Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

awec · 21-08-2013 07:50PM

cdebru wrote: »

no you work 5 over 7, what are you talking about ?

Yeah internet poll, gutted.

You work 5 out of 7, and one of those 5 may be a Sunday?

cdebru · 21-08-2013 07:58PM

ixoy wrote: »

The important part here is that the contract can agree to there being no extra pay for a Sunday or at a different amount. The contract must acknowledge the conditions for a Sunday pay to which you agree but that doesn't meant everyone must get extra pay for a Sunday. Certainly many salaried workers would not.

For all the talk of unemployment benefit as well - after a year it's means tested. If your partner is working, or you have any form of declared savings, you'll be getting a lot less than some of the figures quoted here.

No you must agree to the form of your increased payment for Sunday work if not then your employer has to do one of these

extra allowance
increased pay
or paid time off.

That is the law, the increased allowance can be in the form of your basic pay being increased to take into account you work Sundays, but you must be paid extra for Sunday work.

Lastly yeah because so many DB drivers would have substantial savings on their current wage lol, most drivers would be married with kids and a lot would be the sole earner in their household.

Foxtrol · 21-08-2013 07:59PM

awec wrote: »

You work 5 out of 7, and one of those 5 may be a Sunday?

How could those signed up to be bus drivers possibly have expected to have to work a Sunday as a standard part of their jobs with it being a 7 day service and all, sure it would be like a nightclub barman being expected to work unsocial night shifts. Obviously they should all be getting extra money to compensate :rolleyes:

awec · 21-08-2013 08:02PM

cdebru wrote: »

No you must agree to the form of your increased payment for Sunday work if not then your employer has to do one of these

extra allowance
increased pay
or paid time off.

That is the law, the increased allowance can be in the form of your basic pay being increased to take into account you work Sundays, but you must be paid extra for Sunday work.

Lastly yeah because so many DB drivers would have substantial savings on their current wage lol, most drivers would be married with kids and a lot would be the sole earner in their household.

On the week you work on a Sunday, do you get a different day off during the week?

You say you work 5 out of 7 every week.

If that's the case then I fail to see how you are entitled to any increased pay. You are getting your time off in the form of a different day off during the week.

So this:

" but you must be paid extra for Sunday work."

is complete nonsense.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 21-08-2013 08:48PM

awec wrote: »

On the week you work on a Sunday, do you get a different day off during the week?

You say you work 5 out of 7 every week.

If that's the case then I fail to see how you are entitled to any increased pay. You are getting your time off in the form of a different day off during the week.

So this:

" but you must be paid extra for Sunday work."

is complete nonsense.

C'mon AWEC you know better than to feed the Gondolas, Shills, Trolls

cdebru · 21-08-2013 11:08PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

How could those signed up to be bus drivers possibly have expected to have to work a Sunday as a standard part of their jobs with it being a 7 day service and all, sure it would be like a nightclub barman being expected to work unsocial night shifts. Obviously they should all be getting extra money to compensate :rolleyes:

Wow, just wow.

Hmmmm blindingly obvious point here but you seem to need it pointed out to you, yes they knew they would be expected to work shifts and Sundays but they also knew what way they would be recompensed for that hence they agreed to do it and signed a contract to that effect.

Now one side of that contract has decided to change the way they are recompensed but still expects the other side to continue their side of the contract, hence the problem.

cdebru · 21-08-2013 11:12PM

awec wrote: »

On the week you work on a Sunday, do you get a different day off during the week?

You say you work 5 out of 7 every week.

If that's the case then I fail to see how you are entitled to any increased pay. You are getting your time off in the form of a different day off during the week.

So this:

" but you must be paid extra for Sunday work."

is complete nonsense.

1 it is in the contract, you know the legally binding agreement that can only be altered by agreement of both parties to the contract (look up contract law)

2 because it is the law of this state, as set down by its democratically elected government. If you don't like either you know how to change it.

awec · 21-08-2013 11:20PM

cdebru wrote: »

1 it is in the contract, you know the legally binding agreement that can only be altered by agreement of both parties to the contract (look up contract law)

2 because it is the law of this state, as set down by its democratically elected government. If you don't like either you know how to change it.

I think you don't understand the law that you are continually quoting.

On the weeks where you work a Sunday, do you get a different day off during that week instead of the Sunday. Basically - does your work week remain at 5 days, and not increase to 6? You are given a day off during the week, without using up any of your holiday allowance. The number of hours you are working is not increasing. This is sufficient recompense for having to work on a Sunday - higher rate of pay does not even need to come in to it.

