Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Luas thread (NOTE: You must read warning in post #1 - updated April 13)

13567…113

Comments

  • #62
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,012 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    And cost-cutting comes in the form of wage cuts & cuts to benefits because Transdev isn't allowed reduce service levels below those in its contract with TII

    We do not know that the minimum service levels are under the contract are. I'm sure there is some of clause clause in regards to service levels as this contract was awarded in 2009 one would suspect there has been some changes in service levels since then.


  • #63
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    People are talking about costs. There won't be any increased wage costs in moving drivers over here as they won't have to pay Irish drivers. The cost of flights, hotels etc will be s lot less than the 100k per day.


  • #64
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    Perhaps the Ronald Reagan approach is needed before the Luas turns into CIE Mk II? Total closure of the Luas for a few months while new staff are trained would seem a price worth paying for future stability.

    If ANYONE thinks that Luas staff can or will be sacked and new staff

    railroaded in to replace existing staff will happen just as they please are living

    on a different planet. This is not a totalitarian state in which we're living in

    although it's fast becoming one but we are in the Austerity Zone for far

    too long and those administering it, administer it and do not or have not

    felt it or its consequences!


  • #65
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    cdebru wrote: »
    Transdev are on a fixed price contract there is a limit to how much transdev can afford as well, those 100,000s rack up fairly quickly, transdev have big pockets but do you think they will fund a contract in Ireland that is losing them money or shut up shop and move on ?

    But at least you are talking sense, like I said from the beginning it is who can inflict the most and who can endure the most that will win.

    Its not certain that TII will choose to levy those fines, if it means pushing TransDev out. The last thing TII will want is to have to retender the contract since that could necessitate the shutting down of the service for some months. And who would tender for it with such a toxic workforce? It is also not in the national interest to see it go into CIE hands as the only thing they're able to do is close railways and reduce services. That said if TransDev do walk away, it will be CIE that will end up with it, I bet as the sole tenderer as no one else will want it. Consequently there will be a massive hike in fares.

    It also won't cost TransDev the full 100k/day since they're not paying wages for the strike days, nor are they paying bonuses. I imagine the net cost is less than half the 100k/day and even that is negotiable.

    As for how this will be resolved, it appears that the operator has all the cards. The operator can negotiate the fine with TII since TII won't want them to fold or leave. The operator has deeper pockets than the drivers or Siptu and can more easily afford a prolonged all out strike.

    To resolve these disputes, everyone has to be seen as walking away with a win but the drivers rejection of the first offer leaves that really difficult. The only way I see this being resolved is the drivers accepting a reheated version of the first offer that initially looks better but is actually worse than the one they rejected.


  • #66
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Its not certain that TII will choose to levy those fines, if it means pushing TransDev out. The last thing TII will want is to have to retender the contract since that could necessitate the shutting down of the service for some months. And who would tender for it with such a toxic workforce? It is also not in the national interest to see it go into CIE hands as the only thing they're able to do is close railways and reduce services. That said if TransDev do walk away, it will be CIE that will end up with it, I bet as the sole tenderer as no one else will want it. Consequently there will be a massive hike in fares.

    It also won't cost TransDev the full 100k/day since they're not paying wages for the strike days, nor are they paying bonuses. I imagine the net cost is less than half the 100k/day and even that is negotiable.

    As for how this will be resolved, it appears that the operator has all the cards. The operator can negotiate the fine with TII since TII won't want them to fold or leave. The operator has deeper pockets than the drivers or Siptu and can more easily afford a prolonged all out strike.

    To resolve these disputes, everyone has to be seen as walking away with a win but the drivers rejection of the first offer leaves that really difficult. The only way I see this being resolved is the drivers accepting a reheated version of the first offer that initially looks better but is actually worse than the one they rejected.

    TII have no choice it is in the contract, not levying it would be subsidising the transdev bid, just like they can't give transdev money to increase wages.


