But BE staff going on strike to protect benefits that most ordinary people in the private sector can only dream of is likely to turn public support against BE staff, making it easier for the government to go down the privatisation route.

Systemic Risk · 10-05-2013 02:41PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

So the admin and management work 36 hrs per week and the drivers get double time for working a Sunday....are they for real? How the hell do people think thats a sustainable way to run a business? Why do they think the standard working week is 40hrs, for the laugh?
And why the do people think they deserve double their wages on a Sunday but not a Monday or a Thursday?

I agree with your opinion on the working hours. However, looking at premium payments, expenses, and allowances isn't as clear cut. Of course when you examine it double time on a Sunday does seem excessive when many are lucky to get time and a third these days. That said, when most people examine their annual salary they do so net of all premium payment and expenses.

For example if the basic after tax salary of a bus driver is €30,000 per year but every year for the last 10 years they earn approximately €37,000 after tax including premium payments for overtime/sundays/bank holidays and expenses the worker is going to base his lifestyle, expenses, debt level etc. on the take home pay. Dressing up salary cuts as cuts to premium payments/expenses does not change the fact that it is a cut in salary that is being imposed. It is in fact a bit dishonest to not just call it a pay cut.

I am seeing figures of the average worker taking cuts of €3,000 per year. Remember this is on top of all the other taxes and charges that have been introduced and the increases in variable mortgage rates. Also remember that many people are up at arms over a property tax of a tenth of this amount.

I am not arguing that pay cuts are not necessary. I am arguing that many on this thread are dismissing the workers rights off hand without considering the effect that these cuts would have on them and their families. Comments such as sack them all etc. are unfair as they are only trying to protect what they have. It seems that they need to be willing to compromise somewhat though to ensure the viability of Bus Eireann. The company provides a service to many areas which would not be profitable enough to entice private companies.

bk · 10-05-2013 02:45PM

Systemic Risk wrote: »

The company provides a service to many areas which would not be profitable enough to entice private companies.

Which they receive a very large subsidy for and the NTA buys the actual buses for these routes.

I'm pretty certain that private operators would be happy to operate these routes for less subsidy then BE require.

LeftBlank · 10-05-2013 02:56PM

bk wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that private operators would be happy to operate these routes for less subsidy then BE require.

What are you basing that on?

devnull · 10-05-2013 03:00PM

Systemic Risk wrote: »

For example if the basic after tax salary of a bus driver is €30,000 per year but every year for the last 10 years they earn approximately €37,000 after tax including premium payments for overtime/sundays/bank holidays and expenses the worker is going to base his lifestyle, expenses, debt level etc. on the take home pay.

Nobody should be relying on overtime be that company or workers to either staff their services or to supplement their income on a regular basis. If staff are working overtime regularly and on a daily or weekly basis this is not overtime anymore it is normal hours in my book but the staff want it classified as overtime since that brings extra pay.

Rosters in any company that are properly designed should mean that any regular hours required by staff are scheduled as core hours. Overtime should only be needed for events that cannot be forseen, such as an unusually high level of staff sickness or some other major disruption to staffing levels such as bad weather for example. The only other reason for overtime should be due to a peak in demand that could not be forecasted or around times of National events etc.

Dressing up salary cuts as cuts to premium payments/expenses does not change the fact that it is a cut in salary that is being imposed. It is in fact a bit dishonest to not just call it a pay cut.

But they are premium payments and they are perks, they are not part of a regular salary and nobody should be treating them as such. The very definition of the word over-time is someone working over their scheduled hours. If they are working the hours every week than the should not be classified as overtime since it is a regular occurance and that is not what over-time is for.

I am seeing figures of the average worker taking cuts of €3,000 per year. Remember this is on top of all the other taxes and charges that have been introduced and the increases in variable mortgage rates. Also remember that many people are up at arms over a property tax of a tenth of this amount.

Those figures are just what the union are trotting out. Nobody knows what the true figure is and I'd guess if Bus Eireann came out with a figure it would be much lower, the truth I would suspect, as in most industrial disputes, will be somewhere inbetween as both sides will no doubt pick the most extreme case to suit their views. Nobody really knows the real case because ti's simply not in the public domain in a way which it can be fully verified.

