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

cardinal tetra · 23-02-2016 4:58pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I read that. More toilet breaks in one day that the previous month, and SIPTU deny any knowledge.

Transdev should simply remove the toilet roll from the facilities.

cdebru · 23-02-2016 6:09pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I read that. More toilet breaks in one day that the previous month, and SIPTU deny any knowledge.

That's what happens when these things drag on, it gets messy ( excuse the pun)

Jamie2k9 · 23-02-2016 6:15pm

cardinal tetra wrote: »

Transdev should simply remove the toilet roll from the facilities.

What they should do is take legal action and force SIPTU to cancel the work to rule, hold another vote and give another 3 weeks notice.

SIPTU need to be careful here. Transdev will screw them if they can win.

Brendan Bendar · 23-02-2016 7:51pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

What they should do is take legal action and force SIPTU to cancel the work to rule, hold another vote and give another 3 weeks notice.

SIPTU need to be careful here. Transdev will screw them if they can win.

Seems to me, and I'm only surmising now, that some shop steward has 'burst the bolts'as it were, and went for the Mother Lode.

This dispute is laughable,form a commercial point of view.

SIPTU surely have some kind of a case to answer surely?

No?

...And Justice · 23-02-2016 8:03pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Seems to me, and I'm only surmising now, that some shop steward has 'burst the bolts'as it were, and went for the Mother Lode.

This dispute is laughable,form a commercial point of view.

SIPTU surely have some kind of a case to answer surely?

No?

I remember in the 1990's when I was young and in a different career, siptu got us on strike over pay and conditions. And most of the guys were happy , other than the shop steward, who was for the record, a loud mouth. The result was a pay rise for 75% of us with back breaking extra work and a 25% reduction of our staff.

Brendan Bendar · 23-02-2016 8:13pm

...And Justice wrote: »

I remember in the 1990's when I was young and in a different career, siptu got us on strike over pay and conditions. And most of the guys were happy , other than the shop steward, who was for the record, a loud mouth. The result was a pay rise for 75% of us with back breaking extra work and a 25% reduction of our staff.

Not saying that that is the scenario here Justice, but it has all the hallmarks.

As I see it,in most similar companies you will have a 'bull goose' who is a contrary person.

Unfortunately it's difficult to shout these people down as they tend to be driven and obsessed by a sense of 'being done down'.

I know plenty of them and unfortunately they just don't listen to reason.

Hopefully the workforce will see sense and tell whoever is leading this to get real and stop costing them money.

...And Justice · 23-02-2016 9:16pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Not saying that that is the scenario here Justice, but it has all the hallmarks.

As I see it,in most similar companies you will have a 'bull goose' who is a contrary person.

Unfortunately it's difficult to shout these people down as they tend to be driven and obsessed by a sense of 'being done down'.

I know plenty of them and unfortunately they just don't listen to reason.

Hopefully the workforce will see sense and tell whoever is leading this to get real and stop costing them money.

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.

Cookie_Monster · 23-02-2016 9:29pm

...And Justice wrote: »

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

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'?

Brendan Bendar · 23-02-2016 9:30pm

...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.

Cannot understand this one Justice .

Should be a system to saddle SIPTU with the cost of this.

Nobody I know can justify this madness.

Surely there should be some recourse from the company to recover costs for this appalling action.

GM228 · 23-02-2016 9:44pm

cardinal tetra wrote:

Transdev should simply remove the toilet roll from the facilitie

Jamie2k9 wrote:

What they should do is take legal action and force SIPTU to cancel the work to rule, hold another vote and give another 3 weeks notice.

SIPTU need to be careful here. Transdev will screw them if they can win.

Regarding the toilet breaks if Transdev took legal action based on that issue alone, SIPTU/the drivers would no doubt say that Transdevs issue was not about a work to rule, but rather trying to block a basic human right?

...And Justice · 23-02-2016 9:46pm

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.

GM228 · 23-02-2016 9:57pm

...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.

Brendan Bendar · 23-02-2016 10:01pm

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

cardinal tetra · 23-02-2016 11:24pm

#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.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 23-02-2016 11:27pm

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.

tabbey · 24-02-2016 12:49am

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.

CramCycle · 24-02-2016 1:20am

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.

Cookie_Monster · 24-02-2016 4:26am

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

GM228 · 24-02-2016 10:15am

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?

cdebru · 24-02-2016 2:27pm

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

cdebru · 24-02-2016 2:34pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 2:38pm

...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

Peppa Pig · 24-02-2016 2:48pm

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?

cdebru · 24-02-2016 3:02pm

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.

Peppa Pig · 24-02-2016 3:16pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 4:22pm

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.

Peppa Pig · 24-02-2016 5:15pm

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.

Kyleboy · 24-02-2016 5:42pm

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

n97 mini · 24-02-2016 7:04pm

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.

Brendan Bendar · 24-02-2016 7:08pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 8:31pm

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

oppenheimer1 · 24-02-2016 8:39pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 8:41pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 8:43pm

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 ?

