Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Luas strike general thread (mandatory: read warning in post #1)

Options
1…5681011…54

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    ...And Justice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭...And Justice


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    well surely if they are voting to strike in the first place at least 51% of the staff's opinions are represented rather than just 'some'?

    51% are older staff, they recruited last year and some of these people are happy and want to get on with their lives.


  • Options
    #213
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    ...And Justice wrote: »
    51% are older staff, they recruited last year and some of these people are happy and want to get on with their lives.

    And I'm sure that some of the newer 49% of staff are happy and want to get on with their lives too!

    I doubt 49% of drivers have come along in the last year alone?

    And even if 51% of staff are older staff that dosn't mean all those 51% are those who voted not in favour of any action.


  • Options
    #214
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,213 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    GM228 wrote: »
    And I'm sure that some of the newer 49% of staff are happy and want to get on with their lives too!

    I doubt 49% of drivers have come along in the last year alone?

    And even if 51% of staff are older staff that dosn't mean all those 51% are those who voted in favour of any action.

    Seems like the workforce is being conned by some war horses so:confused:


  • Options
    #215
    cardinal tetra
    Registered Users Posts: 299 ✭✭cardinal tetra


    #TeamTransdev

    I saw one of the Luas drivers today get out and have a smoke on the canal. that sort of thing shouldnt be tolerated.

    A few weeks ago i saw one of them playing angry birds on their smartphone while traversing a rather tricky junction. Im putting my life in these peoples hands? It's time we stood up to these people. We should not be held to ransom by the likes of these folk. We get enough of that from the government.


  • Options
    #216
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,042 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    cardinal tetra wrote: »
    #TeamTransdev

    I saw one of the Luas drivers today get out and have a smoke on the canal. that sort of thing shouldnt be tolerated.

    A few weeks ago i saw one of them playing angry birds on their smartphone while traversing a rather tricky junction. Im putting my life in these peoples hands? It's time we stood up to these people. We should not be held to ransom by the likes of these folk. We get enough of that from the government.

    But but but it's a highly skilled job etc......useless ****s.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    tabbey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭tabbey


    The problem of toilet breaks is that drivers are allegedly taking their trams out of service, and going to the depot for the necessary facility.

    Surely some arrangement could be agreed for an inspector to mind the tram while staff go to the loo somewhere in the city.

    To take a tram out of service for no good reason, is sabotage, not legitimate industrial action.


  • Options
    #218
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,613 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    cardinal tetra wrote: »
    #TeamTransdev

    I saw one of the Luas drivers today get out and have a smoke on the canal. that sort of thing shouldnt be tolerated.

    Has anyone caught this on camera as it seems far fetched. I have been getting the LUAS for years and never seen this. Maybe at the last stop but that's fair enough.


  • Options
    #219
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,488 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    can they not use the outside bogie like bus drivers are allowed to use the outside back wheel? :)


  • Options
    #220
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    cardinal tetra wrote: »
    A few weeks ago i saw one of them playing angry birds on their smartphone while traversing a rather tricky junction.

    Slightly off topic but got me wondering has a LUAS driver ever got penalty points on their driving licence for such things or been taken to court under the RTAs?


  • Options
    #221
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    can they not use the outside bogie like bus drivers are allowed to use the outside back wheel? :)

    Maybe it's not a number 1


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    tabbey wrote: »
    The problem of toilet breaks is that drivers are allegedly taking their trams out of service, and going to the depot for the necessary facility.

    Surely some arrangement could be agreed for an inspector to mind the tram while staff go to the loo somewhere in the city.

    To take a tram out of service for no good reason, is sabotage, not legitimate industrial action.


    DB drivers have the same rule they are allowed to return to the nearest depot to use the toilet it is very rarely used and drivers normally find somewhere else so as not to disrupt services, however in a work to rule then you follow the rules, strictly there is nothing wrong with what they are doing it just highlights that drivers normally don't enforce a right they have, if the company really have a problem they should install toilet facilities at the termini, problem solved.

    People really need to look up the definition of work to rule.


  • Options
    #223
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    ...And Justice wrote: »
    These Muppets, and I know a few of them needed to get back to work, even the new guys think this is madness. I know one guy that nearly had his house repossessed last year , and all he wants to do is drive the tram.

