Bus Eireann strike - services have resumed (Read first post)

bk

markpb wrote: »

I'm puzzled by this. How did the thousands of commuters from train-less areas like Navan get to work on Monday?

I'd say many carpooled.

STForSale

markpb wrote: »

I'm puzzled by this. How did the thousands of commuters from train-less areas like Navan get to work on Monday?

I don't know but I could speculate, the point is the country hardly ground to a halt?
Now if Dublin Bus and IE where to go on strike also, that changes.

Personally my intention is to use the train in the event of the talks breaking down and if IE go out in solidarity (sympathy), I will work from home or hire a car.

Vahevala

STForSale wrote: »

I don't know but I could speculate, the point is the country hardly ground to a halt?
Now if Dublin Bus and IE where to go on strike also, that changes.

Personally my intention is to use the train in the event of the talks breaking down and if IE go out in solidarity (sympathy), I will work from home or hire a car.

Not everyone is in a position to work from home and not everyone can drive so a sympathy strike could effect a hell of a lot of people so I am desperately hoping this does not happen.

STForSale

Vahevala wrote: »

Not everyone is in a position to work from home and not everyone can drive so a sympathy strike could effect a hell of a lot of people so I am desperately hoping this does not happen.

As am I. I ditched my car and bought a taxsaver to save money and reduce stress. How's that working out for you .

Victor

AlekSmart wrote: »

My own observations on some of the Commuter Routes to Drogheda/Dundalk left me wondering as to whether we need to fundamentally reassess the actual level of demand out there ?

Whilst I fully accept that all companies have regular and dependant customers,I am not so sure that the level of dependancy is quite what the media (and some companies) portray ?

Have times and lifestyles changed that much ?

Things like this tend to suppress the number of people travelling in the short term - people put off shopping and recreational trips and those with flexible work take days off or work from home.

foggy_lad

The minister for transport has been reported as saying that he would prefer a return to strike rather than have a deal where bus Éireann doesn't make the required savings so looks like the strike may resume unless the union and workers accept what was on the table.

Kumsheen

Here is the article

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/varadkar-says-he-would-rather-another-bus-eireann-strike-than-a-poor-deal-29269519.html

Quote
"I would rather see us go back into a strike situation than have an agreement that doesn't deliver the necessary savings," he said.

He said there had to be a deal that "would stick".
Unquote

Problem123456

runawaybishop wrote: »

They were supposed to give 7 days notice the first time

Ok thanks just that I don't want to have to get two trains home

ixoy

foggy_lad wrote: »

The minister for transport has been reported as saying that he would prefer a return to strike rather than have a deal where bus Éireann doesn't make the required savings

The minister's sort of comment is pointless and inflammatory. It's like a red rag to an already enraged bull. Not sure what he was thinking.

SandyfordGuy

It's called not backing down and giving in to the strikers. Exactly what this country need. If the militant unions realise they cannot hold the country to ransom ix the knowledge they will always win as the other side will give in first hopefully they will do it less often

It's about time someone showed some back bone and I congratulate the government on doing so. Had this happened in previous governments then the country would be in a far less bad state and the unions power would be reduced

Well done Leo

Tarabuses

Vahevala wrote: »

Not everyone is in a position to work from home and not everyone can drive so a sympathy strike could effect a hell of a lot of people so I am desperately hoping this does not happen.

Is a "sympathy" strike legal?

SandyfordGuy

ixoy wrote: »

The minister's sort of comment is pointless and inflammatory. It's like a red rag to an already enraged bull. Not sure what he was thinking.

You do realise the other side were trying to do exactly that when they started talking about sympathy strikes. That basically translated as do a deal or we will make things worse

There is another word for that too.....

Problem123456

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

It's called not backing down and giving in to the strikers. Exactly what this country need. If the militant unions realise they cannot hold the country to ransom ix the knowledge they will always win as the other side will give in first hopefully they will do it less often

It's about time someone showed some back bone and I congratulate the government on doing so. Had this happened in previous governments then the country would be in a far less bad state and the unions power would be reduced

Well done Leo

Yeah but they should be calling a truce until june...
When college exams are over

gbob

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

You do realise the other side were trying to do exactly that when they started talking about sympathy strikes. That basically translated as do a deal or we will make things worse

There is another word for that too.....

.... you mean blackmail, as in "we're going to illegally force a pay cut on you or you'll be out of a job"

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

Technically the service is not part of the BE service, it's just a service provided by another operator that BE are helping market and have some revenue share agreement with in most likeliness. It is a GoBus service.

The whole service is operated with non Bus Eireann staff, vehicles, vehicle storage depots on a non Bus Eireann PSV license on a non Bus Eireann route license.

The Translink services however are a little difference since they operate jointly on a route, so I'd have thought they would be a bigger target than this.

