Bust Éireann

devnull

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Also he keeps saying that the loss-making element is the commercial inter-city sector but is that not because of the pso obligation to stop at every hamlet between Sligo and Dublin say even on an "express" service

Expressway is fully commercial. They have no obligation to stop anywhere on Expressway or In tercity services. They have exactly the same rights as any other commercial operator and adhere to the same rules.

horseburger

devnull wrote: »

Nobody can threaten that a company will be insolvent, it simply is when it cannot meet it's obligations that is the point I was making. Lets just agree to leave it at that.

I never said that. I said that Bus Éireann threatened, that if it didn't implement cutbacks, that the company would be insolvent.

That is a totally different thing, from what you said, that I had stated.

I never said what you smart-assedly implied that I said, and then you started questioning me about insolvency, attempting to divert the discussion.

"Let's just agree to leave it at that".

devnull

Arthur Daley wrote: »

We subsidise all sorts nowadays. Practically every farm in the country. Property developers, landlords, banks. It's the way this country has always worked. So not sure why an example is being made of bus eireann. And why now.

Because the taxpayers are not getting good value for money and there are lots of false narratives out there about what the core issues are with this dispute, rural Ireland is not one of them, despite what the unions will tell you, because these services are protected.

The arm of Bus Eireann that is in trouble is the one which has to compete with other operators, because of their working practices, high cost base on inefficient rotas and company structure and poor management who have not developed the services.

Allinall

horseburger wrote: »

I never said that. I said that Bus Éireann threatened, that if it didn't implement cutbacks, that the company would be insolvent.

That is a totally different thing, from what you said, that I had stated.

I never said what you smart-assedly implied that I said, and then you started questioning me about insolvency, attempting to divert the discussion.

"Let's just agree to leave it at that".

They stated a fact.

Not threatened.

GM228

end of the road wrote: »

Mebuntu wrote: »

Any employee of DB and IE refusing to work while BE workers are on strike should be sacked. Refusal to work is a very serious matter and the BE dispute is none of their business.

to sack them for not crossing a picket would be against workers rights, it is against one's rights to be forced to cross a picket against their will.

There is no such right.

For an employee to refuse to cross a picket for a dispute they are not involved in amounts to an illegal strike and the limited protections for those who are legitimatly picketing certainly does not apply to them.

VG31

I have a question for those who are knowledgeable about this. The most commonly stated reason against privatisation of Bus Eireann/Dublin Bus is that unprofitable routes will be lost. Could the government not partially fund these routes under PSO contracts? This is done in many countries. It would surely cost less than the subsidy to BE/DB. Aer Lingus is a private company yet they operate Dublin to Kerry and Donegal to Dublin and Glasgow flights under a PSO arrangement.

horseburger

Allinall wrote: »

They stated a fact.

Not threatened.

That is not what I was arguing about. You are missing the point.

devnull, yesterday, implied that I had stated that Bus Éireann threatened that it would make the company insolvent.

I did not state that.

I said that Bus Éireann were threatening, that if the proposed cutbacks were not implemented, that the company would be insolvent. I mentioned this in a post where I replied to someone, who responded to a post, where I had been writing about what changes might be made, on the route of the Dublin Derry bus service, if the 33/X3 bus is discontinued, if another bus operator runs a service on that route.

In the post, I included two RTE news items, and a Bus Éireann press statement, as a reference to what I had mentioned.

I did not state, what was implied that I had stated, by devnull. devnull then started going on about an entirely different issue, questioning me and others as to whether we understood what is meant by the term insolvency, in an attempt to change the course of the discussion.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102774131&postcount=869

Here is the Bus Éireann statement to which I referred in the post.

http://buseireann.ie/news.php?id=2248&month=Feb

"Due to the perilous state of the Company’s finances and the failure to reach agreement with unions at the Workplace Relations Committee (WRC) last week, the Board of Bus Éireann considered the matter in detail at its meeting today and approved proposals for immediate cost savings to be implemented from Monday, March 6th. These measures are vital to ensure that the Company remains solvent, and can continue to trade as a going concern".

end of the road

Allinall wrote: »

They stated a fact.

Not threatened.

horseburger never said otherwise. what the company said is exactly what he posted.

oppenheimer1

horseburger wrote: »

That is not what I was arguing about. You are missing the point.

devnull, yesterday, implied that I had stated that Bus Éireann threatened that it would make the company insolvent.

I did not state that.

I said that Bus Éireann were threatening, that if the proposed cutbacks were not implemented, that the company would be insolvent.

I said this in a post where I included two RTE news items as a reference to what I had mentioned.

I did not state, what was implied that I had stated, by devnull.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102774131&postcount=869

No one is threatening anything. BÉ have simply stated a fact, that if they do not stop losing money they will go insolvent.

You keep using "threat" to imply that it is a management choice to go insolvent. It's disingenuous in the extreme

devnull

VG31 wrote: »

I have a question for those who are knowledgeable about this. The most commonly stated reason against privatisation of Bus Eireann/Dublin Bus is that unprofitable routes will be lost.

Bus Eireann run rural and unviable services under the Bus Eireann name because they are paid to do so and given free vehicles to do so under contract to the state. Privates don't because up until now with very very limited exception they were not given free vehicles or subsidy to do so. That's it.

This belief that Bus Eireann runs rural or unviable routes under the Bus Eireann name out of some romantic notion they care about people is false. They do so because the state pays them to, privates don't because the state doesn't pay them to.

Could the government not partially fund these routes under PSO contracts? This is done in many countries. It would surely cost less than the subsidy to BE/DB. .

PSO and Subsidy is the same thing, if you are talking about just cash.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

horseburger never said otherwise. what the company said is exactly what he posted.

Can you please show me a direct quote from a Bus Eireann statement or spokesperson that uses the word "threat" ?

Bass Reeves

end of the road wrote: »

no thanks, not let bus eireann go to the wall. this tax payer doesn't personally wish to pay for their routes to be put out to tender, especially when it is only wanted by someone because they are upset that they can't get good pay like the bus eireann drivers. there is no chokehold by unions, and i'm certainly not held over a barrel by them and never have been, dispite being a keen user of public transport for years. if you want good pay, then join a union. otherwise you can't complain that others are doing better then you.

It will cost nothing extra to put routes out to tender. The tenders would come in cheaper than paying BE. This tax payer doesn't personally wish for any more of his money wasted on BE

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't striking for things way over what they are entitled to, as if they weren't entitled to what they earned they wouldn't have it. like i said if you can't get what they get that is your fault and your problem and not theirs. and no it isn't blackmail.

Yes they are. This is the issue in BE. Overtime is seen as a right by workers not as a management tool of the company. In essence the workers are managing the company not the managers.

end of the road wrote: »

to sack them for not crossing a picket would be against workers rights, it is against one's rights to be forced to cross a picket against their will. IE and DB won't be going out on strike anyway, unless there are issues with the pension down the line which would effect all the companies.

You are incorrect here. DB and IE would be entitled to dismiss any workers not crossing the picket line. Neither have been served with notice of a dispute. Rather what we see is a crude attempt by the NBRU and SIPTU to circumvent the law regarding third party picketing. DB, IE and BE should suspend there sick pay scheme straight away like the LUAS did to prevent it's abuse by workers. After that DB and IE should notify there workers of there duties regarding attendance and inform them of the conquences of not attending work. If the unions want to play hardball then so should the management of these companies.

murphaph

VG31 wrote: »

I have a question for those who are knowledgeable about this. The most commonly stated reason against privatisation of Bus Eireann/Dublin Bus is that unprofitable routes will be lost. Could the government not partially fund these routes under PSO contracts? This is done in many countries. It would surely cost less than the subsidy to BE/DB. Aer Lingus is a private company yet they operate Dublin to Kerry and Donegal to Dublin and Glasgow flights under a PSO arrangement.

Of course they could. This is exactly what should be done. No cutbacks in the subsidy but you'd get far better value for money. Our money.

We'd have better public transport for the same spend.

horseburger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No one is threatening anything. BÉ have simply stated a fact, that if they do not stop losing money they will go insolvent.

You keep using "threat" to imply that it is a management choice to go insolvent. It's disingenuous in the extreme

You are seriously not reading what I have stated.

I have explained above, in two different posts, about how what I had said was totally misrepresented by devnull.

I did not say that Bus Éireann threatened, to make a choice, to make the company insolvent.

I said, with reference to a press statement, that Bus Éireann, was threatening - arguing/warning - that if cutbacks were not made, that the company would be insolvent.

devnull

Because I feel that arguing about what threat and the derivatives of that word means (can't believe we're having this discussion on C+T) I thought I would provide a definition for everyone from the dictionary.