    Can people stop kidding themselves, transdev won't be sacking anyone, transdev ireland don't have unlimited resources, and in the event of a prolonged strike it could well be taken out of their hands anyway for failing to meet their obligations even before they do go bust, SIPTU have 200,000 members keeping 250 of them on a small stipend is not going to bankrupt that particular union.

    The staff would be crazy to accept any reheated version of a proposal to work extra hours for free for the next 4 years.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    cdebru wrote: »
    TII have no choice it is in the contract, not levying it would be subsidising the transdev bid, just like they can't give transdev money to increase wages.


    Can people stop kidding themselves, transdev won't be sacking anyone, transdev ireland don't have unlimited resources, and in the event of a prolonged strike it could well be taken out of their hands anyway for failing to meet their obligations even before they do go bust, SIPTU have 200,000 members keeping 250 of them on a small stipend is not going to bankrupt that particular union.

    The staff would be crazy to accept any reheated version of a proposal to work extra hours for free for the next 4 years.
    Although I am not privy to the details of this particular contract, from the public sector contracts I have worked with it would be extremely unusual (in fact I've never seen it) where there is no clause that allows for exceptional circumstances to be negotiated for after the contract has been signed. Public contracts always are worded in a way that allows for flexibility on behalf of the state body awarding it - and that is for both give and take.

    The question would be that is strike action after a reasonable offer has been made considered "exceptional circumstances". To avoid falling foul of tendering rules all the state has to show is that their decision hasn't conferred an advantage to the operator over the other bidders. Allowing for extenuating circumstances that could have befallen any operator is not conferring an advantage as long as the operator doesn't profit from it.


  • #68
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    cdebru wrote: »
    <snip>

    SIPTU have 200,000 members keeping 250 of them on a small stipend is not going to bankrupt that particular union.

    The staff would be crazy to accept any reheated version of a proposal to work extra hours for free for the next 4 years.
    Do you know the current rates for strike pay and when do the union start paying that out? Afaik it is only after a period of continuous strike, for some reason I have 11 weeks in my head about this.

    As for the staff, if they want to cut their noses off to spite their face that is fine and dandy and they may pay a very high price for it, but any union top brass not seriously recommending acceptance of a reduced deal would be not just deluded but very foolish indeed.


  • #69
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,336 ✭✭✭trellheim


    TII have no choice it is in the contract
    Evidence please. I can find no public copy of the contract to back this assertion.


  • #70
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Although I am not privy to the details of this particular contract, from the public sector contracts I have worked with it would be extremely unusual (in fact I've never seen it) where there is no clause that allows for exceptional circumstances to be negotiated for after the contract has been signed. Public contracts always are worded in a way that allows for flexibility on behalf of the state body awarding it - and that is for both give and take.

    The question would be that is strike action after a reasonable offer has been made considered "exceptional circumstances". To avoid falling foul of tendering rules all the state has to show is that their decision hasn't conferred an advantage to the operator over the other bidders. Allowing for extenuating circumstances that could have befallen any operator is not conferring an advantage as long as the operator doesn't profit from it.


    Well they would have to make a reasonable offer before we would find out, but industrial action is not force majeure an earthquake in sandyford would be.


  • #71
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Do you know the current rates for strike pay and when do the union start paying that out? Afaik it is only after a period of continuous strike, for some reason I have 11 weeks in my head about this.

    As for the staff, if they want to cut their noses off to spite their face that is fine and dandy and they may pay a very high price for it, but any union top brass not seriously recommending acceptance of a reduced deal would be not just deluded but very foolish indeed.

    It's about €50 a day from day one


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    cdebru wrote: »
    It's about €50 a day from day one

    Link?

    Sorry but I find that very hard to believe. As someone who was on strike forma short time before as a member of siptu there was no strike pay until we were on strike for afair 11weeks continously.


