New Bus Fares Something has to be done.

pc7

lxflyer wrote: »

The €2.15 cash fare is now €2.40, while the LEAP fare has increased from €1.95 to €2.10. What journey are you making?

Thanks for that, bus driver under charged me so, I told her where I was going!! I only Paid €1.90 coming home tonight oops!!! Ill email Dublin bus to find out its like dealing with the secret service trying to figure out the stages. On their site it's a pity when you do a route planner it doesn't tell you the fare.

LXFlyer

pc7 wrote: »

Thanks for that, bus driver under charged me so, I told her where I was going!! I only Paid €1.90 coming home tonight oops!!! Ill email Dublin bus to find out its like dealing with the secret service trying to figure out the stages. On their site it's a pity when you do a route planner it doesn't tell you the fare.

What journey are you making and I'll check the stages for you?

pc7

lxflyer wrote: »

What journey are you making and I'll check the stages for you?

Thanks sent you a pm with the details

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

What journey are you making and I'll check the stages for you?

You are to be commended Lx,but is'nt pc7's post just an embarrassing confirmation of all that is fcuked-up about the system......

The simplest,most basic element of any Fare-Stage system ANYWHERE,and we have to take to the Interweb to try and get it......:o

It defies explanation ????

AlekSmart

Tragedy wrote: »

My Dad was (lightly) involved in setting up a contract with Dublin Bus providing DB with a service related to maintenance/upkeep of the buses. A previous company had provided the same service, but the new company believed they could provide the same service for less and so tendered the contract out.

Taking over the contract meant providing staff at each of the depots, non-DB staff employed by the company tendering the contract.

The caveat was, DB Unions treated these non-DB staff as being essentially DB in all but name so insisted upon

1)Continuity of staff
2)Above average wages (comparable to public sector along with increments and pension)
3)Above average conditions (basically along the lines of Public Service)
4)Public Service tenure and inability to be fired or have wages cut

And threatened to scupper the deal and strike if this wasn't continued.

If that's the attitude taken to people who don't even work for Dublin Bus by staff and unions, why is there any surprise at the wage bill?

Tragedy,could you,without compromising your fathers position,clarify these matters a tad ?

1) Continuity of Staff,as in what is provided for in the Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings,Regulations ?

2)Were the wage rates already agreed between the Staff and their Employer (The Contractor) ?

3)Did the Staff already have their own conditions of employment agreements with the Contractor ?

4)Public Service Tenure and Inability to be "fired" or have wages cut,this is somewhat unusual as Dublin Bus wages grade staff do not have Public Sector stature.

The company is a commercially focused semi-state body,however it's wages grade employees pay normal PRSI and have a defined contribution Pension Scheme.

I have worked alongside many different contractors in different areas within the company,however the extent of the Unions involvement tended to focus on whether or not the contractors facilitated Union membership,as opposed to attempting to enforce BAC conditions onto a different company.

I would also stress that wages grade BAC staff do not now,nor ever have they,enjoyed continuity of tenure in the manner ascribed to Civil Servants.

All wages grade BAC staff are subject to the company's Discipline & Grieviance Procedures,which can and does provide for dismissal as one of the range of sanctions.

Tragedy

AlekSmart wrote: »

1) Continuity of Staff,as in what is provided for in the Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings,Regulations ?

Existing staff from the prior contract were required to be taken on by the new company providing the contract. In essence, they would go from being employees of Company A to being employees of Company B and Company B had no choice if they wanted the contract.

2)Were the wage rates already agreed between the Staff and their Employer (The Contractor) ?

The contractor had no room to negotiate with the staff, they were required to take them on with prior conditions. Any attempt to deviate from that would have resulted in strike action(or at least the threat)

3)Did the Staff already have their own conditions of employment agreements with the Contractor ?

See above, new contractor had no choice to negotiate, just take as is (despite 'hiring' these staff).

4)Public Service Tenure and Inability to be "fired" or have wages cut,this is somewhat unusual as Dublin Bus wages grade staff do not have Public Sector stature.