BE were claiming it as a service when they said 5% of their services were operating.

Why translink was not targeted could be a couple of reasons,

A it was a local decision in Cork, not a national policy

B there may be an understanding between the unions in BE and Translink regarding industrial action on either side.

SandyfordGuy

gbob wrote: »

.... you mean blackmail, as in "we're going to illegally force a pay cut on you or you'll be out of a job"

If the company goes bust staff will be out of a job it is because the company is losing money and cannot sustain it any more.

The company is losing money anyway so it is hardly blackmail.it's only blackmail if you threaten to do something if you do not get your own way. That thing is already happening anyway.

Or do you think the company will try and commit suicide to spite the drivers and sacrifice their own jobs to spite them as they hate them so much.

Get real.

cdebru

runawaybishop wrote: »

They were supposed to give 7 days notice the first time

Actually the company had more than 7 days notice. Notice was served in January that action was suspended when BE agreed to return to the labour court. When BE unilaterally withdrew from those talks the suspension of the action in January was lifted. Just like the sunday monday strike was suspended to allow talks for 48 hours. No need to serve notice or ballot again to resume.

SandyfordGuy

Funny how a certain two posters that are towing the union line only ever online at the same time. A moderator should look into tha.

runawaybishop

cdebru wrote: »

Actually the company had more than 7 days notice. Notice was served in January that action was suspended when BE agreed to return to the labour court. When BE unilaterally withdrew from those talks the suspension of the action in January was lifted. Just like the sunday monday strike was suspended to allow talks for 48 hours. No need to serve notice or ballot again to resume.

I don't think any member of the public buys that.

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Funny how a certain two posters that are towing the union line only ever online at the same time. A moderator should look into tha.

Report them so, no need to post anything here.

SandyfordGuy

They didn't withdraw from the court. What happened in that process is the unions rejected the recommendation despite the fact management watered down the original proposals. They threw this toys out thepram and could not get their own way

Management agreed to make concessions as recommended by the court but the unions played hard call and have ever since saying their way or not at all up to this weekend.

SandyfordGuy

runawaybishop wrote: »

I don't think any member of the public buys that.

Union propaganda glad someone else can see through it

Shane that conflict of interest thread is not around.

NinjaTruncs

I for one hope BE don't bend to the unions demands, it will set a bad precedent for future negotiations for other semi-states/departments with unions.

I think Ireland has gone far to long without a strike, which to me indicates we have been bending to the unions demands for far too long.

Like it or not, the country is broke and doesn't have the money to keep paying high wages in lose making services. Like others have said liquidate BE, then see how quickly the unions and workers will agree to these pay cut proposals, I very much doubt the BE workers will like the prospect of being on the dole and not having a nice fat redundancy package to collect.

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

They didn't withdraw from the court. What happened in that process is the unions rejected the recommendation despite the fact management watered down the original proposals. They threw this toys out thepram and could not get their own way

Management agreed to make concessions as recommended by the court but the unions played hard call and have ever since saying their way or not at all up to this weekend.

They did they were in negotiations, and the company withdrew and said they would act unilaterally to cut wages.
This is actually illegal as one side can not alter a contract it has to be by agreement.

devnull

The other side (unions) refused to make any concessions though from what it seems so I don't blame management from withdrawing as the other side simply were not willing to make any compromises.

After all those talks management made some concessions as advised by the labour court and conceded some ground. The unions were not willing to make any concessions to their demands at all.

By the way negotiations normally happen with both parties moving from their starting position to meet somewhere between the two to a deal that is mutually acceptable, it seems whilst management watered down their demands, unions were not willing to give any ground.

That's not negotiating, that is simply saying our way or not at all.

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Funny how a certain two posters that are towing the union line only ever online at the same time. A moderator should look into tha.

If that comment is directed at me, you should report your suspicions to the moderator.

And for the record my opinion is that the union were wrong to call a strike their first port of call should have been to the courts to seek an injunction preventing the company from breaching their employees contracts.

For what it is worth I wouldn't trust the NBRU or siptu, I think the deal is already done and they are just softening up their members to accept the deal. A couple of days with no wages and you will be far more likely to accept whatever the final deal is.

While various posters here like to harp on about militant unions the truth is that top brass in most unions are all too cosy with management and government, it's mostly just posturing for your audience we see. (think SF and
decommissioning)

devnull

Video of the interview here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0515/392318-talks-to-resolve-bus-eireann-dispute-set-to-resume/

starviewadams

Would LUAS workers also strike if DB and IR vote in favour of a sympathy strike?

SandyfordGuy

Not a hope they live in the real world not the public sector bubble

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

The other side (unions) refused to make any concessions though from what it seems so I don't blame management from withdrawing as the other side simply were not willing to make any compromises.

After all those talks management made some concessions as advised by the labour court and conceded some ground. The unions were not willing to make any concessions to their demands at all.

By the way negotiations normally happen with both parties moving from their starting position to meet somewhere between the two to a deal that is mutually acceptable, it seems whilst management watered down their demands, unions were not willing to give any ground.

That's not negotiating, that is simply saying our way or not at all.

Odd how do you know what concessions the unions were willing to make ?

I think the leadership of the unions were and are very willing to compromise, but they can be as willing as they like if they can't get 50%+1 of their members to agree it ain't going anywhere.

What we are seeing is the unions and management working together to get the desired result. I believe an across the board x% wage cut for all staff and management will be the outcome, and after a few days without pay more people are likely to agree to it than before.

devnull

They said at the weekend they would not accept any cuts to any conditions that effected pay - true on Monday they changed their wording a little bit, but that was what they were saying. I just quote what I read the union have said.

SandyfordGuy

What is your connection for someone who claims not to be involved you are backing the unions and lot

You say you think but have nothingness back that up. As I said propaganda.

Vahevala

starviewadams wrote: »

Would LUAS workers also strike if DB and IR vote in favour of a sympathy strike?

Why would they? They have nothing to do with CIE.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

Odd how do you know what concessions the unions were willing to make ?

I think the leadership of the unions were and are very willing to compromise, but they can be as willing as they like if they can't get 50%+1 of their members to agree it ain't going anywhere.

What we are seeing is the unions and management working together to get the desired result. I believe an across the board x% wage cut for all staff and management will be the outcome, and after a few days without pay more people are likely to agree to it than before.

An across the board pay cut does not address the grossly inflated "perks" which Bus Éireann drivers feel entitled to even though they are not and never have been part of their core salary. We all know of people who live in say Edenderry and get the meal allowance because they are working the 120 and have to take their lunch out in the "shed" in Edenderry despite only being a mile or two from home, they also get mileage allowances for starting work away from the base which would presumably be the bus depot at Broadstone even though they could fall out of bed into the bus they drove home the day before to Edenderry. most routes are the same.

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Not a hope they live in the real world not the public sector bubble

http://www.herald.ie/news/luas-drivers-want-23-extra-days-off-a-year-28848441.html

Yup must be a different bubble they inhabit.

runawaybishop

cdebru wrote: »

I believe an across the board x% wage cut for all staff and management will be the outcome, and after a few days without pay more people are likely to agree to it than before.

That hurts people that earn only basic more than people who are raking in premium payments though. Surely thats the opposite of what should happen.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

An across the board pay cut does not address the grossly inflated "perks" which Bus Éireann drivers feel entitled to even though they are not and never have been part of their core salary. We all know of people who live in say Edenderry and get the meal allowance because they are working the 120 and have to take their lunch out in the "shed" in Edenderry despite only being a mile or two from home, they also get mileage allowances for starting work away from the base which would presumably be the bus depot at Broadstone even though they could fall out of bed into the bus they drove home the day before to Edenderry. most routes are the same.

What over inflated perks ?

How much is the Lunch allowance, what are the conditions for getting such an allowance ?
What is the mileage rate ? Do all drivers working in Edenderry live within a mile or 2 of Edenderry?


I expect specific examples of the over inflated perks, including rates and conditions for payment or I'll presume you are just talking the usual nonsense. thanking you and looking forward to your reply.

end of the road

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

It's called not backing down and giving in to the strikers.

a deal will be reached, get over it.

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Exactly what this country need.

no it isn't, we hardly ever have strikes in this country so 1 every few years is nothing, put up with it and get over it

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

If the militant unions realise they cannot hold the country to ransom

what are you on about? our unions aren't "militant" nor do they "hold the country to ransom" stop dramatising things, if you really need to be somewhere you can get there, it might take longer in a strike situation but you will get there eventually

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

ix the knowledge they will always win as the other side will give in first hopefully they will do it less often

less often? a strike every couple of years is hardly very often is it? the reason they "win" as you put it is through negotiations and most likely meeting half way.

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

It's about time someone showed some back bone

really? is it? so making thick comments is backbone?

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

I congratulate the government on doing so.

what backbone have they showed? saying they would rather a strike situation rather then a deal that won't make savings? a thick stupid comment from somebody who should know better.

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Had this happened in previous governments then the country would be in a far less bad state

are you serious? really? you can't be surely? the ff government left us in this mess for god sake

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

the unions power would be reduced

no it wouldn't, if they were going to do it they would have done it years ago

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Well done Leo

well done for what? saying he'd rather a strike situation? yeah, well done indeed

SandyfordGuy

What do you expect these people do not know what the word premiums mean andpseem to think that overtime should be scheduled

Someone told me once in another country how they gamed a similar system. Turned down a 40hour a week contract to take a lower one since forty hours restricted then from working much overtime

They now work 30hours and around ten overtime with the extra hours at double time. This allows them to game a sizeable increase in pa when in really it should all be at a standard hourly rate.

ixoy

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Like others have said liquidate BE, then see how quickly the unions and workers will agree to these pay cut proposals

Just a small thing here - not all BE workers are in the unions involved and, of those that are, not all voted for the current actions. I know for a fact not all BE workers support the current industrial action.

cdebru

runawaybishop wrote: »

That hurts people that earn only basic more than people who are raking in premium payments though. Surely thats the opposite of what should happen.

What? logic please ?

How does an across the board cut hurt people earning a basic wage not working shifts more than those working shifts?

since premium payments like sunday rate, overtime rate, shift allowance, bank holiday rate etc are based on the core rate a cut to across the board would reduce all those too.

2011 wage costs were 130 million so a 4 or 5% cut would deliver 5 or 6 million saving.

Vahevala

end of the road, if DB go out on strike, how can i get to work, I live (about 45 mins by bus from the city centre), I don't have a car or a bike and can't afford a taxi so please tell me, how can I get to work?

SandyfordGuy

Interesting you should attack foggy when you only recently started posting jushere again after years of absence

Your attack clearly shows that you have been around here in some other guise to make such comments.

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

What do you expect these people do not know what the word premiums mean andpseem to think that overtime should be scheduled

Someone told me once in another country how they gamed a similar system. Turned down a 40hour a week contract to take a lower one since forty hours restricted then from working much overtime

They now work 30hours and around ten overtime with the extra hours at double time. This allows them to game a sizeable increase in pa when in really it should all be at a standard hourly rate.

And I know a man who knows a man who swears he can turn coal into gold. Completely irrelevant just like your post.

runawaybishop

cdebru wrote: »

What? logic please ?

How does an across the board cut hurt people earning a basic wage not working shifts more than those working shifts?

Are you for serious?

cdebru

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

Interesting you should attack foggy when you only recently started posting jushere again after years of absence

Your attack clearly shows that you have been around here in some other guise to make such comments.

Like I said report your suspicions to the mods I'm sure they can put your mind at ease. And learn to use the quote function please.

cdebru

runawaybishop wrote: »

Are you for serious?

Yes ? did I say something that sounded not serious?

An across the board cut reduces everyones wages by the same percentage, cuts to just shift pay only affect those who work shifts. Surely I don't need to spell it out for you.

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

And I know a man who knows a man who swears he can turn coal into gold. Completely irrelevant just like your post.

But it is true though what he is saying isn't it.

To use an example:
Wage at company A is €10 per hour. Worker A and Worker B work exactly the same shifts on the same days and overtime is 1.5x pay.

Worker A works 40 hours a week at €10 an hour and earns €400 a week
Worker B works 30 hours a week at €10 an hour and earns €300 a week

Worker A does no overtime since it will be harder to fit much of it within his legal driving hours when he is already contracted for 40 hours.

Worker B is working 10 hours a week regularly overtime since he signed a 30 hour a week contract. He then earns €150 for his overtime

Worker B then earns €50 more per week than worker A for doing the same shifts because his hours are classified as overtime when they are actually scheduled hours if he is working them every week of the year.

cdebru

ixoy wrote: »

Just a small thing here - not all BE workers are in the unions involved and, of those that are, not all voted for the current actions. I know for a fact not all BE workers support the current industrial action.

Well obviously a clerical worker would not be in the NBRU nor would a mechanic. And again obviously only 82.5% rejected the labour court ruling meaning 17.5% were Ok with it and subsequently would not want to strike over it. Hardly insider knowledge there.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

But it is true though what he is saying isn't it.

To use an example:
Wage at company A is €10 per hour. Worker A and Worker B work exactly the same shifts on the same days and overtime is 1.5x pay.

Worker A works 40 hours a week at €10 an hour and earns €400 a week
Worker B works 30 hours a week at €10 an hour and earns €300 a week

Worker A does no overtime since it will be harder to fit much of it within his legal driving hours when he is already contracted for 40 hours.

Worker B is working 10 hours a week regularly overtime since he signed a 30 hour a week contract. He then earns €150 for his overtime

Worker B then earns €50 more per week than worker A for doing the same shifts because his hours are classified as overtime when they are actually scheduled hours if he is working them every week of the year.

Yup but also irrelevant as Bus Eireann drivers are not contracted to work 30 hours a week or indeed 36 hours a week. So the relevance here is what exactly?

SandyfordGuy

Although management would be at fault if such a situation was allowed to develop like that.

Scheduled hours that led regularly being worked week in week out should not be paid at overtime rates they should be paid at normal rates other than if they are non scheduled