IE Pay Claim

trellheim · 23-03-2016 7:38pm

The strikes in 2014 were over the company forcing through pay cuts and when that was settled

Thanks - that was what I was looking for. I'd give it a few years before rising up if I was you until theres cash to pay for it. IE clearly dont' have the cash. NTA wont' cough up cos it won't fund any service improvements.

Unless there's some magic dosh I am unaware of. sure if one side is living in cloud cuckoo land sure why don't we all.

Infini · 23-03-2016 8:10pm

trellheim wrote: »

Thanks - that was what I was looking for. I'd give it a few years before rising up if I was you until theres cash to pay for it. IE clearly dont' have the cash. NTA wont' cough up cos it won't fund any service improvements.

Unless there's some magic dosh I am unaware of. sure if one side is living in cloud cuckoo land sure why don't we all.

Dunno whats the point in responding tbh if this is all i get.... tunnel vision.

trellheim · 23-03-2016 9:47pm

i have re-read your posts and I am unaware of any points I've missed in the responses. I stand by it

1) Should the subvention be increased - well, that depends - it's not just a yes.
2) Does a subvention increase result in service improvements - no, not at the moment, NTA would be crazy to, it'll all go in gravy - witness the current issue where NBRU think they can force the managements hand just because the tram drivers got a vote on a deal. You want proof, its all there. Please don't insult any of our intelligences by suggesting passengers will see anything out of it.

If even a single concession would be made the union would be forever trying to get that little bit more of the good stuff - and how does this help the passenger -- well, it doesn't really.

markpb · 23-03-2016 9:52pm

Infini2 wrote:

Dunno whats the point in responding tbh if this is all i get.... tunnel vision.

It's not tunnel vision, it's just that people have different ways of looking at things. Some of the things you say might sound perfectly normal to you but don't work that way for other people.

The company I work for made some bad decisions and those all came home to roost just before the recession started here. They told us what had happened and that downsizing would happen. People were made redundant, some perks (like paid maternity pay) were removed and everyone took on extra work. There was no discussion, no holding out years delaying the inevitable, no strike because people didn't like the change in work practices. It just happened, the company survived and now is doing very well.

On the other hand, Irish Rail staff resisted any pay cuts or redundancies for years, whinged endlessly about less staff doing more work and made up frankly stupid "increased productivity" excuses (longer trains, more frequent trains). Striking for all those things might seem like the right thing to do and you might thing that most private sector employees need to join a union but the reality is that what you see as normal is (rightly or wrongly) seen as antiquated and downright bizarre by most of your customers.

cdebru · 24-03-2016 9:10am

markpb wrote: »

It's not tunnel vision, it's just that people have different ways of looking at things. Some of the things you say might sound perfectly normal to you but don't work that way for other people.

The company I work for made some bad decisions and those all came home to roost just before the recession started here. They told us what had happened and that downsizing would happen. People were made redundant, some perks (like paid maternity pay) were removed and everyone took on extra work. There was no discussion, no holding out years delaying the inevitable, no strike because people didn't like the change in work practices. It just happened, the company survived and now is doing very well.

On the other hand, Irish Rail staff resisted any pay cuts or redundancies for years, whinged endlessly about less staff doing more work and made up frankly stupid "increased productivity" excuses (longer trains, more frequent trains). Striking for all those things might seem like the right thing to do and you might thing that most private sector employees need to join a union but the reality is that what you see as normal is (rightly or wrongly) seen as antiquated and downright bizarre by most of your customers.

The company you work for made bad decisions, that is unfortunate for you, however the position of CIE was not created by bad decisions within the company, rather bad decisions in other companies sank the economy and the government gave them a double whammy by cutting subvention, removing fuel rebates etc so income was attacked on both sides by decisions made elsewhere, with it falling to the workforce and the remaining customers to pick up the slack for others people's poor decision making skills.

trellheim · 25-03-2016 1:21pm

I'd be interested in some facts to back a pay claim up

has anyone got any like number of hours worked over and above etc , what extra burden the drivers are taking ?

Jamie2k9 · 26-04-2016 6:13pm

NBRU to ballot for action immediately while SIPTU holding a meeting about a vote but referred the claim to the WRC.

Surly with the existing agreement in place IE could get an injunction to prevent any action over pay. Remember it was the unions and drivers who signed up to the 24 month deal.

Indo reports strikes if they happen will be a few hours and not full days.

LuckyLloyd · 26-04-2016 8:08pm

Bus Drivers next...

cdebru · 26-04-2016 8:41pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

NBRU to ballot for action immediately while SIPTU holding a meeting about a vote but referred the claim to the WRC.

Surly with the existing agreement in place IE could get an injunction to prevent any action over pay. Remember it was the unions and drivers who signed up to the 24 month deal.

Indo reports strikes if they happen will be a few hours and not full days.

On what basis could IE get an injunction ? If the ballot is held correctly and sufficient notice given that's it.