Not sure what you mean by public service stature? It was stated that none of the existing staff could be removed, fired(within reason) or not re-hired. The wages not being cut: see #2 and #3. Also, I don't really know what civil service tenure is like, but from what I've read DB is quite like the Public Service(specifically HSE in my case).


I can PM you the contract and more details if you want, and obviously I've only heard it from the (ultimately very frustrated) contractors side.

AlekSmart

Tragedy wrote: »

Existing staff from the prior contract were required to be taken on by the new company providing the contract. In essence, they would go from being employees of Company A to being employees of Company B and Company B had no choice if they wanted the contract.


The contractor had no room to negotiate with the staff, they were required to take them on with prior conditions. Any attempt to deviate from that would have resulted in strike action(or at least the threat)


See above, new contractor had no choice to negotiate, just take as is (despite 'hiring' these staff).


Not sure what you mean by public service stature? It was stated that none of the existing staff could be removed, fired(within reason) or not re-hired. The wages not being cut: see #2 and #3. Also, I don't really know what civil service tenure is like, but from what I've read DB is quite like the Public Service(specifically HSE in my case).


I can PM you the contract and more details if you want, and obviously I've only heard it from the (ultimately very frustrated) contractors side.

That appears to me to be a be the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings legislation which,correctly in my view,was enacted to prevent unscrupulous employers from dissolving and reforming companies in order to prevent employees accumulating service related entitlements.

This was (perhaps still is) very common in the (non-unionised) parts of the Construction Industry.

The PEToU Act protects the T's & C's of original employees for 12 months and a day from the date of transfer,and states that any changes of conditions of employment can only be made by negotiation with the employees concerned.

I can state very clearly that BAC is nothing at all like the HSE in terms of conditions of employment.

Two completely different entities and approaches.

Tragedy

AlekSmart wrote: »

That appears to me to be a be the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings legislation which,correctly in my view,was enacted to prevent unscrupulous employers from dissolving and reforming companies in order to prevent employees accumulating service related entitlements.

This was (perhaps still is) very common in the (non-unionised) parts of the Construction Industry.

The PEToU Act protects the T's & C's of original employees for 12 months and a day from the date of transfer,and states that any changes of conditions of employment can only be made by negotiation with the employees concerned.

I can state very clearly that BAC is nothing at all like the HSE in terms of conditions of employment.

Two completely different entities and approaches.

A tendered contract to provide a service is not in any way, shape, or form a transfer of undertakings (this might help you). I could give any number of real world Irish examples (construction industry, tenders for provision of emergency vehicles, etc etc) if you wished!

As I said, from my limited experience (DB don't publish contracts of employment) terms and conditions vis a vis tenure/rights to job seems to mesh with the broader public service.

AlekSmart

Tragedy wrote: »

A tendered contract to provide a service is not in any way, shape, or form a transfer of undertakings (this might help you). I could give any number of real world Irish examples (construction industry, tenders for provision of emergency vehicles, etc etc) if you wished!

As I said, from my limited experience (DB don't publish contracts of employment) terms and conditions vis a vis tenure/rights to job seems to mesh with the broader public service.

No bother,we'll have to differ on the issue of the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings regulations.

However in my own case,as a BAC employee, I can be subject to dismissal for a range of transgressions.

I do not have Public Sector stature,and have only a "Right" to my job for as long as I can perform it.

I have a far less attractive Pension Scheme payable from age 65 of c.€126 per week based upon 40 years contributions.

It also worth noting that since 2000,new entrant drivers are on a lower basic rate as well as being required to work significantly different work patterns,ie:permanent late duties.

As I'm not a Trades Union activist,I'm not particularly interested in waving a standard for them,however neither would I have any great problem in any organized representative group seeking the best possible conditions of employment for it's members,be they Butchers,Bakers,Bankers or Wheeltappers and Shunters !

Negotiations within Large organizations with collective labour agreements can often be long,drawn out affairs with outcomes which often leave noses out of joint.

It's a bit like running a country I suppose...some you Win,some you Lose ?

Tragedy

AlekSmart wrote: »

No bother,but in my own case I can be subject to dismissal for a range of transgressions.

I do not have Public Sector stature,and have only a "Right" to my job for as long as I can perform it.

