Bus Strike (read warning in post #1)

cdebru

Stheno wrote: »

No it applies in this case too
what I don't get is why the drivers are doing this now. Dublin bus can tender for the routes too so it's possible nothing will change

Why not wait for the result?

Because we all already know the result, and there is little point complaining then when it is a done deal.

end of the road

omicron wrote: »

I hope the strike goes ahead tomorrow, public support won't be long disappearing when there's 3 hour delays all day on the M50.

they always say that, it never happens. only those who don't support them striking ever won't support them. those who have always supported them will continue to do so.

cdebru

Gatling wrote: »

So this 40 million does this cover the 10% been put out to tender or a higher future percent

10%

Stheno

cdebru wrote: »

Because we all already know the result, and there is little point complaining then when it is a done deal.

How do you know the result? Have they awarded the routes?

end of the road

BoatMad wrote: »

let them strike for as long as they want, we have to break this nonsense, you cannot protect jobs by striking

good luck in trying to break it, unions i'm sure have learned from the faults of the miners strike

Infini

Gatling wrote: »

So this 40 million does this cover the 10% been put out to tender or a higher future percent

Basically it this

1) Possible private company takes the routes from db/be.
2) supposed company wins them via using cheaper labour.
3) db/be gets stuck with excess staff they cant redeploy since no room or positions for them.
4) db/be has to pay to either have them do nothing or give them a redundancy package.

Basically thats undermining the current agreements and terms of conditions of drivers via the back door. Perfect example of a race to the bottom scenario and for the profit of private concerns over the public interest. Perfectly legitimate concern and reason for them to strike.

pmasterson95

Tickityboo wrote: »

No!! I'd imagine they want them permanently.

I'm amazed thats not what ye are trying. Ye should strike till ye do.

end of the road

Orion wrote: »

What happens if you get an 11:30 bus that has a 45 min journey time? Will the driver stop at 12 and tell everyone to get off or complete the journey?

i'd imagine he/she will be expected to complete the journey

pmasterson95

cdebru wrote: »

Yeah that would help:rolleyes:

Its what youre great at.

end of the road

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Lets get onto the unions so we can hold country to ransom.

the country is not being held to ransom

pmasterson95

end of the road wrote: »

the country is not being held to ransom

Meet our demands in this plan or we strike?

Thats a ransom demand

Dr.MickKiller

cdebru wrote: »

No it is a transfer of undertakings, like when a company changes cleaning contractors or security, etc or if a company sells part of its business, the new employer is legally obliged to take on any staff that want to stay on the terms and conditions they previously had, it doesn't include pension rights, and has been blatantly ignored in a lot of cases with seemingly no penalty. But most decent employers observe it.

I fail to see the issue then?

cdebru

Stheno wrote: »

How do you know the result? Have they awarded the routes?

You think they are going through all this to let Db and BE keep them ? besides that the only way is to sort it out now, before tender contracts are signed, no point looking for labour protections after the contract is signed is there ?

kildarecommuter

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Meet our demands in this plan or we strike?

Thats a ransom demand

No it's called the last resort in Industrial Relations when negotiations have failed up to then.

Did teachers, ESB workers, Dunnes Workers all hold the country to ransom?
No they used industrial action to hopefully add leverage to their position

h57xiucj2z946q

end of the road wrote: »

no they aren't

Who are?

cdebru

Dr.MickKiller wrote: »

I fail to see the issue then?

It doesn't work.

Top security took over the contract at the chief state solicitors office, just ignored TUPE, they did it again in South Dublin county council, Greyhound took workers when they took over bin collections from Dublin city council, they were promised they were protected by TUPE, Greyhound subsequently told them they had to sign a new contract with a 35% pay cut.

end of the road

KellyPavlik wrote: »

I agree there are routes throughout the country that need to be subsidised to keep them running. However, these routes are not in Dublin and any Private Operator worth its salt will turn a profit running routes in Dublin, that's a fact. Look at the ones that already have started it.

yes, some are in dublin. the idea that private operators will turn a proffit on all routes in dublin is not a fact. if it was, dublin bus would be highly proffitable and require no subsidy. the couple of private operators that have started routes in dublin have found a market for themselves on a couple of very proffitable corridors hence why they are a success.

KellyPavlik wrote: »

That €5m taken from us is correct, but then there is also the other millions that have been taken from us to support failing public services including DB and BU. Some of it I am fine with as they need assistance, but some I am not so fine with as they are just wasting money. Maybe when we can cut the level of support to some services and have them run more efficiently we might see some proper tax cuts.

i don't believe you will ever see tax cuts

Stheno

cdebru wrote: »

You think they are going through all this to let Db and BE keep them ? besides that the only way is to sort it out now, before tender contracts are signed, no point looking for labour protections after the contract is signed is there ?

So you are making assumptions which could turn out to be baseless?