The underlined part is very important.

threat (noun)
A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

Do you believe that Bus Eireann is saying they will inflict pain, injury, damage or other hostile actions on the union if they will not take the cuts or make the changes the management have proposed?

If so:
You are saying that BE management are going to make the company insolvent because of the fact they do not get their own way, even though insolvency doesn't work this way. It's not a choice a company makes, it happens when company cannot service it's obligation

If not:
You do not appear to know what the word threat means and your definition of it disagrees with what I can find in a dictionary and the dictionary has the final say on what a word means I think.

However I'm not going to say any more on the matter, because we will never agree and we're getting off topic of the core issues, which I'm mindful of may well be the tactic you are employing here, the more time we talk about what words means, the less we talk about the issues in the company.

horseburger

devnull wrote: »

Can you please show me a direct quote from a Bus Eireann statement or spokesperson that uses the word "threat" ?

devnull wrote: »

Because I feel that arguing about what threat and the derivatives of that word means (can't believe we're having this discussion on C+T) I thought I would provide a definition for everyone from the dictionary.

The underlined part is very important.

threat (noun)
A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

Do you believe that Bus Eireann is saying they will inflict pain, injury, damage or other hostile actions on the union if they will not take the cuts or make the changes the management have proposed?

If so:
You are saying that BE management are going to make the company insolvent because of the fact they do not get their own way, even though insolvency doesn't work this way. It's not a choice a company makes, it happens when company cannot service it's obligation

If not:
You do not appear to know what the word threat means and your definition of it disagrees with what I can find in a dictionary and the dictionary has the final say on what a word means I think.

However I'm not going to say any more on the matter, because we will never agree and we're getting off topic of the core issues, which I'm mindful of may well be the tactic you are employing here, the more time we talk about what words means, the less we talk about the issues in the company.

I used the term threat, because that is exactly what it is.

You know very well what I was talking about.

Stop trying to distract, from the fact, that you totally misrepresented what I had written.

I never once said that Bus Éireann would make a choice to make the company insolvent. You know very well that when I mentioned the issue of insolvency it was with reference to the statement by Bus Éireann which was cited in the RTE news item, and the Bus Éireann press releases, the links of which I included in the post, which you went on to totally misrepresent.

Here is the Bus Éireann statement to which I had referred.

"Due to the perilous state of the Company’s finances and the failure to reach agreement with unions at the Workplace Relations Committee (WRC) last week, the Board of Bus Éireann considered the matter in detail at its meeting today and approved proposals for immediate cost savings to be implemented from Monday, March 6th".

"These measures are vital to ensure that the Company remains solvent, and can continue to trade as a going concern".

"The Company must deal with its challenges directly, and the Board have a duty to ensure Bus Éireann is financially sustainable and therefore must take the necessary steps to secure this".

"Further dialogue aimed at urgently resolving these challenges would be welcome."

http://buseireann.ie/news.php?id=2248&month=Feb

Allinall

horseburger wrote: »

I used the term threat, because that is exactly what it is.

You know very well what I was talking about.

Stop trying to distract, from the fact, that you totally misrepresented what I had written.

Here is the Bus Éireann statement to which I had referred.

"Due to the perilous state of the Company’s finances and the failure to reach agreement with unions at the Workplace Relations Committee (WRC) last week, the Board of Bus Éireann considered the matter in detail at its meeting today and approved proposals for immediate cost savings to be implemented from Monday, March 6th".

"These measures are vital to ensure that the Company remains solvent, and can continue to trade as a going concern".

"The Company must deal with its challenges directly, and the Board have a duty to ensure Bus Éireann is financially sustainable and therefore must take the necessary steps to secure this".

"Further dialogue aimed at urgently resolving these challenges would be welcome."

http://buseireann.ie/news.php?id=2248&month=Feb

Where is the threat in that statement?

Can you point it out?

horseburger

Allinall wrote: »

Where is the threat in that statement?

Can you point it out?

Like you really think the management of a company is going to use the word threat in a statement in a publicity press release for the media, where they try and insinuate that everyone else is at fault?

end of the road

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No one is threatening anything. BÉ have simply stated a fact, that if they do not stop losing money they will go insolvent.

You keep using "threat" to imply that it is a management choice to go insolvent. It's disingenuous in the extreme

he hasn't used it to "imply" anything of the sort. it's simply a word that he used. what he said is correct and is what the management have stated, that if the staff don't take their share of cuts the company will end up going insolvent. he never stated what has been claimed he did, that the management threatened to make the company insolvent. it was devnull that made the claim that he did and you are also by the looks of it trying to make the same claim, which even from horseburger's first post it could be seen that such a claim is nonsense and made up to sturr. he wasted his time to clarify this for anyone who may be genuine in thinking that he meant something else (all though how they could think anything else from what he stated god only knows)
his clarification is absolutely satisfactory. there is no argument or debate here as what he said and meant are fully clarified.

devnull wrote: »

Can you please show me a direct quote from a Bus Eireann statement or spokesperson that uses the word "threat" ?

it's irrelevant. there is nothing to argue. he clarified what he said

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It will cost nothing extra to put routes out to tender. The tenders would come in cheaper than paying BE.

i have saw no evidence from anywhere for that, as other companies have to make a profit as per their duty to their shareholders and we have a duty to insure it should we expect them to take the time to operate our routes.

murphaph wrote: »

Of course they could. This is exactly what should be done. No cutbacks in the subsidy but you'd get far better value for money. Our money.

We'd have better public transport for the same spend.

the uk thought the same. the people now want re-nationalisation of the railway, and even the busses in many cases.

Allinall

horseburger wrote: »

Like you really think the management of a company is going to use the word threat in a statement in a publicity press release for the media, where they try and insinuate that everyone else is at fault?

So it's not a threat, rather stating a fact.

You are the only one that used the word "threat".

Why?

marienbad

horseburger wrote: »

Like you really think the management of a company is going to use the word threat in a statement in a publicity press release for the media, where they try and insinuate that everyone else is at fault?

Am I not correct in saying the senior management not warning of or taking steps to avoid insolvency are breaking the law ?

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Yes they are. This is the issue in BE. Overtime is seen as a right by workers not as a management tool of the company. In essence the workers are managing the company not the managers.

the managers are managing the company. they haven't managed it well but they manage it.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You are incorrect here. DB and IE would be entitled to dismiss any workers not crossing the picket line. Neither have been served with notice of a dispute. Rather what we see is a crude attempt by the NBRU and SIPTU to circumvent the law regarding third party picketing. DB, IE and BE should suspend there sick pay scheme straight away like the LUAS did to prevent it's abuse by workers. After that DB and IE should notify there workers of there duties regarding attendance and inform them of the conquences of not attending work. If the unions want to play hardball then so should the management of these companies.

the unions would have to play greater hardball and deal with any attempt to sack workers for upholding their right not to be forced to cross a picket against their will. suspending the sick pay among other things had no effect at luas, the strikes continued until a deal was reached.

Allinall wrote: »

So it's not a threat, rather stating a fact.

You are the only one that used the word "threat".

Why?

he stated that it was the company stating a fact.

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

the uk thought the same. the people now want re-nationalisation of the railway, and even the busses in many cases.

Slow down there tiger! We are not talking about railways and as you pedantically pointed out to me (despite me already knowing) the UK bus issue is vastly different to Ireland, because....wait for it....its actually regulated in Ireland and private bus services are thriving with lots and lots of happy customers.

Bass Reeves

horseburger wrote: »

Like you really think the management of a company is going to use the word threat in a statement in a publicity press release for the media, where they try and insinuate that everyone else is at fault?

Like many another lefties you do not understand the duty of care that those on the board of BE have. If the trade recklessly ( trading when they know they are losing money that could make the company insolvent). The CEO, CFO, the company secretary and the board could be prosecuted and send to fail for such action. Those on the board could be disbarred from serving again as director's. So all the senior management are doing is following the law and preventing the company from trading recklessly

horseburger

Allinall wrote: »

So it's not a threat, rather stating a fact.

You are the only one that used the word "threat".

Why?

You are completety, utterly, missing the point of my rely to devnull.

devnull smart assedly misrepresented what I had stated and implied I said something of Bus Éireann which I did not state.

Please read my clarifications above and then you will know the issue to which I am referring.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

i have saw no evidence from anywhere for that, as other companies have to make a profit as per their duty to their shareholders and we have a duty to insure it should we expect them to take the time to operate our routes.

I have seen no proof that the private operators are making anything like the kind profits to the same degree as there are excess costs in Bus Eireann. There is over €25m of excess spending on drivers wages alone in BE just attributed to the rotas, before you even consider anything else.

Bus Eireann said in a full costed and written report that there are 1,378 drivers who work overtime each day which equals the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise driver efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers. This alone is a shocking statistic and must be addressed.

Right now they are paying for the equivalent 650 more staff members than the company feels it needs at the moment and the average pay is €45,000 at the driver grade. Essentially the company is saying that with modern working practices and rotas that make the best use of resources, they can save over €25m before even talking about changing anything else.

But if what you say is true (which I dispute) you should have no objection to tendering, because if it would not save any money and would not work out cheaper, despite the huge cost base in BE, then clearly, they will win ever tender.

the managers are managing the company. they haven't managed it well but they manage it.

The trouble is that managers ability to manager the company is hit in some aspects if they are not able to make changes that they feel would be for the good of the company. Right now they are trying to manage the issues but the staff are not letting them, you cannot blame them for everything.

the uk thought the same. the people now want re-nationalisation of the railway, and even the busses in many cases.

The UK has no relevance to this debate because the UK has a deregulated bus system, we have a regulated bus system, you know that but once again you are spinning and comparing apples with oranges like you usually do. If the UK had a regulated system maybe you have a point, but it doesn't so you don't.

You are comparing a de-regulated market in the UK and saying that is what will happen to a regulated market in Ireland, despite the fact nobody has said that they are looking to follow the UK model, so yes you are spinning. De-regulation happened throughout the entire UK, the only system different is in London.

Honestly this thread is becoming somewhat like watching the movie Groundhog Day about 12 times in a row,

horseburger

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Like many another lefties you do not understand the duty of care that those on the board of BE have. If the trade recklessly ( trading when they know they are losing money that could make the company insolvent). The CEO, CFO, the company secretary and the board could be prosecuted and send to fail for such action. Those on the board could be disbarred from serving again as director's. The senior management are doing is following the law and preventing the company from trading recklessly

What is it with you that you just can't read my post and realise, and understand, the point I was making, in my posts above, in response to person who totally misrepresented what I had stated?

Allinall

horseburger wrote: »

You are completety, utterly, missing the point of my rely to devnull.

devnull smart assedly misrepresented what I had stated and implied I said something of Bus Éireann which I did not state.

Please read my clarifications above and then you will know the issue to which I am referring.

You stated the company made a threat.

Why?

GM228

marienbad wrote: »

Am I not correct in saying the senior management not warning of or taking steps to avoid insolvency are breaking the law ?

Under the Companies Act 2014 the board must act honestly and responsibly before and after any potential insolvency.

Failure to do so could see them subject to a restriction - a period of 5 years from being appointed or to act in any way, directly or indirectly, as a director or secretary of a company, or be concerned in or take part in the formation or promotion of a company without massive restrictions.

A person who acts in relation to any company in a manner or a capacity which they are prohibited by virtue of being (a) subject to a disqualification order, or (b) subject to a declaration of restriction above commits an offence.

There could also be potential issues under the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001.

devnull

Latest from the unions
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/clonmel-holds-save-our-bus-meeting-over-planned-service-cut-1.2995940

NBRU general-secretary Dermot O’Leary said the country was now on “the cusp of a national travel dispute” and other services could end up affected. “There’s going to be contagion. As much as I’d like to stop the contagion, I don’t know if I’ll be able to to stop it.”

NBRU now stating that the dispute is going to spread to other modes and they'd like to stop it, but they don't think that they will be able to. That is clearly them trying to distance themselves from anything that is going to happen on Monday.

The NBRU member, who is based in the Waterford depot which oversees services from Dungarvan and Wexford as well as Clonmel, accepted “there are certain times of the day when you have few passengers” but he said there were other times when it was busy.

He said there were three drawbacks to the withdrawal of the X7 route: the industrial relations impact which would see drivers earmarked for redundancy and others having changes to their working conditions; the “rural network being dismantled in front of our very eyes”; and the effect it and other route cuts could have on the free travel service.

For a senior citizen, if there’s no bus going through their area the free travel pass is going to be no use to them,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

Apart from the fact of course, there is another operator on that route who accepts the free travel pass as well, serving all the places on the route, but saying that of course doesn't provide for such a dramatic claim. Why let the truth get in the way of a false narrative?

It also doesn't allow the union to keep playing the "Rural Ireland left abandoned." card that isn't even true and spouting the usual rhetoric about people being isolated and not being able to leave their homes and rural Ireland being decimated, which this dispute is constantly framed as.