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

LXFlyer · 12-02-2016 1:37pm

It's a set fee, with certain limited additional elements based on performance criteria.

It's subject to the CPI.

cardinal tetra · 12-02-2016 1:58pm

SO, WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO ANOTHER 6-8 DAYS STRIKE ACTION!

markpb · 12-02-2016 2:04pm

Transdev get paid a fixed fee for operating the service plus bonuses for meeting certain targets. I'd imagine they'll take a reduction on the fixed fee for any days not operated at all.

LXFlyer · 12-02-2016 2:40pm

markpb wrote: »

Transdev get paid a fixed fee for operating the service plus bonuses for meeting certain targets. I'd imagine they'll take a reduction on the fixed fee for any days not operated at all.

Absolutely - just as the CIE Group have in the past when there have been strikes.

Murph_D · 12-02-2016 4:10pm

How does the fixed fee translate into a 700k annual loss? You'd imagine a big operator like Transdev would have done their sums a bit better before signing such a contract.

Valetta · 12-02-2016 4:23pm

Any idea when the next strike days are planned for?

LXFlyer · 12-02-2016 4:34pm

Next Thursday and Friday

Valetta · 12-02-2016 4:38pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Next Thursday and Friday

Feckit. Thought as much.

Rightly knackers up my plans.

Automate the bloody things, with snow ploughs on the front to disperse cars that break lights.

end of the road · 12-02-2016 4:42pm

cardinal tetra wrote: »

the las driver looking for 68k a year

68k, 60k, 65k, 64k. i have read so many bogus figures in the last couple of days its actually not funny any more. they are not looking for anything near 60 anything k. the most they will get (and the most they are looking for) is about 10-15% in real terms.

cardinal tetra wrote: »

the 90,000 commuters whose daily slog is extended by hours

all 90000 commuters daily commute extended by hours? no chance. a small few maybe but not all 90000.

Valetta wrote: »

Automate the bloody things, with snow ploughs on the front to disperse cars that break lights.

can't be done. it not being segregated makes automating it prohibitive. health and safety as well. if it was doable it would have been done all ready.

cardinal tetra · 12-02-2016 5:08pm

end of the road wrote: »

68k, 60k, 65k, 64k. i have read so many bogus figures in the last couple of days its actually not funny any more. they are not looking for anything near 60 anything k. the most they will get (and the most they are looking for) is about 10-15% in real terms.

all 90000 commuters daily commute extended by hours? no chance. a small few maybe but not all 90000.

can't be done. it not being segregated makes automating it prohibitive. health and safety as well. if it was doable it would have been done all ready.

Well if you really want to deconstruct it, it has an affect on 400,000 commuters daily, from as far away as Galway.
It affects the trains and how they operate due to delays of passengers getting on and getting off. it affects bus eireann due to the traffic on the roads. it affects the car users through traffic build up. commuting times, parking spots, changing schedules. it means the babysitter/grandmother etc... have to come over an hour earlier to mind the kids while the parent is at work. it means the guy that calls into insomnia on the way to work isnt going to spend his cash in the store because he is frantically looking for a parking spot. It means people weary and worn down from paying water charges, property tax, usc tax, paye, prsi, rnli and every other acronym have to get up earlier and get into work earlier to miss this ensuing malee that is Dublin city centre. so no, its not 90,000, its closer to 450,000.

The figures are there and written down in the public domain. not everyone wiklll be on the 60+K level but alot of them will. the increase they are looking for and the amount they are hardballing is very much real 53%.

The likes of the sky train in vancouver or the one in seattle are automated. it would take an awful lot of investment but for the hasle staff cause, go for it tf.

Grandeeod · 12-02-2016 5:32pm

end of the road wrote: »

68k, 60k, 65k, 64k. i have read so many bogus figures in the last couple of days its actually not funny any more. they are not looking for anything near 60 anything k. the most they will get (and the most they are looking for) is about 10-15% in real terms.

Source?

end of the road · 12-02-2016 5:50pm

cardinal tetra wrote: »

The likes of the sky train in vancouver or the one in seattle are automated.

ah yes. more elevated and segregated railways as examples of how a completely on road, on street, barely segregated railway can be automated, yet which wasn't when built dispite the technology long being availible.

cardinal tetra wrote: »

it would take an awful lot of investment but for the hasle staff cause, go for it tf.

what hassle. a strike within 11 years? hassle my backside. so where is the money coming from for this huge investment which if could be done would have been from the start?

Victor · 12-02-2016 7:49pm

loyatemu wrote: »

there was supposed to be a walkway and cyclepath alongside when it was originally designed, but this was dropped for some reason when it was built.

