Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:08PM

dotsman wrote: »

Firstly, privatisation does not necessarily mean the end to "unprofitable" bus routes. Subsidies would, no doubt, exist where necessary, but would be open to private companies to compete for them. Privatisation means competition and efficiency. It means that the companies that provide the best service (in terms of level of service, price etc) wins and companies that don't lose, rather than a wasteful inefficient state company operated by trade unions that we have today.

With regards the "low wage" that bus drivers earn - again, I ask for someone to provide a link to a reputable source detailing wages/salaries etc as there is a massive range in the figures that have been abndied around in this thread.

Your measure of 'efficiency' is profits vs losses, but what you are arguing for is a privatization of the profits, and a socialization of the losses on unprofitable routes, through subsidies.

The history of bus privatization in the UK, shows that the public pays increased fares for the bus services upon privatization, and still has to subsidize the unprofitable routes; it has also led to a reduction in the use of bus services (so the costs to the public, have not even decreased overall, they have shifted onto other modes of transport).

The bus services exist to serve the public, not to fill private pockets, and privatization completely changes the first priority of a company away from serving the public, and first towards profitability; they exist to serve the public first and foremost, not for profits, and they should stay that way.

The public services don't need to be profitable, that's why we have taxes to pay for them; taxes which are distributed progressively, so that the people who use the bus services pay less for transport (because progressive taxes share the burden with those who are more wealthy), than they would in a privatized service.

Your policies lead to a reduction in overall cost (including fares and overall transport costs, not just taxes) for wealthy individuals only, and increased cost for everyone who actually uses the services or needs transport, and gives finance greater rent-seeking opportunities over the public, by snapping up the public transport infrastructure the public needs to use, and making fares go into private hands instead of public hands.

end of the road · 18-08-2013 01:14PM

dotsman wrote: »

Firstly, privatisation does not necessarily mean the end to "unprofitable" bus routes. Subsidies would, no doubt, exist where necessary, but would be open to private companies to compete for them.

such subsidies will have to be doubled or trippled, its unreasonable to expect private companies to take on loss making routes without making a proffit

dotsman wrote: »

Privatisation means competition and efficiency. It means that the companies that provide the best service (in terms of level of service, price etc) wins and companies that don't lose

privatisation in an irish context will mean another monopoly running the service except any proffits will go to share holders, it will also mean skeliton services which will only operate for half the day on all but the proffitable routes, a transport for london style tendering system won't work as dublin is just to small and theirs not enough money to be made, its unreasonable to lumber private companies with our vital public services as theirs just not enough money to be made here, even if their was it would most likely end up being like the UK where almost everything was sold off, of course the customer and the tax payer pay more then they did when everything was nationalised, no, dublin bus must remain in public hands, its the only way the current level of service can be kept.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 01:16PM

end of the road wrote: »

such subsidies will have to be doubled or trippled, its unreasonable to expect private companies to take on loss making routes without making a proffit

privatisation in an irish context will mean another monopoly running the service except any proffits will go to share holders, it will also mean skeliton services which will only operate for half the day on all but the proffitable routes, a transport for london style tendering system won't work as dublin is just to small and theirs not enough money to be made, its unreasonable to lumber private companies with our vital public services as theirs just not enough money to be made here, even if their was it would most likely end up being like the UK where almost everything was sold off, of course the customer and the tax payer pay more then they did when everything was nationalised, no, dublin bus must remain in public hands, its the only way the current level of service can be kept.

Rubbish!
Aer Lingus was a state monopoly that ripped off the public for the benifit of its employees.
Air Travel was deregulated and guess what? Competition! More routes,lower prices, greater efficiencies, and AL staff had to wake up to reality!

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:23PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Anybody hear during the week that some Ryanair first officers and Captains are earning less than 30 grand a year. Considering the investment in training and the huge responsibility they have and the fact that Ryanair work them to the bone and to the very limit of legal working hours. A first officer in Ryanair could spend years trying to get to Captain and then get paid the same wage. Also the fact that other airlines stave off hiring Ryanair guys.

I think I'd drive a fcuking bus instead.

Strange kind of begrudgery, to say that because some people in private industry have jobs with shít working conditions/pay, that we should pull the unionized bus drivers down too.
Instead of congratulating them for putting up an actual fight to protect their jobs, payments and thus quality of life, people want to pull them down instead.

