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…4849515354

Comments

  • Options
    #1502
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I presume not all LUAS drivers are members of the union, I was employed in places that were unionised before but never joined one.

    So is that 99% of the unionised members or arre they all in the union?

    174 drivers I believe 167 voted so looks like all or virtually all are allowing for, illness, holidays etc


  • Options
    #1503
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    An opening gambit really they looked for 53% and settled for 10% some gambit.



    1-3%/year which is where both party's ended up at




    2.5 hour extra will still leave them working only a 38 hours week they are being paid for 39 hour/week







    No it was not for a 5 year deal these boys taught they were living in the Uk in the seventies where retrospective claims were all the go. They wanted the claim from January 2015.


    They haven't settled for anything yet, both party's haven't ended up anywhere, independent safety report said it was not safe, even transport minister accepted that and it was changed now they want to change it back why is it safe now ? , and irrespective of what they are contracted for they have an agreement to work 35.44 hours anything above that is currently overtime.

    It is a 5 year deal, the same length of time as transdev have the contract it is not retrospective it has just taken this long to work through the various processes. I presume you want the unions to work through the full industrial relations process rather than starting a strike in September 2014


  • Options
    #1504
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    LUAS Drivers make a request (through SIPTU) which we've all seen at this stage.

    Transdev refused to entertain the ludicrous request, and implores a sense of reality of expectations, and offer a range which may be achievable.

    LUAS driver's next course of action chosen was not to reduce their request, but to go on strike (which imo was extraordinarily reckless considering the next step).

    After initiating a strike, they then reduced their request by almost half.

    Am I right so far in terms of the timeline?

    It appears that a group of workers initiated industrial action before reducing their requested increase from an enormous figure by a factor of almost 50%, which considering the initial request still left an enormous increase (relative to all available metrics) requested.

    I find it very easy to consider that a trivialisation of industrial action.



    If you read any of the commentary that is not purely spin the claim was for between 8.5% and 53% so clearly the claim was not 53% for everyone, transdev refused to engage until strike action had actually started then following the breakdown of talks SIPTU revised their claim but again transdev refused to talk till the final day or 2/before a planned strike, and made a ridiculous offer which involves have the workforce working hours for free so the other half can get a bit of a rise in 2018


  • Options
    #1505
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    And the question I asked was......?

    No idea something about whether I had seen a claim of similar scale answer yes, 53% in 5 years is just over 10% a year seen plenty of 20%claims in a single year.


  • Options
    #1506
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    If you read any of the commentary that is not purely spin the claim was for between 8.5% and 53% so clearly the claim was not 53% for everyone, transdev refused to engage until strike action had actually started then following the breakdown of talks SIPTU revised their claim but again transdev refused to talk till the final day or 2/before a planned strike, and made a ridiculous offer which involves have the workforce working hours for free so the other half can get a bit of a rise in 2018

    SIPTU's claim was published by Transdev. It is available here in its entirety.

    What spin? It's an interesting document when you break it down by additional amount required by paylevel - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99009602&postcount=520

    Grade Employee Count 5 year Additional cost 1 year additional cost per employee
    Traffic Supervisors 16 1,000,000 12,500
    Revenue Protection Supervisors 8 554,000 13,850
    Revenue Protection Officers 37 1,650,000 8,919
    Tram Drivers 172 19,500,000 22,674
    Pension 233 2,000,000 1,717

    Only figures from that document used, so what spin? If you have a breakdown of the number of drivers currently at each stage (which year of employment) we can do a weighted average increase...
    Transdev wrote:
    To date we have had numerous local level meetings, 9 meetings at the Workplace Relations Commission, 1 internal Tribunal Hearing and 2 Labour Court Hearings. At no stage has the Union revised its claims in any of these forums. It has merely said they are an " opening gambit". - See more at: http://www.transdevireland.ie/News.html?nid=7#sthash.fxEkvlWn.dpuf
    certainly on message!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1507
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    SIPTU's claim was published by Transdev. It is available here in its entirety.

    What spin? It's an interesting document when you break it down by additional amount required by paylevel - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99009602&postcount=520

    Grade Employee Count 5 year Additional cost 1 year additional cost per employee
    Traffic Supervisors 16 1,000,000 12,500
    Revenue Protection Supervisors 8 554,000 13,850
    Revenue Protection Officers 37 1,650,000 8,919
    Tram Drivers 172 19,500,000 22,674
    Pension 233 2,000,000 1,717

    Only figures from that document used, so what spin? If you have a breakdown of the number of drivers currently at each stage (which year of employment) we can do a weighted average increase...

    That's not the SIPTU pay claim it's a transdev document saying what is in the SIPTU claim not exactly the same thing.