To allow for larger trains if the Green Line were to be converted to Metro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge

Grandeeod · 12-02-2016 8:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

68k, 60k, 65k, 64k. i have read so many bogus figures in the last couple of days its actually not funny any more. they are not looking for anything near 60 anything k. the most they will get (and the most they are looking for) is about 10-15% in real terms.

You've had hours to supply a source for what you claim.

The bottom line is that various staff are looking for pay increases from 8% up to 53% for drivers. Your claim that the sought increase for drivers is 10-15% in real terms is based on guess work. Obviously someone has suggested to you that the drivers/SIPTU have deliberately pitched it higher in order to get something. That may well be possible, but the facts as presented by the drivers, union and Transdev to the media clearly state a 53% pay increase. So please stop dismissing people who restate the facts as they have been presented by all parties involved.

GerardKeating · 12-02-2016 11:38pm

Victor wrote: »

To allow for larger trains if the Green Line were to be converted to Metro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge

But the Proposed Metro was to have the same gauge as the Luas, it just longer trains.

monument · 13-02-2016 4:43pm

LOCKED.

monument · 13-02-2016 4:46pm

cardinal tetra has a permanent site ban because he's another user re-reged -- so please don't feel the need to reply to him more.

Shadow1983 · 13-02-2016 5:19pm

Why was my thread name changed twice??

syklops · 13-02-2016 6:50pm

Next time I meet a luas driver Im going to poke him in the eye. This has strike has been a major inconvenience for me and my partner.

Murph_D · 13-02-2016 9:23pm

syklops wrote: »

Next time I meet a luas driver Im going to poke him in the eye. This has strike has been a major inconvenience for me and my partner.

You probably won't really poke him in the eye. People have a right to take industrial action - it's a right that was not handed to people because they asked nicely, it had to be fought for. I don't agree with every strike action but at the same time I respect the right and I admire the drivers for standing up for their pay and conditions. Sure, the strike inconveniences the company and its customers - that's the whole point of striking, to leverage a worker's limited control and put pressure on the company. Luas strikes have been very rare so you can't accuse these drivers of abusing their right to strike, whatever you think about their claims. The most inconvenienced people in the end are actually the people on strike, who don't get paid, in the short term at least.

Grandeeod · 14-02-2016 10:02pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Luas strikes have been very rare so you can't accuse these drivers of abusing their right to strike, whatever you think about their claims. The most inconvenienced people in the end are actually the people on strike, who don't get paid, in the short term at least.

Their reasons for striking (the % pay claim and reasons) is an abuse of the striking mechanism and their union is in on it. There is absolutely no semblence of reality attached to it. None whats so ever.

The most inconvenienced people are the users, not the people on strike that earn a very decent wage regardless.

monument · 15-02-2016 12:45am

Shadow1983 wrote: »

Why was my thread name changed twice??

Because it developed into something more than your original opening post -- threads don't really belong to the opening poster and, if you want, you can unsubscribe from the thread.

Please no more moderation discussion in-thread -- direct any questions, comments or abuse to me by PM. Thanks!

-- moderator

Murph_D · 15-02-2016 6:58pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Their reasons for striking (the % pay claim and reasons) is an abuse of the striking mechanism and their union is in on it. There is absolutely no semblence of reality attached to it. None whats so ever.

The most inconvenienced people are the users, not the people on strike that earn a very decent wage regardless.

Well I haven't seen the union agreement but most would include pretty clear rules about dispute resolution procedures. What happened to contravene these, that you are aware of?

TheChrisD · 15-02-2016 7:30pm

And now they're striking on Paddy's Day. Can we just fire those pr**ks already and hire people who are willing to work for the initial overinflated salary?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0215/768197-luas-patrick-s-day/

kildarecommuter · 15-02-2016 7:42pm

TheChrisD wrote: »

And now they're striking on Paddy's Day. Can we just fire those pr**ks already and hire people who are willing to work for the initial overinflated salary?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0215/768197-luas-patrick-s-day/

As the above suggestion is floated all over the media and Internet every time workers take industrial action, the answer is no you can't fire them.
They are entitled whether you agree or not to withdraw their labour and strike once they comply with the relevant legislation.

Polo_Mint · 15-02-2016 7:42pm

Can Transdev sue SIPTU for damages and replace the people who are striking?

Polo_Mint · 15-02-2016 7:45pm

kildarecommuter wrote: »

As the above suggestion is floated all over the media and Internet every time workers take industrial action, the answer is no you can't fire them.
They are entitled whether you agree or not to withdraw their labour and strike once they comply with the relevant legislation.

Isn't Transdev a private company who could take disciplinary action against their employees?

Murph_D · 15-02-2016 7:49pm

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Can Transdev sue SIPTU for damages and replace the people who are striking?

No. Trade unions are protected by law from such actions. The second part of your question is answered above.

Murph_D · 15-02-2016 8:00pm

Polo_Mint wrote: »

Isn't Transdev a private company who could take disciplinary action against their employees?

Yes, but only if they are in breach of their employment contracts. Employees don't have a right to strike as such but they have the freedom to strike and can't be fired for such.

Polo_Mint · 15-02-2016 8:01pm

Murph_D wrote: »

No. Trade unions are protected by law from such actions.

Really?

Then why did Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann plan to sue SIPTU for losses when they knew they couldnt

Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is set to sue trade unions for losses incurred as a result of the 48-hour strike at the companies on Friday and Saturday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-bus-bus-%C3%A9ireann-set-to-sue-trade-unions-for-losses-1.2195084

Murph_D · 15-02-2016 8:13pm

In that case the company claimed the industrial action was illegal. I don't know if the planned legal action against the unions in question ever went ahead - did it?

I haven't heard Transdev claiming any such illegality on the part of its employees or their union.

Jamie2k9 · 15-02-2016 8:23pm

In that case the company claimed the industrial action was illegal. I don't know if the planned legal action against the unions in question ever went ahead - did it?

I haven't heard Transdev claiming any such illegality on the part of its employees or their union.

From what I remember had it gone ahead they would of won a case, there was some illegal element to this action. Only reason it would of been stopped is not to increase tensions among both sides. It was either related to notice of the way the ballot was conduced.

Transdev have not case with this action as it is all done by the book.

GM228 · 15-02-2016 8:26pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Yes, but only if they are in breach of their employment contracts. Employees don't have a right to strike as such but they have the freedom to strike and can't be fired for such.

Actually you can be fired for striking, but it's only considered fair dismissal if all those on strike are fired!

Polo_Mint · 15-02-2016 8:27pm

Murph_D wrote: »

In that case the company claimed the industrial action was illegal. I don't know if the planned legal action against the unions in question ever went ahead - did it?

I haven't heard Transdev claiming any such illegality on the part of its employees or their union.

doesnt matter if its legal or illegal strike action. Sitpu can be sued

Aer Lingus were also going to sue Siptu so its possible

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0314/602264-aer-lingus-sues-siptu-for-damages/

And im sure Transdev can pass the following costs to Siptu

Transdev is the fact that they are a private company, and will face penalties to any change in the existing contract with the State.

Jamie2k9 · 15-02-2016 8:32pm

Polo_Mint wrote: »

doesnt matter if its legal or illegal strike action. Sitpu can be sued

Aer Lingus were also going to sue Siptu so its possible

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0314/602264-aer-lingus-sues-siptu-for-damages/

And im sure Transdev can pass the following costs to Siptu

Does not apply as that action was because of an illegal ballot taken by SIPTU. Breached Statue law.

GM228 · 15-02-2016 8:34pm

Polo_Mint wrote: »

doesnt matter if its legal or illegal strike action. Sitpu can be sued

Aer Lingus were also going to sue Siptu so its possible

Aer Lingus wanted to sue as they argued there was no legal dispute!

The company is also seeking damages for loss and damage, which it said was inflicted by unlawful means.

Grandeeod · 15-02-2016 8:40pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Well I haven't seen the union agreement but most would include pretty clear rules about dispute resolution procedures. What happened to contravene these, that you are aware of?

Its a moral thing. I believe in workers being treated fairly. I disagree with unions and their highly paid leaders, taking the piss. This industrial action is taking the piss. Any sensible person can see this. Luas drivers are chasing a pay claim to bring them on a par (or near enough) to IE train drivers. IE train drivers are on that pay scale after years and years and yet more years of union/company negociation. I'm no fan of theirs either. So after nearly 12 years of luas operation, these guys want parity. Despite the fact that their job is less skilled than a train driver, this whole saga just stinks of greed and self entitlement.

Murph_D · 15-02-2016 8:58pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Does not apply as that action was because of an illegal ballot taken by SIPTU. Breached Statue law.

Allegedly. The threat to sue was almost universally condemned. The action never went ahead to best of my knowledge. Smells like posturing to me.

Jamie2k9 · 15-02-2016 9:02pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Allegedly. The threat to sue was almost universally condemned. The action never went ahead to beat of my knowledge. Smells like posturing to me.