Also it's worth pointing out that yes there are other charges coming in, but this is because the country needs more money and yes there are many people who are upset by the property charge, but the people who are going to pay for the charge and are moaning about it, you will find already have worse terms and conditions than the BE staff and many of them no doubt have worse than BE staff would even have if they took these changes.

As a taxpayer I don't want to see staff be took advantage of, but at the same time, to see my taxes paying for someones lunch or to get paid overtime rates for regular hours when I couldn't dream of the same benefits myself really doesn't sit well with me.

end of the road · 10-05-2013 03:01PM

bk wrote: »

But what I'm saying is that they would only go down this route if they thought the majority of the public support it or at least don't care.

the public don't support a lot of things yet the government are doing it anyway, such things may need to happen but even without public support their being implamented

bk wrote: »

If the government thought tens of thousands of people were going to come out in support of BE, then they wouldn't dream of doing it.

or maybe they would

bk wrote: »

But BE staff going on strike to protect benefits that most ordinary people in the private sector can only dream of is likely to turn public support against BE staff, making it easier for the government to go down the privatisation route.

having anything someone else doesn't is enough to have people not support you or have somebody turn on you these days, that is a true point bk whether you believe it or not, you hear it every day of the week somebody giving out about something somebody has that they don't, i agree its not everyone but i believe secretly their are a lot of people of that attitude

Systemic Risk · 10-05-2013 03:06PM

bk wrote: »

Which they receive a very large subsidy for and the NTA buys the actual buses for these routes.

I'm pretty certain that private operators would be happy to operate these routes for less subsidy then BE require.

Maybe or maybe not, I dont know. All I know is that the service is important, it is currently being supplied by Bus Eireann and a prolonged disruption to it would negatively affect many in rural areas. I think it is important that both sides of this argument go back to the negotiating table and work out a compromise rather than digging their heels in. It wont affect me either way as I dont use BE services but it is an important issue for many.

devnull · 10-05-2013 03:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

having anything someone else doesn't is enough to have people not support you or have somebody turn on you these days, that is a true point bk whether you believe it or not, you hear it every day of the week somebody giving out about something somebody has that they don't, i agree its not everyone but i believe secretly their are a lot of people of that attitude

But when peoples taxes are being used to pay for public services, I don't think it is wrong for people to be able to have a say about how the money they pay into the country is spent, especially when the very same people are not able to get hold of the same benefits themselves, why should they pay for others to get them.

Google give free lunches to people too, they can do that all they want, since they are a profitable company and they are not funded through taxation the me or you has no choice but to pay. If Bus Eireann were not struggling the way they are people would have less gripes about the terms and conditions. But if a company is struggling then it comes to a stage where some terms and conditions are simply not sustainable going forward.

I do agree that there are some people who will have a snipe at the public sector for any reason and are very bitter, but there are some people in the public sector too who think it's very cushy and that is the only reason they are there which help create that impression and do as little as possible. I was made redundant 5 years ago and signed on for a couple of months and the people working in the Social welfare office were bone idle.

The fact is as I keep repeating, staff have to realise that they can't go forward with all of the terms and conditions they have now, they have to give up some of them, not all but some of them. Simply saying tough, we won' give anything up at all is not an option and they need to realise that. Management also need to realise that they cannot go spending large sums on new vehicles and marketing, then moan some months later that the company is on the verge of death unless staff take cuts.

Systemic Risk · 10-05-2013 03:17PM

devnull wrote: »

Nobody should be relying on overtime be that company or workers to either staff their services or to supplement their income on a regular basis. If staff are working overtime regularly and on a daily or weekly basis this is not overtime anymore it is normal hours in my book but the staff want it classified as overtime since that brings extra pay.

Rosters in any company that are properly designed should mean that any regular hours required by staff are scheduled as core hours. Overtime should only be needed for events that cannot be forseen, such as an unusually high level of staff sickness or some other major disruption to staffing levels such as bad weather for example. The only other reason for overtime should be due to a peak in demand that could not be forecasted or around times of National events etc.

But they are premium payments and they are perks, they are not part of a regular salary and nobody should be treating them as such. The very definition of the word over-time is someone working over their scheduled hours. If they are working the hours every week than the should not be classified as overtime since it is a regular occurance and that is not what over-time is for.

