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

cdebru

BarryD wrote: »

Ah come on, they're currently working a 35.5 week and they claim they're tired??

Try being self employed, work 60 hr weeks with NO guarantee of work or payment or pension or free health care or .................

Are you driving a tram ? You would have to raise that with Pascal Donohue I just pointes to him saying it wasn't safe in 2009 but he has no problem with it now ? Is safety being compromised in the interest of profit ?

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

I always found it interesting that many unions relate many disputes to "Pay and Safety" issues, but when they get the pay aspect of their concerns, they suddenly go very quiet about the "safety" aspect they are also claiming to be striking about.

It's the same as a few years ago a lot of Hospital ED consultants said they couldn't have longer working weeks since it will cause them excess fatigue. The same consultants later signed up for extra hours working for private hospitals A&E's such as the Blackrock Clinic.

Afaik luas drivers campaigned for years that their shifts were too long and they were reduced in line with a safety report that Pascal Donohue endorsed and now they want to roll back on that, is it not reasonable to ask why Pascal didn't think it was safe when he was in opposition but now has no issue with longer shifts ?

foggy_lad

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What has this to do with pay rates for the job of driving a tram?

This is due to conditions,and 2009 is a long way from now.

If conditions are a problem, sort out the conditions.

Cannot understand why this 7 year old 'issue' suddenly becomes relevant now!

The union have lost all credibility in the industry and with the citizens of the state so this grasping at straws no matter how old and decomposed they are will become common.

The strike seems to have been a great success with the public, who went about their business as usual and got along very well without these leeches.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

Afaik luas drivers campaigned for years that their shifts were too long and they were reduced in line with a safety report that Pascal Donohue endorsed and now they want to roll back on that, is it not reasonable to ask why Pascal didn't think it was safe when he was in opposition but now has no issue with longer shifts ?

Lint to that report??

devnull

It's a lot easier to be in opposition that is in power.

Some parties in this state know that very well.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

The Agenda is to kill any possible tendering of transport services in the future.

Or to put it another way:
The Agenda is to make sure that the staff continue to have their interests above the public.

your second sentence is not another way of stating the first sentence. your first sentence may be accurate but neither of us know.

devnull wrote: »

I always found it interesting that many unions relate many disputes to "Pay and Safety" issues, but when they get the pay aspect of their concerns, they suddenly go very quiet about the "safety" aspect they are also claiming to be striking about.

maybe because they are dealt with and sorted out during the talks?

devnull wrote: »

It's the same as a few years ago a lot of Hospital ED consultants said they couldn't have longer working weeks since it will cause them excess fatigue. The same consultants later signed up for extra hours working for private hospitals A&E's such as the Blackrock Clinic.

that doesn't make any potential safety concerns in general by the unions less valid, or invalid though.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

It's a lot easier to be in opposition that is in power.

Some parties in this state know that very well.

So are you saying the minister for transport was less than honest when he accepted and endorsed this safety report ?

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

So are you saying the minister for transport was less than honest when he accepted and endorsed this safety report ?

Have you a link to that report?

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

Are you driving a tram ? You would have to raise that with Pascal Donohue I just pointes to him saying it wasn't safe in 2009 but he has no problem with it now ? Is safety being compromised in the interest of profit ?

While we accept that it is interesting to note that things have changed since.

cdebru wrote: »

Afaik luas drivers campaigned for years that their shifts were too long and they were reduced in line with a safety report that Pascal Donohue endorsed and now they want to roll back on that, is it not reasonable to ask why Pascal didn't think it was safe when he was in opposition but now has no issue with longer shifts ?

end of the road wrote: »

your second sentence is not another way of stating the first sentence. your first sentence may be accurate but neither of us know.



maybe because they are dealt with and sorted out during the talks?



that doesn't make any potential safety concerns in general by the unions less valid, or invalid though.

While we accept all of the above it is interesting to note that things have changed since. Drivers and there unions find it safe to drive a few hours onto there shifts at the OT rate. So what is the difference between that and driving the couple of extra hours they are already being paid for.I think this is the real reason that the ballot was not passed. It had little to do with new rates pay for new drivers.

I imagine that this is because that most new drivers will come from revenue protection officers or supervisors and these will transfer across at there present pay rates. No the real issue is being asked to work the hours they are contracted for.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Lint to that report??

I don't have one you could perhaps contact Pascal Donohue about a copy of it he said this at the time, so presumably he had seen it.

Fine Gael Seanad transport spokesman Paschal Donohoe said he was "very concerned" at the report. He said: "We need to ensure that the Luas is as safe as possible, and that actions are being taken by staff and management to ensure passenger safety."