Cookie_Monster · 26-04-2016 8:57pm

'upwards of 25%'
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/irish-rail-staff-consider-strike-action-as-unions-seeking-pay-increases-of-25pc-34662272.html

:eek:

Jamie2k9 · 26-04-2016 10:11pm

cdebru wrote: »

On what basis could IE get an injunction ? If the ballot is held correctly and sufficient notice given that's it.

Fact both sides agreed salaries in the form of a 24 month agreement in October 2014, I would be very surprised if it wasn't legally binding and striking would be a breach of that contract.

trellheim · 26-04-2016 10:47pm

http://www.siptu.ie/media/pressreleases2016/fullstory_19798_en.html

SIPTU refers Irish Rail pay claim to WRC
Date Released: 26 April 2016

SIPTU has referred its claim for a substantial pay increase for its members in all grades of Irish Rail to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

SIPTU has referred its claim for a substantial pay increase for its members in all grades of Irish Rail to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

Management was informed in a letter from SIPTU representatives today that its refusal to engage meaningfully on the pay claim over recent weeks has resulted in its referral to the WRC.

“We have requested the restoration of all of the pay and other terms and conditions under the cost containment agreement which ends in October this year. We have also convened an urgent meeting of the SIPTU National Rail Committee for Thursday (28th April) to discuss the possibility of a ballot for strike action for all grades in Irish Rail given the refusal of management to engage meaningfully on these concerns.”

Same union refused to entertain WRC on the LUAS drivers "lets all be sensible here " and fact complained bitterly about WRC .... does no-one see the crazy here ?

cdebru · 27-04-2016 11:03am

trellheim wrote: »

http://www.siptu.ie/media/pressreleases2016/fullstory_19798_en.html

Same union refused to entertain WRC on the LUAS drivers "lets all be sensible here " and fact complained bitterly about WRC .... does no-one see the crazy here ?

So because LUAS employees rejected a WRC proposal, SIPTU shouldn't try and use the industrial relations machinery of the state to resolve a separate dispute is that your point ? You think SIPTU should jump straight to industrial action ?

cdebru · 27-04-2016 11:06am

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Fact both sides agreed salaries in the form of a 24 month agreement in October 2014, I would be very surprised if it wasn't legally binding and striking would be a breach of that contract.

but both sides agreed the salary prior to that and management sought a unilateral change to that contract, it was legally binding but they still strong armed a pay cut onto their employees. All strikes are effectively a breach of contract in Ireland but not illegal

trellheim · 27-04-2016 12:08pm

My point was that you cannot abuse the machinery and then turn round the next day and expect no notice to have been taken. Please tell me you can see this.

Infini · 27-04-2016 1:10pm

trellheim wrote: »

My point was that you cannot abuse the machinery and then turn round the next day and expect no notice to have been taken. Please tell me you can see this.

Problem though is while it might be the same union in terms of siptu its not the same section. Different reps for example Paul Cullen is the usual rep for the Siptu members on the rail.

Other thing as well is atm the NBRU is balloting for strike action now and while the main reason seems to be the pay issue it might be actually because Franks lately seems to be going out of his way to antagonise the drivers lately since he basically got told off over the 10min service and this might be in part a reaction to it. Really pathetic management the last thing you do is go out of your way to be an arsehole to your own staff as all you accomplish is burn any and all repect you have and ultimately noone will even be willing to deal with you.

trellheim · 27-04-2016 1:41pm

Problem though is while it might be the same union in terms of siptu its not the same section. Different reps for example Paul Cullen is the usual rep for the Siptu members on the rail.

Indeed - and for the most part I agree - but it was Jack O Connor who jumped on the airwaves as the Grand Mufti of SIPTU making what was a valid point by Mulvey into an unseemly spat, and reinforcing my point ( In my opinion, of course ) that this was biting the hand that feeds.

Infini · 27-04-2016 1:52pm

trellheim wrote: »

Indeed - and for the most part I agree - but it was Jack O Connor who jumped on the airwaves as the Grand Mufti of SIPTU making what was a valid point by Mulvey into an unseemly spat, and reinforcing my point ( In my opinion, of course ) that this was biting the hand that feeds.

In fairness as well the luas dispute is on a significantly more bitter level than anything in the cie companies over the last 20 years. I can see where mulvey might feel the need to express his own opinion at times but when things are that bad your better off keeping clear and adopting a strictly neutral position.

Whats happening in this case is alot of the problems and issues that have been building up over the years are finally spilling over and manifesting like this. I myself wouldnt personally be bothered with a pay rise bar increases in line with inflation but would rather see an increase in staff. Other things I can see being a problem is they want to close nearly ALL the booking offices now which is a joke because they think the leap card will handle everything when it will in effect turn into a free for all.

oppenheimer1 · 27-04-2016 7:40pm

cdebru wrote: »

So because LUAS employees rejected a WRC proposal, SIPTU shouldn't try and use the industrial relations machinery of the state to resolve a separate dispute is that your point ? You think SIPTU should jump straight to industrial action ?

