Luas strike general thread (mandatory: read warning in post #1)

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

all ready answered. its called "go high negotiate down" very obvious stuff.

That's an opinion. You shot other posters down that based their opinion on facts known. You are the talk of parts of Boards for your groundless dismission of facts.

lawlolawl

Damn these semi-state arseholes for holding the country to ranso.................oh, a private public transport companies staff are striking?

Uh, um, damn CIE somehow! How dare public transport workers think they should be paid a decent wage!

Enjoy the fruits of paying people with 45+ hour a week rosters doing a ridiculously responsible job for just over the national average wage. They are "over-paid" according to most people and yet you wouldn't do their job or work their hours in a million years.

There are people in this country being paid much more to do silly pointless jobs because we have moved away from paying useful people properly to do actual jobs for the betterment of society.

I hope this strike goes on for as long as it takes for the drivers to get what they want and more.

monument

lawlolawl wrote: »

Damn these semi-state arseholes for holding the country to ranso.................oh, a private public transport companies staff are striking?

Uh, um, damn CIE somehow! How dare public transport workers think they should be paid a decent wage!

Enjoy the fruits of paying people with 45+ hour a week rosters doing a ridiculously responsible job for just over the national average wage. They are "over-paid" according to most people and yet you wouldn't do their job or work their hours in a million years.

There are people in this country being paid much more to do silly pointless jobs because we have moved away from paying useful people properly to do actual jobs for the betterment of society.

I hope this strike goes on for as long as it takes for the drivers to get what they want and more.

Again: less after hours type posting.

Would not normally warn such a post but it is bordering on troll-like and is a pattern given second after hours -like post in short time frame.

-- moderator

markpb

syklops wrote:

Try living somewhere served by one very unreliable bus. The strike becomes a very big deal then.

The idea that Dublin Bus can provide a useful alternative to Luas is downright laughable. Some areas will have good bus routes but I suspect those routes are good because they're already busy. Others have a pitiful service. Sandyford, for example, is goosed when Luas isn't running.

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

The idea that Dublin Bus can provide a useful alternative to Luas is downright laughable. Some areas will have good bus routes but I suspect those routes are good because they're already busy. Others have a pitiful service. Sandyford, for example, is goosed when Luas isn't running.

You are quite right that the idea that DB can suddenly carry all these extra passengers is farcical, as frequency was cut on many routes around the LUAS to reflect the revised demand levels for the bus service.

But, I'm not sure "pitiful" is the right term to describe the service - they have an appropriate bus service for the normal demand levels.

I don't think for example that the 44 requires more than an hourly service normally, do you?

trellheim

Lot of very angry service users in here; face it folks If I went into the boss and asked for 50% extra ( without a jokey smile, you know, serious, like ) you'd be having a very different discussion to the one you thought you were having.

most people have to fight like dogs for a couple of points above CPI - anyone looking for 50%+ is not in the correct place for a discussion

Murph_D

Oops - posted most of this in the wrong thread (After Hours) :roll eyes:
______

I'd imagine the goal is to grow the service and identify efficiencies to make it profitable over the lifetime of the contract.

The workers want to sit on their arse like their CIE brethren and get raises just for existing.

They are complaining that they won't be able to lobby for increased pay over inflation (CPI tracking), which is ridiculous, if every worker got pay increased over inflation, inflation would go up to match, they're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Any inefficiencies Transdev would be identifying would be their own, as AFAIK they have run the service since the beginning (when they were called Veolia).

I don't see what you mean about workers sitting on their arses - this dispute seems to be about pay, not about working hours (unless you expect the drivers to work standing up?). A Luas driver starts on 35,901 for a 39 hour contracted week (the average worked is less, not sure if this means they get less than that).

I take your point about CPI wage increases and inflation. It's all about getting to the table first, though. I agree that going to bat with a headline figure of a 53.8% increase isn't going to win the drivers many friends and it gives the company and the media something to hit the drivers and their union over the head with.

However Transdev is making a lot of this 700k figure so I'd like to know where it comes from. The Luas is actually operated by a subsidiary of Transdev Ireland called Transdev Dublin Light Rail Ltd., and that company's account excerpts as filed with the CRO (latest year available 2014) show that it's been consistently profitable:

|2014|2013|2012| 2011|2010|2009|2008
Turnover|38.0m|47.7m|44.7m|41.4m|36.1m|35.3m|38.5m
Profit (loss) before tax|£678k|£1.1m|£1.1m|£1.6m|£1.6m|£2.1m|£2.1m
All figures in sterling, source FAME company database.

Transdev Ireland doesn’t publish its turnover but over the same period it’s generally managed to turn these profits into losses or smaller profits:
|2014|2013|2012| 2011|2010|2009|2008
Turnover|?|?|?|?|?|?|?
Profit (loss) before tax|-£1.6m|£3.9m|£108k|-£977km|-£11.4m|£2.4m|-£1.1m
All figures in sterling, source FAME company database.

Now there are all kind of potential explanations for why profits in a subsidiary can be accompanied by losses in the parent, such as financing, transfer pricing, licensing, etc., but it's hardly transparent where the company's 700,000 loss is coming from.

Maybe someone knows and can shed some light based on verifiable facts, rather than speculation?

trellheim

It's all about getting to the table first, though.

Is it, though ? Getting to the table with what ? How is that a sensible/sane negotiation strategy . Is that in the big book of "Acceptable Transdev Negotiation Strategies ? ( Or, 'What Worked Last Time' ) "

Grandeeod

kildarecommuter wrote: »

You obviously know very little about how unions work, the members decide what they want tell their officials who may advise them that it may or may not be achievable but if members insist on going forward it's their call, they are the ones taking industrial action

Don't insult me. I know exactly how unions work. Your description is like a wiki version.

kildarecommuter

Grandeeod wrote: »

Don't insult me. I know exactly how unions work. Your description is like a wiki version.

I kept it simple for you!

syklops

markpb wrote: »

The idea that Dublin Bus can provide a useful alternative to Luas is downright laughable. Some areas will have good bus routes but I suspect those routes are good because they're already busy. Others have a pitiful service. Sandyford, for example, is goosed when Luas isn't running.

I know. I live in Cherrywood. Im dreading Thursday.

LXFlyer

syklops wrote: »

I know. I live in Cherrywood. Im dreading Thursday.

Surely the 145 is a reasonable option for you?

With respect, compared to most other locations along the LUAS route you do have a reasonable bus service there, plus you're at the outer end of the tram route.

If going to town, you have the 7, 145 and the option of combining the 84 and 4, 7, 8 or DART at Blackrock.

Bear in mind also that for most schools this week is half-term.

syklops

lxflyer wrote: »

Surely the 145 is a reasonable option for you?

With respect, compared to most other locations along the LUAS route you do have a reasonable bus service there, plus you're at the outer end of the tram route.

If going to town, you have the 7, 145 and the option of combining the 84 and 4, 7, 8 or DART at Blackrock.

Bear in mind also that for most schools this week is half-term.

No offence but what has me being on the outer end of the tram line got to do with anything?

I have never had a good experience with the 7 after living here for 2 years. Someone told me about the 145 a couple days ago so i will be aiming to get that one. If bus service in Cherrywood is reasonable then god help other areas with worse service.

To be fair, it doesn't need to be fantastic, because it has the Luas, but when the Luas isnt running, its pretty poor.

LXFlyer

syklops wrote: »

No offence but what has me being on the outer end of the tram line got to do with anything?

I have never had a good experience with the 7 after living here for 2 years. Someone told me about the 145 a couple days ago so i will be aiming to get that one. If bus service in Cherrywood is reasonable then god help other areas with worse service.

To be fair, it doesn't need to be fantastic, because it has the Luas, but when the Luas isnt running, its pretty poor.

Being at the outer end of the LUAS line means that the loadings would be much lighter than further in - that's more chance of getting on a bus.

How could you not know about the 145? It goes every 10 minutes all day long and is a 10 minute walk away from Cherrywood LUAS on the N11. It can actually be faster than the LUAS as certain times.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Your-Journey1/Timetables/All-Timetables/145-/

That's a far better bus service than most locations further in along the line which have much more curtailed schedules.

syklops

lxflyer wrote: »

How could you not know about the 145? It goes every 10 minutes all day long and is a 10 minute walk away from Cherrywood LUAS on the N11. It can actually be faster than the LUAS as certain times.

.

I am bearing in mind that you and I have locked horns on how good or not Dublin Bus is before.

How did I not know about the 145? Well for starters I rarely needed to go looking. I could stand at a bus stop and the bus might come, or I can use the Luas which goes every 10 minutes and is usually reliable.

Finding information on the DB website is a pain in the hole, unless you know what information you are looking for. Unless you know the route number or the stop number, finding useful information is very difficult.

However, I know you won't agree to any of my points, so lets just leave it there.

LXFlyer

syklops wrote: »

I am bearing in mind that you and I have locked horns on how good or not Dublin Bus is before.

How did I not know about the 145? Well for starters I rarely needed to go looking. I could stand at a bus stop and the bus might come, or I can use the Luas which goes every 10 minutes and is usually reliable.

Finding information on the DB website is a pain in the hole, unless you know what information you are looking for. Unless you know the route number or the stop number, finding useful information is very difficult.

However, I know you won't agree to any of my points, so lets just leave it there.

I'm just genuinely somewhat surprised that you never noticed such a frequent bus, that's all, if you went out for a walk for example, having lived there for 2 years.

Most other stops along the route have bus routes that are either every 30 or 60 minutes (11, 44, 47, 61, 63). They don't have a bus that operates every 10 minutes nearby.

And with respect I'm not attacking you, so please don't start getting aggressive with me.

I actually tried to help - I have given you three different bus options above.

I'd also suggest downloading the National Journey Planner app - it's very user friendly and helpful if you don't know your bus routes.

BOHSBOHS

Murph_D you are leaving out taxation and dividends??
These bring the company into "retained losses" territory every year


operating profits are falling every year and with the new 5year contract reportedly with tighter margins this might be the source of the "700k" loss ?(after tax and divis of course :P)

Carawaystick

If you are going to allow a company give their money away to people* and then claim it's loss making, we are going to have to disagree on profit and loss.

* because that's what dividends are.

BOHSBOHS

im not , im suggesting that might be where the company is coming up with their 700k loss figure?
the tax part of it aint optional.

granting even a small % wages increase would probably still completely wipe out any profits.

Halpenny

There should be certain days that are off limits for striking when it comes to public transport; St. Patrick's day is such an important day economically for this country and to think Luas workers are going to strike on that day I think is cynical :eek: Can you imagine all the tourists with their leprechaun hats coming here to be told sorry we've no trams running! Luas workers are entitled to strike but I'd say they'll get very little support from the average person the way things are going. I know the whole point of striking is to put pressure on employers to compromise and reach an agreement but there's more involved in the dispute than just the Luas workers; SMA say the city could lose €50 million in revenue!


Anyhow - has anyone got a spare pallet lying about? Could really do with one for tomorrow and Friday. This fella below had a genius idea ...

trellheim

why would the tourists care so much ? except for Smithfield and the HopStore it doesnt affect them so much as Genpop

Cookie_Monster

Carawaystick wrote: »

If you are going to allow a company give their money away to people* and then claim it's loss making, we are going to have to disagree on profit and loss.

* because that's what dividends are.

that's not what dividends are. they are a form of return on your investment into the company, not just throwing money at "people". similar concept to paying interest on debt at the end of the day but just treated differently.

If it was debt instead you could hardly decide not to pay the interest owing and claim you made on a profit on that basis.

KD345

I know the importance of St. Patrick's Day, but Luas actually run a Sunday service on that day. Trams operate at a reduced frequency compared to a normal Thursday. In the case of the Red Line, a large chunk of the route has no service at all for a period of St. Patrick's Day. Both lines don't start until 7am and the last tram is at 11.30.

You could argue the drivers are actually choosing a less disruptive day to withdraw service.

cdebru

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

Murph_D you are leaving out taxation and dividends??
These bring the company into "retained losses" territory every year


operating profits are falling every year and with the new 5year contract reportedly with tighter margins this might be the source of the "700k" loss ?(after tax and divis of course :P)

It's the weakness of the tendering model, it restricts the operator from reacting to changes in the economy, 1or 2 % wage increases may have seemed reasonable when transdev were bidding but are unrealistic now, also to win contracts operators have to cost in minimal wage increases to ensure winning the contract, and then are unable to meet pay demands irrespective of economic conditions, that leads us to the current impasse back to the drawing board on tendering we have discovered what others discovered years ago it has a huge weakness, maybe the NTA can top up wages ala TFL style.

Peppa Pig

KD345 wrote: »

I know the importance of St. Patrick's Day, but Luas actually run a Sunday service on that day. Trams operate at a reduced frequency compared to a normal Thursday. In the case of the Red Line, a large chunk of the route has no service at all for a period of St. Patrick's Day. Both lines don't start until 7am and the last tram is at 11.30.

You could argue the drivers are actually choosing a less disruptive day to withdraw service.

Like Irish rail did when they targetted the All Ireland final Sundays?
A huge amount of people would use the luas to get to the parade on Paddy's day.

This is not SIPTU growing a conscience - it's the exact opposite.

LXFlyer

KD345 wrote: »

I know the importance of St. Patrick's Day, but Luas actually run a Sunday service on that day. Trams operate at a reduced frequency compared to a normal Thursday. In the case of the Red Line, a large chunk of the route has no service at all for a period of St. Patrick's Day. Both lines don't start until 7am and the last tram is at 11.30.

You could argue the drivers are actually choosing a less disruptive day to withdraw service.

To be fair the service is an amended one on St Patrick's Day and not a normal Sunday service. It's effectively a weekday service during the day with all of the extra trams that operate.


You are right to say that there isn't a normal morning/evening peak, but there is an intensive service from mid-morning to late afternoon to cope with the extra demand travelling to/from the city centre.


So it will have a major impact in terms of getting people in and out of the city on that day on those corridors.

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

It's the weakness of the tendering model, it restricts the operator from reacting to changes in the economy, 1or 2 % wage increases may have seemed reasonable when transdev were bidding but are unrealistic now, also to win contracts operators have to cost in minimal wage increases to ensure winning the contract, and then are unable to meet pay demands irrespective of economic conditions, that leads us to the current impasse back to the drawing board on tendering we have discovered what others discovered years ago it has a huge weakness, maybe the NTA can top up wages ala TFL style.

Is that what is so good about the tendering model and why it should be replicated over the entire transport Network.. Service providers have to provide a cost efficient and that means wages. That means staff have to be able to justify any increases either via productivity or general inflation increases.

Staff and unions can't just demand pay increases for the craic. The fact that the company can go bust or lose subsequent tenders means they won't roll over to union blackmail.

Unions were/are set up to protect vunerable workers. LUAS workers are anything but vunerable in the grand scheme of things.

cdebru

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that what is so good about the tendering model and why it should be replicated over the entire transport Network.. Service providers have to provide a cost efficient and that means wages. That means staff have to be able to justify any increases either via productivity or general inflation increases.

Staff and unions can't just demand pay increases for the craic. The fact that the company can go bust or lose subsequent tenders means they won't roll over to union blackmail.

Unions were/are set up to protect vunerable workers. LUAS workers are anything but vunerable in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah its working really well at the moment, and what happens when wages fall behind the rest of the economy and you can't attract workers ? That was the situation faces by TFL and they had to subsidise wages, a similar situation occurred in DB in the late 90s, when they couldn't attract or retain employees, and they had to fairly dramatically increase wages, you can't do that when you are tied into fixed price contracts and you end up where we are with the luas, billions spent on it and its not running over a couple of million euro.

Also just to add the company may well lose the contract because they have failed to meet targets because of lost days, the workers will not lose their jobs however they will transfer to the new operator, the straight jacket of fixed price contracts is clearly not the panacea to the ills of public transport some were hoping for.

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

Yeah its working really well at the moment, and what happens when wages fall behind the rest of the economy and you can't attract workers ? That was the situation faces by TFL and they had to subsidise wages, a similar situation occurred in DB in the late 90s, when they couldn't attract or retain employees, and they had to fairly dramatically increase wages, you can't do that when you are tied into fixed price contracts and you end up where we are with the luas, billions spent on it and its not running over a couple of million euro.

Also just to add the company may well lose the contract because they have failed to meet targets because of lost days, the workers will not lose their jobs however they will transfer to the new operator, the straight jacket of fixed price contracts is clearly not the panacea to the ills of public transport some were hoping for.

Wages are automatically factored in in the tendering process. A company will tender for the amount where they feel they can make a profit. They'll factor in wages in the tendering process. If they feel they need to increase wages to attract qualified staff they'll raise it then. If they feel they can get the same work done for less they'll also factor that it.

I don't think there'd be a lack of job applications if the jobs were put out for application tomorrow.

A couple of million euro would go along way in helping all the homeless people, help out the health service etc. Luas drivers are extremely well paid for the work they do at their current salary never mind what they're asking for. I'd have no problem with giving subsidies for public transport but every penny should be justified as its taking resources away from other area's.

Murph_D

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

Murph_D you are leaving out taxation and dividends??
These bring the company into "retained losses" territory every year


operating profits are falling every year and with the new 5year contract reportedly with tighter margins this might be the source of the "700k" loss ?(after tax and divis of course :P)

I'm not leaving out anything - just taking the figures published in the account excerpts as Profits (before tax). Tax is a percentage of profits, so can't turn profit into loss. I don't know if dividends, interest, amortisation etc have been factored in - that's the problem with account excerpts, they don't tell you very much.

All I'm doing is questioning the 700k loss the company is claiming. No one seems to have seen the numbers that produce this -700,000 figure. What if Transdev Ireland is paying a huge "royalty" to its French parent? Or paying exorbitant interest on an inter-company loan? Or paying unjustifiably large dividends to its shareholders (the French government, from what I can make out). Not saying they are - it's just that we can't be sure that they are not.

It's one aspect of the story, that's all. The company brought it up. Everyone is hammering the drivers for the 53% figure, so in the interests of balance it would be nice to know how this loss was arrived at, considering we KNOW the underlying business is profitable from its own published accounts.

Idbatterim

the only question that is important to me, is their current pay reasonable & are their pay claims reasonable. With the increases they are looking for and if there are going to be continued strikes and they are polls apart and the company knows its bottom line. They should simply shut the entire thing, that will force the issue pretty quickly... either reach a quick agreement or let them start looking for other jobs...

Murph_D

So the suggestion is a lockout. For the year that's in it, like?

Peppa Pig

Murph_D wrote: »

So the suggestion is a lockout. For the year that's in it, like?

The 103rd anniversary of the lockout

Mind you if Larkin and Connolly were around now would they be claiming that Transdev are exploiting the workers? Doubt it.

In 1913 we had tram drivers going on strike preventing the well to do from getting to the horse show. Over a hundred years later we have tram drivers threatening to stop ordinary workers and their families from getting to the Paddy's day parade.

As Dougal would say, its mad Ted.

syklops

Idbatterim wrote: »

the only question that is important to me, is their current pay reasonable & are their pay claims reasonable. With the increases they are looking for and if there are going to be continued strikes and they are polls apart and the company knows its bottom line. They should simply shut the entire thing, that will force the issue pretty quickly... either reach a quick agreement or let them start looking for other jobs...

As I understand it they went to TransDev management wanting X more. TransDev basically laughed and said No. So they went on strike.

60k and 27 days holidays is the sort of package a senior software engineer gets. A role which requires serious technical knowledge and years of experience. Should someone who can sit a 6 week course be entitled to the same amount? No, I don't think so.

Vic_08

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that what is so good about the tendering model and why it should be replicated over the entire transport Network.. Service providers have to provide a cost efficient and that means wages. That means staff have to be able to justify any increases either via productivity or general inflation increases.

Tendering is just outsourcing or subcontracting by another name, it is a very good way of insulating the real bosses (in this case the NTA) from the messy business of dealing with unpleasant staff issues.

The problem with using this model for rail transport is that it relies on the contractor being able to force pay and conditions on staff to keep costs down and profits up, a strategy that doesn't work well in a specialised industry with low staff turnover and strong unionisation.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Staff and unions can't just demand pay increases for the craic. The fact that the company can go bust or lose subsequent tenders means they won't roll over to union blackmail.

They can always just shut up shop and hand the keys back to the NTA as other operators have done when the financial situation has become unfavourable for them, if their business is not set up to allow them to do this and still come out of the venture in overall profit then their lawyers and accountants are not worth a crap.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Unions were/are set up to protect vunerable workers. LUAS workers are anything but vunerable in the grand scheme of things.

Unions were set up to represent their members, if you want someone to act as social justice warriors then the general election is on next week, I suggest you cast your vote accordingly.

The Luas drivers pay their dues to SIPTU and are perfectly entitled to have them represent their wishes however they decide.

Vic_08

syklops wrote: »

60k and 27 days holidays is the sort of package a senior software engineer gets. A role which requires serious technical knowledge and years of experience. Should someone who can sit a 6 week course be entitled to the same amount? No, I don't think so.

Ireland is not a meritocracy, get over it. I am sick to death of graduates and IT types bemoaning the unfairness of their (taxpayer funded) degrees not allowing them to walk in to the high paying, high status job they believe they are entitled to.

If a tram driver can get the same as a senior software engineer then those are the breaks, those tram driving jobs were open to Mr software engineer to apply for as well.

Life isn't fair and pay rates for jobs are certainly not.

Is it fair that someone with an IQ in the 80s can earn 100 times that of a junior doctor saving lives in a A+E department just because he can kick a ball around a field?

Is it fair that scumbags that don't contribute a thing to society get to live entire lives paid for by others?

Is it fair that the bank chiefs and stock market gamblers get to live it up in their mansions while the rest of the world paid for their actions?

Why should a tram driver or any other worker have to morally justify their pay rate to your or anyone else's satisfaction? If they are in a position to force a better wage out of their employer then fair fukks to them because it is only exactly whay you or anyone else here would do in the same situation.

Everyone in Ireland loves a cute hoor until their day is inconvenienced when they are suddenly the worst thing since aul Mr. Brennans.

In the league table of people in Ireland who have gotten something they are undeserving of a tram driver on 60k wouldn't even register on the chart.

*Just for the record, my opinion of the merit of their demand for equality with heavy rail drivers is that there is none. The jobs are worlds apart in terms of training, ability and competencies required.

Frankly if I was an IE driver and the LUAS boyos got their 60k I would be immediately demanding at least 100k to reflect my rightful place above them, I would also recommend all you overworked senior software engineers do the same, cant be earning the same as a damn tram driver after all.

Cookie_Monster

Vic_08 wrote: »

They can always just shut up shop and hand the keys back to the NTA as other operators have done when the financial situation has become unfavourable for them, if their business is not set up to allow them to do this and still come out of the venture in overall profit then their lawyers and accountants are not worth a crap.

doesn't solve the issue though because of the ridiculous TUPE rules. the current staff would have to be taken on by the new operator and the same mess would re-occur.

PeadarCo

Vic_08 wrote:

The problem with using this model for rail transport is that it relies on the contractor being able to force pay and conditions on staff to keep costs down and profits up, a strategy that doesn't work well in a specialised industry with low staff turnover and strong unionisation.

To be honest if you wanted to make an argument to ban unions you couldn't have done it better. The role of tendering is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Surely Ryanair as Ireland's most successful transport company shows that if you want good quality transport at a reasonable cost don't deal with unions.

It should also be pointed out that any job that only requires 6-10 weeks training can't be called specialised. Maybe if it took a year or two yes. I'd say the reason for the low staff turnover is the relative ease of the job and lack of options outside it.

What Luas drivers have to understand the luas is run for the benefit of the public and not them.

kildarecommuter

WRC inviting both sides in next week...

n97 mini

PeadarCo wrote: »

What Luas drivers have to understand the luas is run for the benefit of the public and not them.

I think Luas drivers generally start out believing that, but then the union types start working on them.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

doesn't solve the issue though because of the ridiculous TUPE rules. the current staff would have to be taken on by the new operator and the same mess would re-occur.

Outsourcing requires tupe just to maintain services, if every 5 years all the luas employees lost their job along with the contractor losing the contract, or had to apply for their position on new terms and pay rates you would at a minimum have a disruption in service, as well as making any employment with luas undesirable to say the least.

cdebru

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be honest if you wanted to make an argument to ban unions you couldn't have done it better. The role of tendering is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. Surely Ryanair as Ireland's most successful transport company shows that if you want good quality transport at a reasonable cost don't deal with unions.

It should also be pointed out that any job that only requires 6-10 weeks training can't be called specialised. Maybe if it took a year or two yes. I'd say the reason for the low staff turnover is the relative ease of the job and lack of options outside it.

What Luas drivers have to understand the luas is run for the benefit of the public and not them.

And realistically that is not going to happen, so how do you deal with the reality, rather than the way you want it to be.
Comparisons to Ryanair don't translate to LUAS, Ryanair is not the sole operator of a state funded piece of very expensive infrastructure. It's not possible to ban unions, an employer can refuse to deal with them but that won't necessarily make them go away especially when they are already established.

Luas is run for the benefit of the public, but that does not mean employees cannot look to improve their conditions of employment, and to withdraw their labour when met with a brickwall, run for the public does not mean employees have to accept any old sh1t.

howiya

cdebru wrote: »

And realistically that is not going to happen, so how do you deal with the reality, rather than the way you want it to be.
Comparisons to Ryanair don't translate to LUAS, Ryanair is not the sole operator of a state funded piece of very expensive infrastructure. It's not possible to ban unions, an employer can refuse to deal with them but that won't necessarily make them go away especially when they are already established.

Luas is run for the benefit of the public, but that does not mean employees cannot look to improve their conditions of employment, and to withdraw their labour when met with a brickwall, run for the public does not mean employees have to accept any old sh1t.

While I agree with the rights of workers to withdraw their labour, there's a world of difference between accepting any old sh1t and the current conditions of Luas staff.

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

Luas is run for the benefit of the public, but that does not mean employees cannot look to improve their conditions of employment, and to withdraw their labour when met with a brickwall, run for the public does not mean employees have to accept any old sh1t.

Heres the think I don't have an issue with unions in general and consider them to be a very valuable ally for genuinely vulnerable workers. LUAS workers are incredibly well paid for what they do.

Its the attitude espoused by you that a union/strike can never be wrong endangers the rights livelyhood of vulnerable workers. They've provided companies a very effective argument to not recognise them.

Also anybody who thinks you can't get rid of unions hasn't made attention to developments in the private sector over the last 20/30 years.

PeadarCo

cdebru wrote: »

Outsourcing requires tupe just to maintain services, if every 5 years all the luas employees lost their job along with the contractor losing the contract, or had to apply for their position on new terms and pay rates you would at a minimum have a disruption in service, as well as making any employment with luas undesirable to say the least.

There are plenty of unemployed people who would gladly take the jobs on offer. As for only having a job for 5 years, well welcome to the real world. At the end of the day if it deliver the best value for the taxpayer its what should be done.

Providing workers pay is reasonable(Which the LUAS pay by any objective measure is) any pay increases out of line with inflation should only be done if they will result in an improvement in service for the customer.

Murph_D

PeadarCo wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that any job that only requires 6-10 weeks training can't be called specialised. Maybe if it took a year or two yes. I'd say the reason for the low staff turnover is the relative ease of the job and lack of options outside it.

Where did you get the 6-10 weeks figure from? The published salary scales mention two induction periods (A and of 26 weeks each. I'd consider this a training period. Not sure how this works but if drivers have to pass through both scales there's your "year or two".

PeadarCo

Murph_D wrote: »

Where did you get the 6-10 weeks figure from? The published salary scales mention two induction periods (A and of 26 weeks each. I'd consider this a training period. Not sure how this works but if drivers have to pass through both scales there's your "year or two".

Other boards users so I'm open to correction.

TheExile1878

SIPTU was founded (in part) by the great James Connolly.

I'm sure if he heard the workers wanted a 53% pay rise and we're striking, he'd spin in his grave.

They're greedy gob****es and should be given a bloody good smack!

n97 mini

Saw this on twitter. Interesting read.

Whiskeyjack

Vic_08 wrote: »

Why should a tram driver or any other worker have to morally justify their pay rate to your or anyone else's satisfaction? If they are in a position to force a better wage out of their employer then fair fukks to them because it is only exactly whay you or anyone else here would do in the same situation.

Because like it or not Luas drivers are public servants, maybe not technically because it's a private company (Ireland's great for that magical happy fantasy land where a company can have all the unaccountability of the Private sector with the security and monopoly of the public sector), but thousands of people in Dublin are dependent on them because they have no competitors to turn to when they strike.

Software developers striking means that some other company that pays their employees fairly steps in, people in retail striking means I just go to another shop. Luas/Bus/Rail strikes affect everyone significantly and they better have a damn good reason for doing so, just "forcing a better wage" isn't good enough when you're already on a pretty generous package.