I have a far less attractive Pension Scheme payable from age 65 of c.€126 per week based upon 40 years contributions.

It also worth noting that since 2000,new entrant drivers are on a lower basic rate as well as being required to work significantly different work patterns,ie: permanent late duties.

As I'm not a Trades Union activist,I'm not particularly interested in waving a standard for them,however neither would I have any great problem in any organized representative group seeking the best possible conditions of employment for it's members,be they Butchers,Bakers,Bankers or Wheeltappers and Shunters !

Negotiations within Large organizations with collective labour agreements can often be long,drawn out affairs with outcomes which often leave noses out of joint.

It's a bit like running a country I suppose...some you Win,some you Lose ?

Oh I didn't mean that DB drivers would have the same perks and all that nonsense that goes on in the PS(and having worked in it for 5 years, I've seen a lot of absolutely egregious nonsense). I simply meant that they have similar job security to PS employees vis a vis dismissal and being let go (for example, most people don't realise that until the CPA, compulsory redundancy in the public service was theoretically possible as happened in Dublin Bus).

I'm also not anti-union at all, I just fear that Irish unions have gone the way American unions did in previous decades and become less about collectivism and e.g. the German model, and more about maximising economic benefit for both itself and its members.

AngryLips

If you want to travel any further than walking distance you're going to pay €1.90/€2.15 to start off with ...doesn't anyone in the DoT realise that at this rate of price increases Dublin Bus will soon start competing with taxis?

AlekSmart

AngryLips wrote: »

If you want to travel any further than walking distance you're going to pay €1.90/€2.15 to start off with ...doesn't anyone in the DoT realise that at this rate of price increases Dublin Bus will soon start competing with taxis?

Too true AngryLips...for proof of this just look at the Christmas NiteLink schedule....:(

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News/Nitelink-Christmas-and-New-Years-Eve-Services-2012/

An admission if one was needed that in most cases,the Taxi is now a more viable option.

The only way forward here is to impliment a 24 hour route network at an hourly frequency and a flat €2.80 Fare operating a normal stage-carriage service serving all stops.

Victor

Tragedy wrote: »

A tendered contract to provide a service is not in any way, shape, or form a transfer of undertakings

It can be. If you take cleaning staff or certain mechanics in Dublin Bus, they have always worked in the Dublin Bus depots, but may* never been employed by Dublin Bus. They are employed by whatever contractor who has the contract for cleaning or maintaining vehicles under warranty.


* I understand that some cleaning staff were originally employed by Dublin Bus.

Cookie_Monster

Thats a crazy system in operation re the maint / cleaning staff

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Thats a crazy system in operation re the maint / cleaning staff

I'm not certain its any crazier than outsourcing in any major operation ?

Dublin Bus has significantly reduced it's cleaning staff over the years by outsourcing,a process currently being proposed for the Night-Servicing section.

Outsourcing remains a highly contentious principle,particularly if it's focus is entirely on cost-cutting rather than service provision.

Aard

AlekSmart wrote: »

The only way forward here is to impliment a 24 hour route network at an hourly frequency and a flat €2.80 Fare operating a normal stage-carriage service serving all stops.

In Oslo, two bus routes were so highly frequented that they decided to run them 24 hours. For the rest of the city that didn't warrant such frequent services, they kept their equivalent of the Nitelink. At the same time of this reform, they also scrapped the higher Nitelink-style fare. Now all transport in Oslo uses a 24/7 flat-fare.

I'm sure there's a few key routes in Dublin that could sustain a 24-hour service, even if at hourly intervals. The N11 corridor is a prime example. With the number of taxis going up and down, people would have no problem paying 2.80 during the night.

bk

Aard wrote: »

I'm sure there's a few key routes in Dublin that could sustain a 24-hour service, even if at hourly intervals. The N11 corridor is a prime example. With the number of taxis going up and down, people would have no problem paying 2.80 during the night.

The 16 to the airport also jumps to mind as another good route for 24/7 operation.

Gringo180

Totally off topic but I just wanna say Dublin Bus are a joke, first bus of the morning never arrived and every person at the bus stop were late including myself, bus was due for 7.10 and it didnt come till 7.50 shower of assholes!