    FFS, siptu, doesn't represent everyone, just an opinion of some idiots being egged on by a defunct union.


    92% voted and 99% of those voted for strike, that's pretty much as overwhelming support as you get outside of votes in places like north Korea


  • Options
    #224
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    cdebru wrote: »
    in a work to rule then you follow the rules, strictly there is nothing wrong with what they are doing
    They've been on a work to rule since early February. They either didn't apply the toilet break rules for 2 weeks, or there is an outbreak of diarrhoea among the drivers, or SIPTU have told them to start disrupting the journeys.

    Or was it just a partial work to rule?


  • Options
    #225
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    They've been on a work to rule since early February. They either didn't apply the toilet break rules for 2 weeks, or there is an outbreak of diarrhoea among the drivers, or SIPTU have told them to start disrupting the journeys.

    Or was it just a partial work to rule?

    No idea but hardly surprising that things have escalated.


  • Options
    #226
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    cdebru wrote: »
    No idea but hardly surprising that things have escalated.
    Not surprised either, but you told us to look up the definition of a work to rule. If this issue was because of the work to rule then the toilet breaks should have ratcheted up from day 1.

    Assuming it's not diarrhoea, then SIPTU are acting the maggot, giving Transdev the right for disciplinary action against the workers or leaving SIPTU open to a case against themselves, for disruption not in compliance with the strike laws.

    Either way, they (SIPTU) have done the workers no favours.


  • Options
    #227
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    Not surprised either, but you told us to look up the definition of a work to rule. If this issue was because of the work to rule then the toilet breaks should have ratcheted up from day 1.

    Assuming it's not diarrhoea, then SIPTU are acting the maggot, giving Transdev the right for disciplinary action against the workers or leaving SIPTU open to a case against themselves, for disruption not in compliance with the strike laws.

    Either way, they (SIPTU) have done the workers no favours.

    No a work to rule can be partial or full, it can be escalated, much the same way as a strike can be partial for part of a day or a full day and can be escalated to all out strike, the rule says if a driver needs a toilet break and no toilet facilities are provided then the driver can return to the depot, the fact that drivers don't enforce the rule normally doesn't make it any less of a rule, now as part of a work to rule drivers instead of finding an alternative or holding themselves to facilitate the company and its customers are following the rules as laid down by the company.
    That is completely legitimate work to rule, there is no evidence that drivers are going to the toilet more merely that they are using the toilets as set out in the rules of the company.
    Like I said the solution is in the hands of the company, provide toilet facilities, fairly easy to do for the luas.


  • Options
    #228
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    cdebru wrote: »
    People really need to look up the definition of work to rule.
    Industrial action where, in contrast to a strike, workers do not withdraw their labor. Instead, they stay on their jobs but drastically slow down the operations by punctilious adherence to a narrow interpretation of work rules included in the collective bargaining agreement.
    Link
    cdebru wrote: »
    No a work to rule can be partial or full,
    Not according to that definition, but maybe SIPTU have their own (can't find it) but would love to see it out of curiosity.

    Anyway to stop us going around in circles you believe this is the workers operating a legitimate work to rule, I think it's the union acting the maggot and deliberately delaying the trams.


  • Options
    #229
    Kyleboy
    Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭Kyleboy


    How dare they go to the toilet, maybe the company should issue each driver with there own personal plastic bottle


  • Options
    #230
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    cdebru wrote: »
    there is no evidence that drivers are going to the toilet more merely that they are using the toilets as set out in the rules of the company.

    There is evidence as the company records these things as they disrupt services. More than a month's worth of breaks in one day, and now repeatedly on consecutive days, is pretty concrete evidence. SIPTU are liars when they publicly say there is nothing going on with toilet breaks.

    If I was in charge of Transdev I'd be looking to bring a case against SIPTU at the earliest opportunity.


  • Options
    #231
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,213 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    n97 mini wrote: »
    There is evidence as the company records these things as they disrupt services. More than a month's worth of breaks in one day, and now repeatedly on consecutive days, is pretty concrete evidence. SIPTU are liars when they publicly say there is nothing going on with toilet breaks.

    If I was in charge of Transdev I'd be looking to bring a case against SIPTU at the earliest opportunity.

    I would concur with that view, time these people answered for their behaviour.

    Maybe that would instil what I would consider to be a 'more responsible attitude to these disputes.

    Time people realised this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    n97 mini wrote: »
    There is evidence as the company records these things as they disrupt services. More than a month's worth of breaks in one day, and now repeatedly on consecutive days, is pretty concrete evidence. SIPTU are liars when they publicly say there is nothing going on with toilet breaks.

    If I was in charge of Transdev I'd be looking to bring a case against SIPTU at the earliest opportunity.


    No there is evidence they are going to the toilet as per the companies own rule rather than using a pub, restaurant, hedge as they normally do, that is what work to rule is, the rule is need to go to the toilet you don't have to go into another business looking to use their facilities you go back to the depot and use the company you work for.

    This is the companies own rule, now that it is being used they see how drivers were facilitating the company by not enforcing it that's all


  • Options
    #233
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Kyleboy wrote: »
    How dare they go to the toilet, maybe the company should issue each driver with there own personal plastic bottle

    Better yet, issue each driver participating in this nonsense with disciplinary proceedings.


  • Options
    #234
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    I would concur with that view, time these people answered for their behaviour.

    Maybe that would instil what I would consider to be a 'more responsible attitude to these disputes.

    Time people realised this.

    Hmmm I can't see it going anywhere, its the companies own rule unless you could show a driver was abusing the rule and didn't need to use the toilet or used the toilet excessively.


  • Options
    #235
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    Link


    Not according to that definition, but maybe SIPTU have their own (can't find it) but would love to see it out of curiosity.

    Anyway to stop us going around in circles you believe this is the workers operating a legitimate work to rule, I think it's the union acting the maggot and deliberately delaying the trams.



    And does any law say they have to observe each and every rule to the letter from the start of a work to rule without exception ?


  • Options
    #236
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    92% voted and 99% of those voted for strike, that's pretty much as overwhelming support as you get outside of votes in places like north Korea
    or Wadiya!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXxjSrfjGH4&ebc=ANyPxKp8wjaMsZviCiL4lvErTgQDqxD2RoE2SGl25HiKxakueCDys2YpKjvzRhIZ5Bzn0NsND6Y2DWxoVSY5oDScLUXvca1Wkg


  • Options
    #237
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Better yet, issue each driver participating in this nonsense with disciplinary proceedings.

    i don't think going to the toilet is a disciplinary matter.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #238
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    cdebru wrote: »
    Hmmm I can't see it going anywhere, its the companies own rule unless you could show a driver was abusing the rule and didn't need to use the toilet or used the toilet excessively.

    Surely if the number of toilet breaks for one day far exceeds those for a normal month, then its easy for TransDev to show its being abused?

    Just to note, its legal to dismiss someone if a medical condition interferes with their ability to work, a medical condition that requires excessive numbers of toilet breaks would fulfill this.


  • Options
    #239
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Surely if the number of toilet breaks for one day far exceeds those for a normal month, then its easy for TransDev to show its being abused?

    Just to note, its legal to dismiss someone if a medical condition interferes with their ability to work, a medical condition that requires excessive numbers of toilet breaks would fulfill this.


    How many luas drivers are there ? How many work on a given day ? How many took toilet breaks, how many people would take a toilet break in a similar size company in a normal day, then you work out if it is excessive.


  • Options
    #240
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Just to note it amazes me, not one person has asked why having spent how many hundreds of millions of building and extending luas line no one ever thought, what about a toilet ? We have staff out working for hours with no toilet facilities instead we will make a rule that they drive the tram back to the depot empty to use the toilet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Just to note, its legal to dismiss someone if a medical condition interferes with their ability to work, a medical condition that requires excessive numbers of toilet breaks would fulfill this.

    It's not that simple, it would need to be established that it is/will be a long term issue.

    The employer could dismiss an employee on medical grounds having:-

    1. Established that a pattern of absences exists and it is causing problems.

    2. Satisfied themselves that the problem is unlikely to get better in the long run.

    3. Warned the employee the dismissal may occur if things do not improve.

    I doubt Transdev could satisfy any of the above, especially those in Bold as if it is proven to be a work to rule issue then they can't argue it won't get better/isn't long term etc.

    As a side note if it's a work to rule related issue they can't dismiss anyone for engaging in a work to rule unless they dismiss ALL staff engaging in the work to rule and that isn't going to happen.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement