Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

Jumboman · 19-08-2013 12:21AM

If the drivers want to protest without harming the public they could operate the buses for free.

cdebru · 19-08-2013 12:22AM

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.

You cant compare Dublin Bus prices with any other city unless you take into account various other issues, including level of subvention,vat rebates on fuel, cost of living in that city, the number of people entitled to free or reduced travel and how well that is funded, the population density etc etc.

Unless you are comparing everything you are not making a valid comparison, what we do have is the deloitte report that clearly stated that DB was operating to European norms and offering good value for money.

cdebru · 19-08-2013 12:24AM

Jumboman wrote: »

If the drivers want to protest without harming the public they could operate the buses for free.

No they can't, they have been told they will be pursued in the courts if they did that, no more than Dunnes staff couldn't give you your shopping for free if they were in dispute with their employer.

cdebru · 19-08-2013 12:27AM

osarusan wrote: »

It isn't really about unlimited travel for most people though, is it? Most people will just use it to get to work and go home.

It's like saying that XXquid for an all you can eat buffet is reasonable, because there's 200 kgs of food on the buffet table.

Even if it is only used for that it is a substantial saving on the cash fares, and most people using rambler tickets are not just using 2 buses a day in my experience.

ArmaniJeanss · 19-08-2013 12:27AM

K-9 wrote: »

This idea of running it privately is fine in a city but in somewhere like Donegal hasn't a chance, and only a total lunatic would put it forward, even parts of Dublin have uneconomic routes.

I think the idea is that you offer for tender a bundled set of routes that are a mix of profitable and non-profitable with the stipulation that service must be maintained on the unprofitable routes.
So whichever routes in the NE are profitable (Sligo<->Dublin, Letterkenny<->Bundoran, you know better than me) are put together with some existing non-profitable routes.

Jumboman · 19-08-2013 12:30AM

NuckingFacker wrote: »

It doesn't matter anyway as after another ten years of recession wages will all have been slashed anyway..

One reason i don't have much/any time for CIE in general, and their workers as a result, is the ruthless way that they quash or do their damndest to quash any private operator who has ever dared to take on a contracted out route. The new operator will suddenly find themselves operating a route which CIE has suddenly decided to bracket with a flood of busses, thereby killing demand and attempting to put the upstarts back in their box.

The laisse-faire attitude of upper management and lack of active engagement in the day to day running of the company, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer will simply have to pick up any shortfall also makes me have an attitude of "go to hell" whenever I hear anyone associated with the operation whinging. Given the choice, I'd let the devil take the hindmost and privatise the lot. Totally flatline CIE. Private operators would be in like flynn and we'd end up with a proper transport service, not the cartel of cnuts we have at the moment.

If dublin bus was privatised they woudn't operate routes (that people depend on) that weren't profitable.

Dublin bus is far from perfect but privatisation is not the answer. Just look at the privatisation of british rail in the UK that was a complete disaster.

Jumboman · 19-08-2013 12:32AM

cdebru wrote: »

No they can't, they have been told they will be pursued in the courts if they did that, no more than Dunnes staff couldn't give you your shopping for free if they were in dispute with their employer.

Irish rail let people on the trains for free some years ago.

jamaamaj · 19-08-2013 12:57AM

Poll results seem to think that most don't support them,
And why would most normal folk support them??
Most who are in the company CIE are on massive wages.
Its only new folks who had joined the last 5 years who are on normal wage.
How is this country going to move on with out change?
We are fu**ed the way we are.
Public job folks i'm looking at you

markpb · 19-08-2013 06:11AM

Jumboman wrote: »

If dublin bus was privatised they woudn't operate routes (that people depend on) that weren't profitable.

Unless you've got Mystic Meg sitting beside you, you've no idea what shape a privatized service might take. Transdev operate trams to Brides Glen and there aren't many people left pretending that extension is doing well. If you were right, they'd have stopped serving anything south of Leopardstown Valley ages ago.

cdebru · 19-08-2013 10:50AM

jamaamaj wrote: »

Poll results seem to think that most don't support them,
And why would most normal folk support them??
Most who are in the company CIE are on massive wages.
Its only new folks who had joined the last 5 years who are on normal wage.
How is this country going to move on with out change?
We are fu**ed the way we are.
Public job folks i'm looking at you

nonsense anyone who started in CIE as a driver, mechanic, clerical worker etc 5 years ago is on the same money is someone who started 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

The only people who are on "massive wages" would be chief inspectors and management grades depending how you define massive.