This goes more to show how shít job conditions in general can get, when you don't have a union; Ryanair are a perfect example of the position workers shouldn't let themselves end up in, where they can't even put up a fight.

end of the road · 18-08-2013 01:25PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Rubbish!
Aer Lingus was a state monopoly that ripped off the public for the benifit of its employees.
Air Travel was deregulated and guess what? Competition! More routes,lower prices, greater efficiencies, and AL staff had to wake up to reality!

Aer Lingus and air travel have nothing to do with dublin bus, the reason you got lower fairs and more routes is because their is money to be made, their is little to no money to be made from a small bus system in a small irrelevant city like dublin, so dublin bus, please stay no matter the cost

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 01:26PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Strange kind of begrudgery, to say that because some people in private industry have jobs with shít working conditions/pay, that we should pull the unionized bus drivers down too.
Instead of congratulating them for putting up an actual fight to protect their jobs, payments and thus quality of life, people want to pull them down instead.

This goes more to show how shít job conditions in general can get, when you don't have a union; Ryanair are a perfect example of the position workers shouldn't let themselves end up in, where they can't even put up a fight.

Do you any evidence that most people outside the cosseted public and semi state sector want to join unions, doesn't seem to be any demand for unions in most of the multi-nationals based here.
Why would anyone congratulate a bunch of grabbers looking for the taxpayer to fund their over paid positions?

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:30PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Rubbish!
Aer Lingus was a state monopoly that ripped off the public for the benifit of its employees.
Air Travel was deregulated and guess what? Competition! More routes,lower prices, greater efficiencies, and AL staff had to wake up to reality!

Your comparing an airline to a bus service, end of the road is comparing actual real world precedent of exactly what you desire (bus privatization in the UK), to...bus privatization in Ireland.

Past example of bus privatization harming the public, is far more applicable than privatization of airlines.

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:35PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Do you any evidence that most people outside the cosseted public and semi state sector want to join unions, doesn't seem to be any demand for unions in most of the multi-nationals based here.

Eh, show me where I said anything like this? You're trying to pretend to make a point against my post, when you're just trying to change the subject with a derailing question (a question which you know there is no evidence for supporting either side, thus allowing you to stonewall and demand 'proof' for something I never claimed in the first place, and which neither you or I can provide evidence for one way or the other).

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Why would anyone congratulate a bunch of grabbers looking for the taxpayer to fund their over paid positions?

You just begruge these workers defending themselves, and being capable of doing that, and want to spin off the public services, to private money grabbers who want to engage in rent-seeking upon the public.

See, we can both spin the 'greedy feckers stealing our money' line of bollocks - you're just blind to private industry doing it.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 01:36PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your comparing an airline to a bus service, end of the road is comparing actual real world precedent of exactly what you desire (bus privatization in the UK), to...bus privatization in Ireland.

Past example of bus privatization harming the public, is far more applicable than privatization of airlines.

I am comparing Ireland with Ireland.
you have to go looking abroad for an alleged failure in order to justify the continued existance of a parasitic monopoly.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 01:38PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh, show me where I said anything like this? You're trying to pretend to make a point against my post, when you're just trying to change the subject with a derailing question (a question which you know there is no evidence for supporting either side, thus allowing you to stonewall and demand 'proof' for something I never claimed in the first place, and which neither you or I can provide evidence for one way or the other).

You just begruge these workers defending themselves, and being capable of doing that, and want to spin off the public services, to private money grabbers who want to engage in rent-seeking upon the public.

See, we can both spin the 'greedy feckers stealing our money' line of bollocks - you're just blind to private industry doing it.

No now dear chap, we long ago established that CIE is not Public Service, it is a commercial semi-state entity.
Do try to keep up and stay accurate.
What is CIE? A commercial semi-state company.

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:39PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I am comparing Ireland with Ireland.
you have to go looking abroad for an alleged failure in order to justify the continued existance of a parasitic monopoly.

You know your comparison is bollocks and you're holding onto it because you don't give a toss what the real effects of bus privatization are (otherwise you would engage with a real world example of it), you just argue for it for ideological reasons, and don't care about the actual end results.

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:40PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No now fear chap, we long ago established that CIE is not Public Service, it is a commercial semi-state entity.
Do try to keep up and stay accurate.
What is CIE? A commercial semi-state company.

We've been over this pedantic nonsense: It's a semi-state 100% owned by the government, ergo it is a de-facto public service.

end of the road · 18-08-2013 01:41PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I am comparing Ireland with Ireland.
you have to go looking abroad for an alleged failure in order to justify the continued existance of a parasitic monopoly.

so you admit privatisation in the uk has failed? thank you, couldn't agree more

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 01:43PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You know your comparison is bollocks and you're holding onto it because you don't give a toss what the real effects of bus privatization are (otherwise you would engage with a real world example of it), you just argue for it for ideological reasons, and don't care about the actual end results.

You are so funny:D:D:D:D
I am argueing from it just from ideological reasons:D:D* chokes on his coffee*
Too ffing right I am, you see I am ideologically oppossed to being screwed taxwise to fund so lazy feckers overblown view of his real worth!:mad:

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 01:44PM

end of the road wrote: »

so you admit privatisation in the uk has failed? thank you, couldn't agree more

I suggest you get somebody proficient in English to explain in simple terms the meaning of "alleged".

end of the road · 18-08-2013 01:47PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I am ideologically oppossed to being screwed taxwise to fund so lazy feckers overblown view of his real worth!

no, your taxes are funding publically owned bus routes which deliver vital public transport to the people, but you would rather even more then the current subsidy to be payed to private shareholders, but why would you want that when you have admitted that bus privatisation doesn't work for countries like ireland?

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 01:48PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

You are so funny:D:D:D:D
I am argueing from it just from ideological reasons:D:D* chokes on his coffee*
Too ffing right I am, you see I am ideologically oppossed to being screwed taxwise to fund so lazy feckers overblown view of his real worth!:mad:

Fine, stick to the script then; people can see you ignoring the failed example of bus privatization in the UK, and can see you have no answer to that, and can see you are fully aware that has resulted in greater cost to the public, not less.

When they see that, they don't buy your 'greedy/lazy feckers' nonsense, because they know you are bullshítting.

devnull · 18-08-2013 02:11PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Fine, stick to the script then; people can see you ignoring the failed example of bus privatization in the UK, and can see you have no answer to that, and can see you are fully aware that has resulted in greater cost to the public, not less.

You are talking about de-regulation which happened in the UK outside London. Nobody, including the transport minister is calling for that in this country.

Nobody has talked about de-regulation, what they have talked about us a tendering system that avoids all of the pitfalls that de-regulation would cause which have been highlighted.

No monopoly is efficient in any business, be that public or private.

The history of bus privatization in the UK, shows that the public pays increased fares for the bus services upon privatization

Simply untrue, especially when it comes to monthly and yearly tickets in the UK. If you look through all the big bus companies in the UK in the major cities, their monthly and yearly tickets are far cheaper than that offered by Dublin Bus.

There may be little to no difference when it comes to single fares for example and in some cases it may be cheaper in Ireland for such fares, but for monthly and yearly tickets in the UK, it's hugely cheaper.

We've been over this pedantic nonsense: It's a semi-state 100% owned by the government, ergo it is a de-facto public service.

So basically it's whatever it feels like, when it feels like it, but when it doesn't feel like it, it's something else. A bit like IE and DB being sister companies when it suits, but the fact most or the rest of the time you'd think they were not connected since there is such a lack of joined up thinking.

And it would be nice if the Dublin Bus defenders could make their point without the use of swear words, insulting other members or being rude towards others, you know, like this post?

osarusan · 18-08-2013 02:15PM

devnull wrote: »

Simply untrue, especially when it comes to monthly and yearly tickets in the UK. If you look through all the big bus companies in the UK in the major cities, their monthly and yearly tickets are far cheaper than that offered by Dublin Bus.

There may be little to no difference when it comes to single fares for example and in some cases it may be cheaper in Ireland for such fares, but for monthly and yearly tickets in the UK, it's hugely cheaper.

I think the point was the comparison of ticket prices for the same routes before and after privatisation, not a comparison of prices across the countries.

devnull · 18-08-2013 02:19PM

osarusan wrote: »

I think the point was the comparison of ticket prices for the same routes before and after privatisation, not a comparison of prices across the countries.

Who'd have thought it, prices would go up as time goes by? Just like a shop in your local supermarket costs more than it did 10 years ago buying the same items.

Couldn't possibly at all be down to something called inflation could it? I think you'll find the price of most things goes up over any lengthy period of time in any industry.

In-case it didn't escape your notice, Dublin Bus fares have gone up by approx 50% in some cases over the past 7-8 years and yes, some of that is down to inflation too.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 02:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

no, your taxes are funding publically owned bus routes which deliver vital public transport to the people, but you would rather even more then the current subsidy to be payed to private shareholders, but why would you want that when you have admitted that bus privatisation doesn't work for countries like ireland?

I suggest you get somebody proficient in English to go through my posts and show where I" have admitted that bus privatisation doesn't work for countries like ireland?"
My taxes are funding a parasitic monopoly which exists primarily for the welfare of its emplyees and whose role could be done better and cheaper if deregulation occured and the bus service privatised, with companiies bidding for bundles or routes at current of lower subsidy levels than are paid to the unions (they really control CIE).

osarusan · 18-08-2013 02:21PM

devnull wrote: »

Who'd have thought it, prices would go up as time goes by?

Just like a shop in your local supermarket costs more than it did 10 years ago buying the same items.

In-case it didn't escape your notice, Dublin Bus fares have gone up by approx 50% in some cases over the past 7-8 years.

I was just suggesting that maybe you'd misinterpreted the post. But carry on.

devnull · 18-08-2013 02:21PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I suggest you get somebody proficient in English to go through my posts and show where I" have admitted that bus privatisation doesn't work for countries like ireland?"
My taxes are funding a parasitic monopoly which exists primarily for the welfare of its emplyees and whose role could be done better and cheaper if deregulation occured and the bus service privatised, with companiies bidding for bundles or routes at current of lower subsidy levels than are paid to the unions (they really control CIE).

Full de-regulation I don't think is desirable at this stage if ever, it has to be tendering for it to work properly.

devnull · 18-08-2013 02:24PM

osarusan wrote: »

I was just suggesting that maybe you'd misinterpreted the post. But carry on.

But we are talking about Dublin Bus here and the fact is that tickets are more expensive compared to tickets in similar cities when it comes to monthly and yearly tickets.

osarusan · 18-08-2013 02:27PM

devnull wrote: »

But we are talking about Dublin Bus here and the fact is that tickets are more expensive compared to tickets in similar cities when it comes to monthly and yearly tickets.

That was clearly not the gist of the part of the post you quoted when you responded to it.

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 02:30PM

devnull wrote: »

You are talking about de-regulation which happened in the UK outside London. Nobody, including the transport minister is calling for that in this country.

Nobody has talked about de-regulation, what they have talked about us a tendering system that avoids all of the pitfalls that de-regulation would cause which have been highlighted.

No monopoly is efficient in any business, be that public or private.

Tendering - also known as: Privatization, but the public still pays for it from both taxes and fares.

devnull wrote: »

Simply untrue, especially when it comes to monthly and yearly tickets in the UK. If you look through all the big bus companies in the UK in the major cities, their monthly and yearly tickets are far cheaper than that offered by Dublin Bus.

There may be little to no difference when it comes to single fares for example and in some cases it may be cheaper in Ireland for such fares, but for monthly and yearly tickets in the UK, it's hugely cheaper.

You are trying to change the subject, by comparing to Ireland's fares, when that is not the debate.

When privatization was introduced in the UK, the bus fares went up, and the use of bus services went down. That is the precedent for what privatization does to bus services.

devnull wrote: »

So basically it's whatever it feels like, when it feels like it, but when it doesn't feel like it, it's something else. A bit like IE and DB being sister companies when it suits, but the fact most or the rest of the time you'd think they were not connected since there is such a lack of joined up thinking.

No, it's a bit like a public service, being a service provided for by government, which in this case, is a 100% government owned business.

Here we go:

A public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing private provision of services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

devnull wrote: »

And it would be nice if the Dublin Bus defenders could make their point without the use of swear words, insulting other members or being rude towards others, you know, like this post?

Yes because "You are so funny:D:D:D:D" isn't meant to be rude/condescending at all? If people don't like others being rude back, maybe they shouldn't be that way themselves in the first place?

If I start coming across increasing disingenuousness and rhetorical (rather than logical) attacks in posts, normally I'm going to get a bit rude back

(I'll just have the honesty to be straight-forward about it, instead of pretending that rudeness is an argument itself)

KyussBishop · 18-08-2013 02:33PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I suggest you get somebody proficient in English to go through my posts and show where I" have admitted that bus privatisation doesn't work for countries like ireland?"
My taxes are funding a parasitic monopoly which exists primarily for the welfare of its emplyees and whose role could be done better and cheaper if deregulation occured and the bus service privatised, with companiies bidding for bundles or routes at current of lower subsidy levels than are paid to the unions (they really control CIE).