  • Options
    #1508
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    That's not the SIPTU pay claim it's a transdev document saying what is in the SIPTU claim not exactly the same thing.

    Woah.

    http://transdevireland.ie/assets/files/Claim%20For%20Transdev%20Employees-%202.pdf

    I assume SIPTU will be seeking legal recompense from Transdev for misleading the public in that case? Tarnishing their name? Attributing demands to them incorrectly etc? That's downright out of order if the case.

    I do hope that Mazars would also be interested in having their names cleared as the document also says
    The cost of the Unions claims have been verified independently by Mazars

    Would Transdev really be so foolish as to open this avenue up for little/no gain?


  • Options
    #1509
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Deleted User wrote: »
    SIPTU's claim was published by Transdev. It is available here in its entirety.

    What spin? It's an interesting document when you break it down by additional amount required by paylevel - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99009602&postcount=520

    Grade Employee Count 5 year Additional cost 1 year additional cost per employee
    Traffic Supervisors 16 1,000,000 12,500
    Revenue Protection Supervisors 8 554,000 13,850
    Revenue Protection Officers 37 1,650,000 8,919
    Tram Drivers 172 19,500,000 22,674
    Pension 233 2,000,000 1,717

    Only figures from that document used, so what spin? If you have a breakdown of the number of drivers currently at each stage (which year of employment) we can do a weighted average increase...


    certainly on message!

    Holy crap!

    They want the Christmas nitelink rate for the whole shift whenever there is something on in the point! €65/hour

    PLUS €100 if they transfer between depots during their shift plus an hour in lieu.
    Union Proposal - if a Driver agrees to transfer between Red Cow and Sandyford depot,
    they will receive the Inter Depot Transfer Rate of €100.00 and will be owed 1 hour in lieu
    to be taken at the end of their shift or banked as required.

    PLUS
    The maximum potential bonus for drivers, annually per year is currently 6.5% of basic pay.
    The Union have increased this to 10% of basic pay per annum:
    And there's more!
    Siptu reps are proposing that Tram Drivers will benefit from the provision of a
    free GP service to Drivers
    PLUS massive increases to the sick pay.


  • Options
    #1510
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Woah.

    http://transdevireland.ie/assets/files/Claim%20For%20Transdev%20Employees-%202.pdf

    I assume SIPTU will be seeking legal recompense from Transdev for misleading the public in that case? Tarnishing their name? Attributing demands to them incorrectly etc? That's downright out of order if the case.

    I do hope that Mazars would also be interested in having their names cleared as the document also says


    Would Transdev really be so foolish as to open this avenue up for little/no gain?

    Why not just produce the orignal document ?


  • Options
    #1511
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,119 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    cdebru wrote: »
    Why not just produce the orignal document ?

    You produce it. I'm happy to read it and compare.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1512
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    You produce it. I'm happy to read it and compare.

    I haven't seen it so I can't say if the transdev document is an accurate reflection, and I'm not the one pointing to a transdev document and claiming it is the SIPTU one.
    .


  • Options
    #1513
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,119 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    cdebru wrote: »
    I haven't seen it so I can't say if the transdev document is an accurate reflection, and I'm not the one pointing to a transdev document and claiming it is the SIPTU one.
    .

    That's a big claim there. Are you suggesting that what Transdev have published are lies?


  • Options
    #1514
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    cdebru wrote: »
    I haven't seen it so I can't say if the transdev document is an accurate reflection, and I'm not the one pointing to a transdev document and claiming it is the SIPTU one.
    .
    They appear to be dealing in "facts & figures" rather than the union begrudgary and belligerence.

    Maybe you could get some union person to go over the figures and say if they are either right or wrong?

    Here is just one proposal from the union, is it a true and accurate reflection of the actual union document?
    http://transdevireland.ie/assets/files/Claim%20For%20Transdev%20Employees-%202.pdf
    1/ Traffic Supervisors (16 employees)
    The Traffic Supervisor Grade is proposing an additional €10,000 to each point of the salary
    scales from October 1st 2014. The costs of these proposals over the 5 years of the contract
    are in excess of €1 million. (They are also looking for health insurance for the grade to be
    paid by the employer).

    And another
    4/ Tram Drivers ( 172 employees)
    The Drivers have submitted proposals for various increases in pay ranging from a minimum
    of 8.5% to a maximum 53.8% on the incremental salary scales depending on a Drivers year
    of service. By way of illustration, under the Union’s pay proposals in January 2017 a tram
    driver with 10 years’ service would move from a current maximum annual salary of €42,247
    to a new maximum annual salary level of €64,993 on the salary scales.