Dr.MickKiller

cdebru wrote: »

It doesn't work.

Top security took over the contract at the chief state solicitors office, just ignored TUPE, they did it again in South Dublin county council, Greyhound took workers when they took over bin collections from Dublin city council, they were promised they were protected by TUPE, Greyhound subsequently told them they had to sign a new contract with a 35% pay cut.

So what is it you want? A guarantee that whoever might get the tender won't break the law?

pmasterson95

Stheno wrote: »

So you are making assumptions which could turn out to be baseless?

Its not his first nor his last.

end of the road

jamesbere wrote: »

Weren't bus eireann going cutting some routes a few months ago. I didn't see drivers coming out on strike because of that.

they were cutting low used expressway routes. expressway is commercial and doesn't get a PSO payment. the routes are being replaced by PSO routes and services, but how well they will fill the void i don't know.

cdebru

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Meet our demands in this plan or we strike?

Thats a ransom demand

take a pay cut or you're fired what is that ?

Infini

Stheno wrote: »

How do you know the result? Have they awarded the routes?

Question really is why tender the routes when theyre being maintained and run beyond the standards set down by the NTA.

Theres also suspicions and genuine legimate concerns expecially pensions about those who would potentially have to transfer not to mention the intents about even doing this in the 1st place not to mention the shadow lurking over the whole disaster that was greyhound.

Simple truth is the only real reason they'd want private companies in is to drive down wages in the long run. Sure you could say DB or BE wins but theres no certainty on the issue of what happens going foward. Not only that but it would mean this whole episode would've been a waste of everyones time. No way they would'nt go to this much trouble if they didnt intend for these routes to go to private hands. Unions rightly dont want a repeat of the london saga here where theres over 80 different pay rates for the same job.

mickydoomsux

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Meet our demands in this plan or we strike?

Thats a ransom demand

By that logic anyone who strikes is making ransom demands.

Or is it just the evil public/semistate sector that that applies to?

pmasterson95

cdebru wrote: »

take a pay cut or you're fired what is that ?

Its a choice become unemployed or accept a lower wage. However for driver their greed obviously means a paycut is totally unacceptable and leave ye destitue and impoverished so a good auld bitch until ye get what ye want and **** everyone else is what ye do.

Stheno

Infini2 wrote: »

Question really is why tender the routes when theyre being maintained and run beyond the standards set down by the NTA.

Theres also suspicions and genuine legimate concerns expecially pensions about those who would potentially have to transfer not to mention the intents about even doing this in the 1st place not to mention the shadow lurking over the whole disaster that was greyhound.

Simple truth is the only real reason they'd want private companies in is to drive down wages in the long run. Sure you could say DB or BE wins but theres no certainty on the issue of what happens going foward. Unions rightly dont want a repeat of the london saga here where theres over 80 different pay rates for the same job.

Go to tender to see how competitive the current service is in terms of cost perhaps?

Under tupe employees do not have to transfer

cdebru

Dr.MickKiller wrote: »

So what is it you want? A guarantee that whoever might get the tender won't break the law?

correct, the unions want it added to the tender that the new operator must respect the terms and conditions of employment, they also want minimum standards of employment across all employers so that companies try and lower conditions to win tenders, this is what has happened in London and why they have had a series of Bus strikes over the last year, so it is basically trying to avoid the mistakes that were made in London.

cdebru

Stheno wrote: »

Go to tender to see how competitive the current service is in terms of cost perhaps?

Under tupe employees do not have to transfer

No they don't but they can also make themselves redundant by not transferring if the current employer has no work for them.

Infini

cdebru wrote: »

It doesn't work.

Top security took over the contract at the chief state solicitors office, just ignored TUPE, they did it again in South Dublin county council, Greyhound took workers when they took over bin collections from Dublin city council, they were promised they were protected by TUPE, Greyhound subsequently told them they had to sign a new contract with a 35% pay cut.

This is a massive reason why its happening and a perfect reason behind the track record of these agreements. Theres no protections. You need to have them nailed down before anything happens or your crippled later on.

Stheno

cdebru wrote: »

No they don't but they can also make themselves redundant by not transferring if the current employer has no work for them.

Yes so they get a redundancy package?

cdebru

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its a choice become unemployed or accept a lower wage. However for driver their greed obviously means a paycut is totally unacceptable and leave ye destitue and impoverished so a good auld bitch until ye get what ye want and **** everyone else is what ye do.

Oh so thats a choice, but pay me more or I'm not working is a ransom, hmmm not even a little biased are you !!!

cdebru

Stheno wrote: »

Yes so they get a redundancy package?

No obligation to pay them redundancy according to our courts in the Symantec case.

stehyl15

cdebru wrote: »

who hasn't ?

Workers not in NBRU or Siptu

cdebru

Infini2 wrote: »

This is a massive reason why its happening and a perfect reason behind the track record of these agreements. Theres no protections. You need to have them nailed down before anything happens or your crippled later on.

Exactly and you can't nail feck all down if you wait to see who wins the tender, because it is a done deal then.

pmasterson95

cdebru wrote: »

Oh so thats a choice, but pay me more or I'm not working is a ransom, hmmm not even a little biased are you !!!

Not even a little selfish or greedy are you!!!!

cdebru

stehyl15 wrote: »

Workers not in NBRU or Siptu

I asked you who said there was any ?

UCDVet

This seems to be an annual occurrence in Dublin. It was three Dublin Bus strikes ago that I decided to stop using public transportation. I hope more people do the same and maybe we can just get rid of the whole problem

Stheno

cdebru wrote: »

No obligation to pay them redundancy according to our courts in the Symantec case.

What's the forty million for that's been talked about?

cdebru

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Not even a little selfish or greedy are you!!!!

No more than you certainly, you just don't realise your selfishness :rolleyes:

Infini

Stheno wrote: »

Go to tender to see how competitive the current service is in terms of cost perhaps?

Under tupe employees do not have to transfer

Except its a trap and a bad deal and has been proven as such through the greyhound saga. Its either give up your hard earned terms and conditions for a lower paid less secured contract or lose your job via redundancy. Its not worth squat so why accept that kind of agreement when you can fight to maintain your existing superior terms and conditions.

cdebru

UCDVet wrote: »

This seems to be an annual occurrence in Dublin. It was three Dublin Bus strikes ago that I decided to stop using public transportation. I hope more people do the same and maybe we can just get rid of the whole problem

Yeah no buses we will all drive thats the solution.

end of the road

squonk wrote: »

What a shower of wánkers. By all means strike but do so at a time that doesn't affect your customers.

that means don't strike then. not an option.

squonk wrote: »

Take strike action but at least be clear beforehand about letting your employers know what services will and will not run.

they were very clear. all services. you got plenty of notice

squonk wrote: »

This looks like a completely opportunistic, mickey mouse fiasco in terms of organisationa and customer care.

its a strike, nothing more.

squonk wrote: »

The unions and striking drivers should be ashamed of themselves. If this is the standards they perceive as being good enough then there are bigger problems than wages at play.

the NTA set the standards now, what bus eireann and dublin bus deliver is down to the NTA.

pmasterson95

cdebru wrote: »

No more than you certainly, you just don't realise your selfishness :rolleyes:

Ok I'll admit maybe I'm selfish since I'm annoyed at suffering because of your greed. Can you admit to being a selfish **** or will you babble about a crusade to protect rights and jobs years down the line? No I bet you cant admit it.

cdebru

Stheno wrote: »

What's the forty million for that's been talked about?

The 10% but what happens when they tender the other 90%, there won't be a DB or BE to stay with or pay redundancy to anyone.

pmasterson95

cdebru wrote: »

Yeah no buses we will all drive thats the solution.

But what'll you bitch about you want a multi year contract after all.

pmasterson95

cdebru wrote: »

The 10% but what happens when they tender the other 90%, there won't be a DB or BE to stay with or pay redundancy to anyone.

Theres a thought no more bull**** when theres competition.

Infini

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its a choice become unemployed or accept a lower wage. However for driver their greed obviously means a paycut is totally unacceptable and leave ye destitue and impoverished so a good auld bitch until ye get what ye want and **** everyone else is what ye do.

How about neither. Its not greed to fight to maintain your conditions expecially when things are meant to be on the up. Strikes are a last resort in any dispute and in this case its the government side who instigated it.

end of the road

squonk wrote: »

It's time we put some politicians in the Dáil with the fortitude to deal with these unions once and for all.

try and something else will replace them. thatcher tried and failed, there is still unions, and still strikes in britain.

squonk wrote: »

They've outlived their usefulness.

no, they haven't and never will. oh, of course i forgot all employers are perfect now because we have employment law which is always stuck to. right so. unions will always be needed.

squonk wrote: »

Whoever had the bright idea to call a strike at a time when an innocent third partyin the form of commuters is adversly affected

well no other time to have it. its an incentive to sort things out before the strike happens

squonk wrote: »

deserves a good long stint on the dole queue to allow them to revise their perspctives.

i agree. they will still get all right money and won't have to lift a finger while you will have to go to work. doesn't sound to bad actually. if i was in their situation and what you suggest happened i wouldn't be changing my opinion, i'd be more determined to fight in the next job.

cdebru

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Theres a thought no more bull**** when theres competition.

hasn't worked in the UK has it ?

pmasterson95

Infini2 wrote: »

How about neither. Its not greed to fight to maintain your conditions expecially when things are meant to be on the up. Strikes are a last resort in any dispute and in this case its the government side who instigated it.

Of course it was sure ya can see here the drivers were so acceptable and not in the least stubborn *****.