Those figures are just what the union are trotting out. Nobody knows what the true figure is and I'd guess if Bus Eireann came out with a figure it would be much lower, the truth I would suspect, as in most industrial disputes, will be somewhere inbetween as both sides will no doubt pick the most extreme case to suit their views. Nobody really knows the real case because ti's simply not in the public domain in a way which it can be fully verified.

Also it's worth pointing out that yes there are other charges coming in, but this is because the country needs more money and yes there are many people who are upset by the property charge, but the people who are going to pay for the charge and are moaning about it, you will find already have worse terms and conditions than the BE staff and many of them no doubt have worse than BE staff would even have if they took these changes.

As a taxpayer I don't want to see staff be took advantage of, but at the same time, to see my taxes paying for someones lunch or to get paid overtime rates for regular hours when I couldn't dream of the same benefits myself really doesn't sit well with me.

I agree with your sentiment that the wages need to be cut back if the company is to survive, the LRC found that in favour of the company on this. I just think that posters on here should be a bit more sympathetic to the workers. Regardless of what you call it they are still taking a pay cut, people make their spending decisions based on total income. As I have said, I believe the workers need to compromise and take some pain. I can just empathise with their situation.

devnull · 10-05-2013 03:19PM

Labour Court Recommendation if anyone is interested:
http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labcourtweb.nsf/185190278967d05380256a01005bb35e/80256a770034a2ab80257b0900428efa?OpenDocument

kingshankly · 10-05-2013 03:36PM

A Sunday stoppage wouldn't hurt tge public too much would it with the exception of student heading back to college.
As a train driver working on Sunday(for a flat rate) will be interesting to see if there is any excess travellers

Patser · 10-05-2013 03:37PM

I'll try answer this post Scheming Bohemia, since it contains some of you concerns and a few others too.

devnull wrote: »

Also nobody has a divine right to overtime. It's a perk if you can get it but it's not a right in any company. For sure some people have got used to it, but in the current climate a company that is losing money cannot afford to be paying out overtime on a weekly basis. Overtime should be reserved just to cover higher than normal levels of sickness, extra events or when need for extra resources during busy time is required. Overtime should not be worked into standard rosters in any well run business.

When I started in the company 10 years ago the overtime was rostered on because of a shortage of drivers. Even up until 2008 (well after the crash had started) BE couldn't fill its driver quota and was holding open days looking for drivers. That overtime has continued until now as ironically a recruitment freeze and reduncancies in 2009 continued that driver shortage and also that it is cheaper to have drivers working a few extra hours a week than hiring new staff to cover very short shifts. Is it a divine right, no and it is not one of the issues in this dispute. As I said above as services were made more efficient, overtime was cut and there was no issues or arguments amongst the drivers. It shows we are not adverse to change or taking pay cuts but please recognise that we have.

devnull wrote: »

It was reported yesterday that the unions said they were unwilling to make any concessions that effected pay in any way. That doesn't sound like people who are trying to hammer out a deal, but in all fairness I don't exactly see management being open to talks either so both sides need to get real and get talking rather than blaming 100% on each other.

We've heard in work that the unions went in with management to negotiate things last Tuesday but that the management walked out after 10 minutes and a press release went out saying that these cuts were coming in. Genuinely you could see the surprise from the Union lads but they've always stated they were willing to go back in.

Lets get one thing out in the open here - from listening to a few of our Union reps there is a catch 22 situation here. The company is asking them to come up with alternatives but strictly speaking Union rules prevent them from. Unions are there to represent their members, if they were ever to start suggesting what cuts should be made then they no longer really are, they've drifted in 'managing'. It's subtle enough but if Unions start saying 'Sack so many!', how can they claim to be representing the worker. That's why at the LRC they could present no alternatives and only the management proposals could be looked at.

devnull wrote: »

How much of a reduction?

Varies with each allowance but 20% is the number being bandied about

devnull wrote: »

Hands up who else here gets that? I don't know of anyone myself who gets meals paid for. I pay for my lunch myself. Why should the taxpayer pay for you lunch?

The meal allowance is only paid on certain duties, usually when you have to have your break away from a depot and away from any locker/storage you may have. It's also fairly small (€7). And as for the taxpayer paying for it, are they? I thought the tax money going to BE was to pay for the Free travel pass.

devnull wrote: »

From how many to how many?

The minimum legally that it can drop to is 20 days a year, so depending on years of service it varies. In my case after 10 years I'm eligible for 2 extra days for service - so 22 days, that'll drop back to 20. After 20 years I think it goes to 23, so again long term drivers will drop back to the basic 20 days. I overheard a Clerical Staff lad, here about 7 years, saying he had 23 days so again would be back to the basic 20 but unsire of other grades of staff and their entitlements.

devnull wrote: »

No, it's a reduction in the number of paid self certified days not the number of sick days that you can call in according to the unions and what has been outlined before.

Again that is better than the majority of people in this country. Many people are struggling to get any pay if they are certified and most will get no sick pay at all. But Bus Eireann drivers are moaning they don't get enough self certified days.

Sorry, yep you're right there. I was trying not to drift into TL;DR territory but yes I meant Self Certified days

devnull wrote: »

But they are working 3 more hours a week for the same pay aren't they? So in real terms that is a cut to their hourly rate. Working more hours for the same pay is a form of a pay cut, just like Getting paid less for the same time is. Both reduce hourly rates.

I'm not saying that management are taking their fair share of the blame for the situation, they are not in my view but to say that they are not taking any hit whatsoever is wrong and misleading.

That's the argument that the Clerical lads are using for their unhappiness with the deal. My point was that shile they will be working longer days there will be no savings for the company. And since they are in a support role as opposed to a cash earning role, there'll be no extra income. So what difference does it make to the bottom line.

devnull wrote: »

But as above, yesterday they said they were not prepared to agree to any cuts in pay.

And as I a said above, we've shown that we will take cuts in pay but it seems very unfair that drivers (And garage staff) are the main ones taking cuts in take home pay. There is also a big concern here that all of this is being done without any agreement. All changes so far have had Union agreement (2009 changes with reduncancies and local hourly reductions) but when all this kicked off back in December and gain last week, it was with the management announcing the changes without any agreement. There is a genuine worry amongst us that if they get their way now, then they can bring in any other changes they like in the future without consultation too.

dfx- · 10-05-2013 03:38PM

It's at times like this that I remember Munich's underground operating all day with no visible problems while under a drivers' strike, Bayern Munich v Roma Champions League game and a U2 concert on the same day with both Allianz arena and the Olympiapark lines (U3 and U6) both using the same tunnels.

You'd never know there was a disagreement, let alone a strike.

schemingbohemia · 10-05-2013 03:56PM

Patser, how many of those clerical officers are working more than 36 hours anyway to get flexi leave? Does that apply in Bus Éireann? It's an extra 36 minutes a day, personally I wouldn't risk my job for that.

The Unions agreed to refer the matter to the LRC, therefore in my view they should accept the outcome of those discussions. The LRC, it seems to me, have always issued balanced decisions heretofore and seem to have done so again.

No-one likes pay cuts, I certainly haven't liked the ones I've received and particularly the one I will receive this summer but I know that I'm luckier than most in that I have very secure employment. I wouldn't risk that for the chance of a redundancy and causing some of my colleagues to be let go which is basically the alternative that the unions are putting up.

MGWR · 10-05-2013 04:01PM

bk wrote: »

Which they receive a very large subsidy for and the NTA buys the actual buses for these routes.

I'm pretty certain that private operators would be happy to operate these routes for less subsidy then BE require.

If there were less regulation (yeah, imagine that), private operators may be able to run such services out of the farebox (sans subsidy). But the Republic of Ireland has had tendency towards centralisation from its beginning, has it not.

devnull · 10-05-2013 04:14PM

Patser wrote: »

When I started in the company 10 years ago the overtime was rostered on because of a shortage of drivers. Even up until 2008 (well after the crash had started) BE couldn't fill its driver quota and was holding open days looking for drivers. That overtime has continued until now as ironically a recruitment freeze and reduncancies in 2009 continued that driver shortage and also that it is cheaper to have drivers working a few extra hours a week than hiring new staff to cover very short shifts. Is it a divine right, no and it is not one of the issues in this dispute. As I said above as services were made more efficient, overtime was cut and there was no issues or arguments amongst the drivers. It shows we are not adverse to change or taking pay cuts but please recognise that we have.

I see the angle you are coming from but my point still is that we've seen people come on here today and say that because overtime payments is being cut it will badly effect their take home pay which indicates some staff are still working these extra hours on a regular basis otherwise if overtime was rare it would not have much of an impact on take home pay as some people are making out, if people are working overtime on a regular basis so much so it becomes a sizeable part of their pay this is a sign of a problem with scheduling by management. Whilst it may indeed be less now, any well run company would create schedules to keep overtime as little as possible simply because it's a far more efficient way of doing things.

The problem is twofold really, in that the company still appear to be relying too much on overtime and the actions in the past have led to staff having got used to getting overtime so often that when it is taken away they don't like it. I can understand that with a bit of information on the history of the situation, but A) the company should not have allowed this to develop in the first place, and

the staff should not have got used to this as sooner or later it was going to have to dry up as it's not sustainable for people to be working vast amounts of overtime on a regular basis, that needs to be replaced with more scheduled time at a lower rate, but staff will always prefer to work less core hours and more overtime due to the benefit of higher pay.

We've heard in work that the unions went in with management to negotiate things last Tuesday but that the management walked out after 10 minutes and a press release went out saying that these cuts were coming in. Genuinely you could see the surprise from the Union lads but they've always stated they were willing to go back in.

With all due respect, if the unions went in and said they same they were saying to the media yesterday, that they would not consider any cuts at all, you can't really blame the management for that. Both sides of the table need to talk and if either party goes in saying "We're happy to talk as long as you don't touch any of the points we're disputing about" that is just the same as walking out in some ways. Both sides need to get a grip and these current games that are going on are doing nobody any favour, I think both sides need to shoulder some of the blame here.

Lets get one thing out in the open here - from listening to a few of our Union reps there is a catch 22 situation here. The company is asking them to come up with alternatives but strictly speaking Union rules prevent them from. Unions are there to represent their members, if they were ever to start suggesting what cuts should be made then they no longer really are, they've drifted in 'managing'. It's subtle enough but if Unions start saying 'Sack so many!', how can they claim to be representing the worker. That's why at the LRC they could present no alternatives and only the management proposals could be looked at.

So if the unions are not going to go to the negotiating table then who is? That is a genuine question. Surely the unions should attempt to negotiate or broker some deal then come back to their members who then vote on it?

The meal allowance is only paid on certain duties, usually when you have to have your break away from a depot and away from any locker/storage you may have. It's also fairly small (€7). And as for the taxpayer paying for it, are they? I thought the tax money going to BE was to pay for the Free travel pass.

But I'm not sure what relevance it has if you are near or far away from your depot? The distance away is an absolute red herring. You just buy lunch in the morning or prepare it and take it with you or simply buy it wherever else you are. I used to travel to different offices of the company I used to work with. Should I say work should pay me for the meal since I got it from the Spar in Dublin 4 rather than the Spar near my usual place of work?

The minimum legally that it can drop to is 20 days a year, so depending on years of service it varies.

Indeed, during the boom years it was pretty common to get extra days per year of service, in one company I worked for it was a day extra for every year of service, of course they are not sustainable now and a lot of companies are now just offering a flat rate of 20. It's not nice, but again it's not unique to CIE companies.

That's the argument that the Clerical lads are using for their unhappiness with the deal. My point was that shile they will be working longer days there will be no savings for the company. And since they are in a support role as opposed to a cash earning role, there'll be no extra income. So what difference does it make to the bottom line.

But there is at least some overtime now at the moment, since this was brought up in relation to clerical staff in the Labour court as being one of the disputed points. This may reduce that since the staff are there longer now, therefore will involve some small savings. I agree it won't make any cost savings directly but it's better than nothing at all.

And as I a said above, we've shown that we will take cuts in pay but it seems very unfair that drivers (And garage staff) are the main ones taking cuts in take home pay.

I completely agree that there are other areas of the business that need to have their budgets evaluated and not just the budget for salaries for driving and garage staff. I've said that the whole way along.

But drivers and garage staff must realise that they make up the vast majority of the workforce in the company and therefore carrying on without any changes is simply not an option.

There is also a big concern here that all of this is being done without any agreement. But when all this kicked off back in December and gain last week, it was with the management announcing the changes without any agreement.

And yes I see your point here too - but at the same time if staff are not going to agree to anything, the company cannot continue months down the line with no progress, there comes a time when change has to happen, the current state of the company cannot go on forever.