  • #73
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Do you know the current rates for strike pay

    Strike pay is paid based on your weekly contributions which are based on your weekly pay as follows:-

    Weekly Pay = €127 or less - strike pay is proportional of weekly pay.

    Weekly Pay = €128-€200 - strike pay is €115 per week.

    Weekly Pay = €201-€325 - strike pay is €150 per week.

    Weekly Pay = €326+ - strike pay is €200 per week.

    Weekly pay rates are then reduced to a daily rate depending on how many days a week you normally work.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Link?

    Sorry but I find that very hard to believe. As someone who was on strike forma short time before as a member of siptu there was no strike pay until we were on strike for afair 11weeks continously.

    In the case of a LUAS driver strike pay is based on the highest union rate of €200 a week, paid on a daily basis, so for someone on a 5 day week that's €40 per day, it is paid on each and every day of a strike even if for only one day.

    Where you are getting the 11 week idea from is that strike pay is paid for each and every day/week of a strike upto and including 10 weeks automatically in a continuous strike, the 11th week onwards isn't paid unless authorised by the National Executive Council.


  • #74
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Next we'll be seeing them unable to pay rent/ mortgages, getting evicted and blaming everyone else except themselves.


  • #75
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    cdebru wrote:
    But at least you are talking sense, like I said from the beginning it is who can inflict the most and who can endure the most that will win.


    Transdev Ireland are part of a global muti national. The quoted number of employees they have on boards is that they have about 87,000 worldwide. Based on that I'd say that the Irish operation with maybe 2/300 ,employees altogether is irrelevant from the point of view of how the group performs as a whole. The fact that the luas contract is loss making as it is and they still appear to be looking past 2019 in terms of operating it says how deep their pockets are. They know the Luas isn't going anywhere so can play a long games even if that long game means years.None of the information I've seen would suggest the drivers can sustain strike action over anything near an equivalent time scale.

    Surely its time for drivers stop striking and take what they can get. If they keep going and Transdev mean what they say they'll face wage cuts and be unable to afford to strike against them.


  • #76
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Chase Straight Antelope wrote: »
    Next we'll be seeing them unable to pay rent/ mortgages, getting evicted and blaming everyone else except themselves.

    If they tighten their belts they can easily live on €200/week with back-up payments from the community welfare officer for the wife and kids. Cancel that new car, house extension and expensive holiday and live like someone on the dole.


  • #77
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    If they tighten their belts they can easily live on €200/week with back-up payments from the community welfare officer for the wife and kids. Cancel that new car, house extension and expensive holiday and live like someone on the dole.

    Social welfare isn't paid to strikers. I'd find it hard to think that it would be paid to their depebdents though I could be wrong.
    Even so, it still won't pay the mortgage.


  • #78
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Chase Straight Antelope wrote: »
    Social welfare isn't paid to strikers. I'd find it hard to think that it would be paid to their depebdents though I could be wrong.

    The worker is on strike and any dependants are entitled to means tested minimum subsistence payments from the community welfare office. The striking worker is entitled to nothing at all!


  • #79
    Phil.x
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    I'd be very worried if I was a driver, those domestic utility bills and mortgage payments build up very fast when not paid.


  • #80
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,483 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    markpb wrote: »
    Why would it be?

    Deliberate attempt to circumvent the law in the strike case, victimisation/discrimination in the sick leave one


  • #81
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    L1011 wrote: »
    Deliberate attempt to circumvent the law in the strike case, victimisation/discrimination in the sick leave one

    Source to back that up?

    Answered my own question. It appears there is already a bonus scheme in place for non-striking bonus, bonuses related to sick leave may fall foul of equality legislation.

    http://hayes-solicitors.ie/Employment-Law/Discrimination-concerns-restrain-employer-s-freedom-to-impose-conditions-on-bonus-schemes


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,917 ✭✭✭GM228


    L1011 wrote: »
    Deliberate attempt to circumvent the law in the strike case

    Circumvent what law?