There is a misguided sense of entitlement here. Dublin Bus drivers are living on a different planet it seems.

cdebru · 22-08-2013 07:28AM

awec wrote: »

I think you don't understand the law that you are continually quoting.

On the weeks where you work a Sunday, do you get a different day off during that week instead of the Sunday. Basically - does your work week remain at 5 days, and not increase to 6? You are given a day off during the week, without using up any of your holiday allowance. The number of hours you are working is not increasing. This is sufficient recompense for having to work on a Sunday - higher rate of pay does not even need to come in to it.

There is a misguided sense of entitlement here. Dublin Bus drivers are living on a different planet it seems.

No it is paid time off the law stipulates, a day off is not paid time off it is just one of your rest periods under the work time directive.

There is no misguided sense of entitlement there is a legally binding contract.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0020/sec0014.html#sec14

There is the law in question, so you can point out the part you are referring to.

kalych · 22-08-2013 08:14AM

cdebru wrote: »

No it is paid time off the law stipulates, a day off is not paid time off it is just one of your rest periods under the work time directive.

There is no misguided sense of entitlement there is a legally binding contract.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0020/sec0014.html#sec14

There is the law in question, so you can point out the part you are referring to.

Having worked in the hospitality industry all through college, I would really like to see you argue this with any of the managers in either hotels, pubs or restaurants.

Arguing that shift workers working 40 hours a week and just happen to be working Sunday as part of that are being entitled to extra pay seems misleading to me.

Having said that the argument here shouldn't be whether it is morally right or not, since it says so in their contracts already. The issue is clearly that their pay is being reduced from what is already stipulated in the contract and they are not happy about it. Understandable, I would be aggrieved too. There is no right or wrong here, I would expect them to protest to be honest, even though I myself would never resort to striking as a form of protest. I say, not happy in your job - move on, no jobs for life anymore. But that is just me, I do not presume that my moral position should be forced upon others, but likewise I have no sympathy for their plight.

Dravokivich · 22-08-2013 08:42AM

awec wrote: »

I think you don't understand the law that you are continually quoting.

On the weeks where you work a Sunday, do you get a different day off during that week instead of the Sunday. Basically - does your work week remain at 5 days, and not increase to 6? You are given a day off during the week, without using up any of your holiday allowance. The number of hours you are working is not increasing. This is sufficient recompense for having to work on a Sunday - higher rate of pay does not even need to come in to it.

There is a misguided sense of entitlement here. Dublin Bus drivers are living on a different planet it seems.

The equivalent of getting a day off for the Sunday in your above example, would be working 4 days the following week.

cdebru · 22-08-2013 08:59AM

Dravokivich wrote: »

The equivalent of getting a day off for the Sunday in your above example, would be working 4 days the following week.

Correct but being paid for working 5.

cdebru · 22-08-2013 09:04AM

kalych wrote: »

Having worked in the hospitality industry all through college, I would really like to see you argue this with any of the managers in either hotels, pubs or restaurants.

Arguing that shift workers working 40 hours a week and just happen to be working Sunday as part of that are being entitled to extra pay seems misleading to me.

Having said that the argument here shouldn't be whether it is morally right or not, since it says so in their contracts already. The issue is clearly that their pay is being reduced from what is already stipulated in the contract and they are not happy about it. Understandable, I would be aggrieved too. There is no right or wrong here, I would expect them to protest to be honest, even though I myself would never resort to striking as a form of protest. I say, not happy in your job - move on, no jobs for life anymore. But that is just me, I do not presume that my moral position should be forced upon others, but likewise I have no sympathy for their plight.

There is nothing misleading about it, the section of the law dealing with this is linked in the post, read it, if employers are not obeying the law that would not surprise me however that does not change the law.
In my experience employers will pay as little as they can get away with that is why employees have to be organised otherwise your rights on paper will remain that just rights on paper.

cdebru · 22-08-2013 09:18AM

Foxtrol wrote: »

You continuously refuse to answer what would be the claimed downside for the consumer if a proper, effective tendering process was put in place for routes? Simple answer is that it would be great for the consumer but bad for the overpaid, inefficient, obstinate drivers.

The argument ‘it wouldn’t happen’ could as easily be turned back on you and I could say Dublin Bus will never work efficiently, never be able to make even one of its routes profitable and will continue to increase again and again the fares for the consumer and at least my claim would actually be based on what the company has failed to do for years, not some hypothesis you’ve come up with from apples and oranges comparison to historic deregulation in the past in different countries.