Idbatterim · 24-02-2016 8:46pm

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

end of the road · 24-02-2016 8:47pm

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.

oppenheimer1 · 24-02-2016 8:48pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 9:25pm

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.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 9:32pm

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.

GM228 · 24-02-2016 9:49pm

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.

n97 mini · 24-02-2016 10:51pm

cdebru wrote: »

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

I have my doubts about the veracity of this. Are they leaving a tram full of people while they're in the hedge, because it's interruptions to service because of toilet breaks that are being recorded.

cdebru · 24-02-2016 11:01pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I have my doubts about the veracity of this. Are they leaving a tram full of people while they're in the hedge, because it's interruptions to service because of toilet breaks that are being recorded.

No this is when they reach their terminus out in cherry wood or wherever, they are going to the toilet somewhere out there but there is no official place for them to go, the rule is if they need to go they report to a controller who brings them back to the depot empty and they use the facilities there, that is what they are doing now prior to this they were going in a bush or pub or whatever is available, its when the tram is empty.

tabbey · 24-02-2016 11:48pm

I am not a supporter of the industrial actio,or the pay claim, but a decent toilet at termini and points on route, are the least the drivers deserve.

oppenheimer1 · 25-02-2016 11:35am

tabbey wrote: »

I am not a supporter of the industrial actio,or the pay claim, but a decent toilet at termini and points on route, are the least the drivers deserve.

Then why haven't the drivers asked for this? Why is this only a problem when their outrageous pay claim has been dismissed?

These greedy drivers are looking at the protected employees in CIE and across the water in TFL. However unlike the workers in those companies, they cannot hold the populations to ransom. It is relatively easy to make alternative arrangements to using luas for most people.

I really hope the drivers get nothing. Better yet, transdev pull out and they are left to swing. I'd rather see Dublin go without luas for a couple of months than cave to these clowns. The city would gain in the long run.

n97 mini · 25-02-2016 11:53am

cdebru wrote: »

No this is when they reach their terminus out in cherry wood or wherever,

I'm still having trouble believing this. Next time I see an empty tram stopped on a platform I'll check the surrounding bushes for the driver.

Idbatterim · 25-02-2016 12:29pm

I really hope the drivers get nothing. Better yet, transdev pull out and they are left to swing. I'd rather see Dublin go without luas for a couple of months than cave to these clowns. The city would gain in the long run.

I totally agree, I have driven into town twice while luas workers were striking and the car parks were full, you had to q to get into them, its an inconvenience for people of course. But people will get about one way or another. Huge areas of dublin arent served by rail, if it takes a few weeks / months like you said, to train new staff etc, its worth doing..

end of the road · 25-02-2016 3:39pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Then why haven't the drivers asked for this? Why is this only a problem when their outrageous pay claim has been dismissed?

These greedy drivers are looking at the protected employees in CIE and across the water in TFL. However unlike the workers in those companies, they cannot hold the populations to ransom. It is relatively easy to make alternative arrangements to using luas for most people.

I really hope the drivers get nothing. Better yet, transdev pull out and they are left to swing. I'd rather see Dublin go without luas for a couple of months than cave to these clowns. The city would gain in the long run.

what would it gain? another strike at some stage again? no i think the odd day strike every few years is better then months without luas. by the way tfl aren't able to hold anyone to ransom.

Brendan Bendar · 25-02-2016 5:42pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Then why haven't the drivers asked for this? Why is this only a problem when their outrageous pay claim has been dismissed?

These greedy drivers are looking at the protected employees in CIE and across the water in TFL. However unlike the workers in those companies, they cannot hold the populations to ransom. It is relatively easy to make alternative arrangements to using luas for most people.

I really hope the drivers get nothing. Better yet, transdev pull out and they are left to swing. I'd rather see Dublin go without luas for a couple of months than cave to these clowns. The city would gain in the long run.

This has all the hallmarks of a shop steward getting all macho and cruntish.

The bottom line is that Dublin City can do well without the Luas for a good period.

Looks like the workforce has been led down the garden path here.

They would do well to look at what's happening and not be led by the nose by punters with other agendas.

oppenheimer1 · 26-02-2016 11:45am

end of the road wrote: »

what would it gain? another strike at some stage again? no i think the odd day strike every few years is better then months without luas. by the way tfl aren't able to hold anyone to ransom.

Increased driver pay simply means increased ticket prices. Increased ticket prices means the less well off are able to make fewer trips, it reduces the viability of working over social welfare. Essentially you end up serving the wants of the few over the needs of the many.

Yes, the drivers and staff of London underground regularly hold London to ransom. When the tubes are on strike it is near impossible to get around and the drivers know this. They leverage this chip to extract huge concessions from TFL. In the end it's the ordinary commuter there that pays, for an extremely over priced, unreliable metro system. Thankfully, Dublin doesn't depend on Luas to any extent like London does on the Tube.

LXFlyer · 26-02-2016 1:39pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm still having trouble believing this. Next time I see an empty tram stopped on a platform I'll check the surrounding bushes for the driver.

There is a staff toilet facility provided at the end of the platform at Bride's Glen.

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

Comments