Except we've already showed that is noting other than an ideologically-backed assertion, because the exact same thing being done in the UK increased costs for people, and caused reduction in the use of the services (and thus moving of costs into other areas of transport).

You want decreased taxes alright, but the end result of your argument is that you create decreased overall costs only for the wealthy (and increase them for the less well off).

This is even worse an end result, than simply implementing a flat-tax would be.

devnull · 18-08-2013 02:50PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Tendering - also known as: Privatization, but the public still pays for it from both taxes and fares.

Full de-regulation and tendering are completely different with the later, fares, timetables and suchlike are outside the control of the operator and are set by a central authority who awards the contracts and manages the service. If someone doesn't make an acceptable tender in line with the criteria set, they don't win the tender, so providing the tender criteria is properly set, it will ensure that it is done in an efficient way.

By the current system, of awarding all bus contracts to the CIE group by default, there is no incentive for such company to run it's business in a way that is cost effective and efficient, since they know whatever kind of service that they offer, at the end of the day members of the public have no choice but to use them since there is no alternative, apart from the small percentage of people who are lucky enough to live on a LUAS line or on the DART line.

With tendering then of course there will be still subsidy and fares in a country like Ireland, but competitive tendering gives companies incentives to make sure they cut out the waste (I'm sure there is plenty of it in DB), protect their revenue better (Which DB don't do well enough), which translates to being able to run the service for less money, which reduces costs. If you think a company may just be able to offer the same service at a lower cost than you since they trim away the management fat (which many staff claim is huge in DB), then you are more likely to address that since you want to keep hold of the contract. If you know you'll keep the contract no matter how much waste their is in your business, then there's less incentive to do that.

Or do you think we should allow no competition in any industry? You would notice the price of things would soon rise.

You are trying to change the subject, by comparing to Ireland's fares, when that is not the debate.

But the fares is a key argument, because the cost of travelling is driving people away from using Dublin Bus, which affects their income. I used to use the bus, but I stopped because of the rising price and reducing service. Paying €1k for an annual ticket when I can carpool and share the costs with colleagues is simply not viable for me. The reason the tickets are so high is because of the cost base, which brings me back to your first point which I just answered.

When privatization was introduced in the UK, the bus fares went up, and the use of bus services went down. That is the precedent for what privatization does to bus services.

Bus fares have gone up in Dublin over the last few years and the usage of bus services have gone down. That is the precedent for what a monopoly does to bus services could also be argued.

Dublin Bus passengers were declining for years as well whilst fares were going up every year and in the last few years they've continued to do so. Of course there are factors in that, such as the recession for example, but there was also a recession in the UK not long after the market was deregulated.

No, it's a bit like a public service, being a service provided for by government, which in this case, is a 100% government owned business.

But many times, on these forums, we see staff saying they are not a public company, but now they're "A bit like a public service" but sometimes you'll say they are, and you'll be shot down by a staff member saying "We are not in the Public Sector" but other times when it suits them they will argue that they are, it's either one or the other, not whatever suits them at a particular time.

Yes because "You are so funny:D:D:D:D" isn't meant to be rude/condescending at all? If people don't like others being rude back, maybe they shouldn't be that way themselves in the first place?

If I start coming across increasing disingenuousness and rhetorical (rather than logical) attacks in posts, normally I'm going to get a bit rude back (I'll just have the honesty to be straight-forward about it, instead of pretending that rudeness is an argument itself)

No, it's called different peoples opinions, I respect that other people have differing opinions to me and they are fully entitled to air them no matter what side of the fence they sit on, but no need to turn to insulting them.

devnull · 18-08-2013 03:01PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except we've already showed that is noting other than an ideologically-backed assertion.

I agree that the poster in question is using an ideologically-backed assertion, but at the same time the argument that you are putting forward is also in that bracket, but just from the other side of the political spectrum.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 18-08-2013 03:01PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

We've been over this pedantic nonsense: It's a semi-state 100% owned by the government, ergo it is a de-facto public service.

It is a Commercial Semi-Stae Company, if you dont believe me ask CIE themselves.
It is not,nor never was set up to be a part of the public service, if anything it is a failed experiment in nationalized transport.

Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

Comments