The big IF again. If it was done perfectly and we lived in a perfect world it would be great.

But it would depend on getting enough approved companies to tender,
If wages and terms and conditions are used to drive down tender prices, you will as happened in the UK find it hard to recruit and retain staff so much so that TFL had to step in an offer bonus payments to drivers.
If costs increase outside of the agreed tender rate companies have just let the tenders go and shut up shop.
Not enough companies apply for routes they can literally name their price.
Tendering and monitoring tenders to ensure standards are met ands another layer of cost which will be passed onto the state or the passengers.

So really it depends what model you use, how competitive the tender process is how many companies you have competing, etc etc and we have a piss poor record in regulation/deregulation look at the electricity market, gas market, telecoms etc etc

kalych · 22-08-2013 09:30AM

cdebru wrote: »

There is nothing misleading about it, the section of the law dealing with this is linked in the post, read it, if employers are not obeying the law that would not surprise me however that does not change the law.
In my experience employers will pay as little as they can get away with that is why employees have to be organised otherwise your rights on paper will remain that just rights on paper.

Fair enough, although I would point your attention to the fact that all the provisions in the Act you linked to suggest that they are subject to the contract between employer and employees or conditions of similar employment schemes, thus it is not set in stone, but a recommendation of how to go about it if contract does not stipulate anything on the issue.

DB drivers contracts already mention this, the issue is that they are being unilaterally changed by DB, thus this is not a legal dispute as you suggest, since the Labour relation Commission got involved , but a negotiation tactics employed by the unions. If it was a legal dispute, I would urge DB drivers to seek a court resolution, which they do not seem to want to do, since in my opinion they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

Like I said, I personally do not believe striking is the way, but I respect DB drivers fighting for their rights as they see fit, just do not ask for my personal or likeminded individuals' sympathy on the matter. Any time a have a opportunity I will pick an alternative mode of transport to DB as a customer to do my little part in breaking up the hold that DB has on the general public's commuting needs.

cdebru · 22-08-2013 06:06PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

He also hasn't factored in that mortgage supplement wouldn't be paid for the first 12 months, and that DB drivers have a range of perks that the family would lose.

We were talking about rent supplement not mortgage supplement, what range of perks would they lose?

zega · 22-08-2013 06:15PM

I supported the bus workers,pretty much no one can strike anymore due to fear of being sacked.Bus drivers don't have that fear and are right to show how pissed off they are.

cdebru · 22-08-2013 06:18PM

kalych wrote: »

Fair enough, although I would point your attention to the fact that all the provisions in the Act you linked to suggest that they are subject to the contract between employer and employees or conditions of similar employment schemes, thus it is not set in stone, but a recommendation of how to go about it if contract does not stipulate anything on the issue.

DB drivers contracts already mention this, the issue is that they are being unilaterally changed by DB, thus this is not a legal dispute as you suggest, since the Labour relation Commission got involved , but a negotiation tactics employed by the unions. If it was a legal dispute, I would urge DB drivers to seek a court resolution, which they do not seem to want to do, since in my opinion they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

Like I said, I personally do not believe striking is the way, but I respect DB drivers fighting for their rights as they see fit, just do not ask for my personal or likeminded individuals' sympathy on the matter. Any time a have a opportunity I will pick an alternative mode of transport to DB as a customer to do my little part in breaking up the hold that DB has on the general public's commuting needs.

No they say that if the employer does not follow the law and offer at least one of the options set out in the law, that an employee can go to the LRC and that they can make a determination as to how the employees are recompensed having regard to how similar employees are recompensed for Sunday work.

It is contract law, whether the LRC or labour court is involved makes no difference, the only way a contract can be changed is by agreement or by a change in law.
You are correct however that the unions should go to court why they haven't is beyond me but it may well happen without them if we are back at a forced change of contract again.

awec · 22-08-2013 09:56PM

cdebru wrote: »

No they say that if the employer does not follow the law and offer at least one of the options set out in the law, that an employee can go to the LRC and that they can make a determination as to how the employees are recompensed having regard to how similar employees are recompensed for Sunday work.

It is contract law, whether the LRC or labour court is involved makes no difference, the only way a contract can be changed is by agreement or by a change in law.
You are correct however that the unions should go to court why they haven't is beyond me but it may well happen without them if we are back at a forced change of contract again.

If that's the case, why are the bus drivers rejecting the recommendations of the LRC?

Dublin Bus drivers clearly have an inflated sense of self-importance.

Do you support the Dublin Bus workers?

Comments