Foxtrol · 19-08-2013 03:07PM

cdebru wrote: »

nonsense anyone who started in CIE as a driver, mechanic, clerical worker etc 5 years ago is on the same money is someone who started 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

The only people who are on "massive wages" would be chief inspectors and management grades depending how you define massive.

I don't think the definition of massive is the issue, it's whether or not you're comparing the wage to the skill/training required to do the job, if you actually do then they're paid a massive wage to be a driver.

smellmepower · 19-08-2013 03:17PM

They are responsable for the safety of 60+ passengers on their bus plus the foot and vehicular traffic on cramped,not fit for modern purpose city streets.

It's flippant and insulting to claim they are just drivers.

kalych · 19-08-2013 03:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, one of the countries biggest shambles is taxi deregulation...

Why do taxi drivers generally think that the taxi regulator isn't doing his job properly by not limiting the number of licences? Who is to say that any profession should get government subsidy in the form of enforced barriers to entry. This is plain wrong. Taxi regulator is not there to keep taxi drivers in a job, quite the opposite. The only reason to have licences in the first place is for customer safety, otherwise I would get rid of licencing altogether and make it a completely free-to-enter market. Since safety is a concern, we have the system we have in place now. I think it is working perfectly.

Sorry for the off topic.
rant/

Foxtrol · 19-08-2013 03:24PM

smellmepower wrote: »

They are responsable for the safety of 60+ passengers on their bus plus the foot and vehicular traffic on cramped,not fit for modern purpose city streets.

It's flippant and insulting to claim they are just drivers.

Is that not the case with bus drivers around the world?

Foxtrol · 19-08-2013 03:28PM

kalych wrote: »

Why do taxi drivers generally think that the taxi regulator isn't doing his job properly by not limiting the number of licences? Who is to say that any profession should get government subsidy in the form of enforced barriers to entry. This is plain wrong. Taxi regulator is not there to keep taxi drivers in a job, quite the opposite. The only reason to have licences in the first place is for customer safety, otherwise I would get rid of licencing altogether and make it a completely free-to-enter market. Since safety is a concern, we have the system we have in place now. I think it is working perfectly.

Sorry for the off topic.
rant/

+1

If people are still taking licenses then there’s still enough money to be made to draw people to the job. Similarly, if bus routes were put out to tender and DB are as efficient and effective as pro-DB lobby claim then they should be able to win them all easily.

OldNotWIse · 19-08-2013 03:38PM

kalych wrote: »

Why do taxi drivers generally think that the taxi regulator isn't doing his job properly by not limiting the number of licences? Who is to say that any profession should get government subsidy in the form of enforced barriers to entry. This is plain wrong. Taxi regulator is not there to keep taxi drivers in a job, quite the opposite. The only reason to have licences in the first place is for customer safety, otherwise I would get rid of licencing altogether and make it a completely free-to-enter market. Since safety is a concern, we have the system we have in place now. I think it is working perfectly.

Sorry for the off topic.
rant/

^ yup

I actually had one giving me a hard time at the weekend because I hailed him "on the wrong side of the road". How dare I ask someone to turn. Wouldn't mind but on the same road, if I am waiting for a taxi on one side, often a driver going the opposite direction will beep, I give the thumbs up and he'll do a u-turn. If I wasn't running late I would have told him to stick it, and got out and taken one on the other side.

end of the road · 19-08-2013 06:14PM

kalych wrote: »

Who is to say that any profession should get government subsidy in the form of enforced barriers to entry.

ah god no, we couldn't allow things such as the taxi industry to be sustainable, would be such an aweful thing

kalych wrote: »

This is plain wrong.

not at all

kalych wrote: »