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

While we accept that it is interesting to note that things have changed since.





While we accept all of the above it is interesting to note that things have changed since. Drivers and there unions find it safe to drive a few hours onto there shifts at the OT rate. So what is the difference between that and driving the couple of extra hours they are already being paid for.I think this is the real reason that the ballot was not passed. It had little to do with new rates pay for new drivers.

I imagine that this is because that most new drivers will come from revenue protection officers or supervisors and these will transfer across at there present pay rates. No the real issue is being asked to work the hours they are contracted for.

Do they ? How do we know this ? Do they work straight through on overtime or would they have a break before starting overtime ?

I think it wasn't passed for numerous reasons one because they would be working time, that was unpaid for, so as such there is no increase in pay.

2 it would be disingenuous to look for a reduced shift on safety grounds and then work a longer one for extra money.

3 the significant cuts to new entrants and the unfairness of newer people basically paying for more senior employees to have a raise.


I'm sure there are other reasons as well though

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What has this to do with pay rates for the job of driving a tram?

This is due to conditions,and 2009 is a long way from now.

If conditions are a problem, sort out the conditions.

Cannot understand why this 7 year old 'issue' suddenly becomes relevant now!

I don't know how you can't understand it, apparently an independent report accepted and endorsed by our minister for transport recommended reducing the maximum shift, which happened sometime around 2010, the company as part of the WRC proposals wants to row back on that in return for a minor pay increase.

Has there been another independent review that contradicts the original one or what has changed in those 7 years ?

foggy_lad

So while other workers have a cuppa and walk or 40winks the Luas staff are able to stave off tiredness with the magical time and a half rate!

cdebru

Bass Reeves wrote: »

it.


You cannot equate overtime with normal pay rates



No they are not paid for 35.44 hours/week they are contracted for a 39 hour week. However because of the limit on there shifts at present they only work 35.44. So it is safe to work an extra 1-2 hours OT on a shift but it is unsafe to work it if it is rostered. So in reality the WRC have up held Transdev right to get them to work there contracted hours.

Not equating overtime with normal pay, I'm giving the actual cost of the extra hours, and what the company would have to pay those staff for those hours and what they are offering is significantly less than that.

I'm not saying they would work them or not, it's possible to work those hours in the form of working a day off every 3 or 4 weeks and the employees would be significantly better of by doing so for example, but if they accepted the WRC they would have no choice but to work them with out being paid appropriately for them, if you asked for a raise and your employer offered you 2% but you had to increase your hours by 7% would that seem like a good deal or a bad deal to you ?

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

So while other workers have a cuppa and walk or 40winks the Luas staff are able to stave off tiredness with the magical time and a half rate!

Who said that ?

cson

cdebru wrote: »

Is I'm all for workers rights but, the equivalent of I'm not a racist but, IE you're really not all for workers rights, because anyone who bothered to look at this beyong the spin headlines wouldn't be so down on the luas employees.

Do you think their demands are fair? Yes or No question.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

I don't know how you can't understand it, apparently an independent report accepted and endorsed by our minister for transport recommended reducing the maximum shift, which happened sometime around 2010, the company as part of the WRC proposals wants to row back on that in return for a minor pay increase.

Has there been another independent review that contradicts the original one or what has changed in those 7 years ?

What I can't understand is that you can't work 39x hours on normal pay, but you can if some is overtime.

That's if I have understood it correctly.

I quite sure a lot has changed between 2007 and now

cdebru

cson wrote: »

Do you think their demands are fair? Yes or No question.

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

Did they take any strike action before this 'opening gambit' was revised downwards? (Industrial action and/or work-to-rule?)

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

So they were playing games and wasting the time of all concerned because they wanted to get into the papers with their ridiculous pay claims?

Here is a newspaper article from the herald from 2009 about their hours when they worked 40 hours a week but that went to between 35 and 45, also there was an issue over the amount of driving between breaks being 4 hours 15 minutes but the company reduced this to 3 hours 45 as this was industry best practice at the time!

http://www.herald.ie/news/luas-probe-raises-tired-drivers-fear-over-shifts-27929830.html

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What I can't understand is that you can't work 39x hours on normal pay, but you can if some is overtime.

That's if I have understood it correctly.

I quite sure a lot has changed between 2007 and now

I can, because overtime can be done on one of an employees days off, or after a break period from a normal shift, that is not true of an extended shift period.
In public transport overtime can sometimes be forced on an employee, due to accidents, incidents or heavy traffic or mechanical failure, you wouldn't expect a tram driver to jump off a tram because his time was up half way out to sandyford would you ?
Besides that you miss the point if the WRC proposal was accepted then their shifts would be longer, no choice wereas currently they have a choice and they could make the money offered by transdev with significantly less extra hours and choose when or if they wanted to do that.

Well give us an example of what has happened since 2009 that makes longer shifts safer now ?

cdebru

Deleted User wrote: »

Did they take any strike action before this 'opening gambit' was revised downwards? (Industrial action and/or work-to-rule?)

They industrial action I believe when the company refused to negotiate at all beyond 1 to 3%

trellheim

Do not bring safety into this. More money <> more safety. I suggest anyone with a safety concern re LUAS operations should raise them formally and quickly via the appropriate channel rather than a message board as a poor strawman point.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

So they were playing games and wasting the time of all concerned because they wanted to get into the papers with their ridiculous pay claims?

Here is a newspaper article from the herald from 2009 about their hours when they worked 40 hours a week but that went to between 35 and 45, also there was an issue over the amount of driving between breaks being 4 hours 15 minutes but the company reduced this to 3 hours 45 as this was industry best practice at the time!

http://www.herald.ie/news/luas-probe-raises-tired-drivers-fear-over-shifts-27929830.html

Yeah I'm sure it was just for the press coverage

cdebru

trellheim wrote: »

Do not bring safety into this. More money <> more safety. I suggest anyone with a safety concern re LUAS operations should raise them formally and quickly via the appropriate channel rather than a message board as a poor strawman point.

I don't think you can decide what is or isn't brought up here, the employees have specifically mentioned the extra 2.5 hours as one reason for rejection, it is part of the WRC proposals and is relevant to any discussion on them, irrespective of how it affects the greedy luas drivers argument.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

They industrial action I believe when the company refused to negotiate at all beyond 1 to 3%

So they initiated industrial action based on the refusal of a headline claim that you present as an 'opening gambit'.

Do you consider that strike action also to be part of their 'opening gambit'?

Couldn't this be construed as the drivers trivialising industrial action?

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

I can, because overtime can be done on one of an employees days off, or after a break period from a normal shift, that is not true of an extended shift period.
In public transport overtime can sometimes be forced on an employee, due to accidents, incidents or heavy traffic or mechanical failure, you wouldn't expect a tram driver to jump off a tram because his time was up half way out to sandyford would you ?
Besides that you miss the point if the WRC proposal was accepted then their shifts would be longer, no choice wereas currently they have a choice and they could make the money offered by transdev with significantly less extra hours and choose when or if they wanted to do that.

Well give us an example of what has happened since 2009 that makes longer shifts safer now ?

We'll first of all, is the traffic the same, are the traffic systems exactly the same, are communications the same,is training exactly the same,are work practices exactly the same, is the shift pattern exactly the same, is the equipment exactly the same an on and on.

The point being that things move on and surely issues like this should have been sorted out in the intervening 7 years.

If you don't mind me says so you are trying to make a relatively routine job of driving a tram on a two relatively straightforward routes seem incredibly complicated:p

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

I can, because overtime can be done on one of an employees days off, or after a break period from a normal shift, that is not true of an extended shift period.
In public transport overtime can sometimes be forced on an employee, due to accidents, incidents or heavy traffic or mechanical failure, you wouldn't expect a tram driver to jump off a tram because his time was up half way out to sandyford would you ?
Besides that you miss the point if the WRC proposal was accepted then their shifts would be longer, no choice wereas currently they have a choice and they could make the money offered by transdev with significantly less extra hours and choose when or if they wanted to do that.

Well give us an example of what has happened since 2009 that makes longer shifts safer now ?

The way the trams are timed the only way that would happen is if there was some situation that delayed the tram and a driver will get those minutes back.

There is of course another way and that is by the current trend by drivers to delibrately delay trams so making the trips much longer, adding up to 10 minutes to the Heuston to Busaras section!

This behavour should get them written warnings and then dismissal, if they don't want to work for good money with excellent conditions then they should bugger off and get a job somewhere else

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

So they initiated industrial action based on the refusal of a headline claim that you present as an 'opening gambit'.

Do you consider that strike action also to be part of their 'opening gambit'?

Couldn't this be construed as the drivers trivialising industrial action?

I genuinely believe Emmet that it could be construed as nothing else.

Industrial action should be a last resort action.

This seems to have been a first resort action after tossing in an outrageous claim as an 'opening gambit'

Luckily the public can see through the smokescreen .

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We'll first of all, is the traffic the same, are the traffic systems exactly the same, are communications the same,is training exactly the same,are work practices exactly the same, is the shift pattern exactly the same, is the equipment exactly the same an on and on.

The point being that things move on and surely issues like this should have been sorted out in the intervening 7 years.

If you don't mind me says so you are trying to make a relatively routine job of driving a tram on a two relatively straightforward routes seem incredibly complicated:p

OK you really have missed the point, they were sorted out, but transdev are trying to undo it with the WRC proposals, it was judged to be unsafe it was changed and transdev are trying to row back on some of those changes.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

OK you really have missed the point, they were sorted out, but transdev are trying to undo it with the WRC proposals, it was judged to be unsafe it was changed and transdev are trying to row back on some of those changes.

Why is this only being used as their excuse for striking now?

It will be a poor enough summer for Luas staff with the loss of their beloved no strike bonus and also losing pay for all those strike days.

cdebru

Deleted User wrote: »

So they initiated industrial action based on the refusal of a headline claim that you present as an 'opening gambit'.

Do you consider that strike action also to be part of their 'opening gambit'?

Couldn't this be construed as the drivers trivialising industrial action?

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

We know how things go.

Have you ever heard of any claim for a 53% increase in any other arena in Industrial Relations in Ireland ?

Opening gambit or not?

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Why is this only being used as their excuse for striking now?

It will be a poor enough summer for Luas staff with the loss of their beloved no strike bonus and also losing pay for all those strike days.

It's not it only came out in the WRC proposals and was on trade union TV as one of the reasons for rejection on good Friday or the next day.

cdebru

cdebru wrote: »

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

LUAS Drivers make a request (through SIPTU) which we've all seen at this stage.

Transdev refused to entertain the ludicrous request, and implores a sense of reality of expectations, and offer a range which may be achievable.

LUAS driver's next course of action chosen was not to reduce their request, but to go on strike (which imo was extraordinarily reckless considering the next step).

After initiating a strike, they then reduced their request by almost half.

Am I right so far in terms of the timeline?

It appears that a group of workers initiated industrial action before reducing their requested increase from an enormous figure by a factor of almost 50%, which considering the initial request still left an enormous increase (relative to all available metrics) requested.

I find it very easy to consider that a trivialisation of industrial action.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

It's not it only came out in the WRC proposals and was on trade union TV as one of the reasons for rejection on good Friday or the next day.

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

cdebru

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We know how things go.

Have you ever heard of any claim for a 53% increase in any other arena in Industrial Relations in Ireland ?

Opening gambit or not?

It's a huge number because it is a 5 year deal, you break it down over 5 years and take into account it's an opening gambit. Personally I think it was a mistake, for the exact reasons given here it made them look unrealistic and greedy and was never a serious proposition.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

If you claim it is nonsense, you might be so good as to point out what is factually incorrect then?

Infini

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

Oh really? Because from what Ive seen the workers simply arent taking any nonsense from the management. The deal looked good on the surface but the details that came out showed it to be a very shallow one. The fact the deal was practically rejected 99% shows as much.

Brendan Bendar

cdebru wrote: »

It's a huge number because it is a 5 year deal, you break it down over 5 years and take into account it's an opening gambit. Personally I think it was a mistake, for the exact reasons given here it made them look unrealistic and greedy and was never a serious proposition.

And the question I asked was......?

trellheim

The fact the deal was practically rejected 99% shows as much

No it doesn't . Any pay deal the union had a hand in negotiating should not be rejected out of hand in that fashion, and shows something else is way off. Either theres no trust in the union or its not doing its job. Neither option make the union/worker relations look good.

And before someone says " well it was the best they could come up with" - they could have walked any time they wanted if they didn't like the smell.

Brendan Bendar

trellheim wrote: »

No it doesn't . Any pay deal the union had a hand in negotiating should not be rejected out of hand in that fashion, and shows something else is way off. Either theres no trust in the union or its not doing its job. Neither option make the union/worker relations look good.

And before someone says " well it was the best they could come up with" - they could have walked any time they wanted if they didn't like the smell.

Absolutely correct trell.
This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

And rejected by 99%!!

Tells this poster only one thing, there's a bunch anxious for conflict and highly militant hard core amongst the workforce.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it looks.

foggy_lad

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Absolutely correct trell.
This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

And rejected by 99%!!

Tells this poster only one thing, there's a bunch anxious for conflict and highly militant hard core amongst the workforce.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it looks.

There's a few likely looking "Comrades" in those trade union TV videos!

trellheim

This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

To keep things factual, I don't remember them "recommending" it but it WAS the deal they negotiated at the WRC . They didn't take a position on it which dumbfounded me - what was the 27 hours in the smoke-filled room for then ? ( for me its straight back to "union not doing the job it gets its dues for" , IMHO - freedom to walk away was always there and it could hardly have looked worse - consider where we are now. ).

Keep front and foremost - the other unions tongues panting for this deal - and LUAS turned it down; remember last week we had the other unions breaking off all sorts of negotiations so they could try and screw this deal from their management who they prayed would supinely roll over

Train to fkup city no matter which way you spin it, for the workers and for the wider TU movement.

Brendan Bendar

trellheim wrote: »

To keep things factual, I don't remember them "recommending" it but it WAS the deal they negotiated at the WRC . They didn't take a position on it which dumbfounded me - what was the 27 hours in the smoke-filled room for then ? ( for me its straight back to "union not doing the job it gets its dues for" , IMHO - freedom to walk away was always there and it could hardly have looked worse - consider where we are now. ).

Keep front and foremost - the other unions tongues panting for this deal - and LUAS turned it down; remember last week we had the other unions breaking off all sorts of negotiations so they could try and screw this deal from their management who they prayed would supinely roll over

Train to fkup city no matter which way you spin it, for the workers and for the wider TU movement.

Yes, I feel you are correct, just 'put to' the workers.

Apologies.

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nonsense, these union thugs are flying by the seat of their pants and using the poor unfortunate workers as a safety net, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they ended up having to take a pay cut the way this is being mishandled!

who are these union thugs you speak of?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Absolutely correct trell.
This deal was signed off by SIPTU and Mr Mulveys people and if I am correct was recommended by SIPTU.

And rejected by 99%!!

Tells this poster only one thing, there's a bunch anxious for conflict and highly militant hard core amongst the workforce.

Nothing wrong with that of course, but that's how it looks.

or it simply tells us, that the deal was not a good deal in terms of the details.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

who are these union thugs you speak of?

The same type of militant gougers and wasters that terrorised Greyhound office workers leaving some of them in tears. Those type of thugs are not wanted by any employer but the unions are happy to facilitate them and fight for them.

Infini

foggy_lad wrote: »

The same type of militant gougers and wasters that terrorised Greyhound office workers leaving some of them in tears. Those type of thugs are not wanted by any employer but the unions are happy to facilitate them and fight for them.

Considering the kind of carry-on that went on there I wouldn't even go there that's a whole different ballgame.

Bass Reeves

cdebru wrote: »

I think their original demands were unobtainable , and nothing more than an opening gambit to negotiations, I have no idea what their actual demands are presently, so I couldn't say yes or no, but I think the WRC proposals are ridiculous once you go beyond the 18.7% spin.

An opening gambit really they looked for 53% and settled for 10% some gambit.

cdebru wrote: »

They industrial action I believe when the company refused to negotiate at all beyond 1 to 3%

1-3%/year which is where both party's ended up at

cdebru wrote: »

I don't think you can decide what is or isn't brought up here, the employees have specifically mentioned the extra 2.5 hours as one reason for rejection, it is part of the WRC proposals and is relevant to any discussion on them, irrespective of how it affects the greedy luas drivers argument.

2.5 hour extra will still leave them working only a 38 hours week they are being paid for 39 hour/week

cdebru wrote: »

No that's not what I said, the original claim was an opening gambit, transdev refused to negotiate, and that led to industrial action and SIPTU reduced the pay claim to half the original claim.
This is how these things go, you want 10 you don't ask for 10, you want 20 you don't ask for 20, it works both ways when employers want cuts they don't come with the actual amount they need, they come with double it or more so they can negotiate to where they need to be, that's how it works so everyone gets a win, if SIPTU put in an 18.7% claim and transdev met it, it wouldn't look great for the management justifying it to their superiors or shareholders, if an employer looked for a 5% pay cut and the union agreed to it, it wouldn't look good to their members would it ? But if the employer looks for 10% and the union negotiate them down to 5% everyone looks good, it's the same in reverse.

If it is soft, sticks to your shoes and smells like bullsh!t it is usually bullsh!t

cdebru wrote: »

It's a huge number because it is a 5 year deal, you break it down over 5 years and take into account it's an opening gambit. Personally I think it was a mistake, for the exact reasons given here it made them look unrealistic and greedy and was never a serious proposition.

No it was not for a 5 year deal these boys taught they were living in the Uk in the seventies where retrospective claims were all the go. They wanted the claim from January 2015.

CramCycle

I presume not all LUAS drivers are members of the union, I was employed in places that were unionised before but never joined one.

So is that 99% of the unionised members or arre they all in the union?