CIE Union - Impossibility of Modern Public Transport Services Under their Control

parsi

murphaph wrote:

Ryanair doesn't have a monopoly postion parsi. I can fly with whoever I like. If I want to take a bus or train to town I MUST use CIE companies.

That's sort of my point - Ryanair has competition and it's staff are often categorised as surly, unresponsive and ignorant of the basic tenets of customer service with an attitude formed from management. IE staff are accused of the same thing with an attitude formed from management.

shltter

murphaph wrote:

They wanted to strike over having to drive DARTs with 4 more carriages hooked up to them without getting EXTRA MONEY. They realised that the public had had enough and would fully support the government and board of CIE in facing down the petty CIE unions.

Sh!tter, you may believe CIE are not the same company that existed in 1970, but from a customer point of view (which I am and you are not) they haven't changed much at all. There is next to no customer focused ethos in CIE companies and that's a fact.

No perhaps you should read the question again what trivial matters have they striked over

It is not a fact it may be your opinion but that does not make it a fact.

shltter

murphaph wrote:

Ryanair doesn't have a monopoly postion parsi. I can fly with whoever I like. If I want to take a bus or train to town I MUST use CIE companies.

That will always be the case as nobody with any knowledge of public transport or who wants a workable system is suggesting direct head to head competition.

As for Ryanair not having a monopoly try setting up a rival airline on one of its routes and watch a dominant player run you out of business. Remember how long Go fly stayed in Ireland.

Sarsfield

shltter wrote:

Remember how long easijet stayed in Ireland.

I don't think Easyjet has announced it's exit from Ireland yet.

shltter

MT wrote:

Hence, Ireland and the UK outperforming other economies in Europe and recieving the lion's share of fdi.

However, that's the private sector - the 'peace' in the public sector might be explained by this quote from the article you linked to:

'Strikes in highly unionised public services are blessedly rare compared with the 1970s, partly because, as again yesterday, ministers give way at the slightest threat. In education, health, administration and parts of the transport industry, unions can still rely on taxpayers to foot any bill. Over the past eight years public sector strikes have caused the vast majority of days lost.'

A similar weakness on the part of the Irish government has most likely averted a similar share of strikes in the Republic. If so, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of good industrial relations.

But your contention was that we had more strikes here that is untrue and 45% of days lost were in the construction industry alone which is the private sector.
And National wage deals in Ireland have lowered the level of Industrial action in the public and private sector as opposed to the emasculation of the Unions in the UK.

MT wrote:

And that quote could very well explain the supposed scarcity of strikes in CIE - weakness at the top, not union unwillingness to 'down tools'. Whereas the privatised sector in the UK have competition to face and the rigours of shareholder governance to answer too and so can't afford to cave in frequently. The resulting superior service and greater customer focus most likely puts staff under greater productive pressure resulting in a slightly greater number of flare ups. But then CIE can avoid that as staff never seem to be under pressure, by comparison, while working at their leisurely pace.

Which would brilliant explanation except it is based on ****

Competition in the UK for franchises has driven down wage rates as companies competing for franchises can not lower the price of fuel or the price of Trains or Buses but they can squeeze wage costs.The vast majority of the Strikes affecting the UK transport market have been wage related and contrary to what you might think companies are as likely if not more to give in to union pressure in the private market when they are at risk of losing a franchise due to industrial action.
In fact the experience in the UK is that privatising and franchising has increased industrial disputes as well because employees have little or no loyalty to their employer as employers change with the franchise and employees are transfered over to the new company.

The lower level of Strikes in CIE is directly atributable to National pay deals which carry no strike clauses rather than any plyable management.


And of course dont let the facts get in the way of your arguement there is no superior service in the UK and the difference in Industrial action is not slight it is huge. But as usual people with an anti semi state anti CIE perspective rarely depend on facts.

MT wrote:

As an outsider I'm not as up to the minute on political deals as someone living down there.

And as a hard pressed contributer I'd like to demand flexible posting rights. What, you don't agree. Right, that's it... 'ONE OUT, ALL OUT!':D

Well you would have to take that up with Victor but a discussion on benchmarking has no place here given the topic is CIE unions and benchmarking does not apply to CIE.

shltter

Sarsfield wrote:

I don't think Easyjet has announced it's exit from Ireland yet.

Sorry I meant Go fly I will edit that now

daymobrew

s/companies/company's/

shltter wrote:

Why tell lies the labour court decided that they were disturbed and increased the award from the company's original offer.
What makes me mad is that you are telling lies; do you not think we can go to the link and read the Labour Court judgement ourselves. You took the company's submission that there was little or no disturbance as the truth and ignored the union's submission and that the Labour Court found in favour of the employees

Good point wrt Labour Court's comments. It was a newspaper article that prompted me to look up the recommendation. The article stated that the 'disturbance' was that staff had to walk an extra 100 metres to get into their office. I should have included that information in my posting.

In fairness to the Labour Court, in the recommendations that I read, they have dismissed a bunch of claims from the unions including the one where they were looking for extra money to drive 8 carriage DARTs (because it was covered by previous agreements).

A recent one where SIPTU and NRBU want extra money for new safety standards, the Labour Court told them (IE and unions) to have talks after getting reports from independent consultants

Union's Argument wrote:

2. The introduction of a number of new safety standards, without consultation with the Unions, is significantly impacting on the drivers' careers. An example of such a safety standard is Standard 23 which the Company introduced, is known to the locomotive drivers as a point system of which a driver would have a number of points allocated against him, applicable to various incidents which occur over his driving career. A driver after reaching 25 points could find his driving career in serious jeopardy.

Such a points system sounds great - if a driver makes enough mistakes to get 25 points, they should probably not be in charge of a train.

shltter

daymobrew wrote:

s/companies/company's/

Good point wrt Labour Court's comments. It was a newspaper article that prompted me to look up the recommendation. The article stated that the 'disturbance' was that staff had to walk an extra 100 metres to get into their office. I should have included that information in my posting..

Again no evidence that was why the got the money and even if it was it does not stack up with the claim that they were undisturbed.
In my experience the labour court is not in the habit of handing out judgements willy nilly.
As for media coverage what newspaper was it certain newspapers have a strong anti union slant and it is not uncommon for them to spin stories in a certain direction to further their own agenda.

daymobrew wrote:

In fairness to the Labour Court, in the recommendations that I read, they have dismissed a bunch of claims from the unions including the one where they were looking for extra money to drive 8 carriage DARTs (because it was covered by previous agreements).

A recent one where SIPTU and NRBU want extra money for new safety standards, the Labour Court told them (IE and unions) to have talks after getting reports from independent consultants

Such a points system sounds great - if a driver makes enough mistakes to get 25 points, they should probably not be in charge of a train.

Again I don't know the detail as to what merits a point how long they stay on file etc etc
I agree with you that such a penalty point system seems like a good idea and no one wants someone who is unfit for the job to be driving our trains but the devil is in the detail.
If the claim had no merit then the Labour obviously would have rejected it the fact that the labour court suggested talks after an independent consultants report would seem to me to me to suggest that the independent consultants report must have at least have indicated that the unions claims were not completely without merit.