Taxi regulator is not there to keep taxi drivers in a job, quite the opposite.

no, he's there to regulate and make sure the industry and the amount of taxis is sustainable

kalych wrote: »

The only reason to have licences in the first place is for customer safety

exactly, and thats how it should stay, terrable thing to have systems in place for customer safety isn't it, the free market with anybody being a taxi driver with no checks would be a better way

kalych wrote: »

otherwise I would get rid of licencing altogether and make it a completely free-to-enter market.

yeah, we can have any tom dick or harry driving a taxi, as if the industry hasn't a bad enough rap as it is with the odd one with a serious criminal record playing on peoples minds.

kalych wrote: »

Since safety is a concern, we have the system we have in place now. I think it is working perfectly.

yeah, drivers working over the legal limit because they can't make anything, yeah its working fantastic all right

Foxtrol · 19-08-2013 06:49PM

end of the road wrote: »

ah god no, we couldn't allow things such as the taxi industry to be sustainable, would be such an aweful thing

What is this sustainable stuff? Should the government pass a law banning having more than one pub on a street because opening a second could make the first unsustainable? If you’re not able to make a living get out, just like making DB go through a tendering process would actually make them be efficient or they’d have to get out.

exactly, and thats how it should stay, terrable thing to have systems in place for customer safety isn't it

Didn’t DB drivers fight against the system being brought in to limit hours for customer safety and are still claiming it as being ‘a cut’ to them so talking up taxi customer safety rules is a bit rich?

Why is it not a surprise that someone backing the drivers and dublin bus monopoly looks fondly back when taxi drivers had a similar grip around the neck of the irish public?

end of the road · 19-08-2013 08:15PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

What is this sustainable stuff? Should the government pass a law banning having more than one pub on a street because opening a second could make the first unsustainable?

2 pubs, thousands of taxis for the lesser demand we have now because of the recession

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you’re not able to make a living get out

not easy if you have a family and a mortgage.

Foxtrol wrote: »

just like making DB go through a tendering process would actually make them be efficient or they’d have to get out.

dublin bus is efficient, it runs the bus, and one pays for it unless they have the free travel, making them go through a tendering process is to much hastle and the current system is fine, at least i'm guarinteeed a service

Foxtrol wrote: »

Didn’t DB drivers fight against the system being brought in to limit hours for customer safety and are still claiming it as being ‘a cut’ to them so talking up taxi customer safety rules is a bit rich?

untrue, they were very supportive of the limiting of hours, they wanted to make sure that the rules wouldn't lead to a down-grading or cutting of services

Foxtrol · 19-08-2013 08:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

2 pubs, thousands of taxis for the lesser demand we have now because of the recession

Yes they are the same thing, it is called competition.

not easy if you have a family and a mortgage.

That’s their problem for taking a job in a profession that has very low skill/training requirements, similar to the bus drivers.

dublin bus is efficient, it runs the bus, and one pays for it unless they have the free travel, making them go through a tendering process is to much hastle and the current system is fine, at least i'm guarinteeed a service

Any company who is paying low skilled workers the wage DB does, including ludicrous turning up/non-crash bonuses and large overtime rates, is not being run efficiently.

How would you not be guaranteed a service if there was effective tendering and bundling of routes?

untrue, they were very supportive of the limiting of hours, they wanted to make sure that the rules wouldn't lead to a down-grading or cutting of services

Absolute lies, they threw their toys out of the pram about it at the time and are still continuously citing it as being a ‘cut’ and a reason why they shouldn’t be touched now despite DB being so far in the red.

end of the road · 19-08-2013 09:39PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

How would you not be guaranteed a service if there was effective tendering and bundling of routes?

because when the private operator doesn't wish to run the unproffitable routes the NTA will bend over and let them cut the routes, such bundeling and tendering would be bad for the customer and must be stopped by whatever means possible and at any cost

Foxtrol wrote: »

Absolute lies, they threw their toys out of the pram about it at the time and are still continuously citing it as being a ‘cut’ and a reason why they shouldn’t be touched now despite DB being so far in the red.

no, they were very supportive but believed it would lead to a downgrading or cutting of services

Hootanany · 19-08-2013 09:46PM

Very good post.1 above.