An agreement for the pension issue was found soon after. Make no mistake Aer Lingus would of went through. SIPTU meet there match when Christoph Mueller arrived and transferred the position of power from union to management.

kildarecommuter · 15-02-2016 9:14pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Its a moral thing. I believe in workers being treated fairly. I disagree with unions and their highly paid leaders, taking the piss. This industrial action is taking the piss. Any sensible person can see this. Luas drivers are chasing a pay claim to bring them on a par (or near enough) to IE train drivers. IE train drivers are on that pay scale after years and years and yet more years of union/company negociation. I'm no fan of theirs either. So after nearly 12 years of luas operation, these guys want parity. Despite the fact that their job is less skilled than a train driver, this whole saga just stinks of greed and self entitlement.

So you believe in workers rights but not their right to organize in a Union to try and improve their lot?

trellheim · 15-02-2016 9:28pm

Does anyone from SIPTU think Transdev have any leeway here, I'm not entirely sure what the strategy ( or even tactics ) is/are. With CPI set to bounce along at a fairly low rate .... seriously folks what is the thinking mans strategy

jimmycrackcorm · 15-02-2016 9:40pm

trellheim wrote:

Does anyone from SIPTU think Transdev have any leeway here, I'm not entirely sure what the strategy ( or even tactics ) is/are. With CPI set to bounce along at a fairly low rate .... seriously folks what is the thinking mans strategy

Its a clever model, Transdev don't own the Luas so they could go out of business. Another company takes over and offers new jobs on no strike terms.

Anyway its not really a big deal seeing as there are only two lines and still busses to fall back on.

kildarecommuter · 15-02-2016 9:48pm

As Transdev have moved from nothing to now 1-3'% and the workers are talking about spreading an increase over 5 years I'd imagine that whatever about next Thursday and Friday strike, something may happen to get both sides back in negotiations before St Patricks Day.

syklops · 15-02-2016 10:05pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Anyway its not really a big deal seeing as there are only two lines and still busses to fall back on.

Try living somewhere served by one very unreliable bus. The strike becomes a very big deal then.

Grandeeod · 15-02-2016 10:16pm

kildarecommuter wrote: »

So you believe in workers rights but not their right to organize in a Union to try and improve their lot?

Improve their lot? Get real. And where did I say I didn't agree with their right to organise in a union?????

This is greed built on a legacy.

LXFlyer · 15-02-2016 10:17pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Anyway its not really a big deal seeing as there are only two lines and still busses to fall back on.

Certain areas, particularly those along the Green Line, don't have much spare capacity left on the bus services, which have been cut back to a more realistic service level that meets the normal demand.

The 44, 47, 61 and 63 are not what you would term either frequent or adequate substitutes in the event of a strike, and the 14 is already pretty full at peak times.

Grandeeod · 15-02-2016 10:19pm

end of the road wrote: »

68k, 60k, 65k, 64k. i have read so many bogus figures in the last couple of days its actually not funny any more. they are not looking for anything near 60 anything k. the most they will get (and the most they are looking for) is about 10-15% in real terms.

all 90000 commuters daily commute extended by hours? no chance. a small few maybe but not all 90000.

can't be done. it not being segregated makes automating it prohibitive. health and safety as well. if it was doable it would have been done all ready.

I'm still waiting on your answer to my questions. Thank away all you like to posts that suit you, but have the decency to at least back up your claims.

Grandeeod · 15-02-2016 10:26pm

kildarecommuter wrote: »

As Transdev have moved from nothing to now 1-3'% and the workers are talking about spreading an increase over 5 years I'd imagine that whatever about next Thursday and Friday strike, something may happen to get both sides back in negotiations before St Patricks Day.

Thats crap talk. Transdev have not moved from nothing. Before the strike, they wanted SIPTU to "modify" their claim. Transdev are not prepared to negociate down from a starting point of a 54% wage increase.

Its a straight forward 50% gap at play here. Drivers, backed by the union have shot high and I hope the bullit hits them in the head. They make IE train drivers look like industrial relations perfection.

Don't forget the legacy issue at play either.

kildarecommuter · 15-02-2016 10:35pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Thats crap talk. Transdev have not moved from nothing. Before the strike, they wanted SIPTU to "modify" their claim. Transdev are not prepared to negociate down from a starting point of a 54% wage increase.

Its a straight forward 50% gap at play here. Drivers, backed by the union have shot high and I hope the bullit hits them in the head. They make IE train drivers look like industrial relations perfection.

Don't forget the legacy issue at play either.

You obviously know very little about how unions work, the members decide what they want tell their officials who may advise them that it may or may not be achievable but if members insist on going forward it's their call, they are the ones taking industrial action

end of the road · 15-02-2016 10:45pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm still waiting on your answer to my questions. Thank away all you like to posts that suit you, but have the decency to at least back up your claims.

all ready answered. its called "go high negotiate down" very obvious stuff.

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

Comments