Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

devnull wrote: »

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.

I don't care about tendering vs full deregulation, I care about (avoiding) privization, and tendering/deregulation are just different degrees of privatization.


We don't want a bus company that prioritizes cost effectiveness and financial efficiency, we want one that prioritizes being a public service.
Cost-effective analysis is well known for completely ignoring social value, and for focusing solely on monetary value.

We've been through this before: We want a bus service that prioritzes the public, not profits. Making them 'competitive' means prioritizing profits - we don't want that.

What you advocate moves costs, it does not reduce them. The people actually using the bus services get increased costs and worse service (whereas the wealthy pay less in taxes since costs are moved off taxes), leading to a reduction in service (precedent in the UK shows this).


Whether you are aware of it or not, the end result of what you advocate is a movement of the burden of providing public services, off of the wealthy and onto the less well off, and it gives finance greater opportunities to engage in rent-seeking on the public (through snapping up bus services), and granting of subsidies to privatize losses.

devnull wrote: »

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.

You're trying to change the subject again. The UK shows the failure of the policies you advocate, and you are trying to change the subject so you can pretend to be providing a reply to that, when you are really just ignoring it.

I'm not taking that bait-and-switch, and it represents a disingenuous method of argument where you're avoiding the poor example of the UK.

devnull wrote: »

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.

You have just debunked your own argument, in acknowledging that that is the precedent for what an economic recession and austerity does.

devnull wrote: »

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.

Changing the argument again: I said they were a public service, someone else said they weren't, then I've conclusively shown they fit the definition of public service.

devnull wrote: »

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.

Rhetoric and condescension aren't "opinions", they are used to try and push a viewpoint when the poster knows logical argument will fail, which is intellectually dishonest/disingenuous at best, and typically is in itself insulting (and almost always is closely followed by insults/putdowns in one degree or other).

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

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.

Does it fit this definition or not, and if not, exactly why not:

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

Sure put them on €10,000 a year as Warsaw.

Oh wait hold on if you have a family and on the dole you would be on around €18,000 or more.

This business of lucky to have a job is bullsh1t and a insult to anyone that works.
I didn't cause this mess and 99.9% of you didn't either workers should be standing together and not be against each other as the media and government want you to be.

Ireland in general is an expensive place to live with huge costs such as the many many many taxes and rent costs even money interest rates.

If costs were brought down and the working person wasn't the one footing the bill and taking all the cuts and added taxes and levies and so on then maybe some people would be able to accept a cut.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Plenty under the age of 28/29 I'd say, who wouldn't have been able to apply back in the boom of 2001/06.
I reckon you could fill every position ,and the idealogical issue of 'dont deserve it because it used to be beneath them' wouldn't exist.

It's especially that age bracket that look down upon the drivers and council street cleaners and so on.

Why are the street cleaners paid so much, why are bankers paid so much, why are management figures paid so much.

Why are most on here slamming drivers and it's not only drivers that went out. It's maintenance, clerical and inspectors.

Stop having a go at the workers start having a go at your local td and so on to get their finger out and do what we all elected them for.

Sheeps wrote: »

Bus ****.

Never gets old:pac:

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, one of the countries biggest shambles is taxi deregulation, lots of taxis might sound good for the customer but in a round about way it isn't, some drivers working over their legal hours, a taxi regulator who is as pointless as pointless can be and who keeps issuing licences even though theirs to many taxis for the current demand and many of the current ones can't make hardly anything (sure lots of taxis was grand during the boom) but now its unsustainable

It is, and I lost interest after that bit. As a customer, like. If i wanted to run a taxi or a bus company, I'd have read the next bit. I don't.