Milan Cobian

Why have Dublin Bus never attempted a proper night bus? Why, for example, no pick-ups at every stop on the Nitelink services? Everything else being equal, not everyone can be bothered trekking to D'Olier St before heading home... Is it some union issue or incompetent management?

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not certain its any crazier than outsourcing in any major operation ?

Dublin Bus has significantly reduced it's cleaning staff over the years by outsourcing,a process currently being proposed for the Night-Servicing section.

Outsourcing remains a highly contentious principle,particularly if it's focus is entirely on cost-cutting rather than service provision.

outsourcing is fine, what DB are doing, forcing companies to have continuity of staff and pay rates is insanity. Why would any company want to take on dozens on unvouched untested employees (in the companies eyes) instead of providing its own staff?

ax586

Milan Cobian wrote: »

Why have Dublin Bus never attempted a proper night bus? Why, for example, no pick-ups at every stop on the Nitelink services? Everything else being equal, not everyone can be bothered trekking to D'Olier St before heading home... Is it some union issue or incompetent management?

Dublin Bus were going to make the 746 a 24 hour route. But aircoach complained to the minister of transport about and they didn't grant the licence for it. As far as I remember

Victor

Gringo180 wrote: »

Totally off topic but I just wanna say Dublin Bus are a joke, first bus of the morning never arrived and every person at the bus stop were late including myself, bus was due for 7.10 and it didnt come till 7.50 shower of assholes!

Less of the insults please.

Moderator

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

outsourcing is fine, what DB are doing, forcing companies to have continuity of staff and pay rates is insanity. Why would any company want to take on dozens on unvouched untested employees (in the companies eyes) instead of providing its own staff?

I'm not so sure the "forcing" was all that successful as I currently work alongside contracted staff who are on a substantially lesser pay rate and with significantly different conditions of employment too....maybe they were just unlucky ?

Victor

Transfer of undertakings - you can still fire incompetent staff, you just can't slash the incomes and terms and conditions of existing staff.

EDIT: misread context

AlekSmart

Victor wrote: »

No, it's a legal issue. This restriction applies to everyone.

You can still fire incompetent staff.

It's a direct throwback to the origins of Nitelink.

Originally concieved as a reaction to serious Public Order issues in Dublin City Centre,the service was divided betwen Public and Private Operators.

For convenience and security,the Private Operators were allocated Stops on each side of O Connell St whilst the Dublin Bus services were allocated the West D'Olier triangle.

Today only one of the original Private Operators remain,Finnegans of Bray.

LXFlyer

It's nothing to do with legalities, as DB have full agreement with staff for 24 hour operation.

It boils down to cost -v- revenues.

I certainly believe that currently DB are reluctant to try anything that involves additional costs lest that the revenues would not cover them. And given the financial situation that they face I can understand that. Bear in mind that there would be no subsidy for any such service as the NTA have shown zero interest in such a service.

Be well and win

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

outsourcing is fine, what DB are doing, forcing companies to have continuity of staff and pay rates is insanity. Why would any company want to take on dozens on unvouched untested employees (in the companies eyes) instead of providing its own staff?

Because it's the law and it actually doesn't make a difference to the company taking them on, providing they can pass the extra costs through to the pevious employer.

Many companies are happy to TUPE staff over to outsourcers because it removes the day to day hassle of managing them. In addition, not all the staff's T&C's legally transfer over to the new employers, usually they end up in different pension schemes and redundancy right (eg x weeks per year of service) don't automatically go over either. Hence whilst there may be a short term additional cost, longer term, it can be cheaper

Milan Cobian

It's nothing to do with legalities, as DB have full agreement with staff for 24 hour operation.

It boils down to cost -v- revenues.

Ok, but that still doesn't answer the obvious question, as I see it: if you want to increase your revenues, on a nitelink service operating anyway, why not pick up at every stop?

cson

The 16 would easily be a successful 24hr operation imo.

LXFlyer

cson wrote: »

The 16 would easily be a successful 24hr operation imo.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd ask if you presumably have done a full revenue -v- cost analysis for that statement?

Bearing mind that there would be no additional subsidies to operate these additional services, how do you arrive at that conclusion?