Well Jack O'Connor questioned the integrity of the head of the WRC. Why bother with it if they don't believe in its integrity.

oppenheimer1 · 27-04-2016 7:55pm

Infini2 wrote: »

In fairness as well the luas dispute is on a significantly more bitter level than anything in the cie companies over the last 20 years. I can see where mulvey might feel the need to express his own opinion at times but when things are that bad your better off keeping clear and adopting a strictly neutral position.

Whats happening in this case is alot of the problems and issues that have been building up over the years are finally spilling over and manifesting like this. I myself wouldnt personally be bothered with a pay rise bar increases in line with inflation but would rather see an increase in staff. Other things I can see being a problem is they want to close nearly ALL the booking offices now which is a joke because they think the leap card will handle everything when it will in effect turn into a free for all.

Thats because, finally, the transport unions have come up against a company that will not roll over and take it, a company that's at arms length from the state.

And your argument regarding the ticket offices doesn't hold water either. The unions couldn't give a damn about the travelling public and whether their leap cards work or not. All they want is higher wages and better conditions for their members and will use problems real or imagined to advance their cause. Its a tactic used by all unions in this country - exploit some public failing to win concessions, whether or not the concessions make things better or worse. For example you had A&E nurses winning extras holidays and promotions over the overcrowding crisis - things that will lead to reduced front line staffing numbers and actually make the situation worse!

end of the road · 27-04-2016 8:47pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thats because, finally, the transport unions have come up against a company that will not roll over and take it, a company that's at arms length from the state.

the transport unions were always up against companies who will not roll over and take it. the state companies negotiate and continue to do so until a deal is reached no matter how long it takes however. the strikes that may happen only last a day and you might only get about 1 every couple of years. so the unions aren't up against anything new.

oppenheimer1 · 27-04-2016 8:51pm

end of the road wrote: »

the transport unions were always up against companies who will not roll over and take it. the state companies negotiate and continue to do so until a deal is reached no matter how long it takes however. the strikes that may happen only last a day and you might only get about 1 every couple of years. so the unions aren't up against anything new.

That's because the state companies always roll over and do a deal, no matter how ridiculous the claim. The unions have never been told to get lost - and to be honest that reflects more on the weakness of CIE and the governments management rather than the unions themselves.

end of the road · 27-04-2016 9:23pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That's because the state companies always roll over and do a deal, no matter how ridiculous the claim. The unions have never been told to get lost - and to be honest that reflects more on the weakness of CIE and the governments management rather than the unions themselves.

untrue. the state companies don't roll over and do a deal no matter how ridiculous the claim. they negotiate hard and a deal is reached that suits both sides. however, they continue negotiating regardless of how long it takes and eventually both sides come to an agreement. the unions are always told to get lost when they put in the original claim, they have to work down and come to the table before any negotiations happen. CIE and the government are not weak, so being good negotiators does not reflect on anything apart from being good at negotiation. there is no weakenss that anything can reflect on.

hmmm · 27-04-2016 9:45pm

The standard transport union playbook.

1. Unions raise some scheduling or safety issue
2. Company denies issue exists
3. Unions threaten a strike, ask for pay increase which will apparently solve the issue. Work to rule starts.
4. Company issues a "strongly worded statement" saying they have no money
5. One day strike, more threatened
6. Minister intervenes
7. Negotiations until 4 in the morning. Fares increased, union receives pay increase.

cdebru · 27-04-2016 10:49pm

hmmm wrote: »

The standard transport union playbook.

1. Unions raise some scheduling or safety issue
2. Company denies issue exists
3. Unions threaten a strike, ask for pay increase which will apparently solve the issue. Work to rule starts.
4. Company issues a "strongly worded statement" saying they have no money
5. One day strike, more threatened
6. Minister intervenes
7. Negotiations until 4 in the morning. Fares increased, union receives pay increase.

Give an example of where this has happened ?

TheExile1878 · 28-04-2016 11:15am

cdebru wrote: »

Give an example of where this has happened ?

Everywhere.

cdebru · 28-04-2016 11:35am

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Everywhere.

That is not an answer, mainly because the assertion is hyperbole. Again give an example of where this playbook has played out. A specific example.

trellheim · 04-05-2016 11:36am

For reference

http://nbru.ie/union/index.php/category/press-release/

various bad-tempered letters between IE, NBRU and solicitors.

Merits of the two sides aside, kudos to NBRU for publishing the correspondence. It at least forms some basis for judgement as both sides are at least shown. Compare to SIPTU/Transdev.

pj.dublin · 04-05-2016 12:10pm

NBRU are usually seen as the more militant of the unions, make one wonder what SIPTU is up to with the LUAS

IE Pay Claim

Comments