Bust Éireann

Bass Reeves

end of the road wrote: »

i have saw no evidence it would be cheeper if it was put to tender as profit has to be factored in for the other companies, who we have a duty to insure make a profit if they are given the tender for routes. the subsidy is one of the cheepist in europe i believe. i have all ready stated that i don't believe this strike should happen however i have to respect the decisian democratically made to go on strike by be staff, as per my duty. it is not an abuse of a democratic right, nor is it immoral, but it is simply unlikely to solve anything. there would be no illegal state aid as expressway won't be getting anything as it is a commercial service. the shareholders of other companies are not the problem of the state but those companies themselves and any unions that exist in those companies and as expressway won't be getting state aid then it is a non-issue.

All the evidence points out it would be cheaper if put to tender. These companies have lower cost based even after taking a profit. The subsidy is amongst the dearest in Europe. I have already stated that this strike is immoral , undemocratic and as a worker it is my duty not to support it. The unions are striking in an attempt to get illegal state aid by the back door for Expressway and exposing the company, the taxpayer and the state to fines. It is the duty of the state to do nothing illegal that effects the rights of other workers or to cause financial difficulty to other companies or there shareholders

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

All the evidence points out it would be cheaper if put to tender. These companies have lower cost based even after taking a profit. The subsidy is amongst the dearest in Europe. I have already stated that this strike is immoral , undemocratic and as a worker it is my duty not to support it. The unions are striking in an attempt to get illegal state aid by the back door for Expressway and exposing the company, the taxpayer and the state to fines. It is the duty of the state to do nothing illegal that effects the rights of other workers or to cause financial difficulty to other companies or there shareholders

it's as far from the dearest in europe as it gets.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

it's as far from the dearest in europe as it gets.

Some figures please.

devnull

n97 mini wrote: »

Some figures please.

And include capital investment from the state and investment in vehicles by the state.

Bass Reeves

end of the road wrote: »

it's as far from the dearest in europe as it gets.

It is amongst the dearest in Europe when all tax reliefs and subsidy are accounted for

n97 mini

devnull wrote: »

And include capital investment from the state and investment in vehicles by the state.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is amongst the dearest in Europe when all tax reliefs and subsidy are accounted for

Steady on. If we can just get some figures from EOTR to back up the assertion...

Bass Reeves

n97 mini wrote: »

Steady on. If we can just get some figures from EOTR to back up the assertion...

That is not going to happen, anyway it doesn't matter he is incorrect.

jimmycrackcorm

Idbatterim wrote: »

are you joking? where is my voice as a tax payer to say this joke, has gone too far, way too far! 2017, its time to take a stand once and for all! shut the bloody thing down, the only losers will be BE staff. Yet you EOTR claim to care about taxpayers and the BE users...

I wouldn't be so worried. Shane Ross is the MOT, he's not FG and his voting constituents don't care about BE so he can't lose out by standing his ground. FG can blame him for any negative outcome because the people voted for independents. If DB workers don't cross the picket lines then the unions will get the blame.

This is not the same as the Luas strike, which Ross correctly didn't have to intervene in. In this case the unions will have to give way as unlike that there is no other option. Tis all good.

ted44

All crap aside,, disgusting policies, from the board of be, executive management, who knew full well of what was coming down the road for at least 2 years sat on their sad lazy wholes collecting thousands in salaries expenses and what ever else, sorry hundreds of thousands, and just jump ship at the drop of a hat, leaving frontline workers at the mercy of the hatchet team, who think they can come in and destroy and try to divide extra ordinary workers from the the actual lies and spin .
That they have been paid to do from our real boss!!! NTA , Fine Gael. Shame on all of you

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wouldn't be so worried. Shane Ross is the MOT, he's not FG and his voting constituents don't care about BE so he can't lose out by standing his ground. FG can blame him for any negative outcome because the people voted for independents. If DB workers don't cross the picket lines then the unions will get the blame.

ross mightn't have a choice in the matter, he may have to toe the government line. i should think if he doesn't a sudden "re-shuffle" could possibly take place. if db staff don't cross the picket lines and the unions have insured that they have not told staff not to cross the picket lines, then not only will any blame they would get be incorrect, but they will be able to prove it and those blaming them for something they aren't responsible for won't have a leg to stand on and can be shown for what they are, and discredited accordingly.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is not the same as the Luas strike, which Ross correctly didn't have to intervene in. In this case the unions will have to give way as unlike that there is no other option. Tis all good.

that is not something to bank on, it cannot be guaranteeed.

n97 mini

Bass Reeves wrote: »

That is not going to happen

I suspect you're right...

jimmycrackcorm

end of the road wrote: »

ross mightn't have a choice in the matter, he may have to toe the government line. i should think if he doesn't a sudden "re-shuffle" could possibly take place. if db staff don't cross the picket lines and the unions have insured that they have not told staff not to cross the picket lines, then not only will any blame they would get be incorrect, but they will be able to prove it and those blaming them for something they aren't responsible for won't have a leg to stand on and can be shown for what they are, and discredited accordingly.