    There's actually no legal right to strike in Ireland or for an employer to actually recognise a union for that matter so I can't see how a no strike clause is illegal!


  • #83
    noelfirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 660 ✭✭✭noelfirl


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0401/778756-luas-further-strikes/

    WRC chair Kieran Mulvey questions why no one from SIPTU has contacted him since WRC proposals were rejected to explain why.

    Jack O'Connor calls for his head on a stick.

    Progress...


  • #84
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The worker is on strike and any dependants are entitled to means tested minimum subsistence payments from the community welfare office. The striking worker is entitled to nothing at all!

    Certainly won't get help for mortgage payments or rents and in the current homeless situation it's a big gamble for the strikers especially with trigger happy landlords
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #85
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 33,262 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    noelfirl wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0401/778756-luas-further-strikes/

    WRC chair Kieran Mulvey questions why no one from SIPTU has contacted him since WRC proposals were rejected to explain why.

    Jack O'Connor calls for his head on a stick.

    Progress...

    I heard all of the interviews on Morning Ireland. Kieran Mulvey sounded rightly pissed off, and Jack O'Connor is one thick, ignorant man. Not sure I'd want him fighting my corner in any scenario.

    You'd have to wonder how and where it all will end.


  • #86
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 55,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i didn't hear the mulvey interview, but jack o'connor seemed ignorant of the fact that it's the job of the interviewer to ask him questions. and the jibe about mulvey's pay was just a little ad hominem attack.


  • #87
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,336 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Disclaimer: I am not Kieran Mulvey.

    O'Connor hashtag shoot-the-messenger for the lulz


  • #88
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    I heard all of the interviews on Morning Ireland. Kieran Mulvey sounded rightly pissed off, and Jack O'Connor is one thick, ignorant man. Not sure I'd want him fighting my corner in any scenario.

    You'd have to wonder how and where it all will end.

    Mulvey lost the run of himself, he is supposed to be independent, criticising one side in a dispute removes any semblance of impartiality, impossible for him or the WRC to have any involvement in resolving this dispute now while he is still in charge.
    A mediator should never publicly take sides.


  • #89
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,336 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Mulvey lost the run of himself, he is supposed to be independent, criticising one side in a dispute removes any semblance of impartiality, impossible for him or the WRC to have any involvement in resolving this dispute now while he is still in charge.
    A mediator should never publicly take sides.

    As far as I can see he did not "take sides" . He was bemoaning

    1) union not engaging with his machinery
    2) As we have pointed out here and being ignored by union fanboys repeatedly, the other unions would have taken his hand off for this deal

    At no point was there a Transdev love-in.


  • #90
    BarryD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭BarryD


    HeidiHeidi wrote: »
    You'd have to wonder how and where it all will end.

    You would have to wonder. It seems that Transdev have decided they can live with the losses for the moment and are not considering or are unable to pull the plug. Likewise it seems that the drivers reps have decided they can continue to take the hit for strike days. The minister for transport can't/ won't intervene and rightly so.

    All grand but no-one really gives a toss about the travelling public.. they simply don't matter in all this carry on.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    trellheim wrote: »
    As far as I can see he did not "take sides" . He was bemoaning

    1) union not engaging with his machinery
    2) As we have pointed out here and being ignored by union fanboys repeatedly, the other unions would have taken his hand off for this deal

    At no point was there a Transdev love-in.

    I doubt any union would have embraced that deal, a 7% increase in worktime for a 2% increase in pay each year for the next 4 years is a terrible deal even if the 8% was upfront it would only be a 1% increase in pay over the 4 year term.

    His position is to facilitate an agreement both sides can agree to and he clearly failed in that and has then taken person umbrage and aired it publicly at one side, if he had issues with SIPTU at worst he should have aired them privately. His position as head of the WRC is untenable if the largest trade union in the country no longer accepts him as an impartial mediator.

    A mediator should never put themselves centre stage in a dispute and should certainly not be pouring petrol on the fire.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement