Should unions be forced to guarantee service during bus strikes?

BoatMad

Infini2 wrote: »

The NTA is essentially another quango thats effectively CIE + Luas. Like everything else in Ireland its a halfarsed solution as in an extra layer of bueraucracy instead of a proper fix which would've been to essentially transfer DB/IE and BE ground staff into it and jettison the useless management which in no small part has been the problem in those companies over the years. The people who actually could improve things just dont get a chance to because someones buddy needed a cushy number and got in instead only to be useless at the job.

If you wanted a proper solution it would be to put at least Dublin public transport services under the one agency which would be better at coordinating things and at the same time actively work at preventing strikes from breaking out in the first place. These strikes only happen because they're let happen in the end if there was serious interest in solving the issues they wouldn't get this far in the first place.

That's just a public sector argument dressed up as a rant

In any sector , once you have essentially a monopoly , then you hand over power to the workers that can use their withdrawal of labour to cause great discomfort.

There is only one solution , that's to break up such monopolies

Making an even bigger monopology is even less of a solution

The transport unions are and were accused of using the luas action as a staking horse, that's obviously been proven correct.

Del2005

BoatMad wrote: »

No reason , why routes couldn't be franchised out to many companies , creating a private bus ecosystem. The nature of which would mean that in the event of a strike there would be capacity to cover the strike hit routes ( ot at very least some of them )

If the routes are franchised then the non striking workers can't be used, no other company would be licensed to operate on a route it's not franchised to run.

With franchising in the end it would be like the haulage industry, where the person in charge of the large slow moving vehicle earns less than someone packing a shelf and has longer working hours.

Dravokivich

BoatMad wrote: »

(1)No reason , why routes couldn't be franchised out to many companies , creating a private bus ecosystem. The nature of which would mean that(2) in the event of a strike there would be capacity to cover the strike hit routes ( ot at very least some of them )

1- That's what's being tendered at the moment with the "privatisation" that's coming along.

2- the operator will be the sole service provider of their batch of routes. No-one will be able to run them unless explicitly licensed by NTA.

As/If the tender process progresses after the initial batch, I suspect the NTA will be unlikely to tender routes along the same corridor to different operators.

end of the road

hmmm wrote: »

These are not workers being locked out by some capitalist ogre, these are workers who are better paid and have better security of employment than most of their passengers, who want an increase in their pay. The public have a right to a decent system of public transport, and if these workers who are in a very privileged position are unwilling to deliver it, then the government should be looking for alternatives.

Whether that's no strikes on monopoly public services (including the ESB etc), or some form of private competition.

some form of private replacement you mean. as we have discussed before they're isn't going to be "competition" apart from
1. where commercial privately run services exist currently.
2. where they're may be a bit of overlap but that will make no difference as they're won't be capacity increases.
anti-strike legislation can also be circumvented rather easily.

BoatMad wrote: »

The simplest way around this is to ensure that monopoly are broken up. It's the monopolistic nature of DB that facilitates mass disruption

If most routes were franchised out to a variety of operators by the NTA , then a vibrant multi company bus system would exist. In a strike there would be plenty of busses to then temporarily take over the duties of the striking busses.

that's not correct. a multi-company bus system does not stop an all out strike from happening.

BoatMad wrote: »

That's just a public sector argument dressed up as a rant

In any sector , once you have essentially a monopoly , then you hand over power to the workers that can use their withdrawal of labour to cause great discomfort.

There is only one solution , that's to break up such monopolies

Making an even bigger monopology is even less of a solution

The transport unions are and were accused of using the luas action as a staking horse, that's obviously been proven correct.

proven correct by who and how? the dublin bus issue is down to an agreement made back in 2008. long before anything in relation to pay rises in luas.
smaller monopolies and the potential for inefficientsies is not an option either or at least if it is it's a bad one.

BoatMad

Del2005 wrote: »

If the routes are franchised then the non striking workers can't be used, no other company would be licensed to operate on a route it's not franchised to run.

With franchising in the end it would be like the haulage industry, where the person in charge of the large slow moving vehicle earns less than someone packing a shelf and has longer working hours.

The nta could quite easily include a clause that allows other operators to operate a bus route where that franchised operator can't provide service ( for whatever reason )

It's not the purpose of any company to provide any particular pay level for any particular employee. Pay determination is competitive. If there are people willing to accept that level of pay for that work, then that determines the pay rate. ( above the legal minimum obviously)

That's what's wrong with DB and IE etc, the workers think the company exists to renumerate them.

munchkin_utd

They have a minimum service for train strikes in Italy (certain regions anyhow) and its a great idea. Its even posted in the information cabinets at stations.
The company and public still suffer as theres reduced services+frequencies(and less revenue for the company), reduced operating hours etc, but at least some services run so nobody is stuck in the back end of beyond all day.

In Germany and France its different as theres multiple unions who strike separately so often its only a portion of the drivers striking so only a portion of the services are cancelled. But the end effect is the same as a strike schedule is issued day by day depending on how many staff are available.

Hilly Bill

BoatMad wrote: »

The nta could quite easily include a clause that allows other operators to operate a bus route where that franchised operator can't provide service ( for whatever reason )

It's not the purpose of any company to provide any particular pay level for any particular employee. Pay determination is competitive. If there are people willing to accept that level of pay for that work, then that determines the pay rate. ( above the legal minimum obviously)

That's what's wrong with DB and IE etc, the workers think the company exists to renumerate them.

Oh dear God :-))

BoatMad

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Oh dear God :-))

Yes my son ,?

snickerpuss

BoatMad wrote: »

The nta could quite easily include a clause that allows other operators to operate a bus route where that franchised operator can't provide service ( for whatever reason )

It's not the purpose of any company to provide any particular pay level for any particular employee. Pay determination is competitive. If there are people willing to accept that level of pay for that work, then that determines the pay rate. ( above the legal minimum obviously)

That's what's wrong with DB and IE etc, the workers think the company exists to renumerate them.

Where does this end? Will you be happy enough if someone comes in to do your job for €9.15 an hour? Additionally IE drivers have little to fear if so as their counterparts in the UK are actually paid more.

Vic_08

BoatMad wrote: »

The nta could quite easily include a clause that allows other operators to operate a bus route where that franchised operator can't provide service ( for whatever reason )

And where are these extra buses and drivers going to come from?

If a company is franchised to run a tranche of routes with an overall PVR of 50 buses they will have 50+ maintenance spares. If their service requires 120 drivers a day then they will hire enough to cover that.

A new bus costs in the region of €300,000. Nobody is going to have a fleet sitting around doing nothing just in case there is a strike that needs breaking.

Or do you expect the taxpayer to fund this ridiculous fantasy?

The idea that there will be lots of small operators is also a fantasy. Firstly the qualification rules for the tenders already issued were quite onerous, a limited number of companies will pass that stage, mainly the big multi-national groups, the handful of large native operators or a mix of big companies sub-contracting to locals.

No matter what arrangement is used I would expect two or three at most to end up dominating the market using economies of scale to undercut any serious competition.

dowlingm

there is nothing more frustrating than C&T's frequent excursions into labour relations, and I say that as someone not a lawyer myself.

Here in Ontario, the City of Toronto applied to the Province to have the transit commission made an essential service in 2011. Sounds great, right? The workers can't strike. Problem is that now wage settlements are not decided by negotiation and lockouts or strikes but by arbitration. This downside was pointed out when it was proposed in 2008:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2008/09/12/theres_a_downside_to_making_the_ttc_an_essential_service.html

It seems counterintuitive that designating a unionized workforce as providers of an essential service could increase wages; after all, unions then lose the threat of a full strike. However, with the designation, the union's apparent loss of bargaining power is offset by having to compensate employees for the loss of their right to withhold services, and the greater role given to third parties – arbitrators and mediators – in setting wages and working conditions.

After looking at all major public sector wage agreements in the last 30 years, I have found that annual wage increases are 13 per cent higher following the introduction of essential services legislation.

(emphasis added)

Even then, as the Guards showed, simply legislating away the right of Irish transit companies to strike may contravene obligations the government has signed up to. And LUAS just showed us private workforces strike too.

BoatMad

snickerpuss wrote: »

Where does this end? Will you be happy enough if someone comes in to do your job for €9.15 an hour? Additionally IE drivers have little to fear if so as their counterparts in the UK are actually paid more.

in my business, if a company could get the expertise and skill that needed to my tasks for 9,50 an hours they'd jump at it

BoatMad

No matter what arrangement is used I would expect two or three at most to end up dominating the market using economies of scale to undercut any serious competition.

fine, two three or four say, thats better then a monopoly

Dyr

BoatMad wrote: »

No reason , why routes couldn't be franchised out to many companies , creating a private bus ecosystem. The nature of which would mean that in the event of a strike there would be capacity to cover the strike hit routes ( ot at very least some of them )

It makes sense but the problem is that private transport tends to wind up as bad as public transport

I'm all in favour of dublin bus having routes taken off them though, monopolies are band.