I suspect you know what the government think. Given the hassle that they still are going through over water charges, I think having an independent who is not a healy-rae as MOT is a winning strategy.

If DB staff refuse to pass a picket line for a non-connected rural service, then it's just another nail in the coffin for the unions.

that is not something to bank on, it cannot be guaranteeed.

Of course there are no guarantees, but it's going to hasten the acceptance of privatization. If I were a BE worker I'd be looking at making sure that jobs would be saved by adapting. But alas I'm a private sector worker so what I actually do is make sure I keep learning and change jobs to improve my own conditions.

There is no such thing as a race to the bottom, only a race to be the laziest...

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I suspect you know what the government think. Given the hassle that they still are going through over water charges, I think having an independent who is not a healy-rae as MOT is a winning strategy.

it might not be and that can't be guaranteed. no doubt he has his uses being an independant but if he doesn't live up to them he can easily be shuffled away out of the way.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If DB staff refuse to pass a picket line for a non-connected rural service, then it's just another nail in the coffin for the unions.

not at all, it won't make a difference to the unions, they are going nowhere. they have all ready stated they are doing what little they can to remove any potential issues for the other companies. if the workers don't pass other workers pickets, nothing they can do, that is a choice of the individual workers.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Of course there are no guarantees, but it's going to hasten the acceptance of privatization.

by some gullible individuals, absolutely. by those of us who know the realities, no chance. we will never except it.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There is no such thing as a race to the bottom, only a race to be the laziest...

there is absolutely such thing as a race to the bottom and all attempts to stop it must happen for the greater good of all workers. there is no race to be the laziest.

horseburger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

stop twisting my words to suit yourself, I in no way implied a single company to run every single route

Well then, you should have written companies, rather than "a company".

I responded to what you wrote, not what you meant to write, or didn't write.

You said:

"the exact same services, merely run by a company capable of running said services within the confines of the PSO subsidy provided. Clearly there are a lot of payroll, (in)efficiency and legacy costs that non state owned, union controlled companies would not have to bear".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102774168&postcount=871

Cookie_Monster

horseburger wrote: »

Well then, you should have written companies, rather than "a company".

I responded to what you wrote, not what you meant to write, or didn't write.

You said:

"the exact same services, merely run by a company capable of running said services within the confines of the PSO subsidy provided. Clearly there are a lot of payroll, (in)efficiency and legacy costs that non state owned, union controlled companies would not have to bear".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102774168&postcount=871

yeah, a company running a service. you'll even find the word "companies" in that post if you look hard enough...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wanderer78

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

There is no such thing as a race to the bottom, only a race to be the laziest...

Tons of evidence to suggest your wrong, some have been writing about this for decades. Neoliberalism is one of the most dangerous things mankind has created, contrary to what people like Alan Greenspan says about 'increasing worker insecurity', it actually isn't good for the economy of the majority, but only truly benefits the economy of the minority.

horseburger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah, a company running a service. you'll even find the word "companies" in that post if you look hard enough...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You did not state that.

You said:
"the exact same services, merely run by a company capable of running said services".

That is what you said.

Can you make up your mind, whatever it is you are trying to say, before you write it?

Brendan Bendar

Meanwhile another €50k is lost which of course is the real problem.

What we have here is similar to people in an apartment block which is on fire arguing about why and how the fire started instead of trying to put it out and then working out why it happened.

We are a small island and transport is not overly complicated .

Let's try to stop making is sound more complicated and complex than it obviously it.

Allinall

horseburger wrote: »

Do you really think that a press release would be issued by the management of a company, in a dispute with its employees, that would reflect negatively on that company management, by using a word like threat in the statement?

Why would they use a word like threat, when they're not making a threat?

You are the one that used the word threat.

Why?

horseburger

Allinall wrote: »

Why would they use a word like threat, when they're not making a threat?

You are the one that used the word threat.

Why?

If Bus Éireann wasn't making a threat, there would be no talk of a strike on Monday. Can you not see that?

Strikes don't happen when a company management is being nice to its employees.

It is an attempt to push the blame onto others. Threat is a very apt word to use in this instance.

And in fact, I am not the only one using the word threat. The RTE news item, to which I referred, on a number of occasions, at this stage, included the word, threat, in the heading:

"Threat of insolvency at Bus Éireann 'very real'"

and the word, threat, was also used in the first sentence of the article, which states:

"Bus Éireann's Acting Chief Executive Ray Hernan has told staff that the threat of insolvency within the next 18 months is very real".

It does not state "Bus Éireann threatens to make the company insolvent", which is the statement that was attributed to me.

That is the point I am making. The threat is where Bus Éireann issued a press release stating that if proposed cutbacks are not implemented, that the company will be insolvent.

The point I have made, numerous times, is that I did not state that the company said that it was choosing to make the company insolvent, which is what devnull, tried to smart-assedly insinuate, that I had said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0111/844179-bus-eireann/

Shurimgreat

What has been demonstrated clearly in recent weeks and months is:
*BE is not breaking even and losing money on many of its commercial operations. This is fatal for the company since it is compensated for its non profitable routes.
*To continue to operate routes at a loss or depend on more subsidies to compete at an uncompetitive level is unsustainable. Paying drivers overtime(time and a half?) to effectively drive empty or half empty busses makes no economic sense. Better to leave these routes to the private sector.
*The unions are more concerned about their own welfare than rural Ireland. Their supposed concern for rural Ireland is a red herring. The union and its members always comes first in these circumstances.
*The company is a basketcase due to management and unions. Better to let it go to the wall and/or privatise it. A replacement company can compete fairly with competitive costs including labour costs. Existing drivers can apply to join this company but with massive wage reductions. Unions needs to be banned, otherwise we will be back to square one in a few years.

Mebuntu

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.

Workers also have responsibilities. In this case to drive Dublin buses and countrywide trains. That is what they are paid to do. When they arrive at dual depots and see "strike on here" placards carried by employees of another company they have no right whatsoever to refuse to turn up for work. Of course, everybody knows it is the wish of the BE unions to upset as many thousands of other public transport users as they can in any way they can to further their "cause".

Shurimgreat

I think a lot could be learned from how Reagan dealt with a strike to critical public infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

Awesomeness

There is an absolutely a threat. However it is not coming from BE.

It is coming from the unions and their threat of all out strike. And from DB and IE members threatening to call in sick.

n97 mini

Mebuntu wrote: »

Workers also have responsibilities. In this case to drive Dublin buses and countrywide trains. That is what they are paid to do. When they arrive at dual depots and see "strike on here" placards carried by employees of another company they have no right whatsoever to refuse to turn up for work. Of course, everybody knows it is the wish of the BE unions to upset as many thousands of other public transport users as they can in any way they can to further their "cause".

To further that, staff can be dismissed for absenteeism.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/dismissal/fair_grounds_for_dismissal.html

However I seriously doubt anyone has the balls to dismiss IE or DB workers who don't show up for work.

oppenheimer1

end of the road wrote: »

ross mightn't have a choice in the matter, he may have to toe the government line. i should think if he doesn't a sudden "re-shuffle" could possibly take place. if db staff don't cross the picket lines and the unions have insured that they have not told staff not to cross the picket lines, then not only will any blame they would get be incorrect, but they will be able to prove it and those blaming them for something they aren't responsible for won't have a leg to stand on and can be shown for what they are, and discredited accordingly.



that is not something to bank on, it cannot be guaranteeed.

Union's can't on one hand say they are not in dispute both IE or DB but on the other hand say they will defend members that do not cross the pickets.

That is talking out of two sides of their mouth and a cynical attempt to legally insulate themselves from what they know their members to be organising and they are condoning.

The law is clear, there is no protection for unofficial action

trellheim

wasnt part of the db deal recently a no-strike clause

GM228

trellheim wrote: »

wasnt part of the db deal recently a no-strike clause

No, but there was an agreement not to seek further pay claims during the lifetime of the agreement.

jackofalltrades

Thank God for threads like this.
If I was relying on RTE to try and make sense of this all I'd still be confused.

Is there any way that the Government could fold and give in to the Unions, that wouldn't break competition rules?

horseburger

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think a lot could be learned from how Reagan dealt with a strike to critical public infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

Ronald Reagan really was a lovely fellow:

http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-nuclear

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29546-2004Jun9.html