Jumboman · 19-08-2013 09:49PM

Privatisation would mean paying higher prices for a worse service.

JRant · 19-08-2013 10:10PM

Jumboman wrote: »

Privatisation would mean paying higher prices for a worse service.

Isn't that just what's happening currently though?
Prices rising year on year with the service being cut back all the time.

K-9 · 19-08-2013 10:56PM

JRant wrote: »

Isn't that just what's happening currently though?
Prices rising year on year with the service being cut back all the time.

I think the subvention has been cut? So while it is semi private we had pressure during the boom years for less tax payer input, plus obviously less tax payer support and less people using it during the recession.

It's a business that has to serve loss making routes and also plough money into capital, we all want new, clean buses on the service, otherwise we'll complain they are ancient and unreliable, even if that means the company is cutting costs.

We want lower costs, but a better service, the pampered generation I was on about last night. If it doesn't get delivered, just blame the unions, not unrealistic expectations from the public and management.

Jumboman · 19-08-2013 10:57PM

JRant wrote: »

Isn't that just what's happening currently though?
Prices rising year on year with the service being cut back all the time.

Fares have go up because varadkar has cut back the subsidies also fuel has gone up.

Privatisation would also mean that a private company would asset strip the f**k out of CIE. Just like what happened with Eircom.

cdebru · 20-08-2013 01:08AM

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't think the definition of massive is the issue, it's whether or not you're comparing the wage to the skill/training required to do the job, if you actually do then they're paid a massive wage to be a driver.

so massive wage by your definition is less than you could get for doing nothing and getting social welfare.
A payment which is supposed to be the bare minimum support a family needs to maintain it while they look for work, or to support them because they can no longer work, and less than that is a massive wage??
you are just trolling, unfortunately some people here take you seriously.
You wouldn't last a day doing the work these people do.

jimmycrackcorm · 20-08-2013 01:12AM

smellmepower wrote: »

They are responsable for the safety of 60+ passengers on their bus plus the foot and vehicular traffic on cramped,not fit for modern purpose city streets.

It's flippant and insulting to claim they are just drivers.

Yes, it takes a degree to dive a bus.

devnull · 20-08-2013 05:55AM

K-9 wrote: »

I think the subvention has been cut? So while it is semi private we had pressure during the boom years for less tax payer input, plus obviously less tax payer support and less people using it during the recession.

Subsidies were cut back because Dublin Bus cut back the number of vehicles and services it operated by a similar percentage.

The routes that were cut back were the least used and would have been using above average levels of subsidy. It's likely that the best performing routes are using very little subsidy with the worst performing routes using more then the average level.

By the way, indirect subsidy, IE the provision of new buses funded by the taxpayer is at it's highest for several years, in 2007 and 2008 Dublin Bus purchased in total 150 of it's own new buses, in the last 18 months the taxpayer has bought 160 vehicles for it.

cdebru · 20-08-2013 07:28AM

devnull wrote: »

Subsidies were cut back because Dublin Bus cut back the number of vehicles and services it operated by a similar percentage.

The routes that were cut back were the least used and would have been using above average levels of subsidy. It's likely that the best performing routes are using very little subsidy with the worst performing routes using more then the average level.

By the way, indirect subsidy, IE the provision of new buses funded by the taxpayer is at it's highest for several years, in 2007 and 2008 Dublin Bus purchased in total 150 of it's own new buses, in the last 18 months the taxpayer has bought 160 vehicles for it.

Yes but you forget to mention that the subvention was among the lowest in Europe to start with, and that the subvention, was not covering the costs, what was covering for that was passenger numbers which have dropped by 20% since the crash in 2008.
Also you neglect to mention the increase in numbers of those entitled to free travel while the funding for that free travel scheme has actually decreased.
Lastly the NTA has purchased new buses in the last 18 months they still belong to the NTA and are leased to DB, fleet renewal is government policy they want buses replaced and a new modern fleet to encourage people to use buses which means replacing buses even though they are not end of life nor is it economically appropriate.

Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

Comments