  • Options
    #1515
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    That's a big claim there. Are you suggesting that what Transdev have published are lies?


    I'm asking why not publish the actual claim rather than your interpretation of it ? I don't trust anyone tis my nature question everything.


  • Options
    #1516
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,119 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    cdebru wrote: »
    I'm asking why not publish the actual claim rather than your interpretation of it ? I don't trust anyone tis my nature question everything.

    Its not my interpretation of anything. I'm merely asking to see SIPTU's actual claim. That's all.


  • Options
    #1517
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    They appear to be dealing in "facts & figures" rather than the union begrudgary and belligerence.

    Maybe you could get some union person to go over the figures and say if they are either right or wrong?

    Here is just one proposal from the union, is it a true and accurate reflection of the actual union document?

    How would I know ? I already said I haven't seen the document, I just wouldn't be prepared to take what transdev publish as gospel given the bulls1t spin they did on the WRC proposals, pushing themselves to the outer limits of what's affordable, actually means getting the bottom half to pay for the top half,and costs us feck all.


  • Options
    #1518
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Its not my interpretation of anything. I'm merely asking to see SIPTU's actual claim. That's all.

    Surely you understand the "your" refers to the people who published it, did you publish it ? No then it is not "your" interpretation is it ? We are really dragging the bottom of the barrel now though.


  • Options
    #1519
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    cdebru wrote: »
    How would I know ? I already said I haven't seen the document, I just wouldn't be prepared to take what transdev publish as gospel given the bulls1t spin they did on the WRC proposals, pushing themselves to the outer limits of what's affordable, actually means getting the bottom half to pay for the top half,and costs us feck all.

    So you are saying that they have changed the figures to suit their agenda and that this other crowd Mazars have colluded with that? Basically you are calling them and Mazars liars.


  • Options
    #1520
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    So you are saying that they have changed the figures to suit their agenda and that this other crowd Mazars have colluded with that? Basically you are calling them and Mazars liars.

    I don't need you or anyone else to write my posts thanks, I said exactly what's in my post.


  • Options
    #1521
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,119 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    cdebru wrote: »
    Surely you understand the "your" refers to the people who published it, did you publish it ? No then it is not "your" interpretation is it ? We are really dragging the bottom of the barrel now though.


    Cool your jets there.

    So how about Siptu's Version?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1522
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Cool your jets there.

    So how about Siptu's Version?

    Again I'm not a member of SIPTU nor do i work for transdev how would I have the SIPTU version ?


  • Options
    #1523
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,265 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    cdebru wrote: »
    I'm asking why not publish the actual claim rather than your interpretation of it ? I don't trust anyone tis my nature question everything.
    cdebru wrote: »
    How would I know ? I already said I haven't seen the document, I just wouldn't be prepared to take what transdev publish as gospel given the bulls1t spin they did on the WRC proposals, pushing themselves to the outer limits of what's affordable, actually means getting the bottom half to pay for the top half,and costs us feck all.
    cdebru wrote: »
    Surely you understand the "your" refers to the people who published it, did you publish it ? No then it is not "your" interpretation is it ? We are really dragging the bottom of the barrel now though.
    cdebru wrote: »
    I don't need you or anyone else to write my posts thanks, I said exactly what's in my post.
    cdebru wrote: »
    Again I'm not a member of SIPTU nor do i work for transdev how would I have the SIPTU version ?

    Hmmm..... this has been in public domain since late last year. SIPTU have never disclaimed the Transdev document. Neither have those that support the LUAS drivers. TBH this is a farce we have a few poster on here trying to defend the indefendible. So now suddenly Transdev have a propaganda machine led by Joseph Gobbels.

    Hmmm.. If it is s""", s"""""""" to your s""""" and s""""" like baloney it pasta

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #1524
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    Hmmm..... this has been in public domain since late last year. SIPTU have never disclaimed the Transdev document. Neither have those that support the LUAS drivers. TBH this is a farce we have a few poster on here trying to defend the indefendible. So now suddenly Transdev have a propaganda machine led by Joseph Gobbels.

    Hmmm.. If it is s""", s"""""""" to your s""""" and s""""" like baloney it pasta

    That's a transdev document which was posted here with the claim that it is the SIPTU claim with no spin, that's your reasoned response to pointing out its not the SIPTU claim in its entirety it's a transdev document ?

    Some people are clearly uncomfortable with anyone posting a contrary view, or questioning the narrative that luas drivers rejected a reasonable proposal to end the dispute.


  • Options
    #1525
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,176 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    Hmmm..... this has been in public domain since late last year. SIPTU have never disclaimed the Transdev document. Neither have those that support the LUAS drivers. TBH this is a farce we have a few poster on here trying to defend the indefendible. So now suddenly Transdev have a propaganda machine led by Joseph Gobbels.

    Hmmm.. If it is s""", s"""""""" to your s""""" and s""""" like baloney it pasta

    This has all the hallmarks of the practices out at Aer Lingus around the 1980s

    Is there any common denominator in all this, I have to ask myself, any movement of activists to be involved either directly or in the background..... Hmmm.

    This dispute has certainly highlighted what can happen when a small group of semi skilled workers think they can leverage the employer into unsustainable unit costs, led by people who seem to have other agendas.

    Most sensible people would agree that the terms AND the conditions are well up to or better than industry norms.

    Very ill thought out dispute, badly managed, very little public support,driven ,it would appear, by malcontents and poorly advised workers.

    Very poor reflection on those nvolved, in my opinion.


  • Options
    #1526
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,265 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    cdebru wrote: »
    That's a transdev document which was posted here with the claim that it is the SIPTU claim with no spin, that's your reasoned response to pointing out its not the SIPTU claim in its entirety it's a transdev document ?

    Some people are clearly uncomfortable with anyone posting a contrary view, or questioning the narrative that luas drivers rejected a reasonable proposal to end the dispute.

    However SIPTU have not disputed the figures in this document. Neither have the drivers. This dispute has comes up in conversation twice in the last 24 hours. Neither time did I start the conversation about it. At lunch yesterday there was about 8 lads only one lad half supported the strikers and again last night at a social event six of us discussed. In this case nobody supported the workers. Nearly all the lads are ordinary workers except that there was a self employed person in the group last night.

    SIPTU and the workers are living in a cocoon and need to exit it. There is virtually no public support there for them. If Transdev hardens there position and the workers and SIPTU do as well these workers if they go on an all out strike could find themselves in a position where after a long work stoppage they return to work on even worse conditions.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Options
    #1527
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    Why not just produce the orignal document ?

    You are suggesting that Transdev would doctor the claim.

    I can't see how that's realistic. Or why indeed Transdev would do so.


  • Options
    #1528
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    cdebru wrote: »
    its not the SIPTU claim in its entirety it's a transdev document ?
    .
    So you're saying it's not the "entirety" of the SIPTU claim, but you're also saying you haven't seen the SIPTU claim.

    That's a bit confusing.


  • Options
    #1529
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    So you're saying it's not the "entirety" of the SIPTU claim, but you're also saying you haven't seen the SIPTU claim.

    That's a bit confusing.

    No I'm saying it's not the SIPTU document it's a transdev document, it's very simple really.


  • Options
    #1530
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    However SIPTU have not disputed the figures in this document. Neither have the drivers. This dispute has comes up in conversation twice in the last 24 hours. Neither time did I start the conversation about it. At lunch yesterday there was about 8 lads only one lad half supported the strikers and again last night at a social event six of us discussed. In this case nobody supported the workers. Nearly all the lads are ordinary workers except that there was a self employed person in the group last night.

    SIPTU and the workers are living in a cocoon and need to exit it. There is virtually no public support there for them. If Transdev hardens there position and the workers and SIPTU do as well these workers if they go on an all out strike could find themselves in a position where after a long work stoppage they return to work on even worse conditions.

    How many of them are transdev managers ? How many are transdev employees ? None then what they think or don't think won't have any bearing on what transdev offer or don't offer and what the transdev employees will accept or won't accept. They could have been all in favour of the WRC proposals, but they didn't get to vote on them so it makes no difference.
    Afaik there will not be a referendum in which we all get to decide what tram drivers are paid. We can all have opinions on it but my opinion is as meaningless to the outcome as yours or anyone elses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1531
    Brixton Screeching Link
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Brixton Screeching Link


    cdebru wrote: »
    No I'm saying it's not the SIPTU document it's a transdev document, it's very simple really.

    And I'm saying that Transdev would be extremely foolish to doctor the SIPTU claims as it could lead them into serious trouble.

    The fact that they include the note about Mazars independently verifying the figures also offers us the chance to consider that a third party may well have compared the two documents already (given that they must have indeed compared the two sets of figures, which is all that we're really interested in).

    These two points of information allow us to conclude that though the document may not be verbatim the document originally sent by SIPTU, that it materially contains accurate representation of the requests made by SIPTU.

    Are you suggesting that even in the face of these points, that the document does not contain accurate representation of the requests?
    • If so, can you provide anything to back this up?
    • If not, can we conclude that it is an accurate representation and so a fine document to use to source information on the claim? And perhaps move on from this 'muddying' of the clear information available to us?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement