Dublin Bus strike from Sunday 04/08 [called off - service resumes 07/08]

Grandeeod

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And who pays for the losses in the meantime and the labour court fees? I doubt it'll be the staff who objected despite the union agreeing initially.

The company via the state, taxpayer etc etc.

Vic_08

devnull wrote: »

It's an opinion article by someone from the left, rather than anything factual.

There are several holes in it too, such as arguing that subsidy going down is a factor, but then admits in the same sentence that services and the fleet have been cut back too, it's right that the companies should not get paid the same amount for less work.

That is simplistic nonsense. When it is a partial subsidy to make up the revenue shortfall of operating a loss making network there is no direct correlation between the number of services or route miles operated and the amount of additional subsidy needed to bridge the gap between revenue and cost of provision.

miller50841

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So which schedule is being operated tomorrow, the old or new one?

And who pays for the losses in the meantime and the labour court fees? I doubt it'll be the staff who objected despite the union agreeing initially.

Normal times no change yet that is on hold.

Cookie_Monster

miller50841 wrote: »

Normal times no change yet that is on hold.

So the company have already backed down, pathetic.

miller50841

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So the company have already backed down, pathetic.

From what I have seen and heard they are going into talks tomorrow and the changes are been put on ice and the strike could still return if the agreements are not reached.

devnull

Yet in another thread on here recently someone was arguing that the subsidy went up in the boom years because the company operated more services, therefore they should be paid more subsidy.

But you're saying that if the number of services goes down. the subsidy should remain the same? You can't have it both ways, it's just like people expect their conditions to be boosted in a boom, but don't like it when they are reduced in a recession.

The whole purpose of Network Direct was to weed out the number of routes that made huge losses and make them more efficient, which resulted in the number of buses being cut by over 150 vehicles on the road, and by the admission of Dublin Bus, some routes were not sustainable any more, so they had to be cut.

Seeing as subsidy is supposed to prop up the routes that are uneconomical and not viable otherwise, if some of those routes are eliminated, then why does subsidy need to be paid for something that does not exist anymore? The most uneconomical routes will always require the most subsidy, and they are the ones that have been cut.

The facts are cuts across the board are needed to save money in the company, as others have said, with management taking a higher percentage cut than the front line costs, the PSO subsidy with Dublin Bus is as part of a contract, in any contract I've worked with, if you start cutting the amount of work you do, you also can't expect to get paid the same for it as the old amount of work.

Also I've heard recently people saying however much a state company loses, the subsidy should be increased each time to cover the losses. If that is the case, then there is no incentive to run the company well and efficiently, if they know however badly the company is run, and however much waste there is, the government will bail them out, whats to stop giving everyone a pay rise every year, in the knowledge that they don't have to balance the books since the taxpayer will make up the difference anyway.

SandyfordGuy

Vic_08 wrote: »

That is simplistic nonsense. When it is a partial subsidy to make up the revenue shortfall of operating a loss making network there is no direct correlation between the number of services or route miles operated and the amount of additional subsidy needed to bridge the gap between revenue and cost of provision.

of course you want to keep subsidy up even if the company does 20% less work

after all the more subsidy the more money for your pay and the longer you can keep your conditions

the taxpayer does not owe you a living and what comes through loud and clear is that youdon't think about your passengers just yourself

the reason.you are anti private companies is the gravy train will end and not before time too. You say for prfit companies will suck allthe money but the staff are doing that nowt

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So the company have already backed down, pathetic.

This was always what was going to happen - if you didn't see that then you are really naïve. Welcome to the world of public sector negotiations.

It happened in May with BE, and the eventual deal reached was not (to be honest about it) that different from the original one, but had more clarity on executive/management cuts.

I somehow suspect that will be what will happen this time too. A deal will be reached that delivers the cuts - that much you can be sure of.

Unfortunately (and I've experienced this myself while working in a unionised company), this whole process is, for want of a better word, a "game" that has to be played out between the management and the unions. There now will be marathon late night talks, some minimal concessions on both sides, and an agreement reached that delivers the necessary savings, and that will be presented as a victory by the unions, and we will all move on.

DB management (I suspect) basically came to the conclusion that the issue needed to be forced as otherwise this could drag on and on and on. Hence the implantation of the proposals at the weekend, and then the unions/staff get to air their grievances for at least one normal working day, before the offices of the state intervene. This is the way the game is played.

The problem I have is that I (and other DB customers) have suffered from this completely unnecessarily by being deprived a bus service. Many customers have lost out due to having to pay for taxis and others have had to take holidays. Totally unacceptable, but entirely predictable.

I will also predict this will happen with IE further down the line also, as their cost saving proposals are now in the LRC.

Phill Ewinn

lxflyer wrote: »

This was always what was going to happen - if you didn't see that then you are really naïve. Welcome to the world of public sector negotiations.

It happened in May with BE, and the eventual deal reached was not (to be honest about it) that different from the original one, but had more clarity on executive/management cuts.

I somehow suspect that will be what will happen this time too. A deal will be reached that delivers the cuts - that much you can be sure of.

Unfortunately (and I've experienced this myself while working in a unionised company), this whole process is, for want of a better word, a "game" that has to be played out between the management and the unions. There now will be marathon late night talks, some minimal concessions on both sides, and an agreement reached that delivers the necessary savings, and that will be presented as a victory by the unions, and we will all move on.

DB management (I suspect) basically came to the conclusion that the issue needed to be forced as otherwise this could drag on and on and on. Hence the implantation of the proposals at the weekend, and then the unions/staff get to air their grievances for at least one normal working day, before the offices of the state intervene. This is the way the game is played.

The problem I have is that I (and other DB customers) have suffered from this completely unnecessarily by being deprived a bus service. Many customers have lost out due to having to pay for taxis and others have had to take holidays. Totally unacceptable, but entirely predictable.

I will also predict this will happen with IE further down the line also, as their cost saving proposals are now in the LRC.

I'll go one further. It was in both managements and drivers interests that this strike happened. It allows the company to pressurise the government into fare hikes or subsidy.

Good ruse. If Valadcat falls for it he'll be a dumbasz.

LXFlyer

Vic_08 wrote: »

That is simplistic nonsense. When it is a partial subsidy to make up the revenue shortfall of operating a loss making network there is no direct correlation between the number of services or route miles operated and the amount of additional subsidy needed to bridge the gap between revenue and cost of provision.

To be fair about this, the days of bottomless pits are now over, and what is expected from the public transport companies is that they operate services in as efficient a manner as possible, and are recompensed for the social element of those services through the payment of the PSO and Social Welfare subsidies/grants.

However, in saying this, where revenue drops significantly as happened in the CIE group, and particularly in DB, due to customer numbers plummeting, the company needs to be able to respond to this rapidly. No company can live in a vacuum, and where revenue falls as dramatically as it did, the company needs to adjust for that - be it through revised services (reflecting lower usage), cutting payroll costs through staff number reductions or other cuts and constantly reviewing other costs as well.

There frankly needs to be some proper basis agreed for the state support so that it does correlate accurately with overall revenue. I don't believe that the state should simply carry the can for revenue shortfalls - the company needs to respond itself rapidly to the changed environment in which it finds itself.

It has taken nearly two years to implement Network Direct and we still haven't had the final phase, and talks about cuts have taken over 14 months. That is totally unrealistic and no company can exist and operate in that situation. That needs to change.

LXFlyer

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'll go one further. It was in both managements and drivers interests that this strike happened. It allows the company to pressurise the government into fare hikes or subsidy.

Good ruse. If Valadcat falls for it he'll be a dumbasz.

The government/Minister have no say over fare levels any more - that lies with the NTA.

Each of the last fare increases have had full fare determination documents published explaining the background to them.

You can certainly expect that cash fares will rise again in the future - as the push to move people to LEAP will intensify - that much can be taken as a definite.

bk

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'll go one further. It was in both managements and drivers interests that this strike happened. It allows the company to pressurise the government into fare hikes or subsidy.

Good ruse. If Valadcat falls for it he'll be a dumbasz.

Nope this is almost perfectly played out by the government, there will be no subsidy increases, in fact subsidies will continue to be decreased. There will continue to be the normal annual fare increases, but nothing substantial.

This is how it is playing out, almost exactly the same as BE

- Company develops cuts which are approved by the LRC

- Unions reject the cuts.

- Company forces the changes through.

- Unions go on strike.

- Unions find that the government ignores them completely and aren't coming to ride to the rescue with a big bag of gold like previous governments. The unions also find that they have zero public support. Unions realise that the government will happily let them swing in the wind for weeks if necessary, until the staff can no longer pay their mortgages.

- Unions cancel strike and agree to talks with the company.

- Company agrees to make a few minor changes to the cuts (things they never really expected to get anyway) and they add a few new cuts to management pay (which they always knew they would have to do anyway).

- Union agrees to revised cuts.

Result

- For the Company: they get to make the cuts they always expected to make.

- For the Union: they get to save face and say look at the changes we achieved, please keep paying us your union subs so we can have a nice fat paycheck.

- For the government: they get exactly the cuts they wanted and get increased public support for the long term plan to privatise CIE.

Really this whole game is played to try and make the unions look good and save face. The company, government and unions all knew the cuts were going to be made one way or the other, the only question was how to do it while saving face.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

This was always what was going to happen - if you didn't see that then you are really naïve. Welcome to the world of public sector negotiations.

The least they could have done is expect the new timetable to be stuck to after publishing everything and making the public aware. Go into neg with a proviso that they expect the new timetable to operate while negotiations continue. Leave the background stuff re wages and benefits as is but don't further **** the paying customer over by yet again amending schedules with no notice.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The least they could have done is expect the new timetable to be stuck to after publishing everything and making the public aware. Go into neg with a proviso that they expect the new timetable to operate while negotiations continue. Leave the background stuff re wages and benefits as is but don't further **** the paying customer over by yet again amending schedules with no notice.

That's not how it works I'm afraid. The unions would not have agreed to go back if that were the case.

Getting agreement to implementing summer/Christmas timetables is part of the overall savings package (and a fairly big one) - getting agreement to that is part of the overall goal.

Those changes involve changes to driver rosters - hence they have to be agreed to.

But I'm pretty sure that this will be achieved - and that frankly will be a major change going forward - offering substantial flexibility.

As I said - welcome to the world of public sector negotiations.

As it is for the moment the paying customers will still have the full bus service tomorrow (including the 7D!), so they're not likely to be complaining.

_Kaiser_

Conspiracy theory(?) ahoy! Union source reckons this was all part of a plan to save money over the Bank Holiday..

One source claimed:
That’s the real reason that they did it at that time, instead of a massive wage and fuel bill they actually made a saving there.
We believe that this has been sanctioned by levels of the government as well, as a quick solution to funding issues.

Hmm.. whatever about the truth of that, it doesn't bode well if this is what's coming out ahead of the talks

bk

Total bull, savings would have been minimum, in the region of only a few 10's of thousands.

It may have been considered by management the best time to force the issue with the least impact.

The august bank holiday weekend tends to be quiet, with lots of people travelling abroad or around the country and no schools on. Actually I can't think of a better time to have a strike.

bk

Funny thing, this article is basically saying that because Sunday and Bank Holiday pay rates are so high, that it is better for the company to not operate a service then to operate it!

This is actually an argument in favour of management, it shows that overtime, Sunday and bank holiday rates are too high and need to be cut to match income.

Dravokivich

Or would it not make more sense to adjust the amount of services provided? They could be run at a much lower frequency on Sundays/Bank Holidays.

LXFlyer

Dravokivich wrote: »

Or would it not make more sense to adjust the amount of services provided? They could be run at a much lower frequency on Sundays/Bank Holidays.

I wouldn't agree with that - most routes were cut back on Sundays during Network Direct - I wouldn't want to see it pared back any more.

LuckyLloyd

Busy routes during weekdays have a decent (though obviously reduced) uptake at weekends in my experience. Not uncommon to get on a 75 in Stillorgan on a Sunday afternoon / evening that only has a few seats available or to see a decent congregation on Dame St for buses going back to Tallaght around 6pm.

Dravokivich

lxflyer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that - most routes were cut back on Sundays during Network Direct - I wouldn't want to see it pared back any more.

Fare enough, although I'd see a waste in resources more so in the running of underused services, than around the pay rates to those who run'em.

LXFlyer

Dravokivich wrote: »

Fare enough, although I'd see a waste in resources more so in the running of underused services, than around the pay rates to those who run'em.

There's a difference between cutting back routes that no one used (and indeed simplifying the network to avoid unnecessary overcapacity and duplication), and maintaining a basic service level. Cutting routes back to the bare minimum never works as people just give up on the bus.

You have to have a basic level of service to attract customers to the bus.

This is part of the social obligation of the service - that's what they get the PSO for!

LuckyLloyd

They removed and consolidated a bunch of underused routes and streamlined services a few years ago. Things like the 56 running to and from Dolphin's barn as a ghost bus; the plethora of 11's. Removing the 10 and running its route into the 39A. Removing the 77 and running its route into the 27, etc.

It's clearly something they work on and amend as necessary.

markpb

Dravokivich wrote: »

Or would it not make more sense to adjust the amount of services provided? They could be run at a much lower frequency on Sundays/Bank Holidays.

It's not a simple supply/demand model for public transport. If you only run the required amount of buses for the number of passengers per day, you'll end up with big gaps and a service that is useless. If you cut the level of service at the weekend, people will find alternatives and you run the risk that they'll carry those alternatives over to the weekday and you'll lose more of your passengers.

This is the problem that public transport always faces. If there's a budget problem, they can reduce the level of service but this makes the service less attractive, which means less people will use it which means they'll face more budget problems. Running a more efficient service while still providing a decent level of service is the only solution.

It's worth noting that LACMTA review their bus operations every six months and add new routes, merge or drop existing routes and change routes from all-stop to express as necessary. It's a much better way of doing things than ours which was to let politicians meddle for decades, do one review, don't complete it and don't plan any more reviews.

Stevek101

NTA's plan for the future is up today. It talks about keeping routes up to date with demand. Part of the changes that led to this strike would be that drivers would no longer play a major part in implementing schedule changes.

Network Direct dragged on for years due to mostly senseless voting down of new schedules. We are still waiting for some of the changes to happen to this day!

ArmaniJeanss

Stevek101 wrote: »

Network Direct dragged on for years due to mostly senseless voting down of new schedules.

Weren't the drivers ultimately correct about a lot of those new schedules - many of the target journey times were ridiculously optimistic and completely impossible for the drivers to stick to, which led to buses only doing half routes before turning round and some being completely cancelled.

Stevek101

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Weren't the drivers ultimately correct about a lot of those new schedules - many of the target journey times were ridiculously optimistic and completely impossible for the drivers to stick to, which led to buses only doing half routes before turning round and some being completely cancelled.

Initially some of the running times were a little off but they were always voted down regardless.

dublinman1990

The Dublin Bus employees are now about to go through another ballot soon after creating a new Labour Court clarification document with the unions & management.

They concluded the talks at around 5am this morning.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-proposals-due-after-all-night-dublin-bus-talks-conclude-1.1488155

Do they not publish these documents from the Labour Court online at all, No?

Stevek101

dublinman1990 wrote: »

The Dublin Bus employees are now about to go through another ballot soon after creating a new Labour Court clarification document with the unions & management.

They concluded the talks at around 5am this morning.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-proposals-due-after-all-night-dublin-bus-talks-conclude-1.1488155

Do they not publish these documents online at all, No?

The Journal had the Bus Éireann ones.

dublinman1990

Stevek101 wrote: »

The Journal had the Bus Éireann ones.

Are they doing the ones for Dublin Bus yet?