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

Public transport strikes

  • 17-02-2016 9:13pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭


    With more luas strikes do you public transport should be banned from striking like the guards, doctors and the fire brigade. While I respect the right to strike I believe that it should be put into law that during a limited service at peak times, this how it works in a lot of European countries I believe it would still cause enough disruption but it would still allow commuters to get to work. The system should work as a one day for example with a two hour break at peak times. Opinions?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭kildarecommuter


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    With more luas strikes do you public transport should be banned from striking like the guards, doctors and the fire brigade. While I respect the right to strike I believe that it should be put into law that during a limited service at peak times, this how it works in a lot of European countries I believe it would still cause enough disruption but it would still allow commuters to get to work. The system should work as a one day for example with a two hour break at peak times. Opinions?

    Which European countries apart from Tory Britain have these restrictions?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Which European countries apart from Tory Britain have these restrictions?

    Italy definitely has a law regarding strikes that a limited service must be provided. I'm fairly sure Germany and France has similar


  • Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭kildarecommuter


    No there shouldn't be restrictions on workers withdrawing their labour and striking should they wish.
    They are required by law to serve 7 days notice anyway.
    It would be a dangerous precedent and undemocratic to restrict any group of workers from the right to strike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭kildarecommuter


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    With more luas strikes do you public transport should be banned from striking like the guards, doctors and the fire brigade. While I respect the right to strike I believe that it should be put into law that during a limited service at peak times, this how it works in a lot of European countries I believe it would still cause enough disruption but it would still allow commuters to get to work. The system should work as a one day for example with a two hour break at peak times. Opinions?

    No restriction on Firefighters or Doctors striking once they comply with the relevant legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,023 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Workers should have the right to withdraw their labour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    I wonder what would have happened if the Luas operators had refused to recognise the union from the start, ala Ryanair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    Much as I'm in favour of the 'idea' of trade unions I can see the Luas ending up a basket case like CIE if this isn't nipped in the bud. Basket case so. :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Much as I'm in favour of the 'idea' of trade unions I can see the Luas ending up a basket case like CIE if this isn't nipped in the bud. Basket case so.
    unlike CIE who have the government in their pocket, Transdev arent run simply for the employees benefit. They are there to make a profit!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Workers should have the right to withdraw their labour.

    While I generally agree with that statement. I would think that they should run some kind of a skeleton service. Maybe have a few trams running around the peak times just to get people in and out of work/school/college.


  • Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭kildarecommuter


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I wonder what would have happened if the Luas operators had refused to recognise the union from the start, ala Ryanair.

    Then depending on how many members of the union work there they might have had a strike for union recognition ala 999 workers


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    I think that when the audited accounts show that a company is making a loss and can't meet demands that strikes should be outlawed.

    Many business in Ireland closed completely as companies simply weren't able to meet demands and striking only worsened their position.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11 PhaseTen


    What really angers me about this is that it undermines the very legitimate and important role that organised trade unions can play by looking for what seems to be ridiculous money just because they think they have power to cause disruption during a general election.

    The trade unions should be doing more to improve the lot of people who are stuck on zero hour contracts, minimum wage payments, never ending cycles of 18 month contracts and so on.

    The labour problems in Ireland are not to be found amongst well paid, highly unionised public transport staff and this is exactly why trade unions and also, by association, the Labour Party is rapidly losing any sense of connection with the real people who actually face real problems.

    It's also further undermining public transport investment (what government or private investor is going to want to deal with this down the line if they expand the system?), undermines confidence in public transport (people resort to going back to cars again) and also undermines usage by hiking the costs.

    These workers are *not* on bad money by any standards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I think that when the audited accounts show that a company is making a loss and can't meet demands that strikes should be outlawed.

    demands and striking only worsened their position.

    no, strikes should not be outlawed under any circumstance.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I think that when the audited accounts show that a company is making a loss and can't meet demands that strikes should be outlawed.

    Many business in Ireland closed completely as companies simply weren't able to meet demands and striking only worsened their position.

    Don't agree with strikes at all. Grown up people should be able to work thinks out without tossing their toys out of the pram.

    Having said that, I can't see any evidence of the 700k losses they claim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    no, strikes should not be outlawed under any circumstance.

    I think that view is limited to a certain demographic, thankfully. One only has to look at Waterford city to see how strikes, in that case it was dockers, can destroy a place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I think that view is limited to a certain demographic, thankfully.

    yes, those who believe in employees having that ultimate insurence policy.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭doc11


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Workers should have the right to withdraw their labour.

    Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of employment it's seems reasonable that you let an employer find new workers more amenable to existing terms.


  • Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭kildarecommuter


    doc11 wrote: »
    Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of employment it's seems reasonable that you let an employer find new workers more amenable to existing terms.

    The reason workers formed Trade Unions in the first place !


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    doc11 wrote: »
    Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too.

    they shouldn't. otherwise we end up with a slippery sloap.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    they shouldn't. otherwise we end up with a slippery sloap.

    That could be dangerous, especially in the prison showers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,462 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    The reason workers formed Trade Unions in the first place !

    because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

    when was the last strike in Ireland that wasn't about more money, you know about actual worker safety or improving conditions only?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

    Those who pay their dues every week don't think so.

    There is also the small matter that legislation can be changed at will by whoever is in Leinster house and isn't it funny how those who claim that unions are not necessary always seem to be the very same people claiming that legislation protecting workers rights is also bad.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98779005&postcount=139
    doesn't solve the issue though because of the ridiculous TUPE rules.

    To be fair, most of them can wait more than 4 minutes before contradicting themselves but I suppose time is money and all that, what with the Luas on strike you probably have to set off soon for work.

    when was the last strike in Ireland that wasn't about more money, you know about actual worker safety or improving conditions only?

    I don't know about you but more money would certainly improve my conditions, could light the fire with tenners rather than fivers, that red flame makes the drawing room feel much more homely than the harsh grey flame.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,833 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    What really angers me about this is that it undermines the very legitimate and important role that organised trade unions can play by looking for what seems to be ridiculous money just because they think they have power to cause disruption during a general election.

    transdev shouldnt go anything before the election, its a week away at this stage. The unions thought the government would get involved, put pressure on transdev to agree at whatever cost, to get this annoyance out of the way due to the timing and that would beit. The usual strategy that worked with Aherne and co. There can be no going back to this, it will open the flood gates. They have shut the line for four days, what one or two more. If the union thought the GE would give them leverage, let them be in for a surprise...


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,928 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

    unions haven't become redundant. workers in a number of industries still choose to use unions as both representers, negotiators, and enforcers of employment law. that is their right. for many workers, it is an insurence policy. other people choose not to be in a union, and that is also their right.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭doc11


    because there was no employment legislation in place to rely on. There is now and unions have become redundant as a result of it.

    when was the last strike in Ireland that wasn't about more money, you know about actual worker safety or improving conditions only?

    Without a union you'd be funding any legal representation and advice out of your own pocket


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    doc11 wrote: »
    Employers should have the right to replace those who withdraw their labour too. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of employment it's seems reasonable that you let an employer find new workers more amenable to existing terms.

    Sorry but no. Employers are even quicker at exploiting when they want to. Unions are there for a reason wether you like it or not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,462 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    Those who pay their dues every week don't think so.
    been there, done that. got no benefit from it whatsoever, just the usual protect the older members by screwing the younger ones.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98779005&postcount=139
    To be fair, most of them can wait more than 4 minutes before contradicting themselves but I suppose time is money and all that, what with the Luas on strike you probably have to set off soon for work.
    a good example of the union protecting their own at the expense of everyone else. Why should any employer be forced to take on the dead wood from a previous one. This is one of the most unfair protectionist pieces of drivel legislation I've ever come across.


    I don't know about you but more money would certainly improve my conditions, could light the fire with tenners rather than fivers, that red flame makes the drawing room feel much more homely than the harsh grey flame.
    money doesn't solve everything, especially if it's coming from an unsustainable source. but yeah, **** the company, as long as I get what I want in the short term, nothing else matters.


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


    been there, done that. got no benefit from it whatsoever, just the usual protect the older members by screwing the younger ones.

    a good example of the union protecting their own at the expense of everyone else. Why should any employer be forced to take on the dead wood from a previous one. This is one of the most unfair protectionist pieces of drivel legislation I've ever come across.




    money doesn't solve everything, especially if it's coming from an unsustainable source. but yeah, **** the company, as long as I get what I want in the short term, nothing else matters.


    What you got is probably not something you can put your hands on, it could be the maintenance of wages, terms and conditions, it could be you weren't bullied into breaking the law, or just bullied in general etc,

    Why would the previous operator have dead wood ? How would the new operator know who was dead wood ?

    What is the unsustainable source ? Luas is working well, passenger numbers are growing why would it be unsustainable to increase wages ? Outsourced contracts are a device to distance the direct employer from the actual profits not that dissimilar from the clerys trick of moving the assets to a separate entity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    cdebru wrote: »
    What is the unsustainable source ? Luas is working well, passenger numbers are growing why would it be unsustainable to increase wages ?

    Passenger numbers are growing but Transdev lost 700K last year. There is your unsustainable source.

    Transdev are not even making money. Probably all the extra security they have to hire because of the massive increase of scum that use but don't pay for the service.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    Passenger numbers are growing but Transdev lost 700K last year. There is your unsustainable source.

    Transdev are not even making money. Probably all the extra security they have to hire because of the massive increase of scum that use but don't pay for the service.

    Tram loses money even when more people using the service. That aint right. Theres something funny going on and afink its something to do with that "new" contract they signed last year.


Advertisement