Bust Éireann

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Can we have option 3 which is the government licence and pay a subvention to private operators for routes.

That would get rid of the fat.

you could, but it wouldn't get rid of the fat. it would increase it, as each company would have it's own management and other separate structures compared to the current situation where there is just 1 set of management and structure.

magentis

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Can we have option 3 which is the government licence and pay a subvention to private operators for routes.

That would get rid of the fat.

Thats what the Uk government thought too,see how that ended up!

salonfire

end of the road wrote: »

you could, but it wouldn't get rid of the fat. it would increase it, as each company would have it's own management and other separate structures compared to the current situation where there is just 1 set of management and structure.

Yes that could happen. And then when the tender needs to be reviewed next time, it goes to a competitor. So assuming the company does not want to lose routes, it is in their interest to keep costs down and standards up.

monument

Del.Monte wrote: »

Rail route closures are permanent and more emotive. Losses at Irish Rail are out of control and vast amounts of cash are needed to just keep the existing network safe ...do you need more?

The amounts mentioned in the media are not vast amounts at all.

Del.Monte

monument wrote: »

The amounts mentioned in the media are not vast amounts at all.

More than half a billion Euros according to this item: http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/daniel-mcconnell/blunt-shane-ross-faces-dilemma-to-keep-irish-rail-finances-on-track-438552.html

Chicken feed to you perhaps?

monument

n97 mini wrote: »

I admire your selective belief and disbelief of IE's claims when it suits you.

Play the ball and not the man.

-- moderator

marvin80

Going to be interesting to see how this works out.

"Bus Éireann has informed staff that it will implement cuts to terms and conditions from 20 Monday February which result in pay cuts of around 10%.

Unions have described the company's move as an engagement in warfare, saying they are prepared for the battle."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0127/848229-bus-eireann/

Infini

marvin80 wrote: »

Going to be interesting to see how this works out.

"Bus Éireann has informed staff that it will implement cuts to terms and conditions from 20 Monday February which result in pay cuts of around 10%.

Unions have described the company's move as an engagement in warfare, saying they are prepared for the battle."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0127/848229-bus-eireann/

Guess the battle lines are being drawn then I'd expect strikes to hit at that point at least given the 4 weeks advanced notice. Can only wait and see how this plays out.

Del.Monte

The whole thing is farcical with the top union heads and senior management at Bus Eireann being the only people who will be unaffected. Shane Ross has proved that he is all mouth and no trousers - quelle suprise. :rolleyes:

Brendan Bendar

marvin80 wrote: »

Going to be interesting to see how this works out.

"Bus Éireann has informed staff that it will implement cuts to terms and conditions from 20 Monday February which result in pay cuts of around 10%.

Unions have described the company's move as an engagement in warfare, saying they are prepared for the battle."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0127/848229-bus-eireann/

Yes it is, very interesting .

Transport unions seem to have launched an offensive against the taxpayer.

You had Luas, Dublin Bus and now Bus Eireann.

What's at stake here is who is in charge.

Bus Eireann seems to be a basket case, the unions want to involve the Minister at all cost and ignore the basic facts.

The company is ready to fold very shortly.

Options are screw the taxpayer, or hand the operation to pvt companies, or take cuts and operate in a cost effective way.


Hopefully Ross will have the chungas to cry halt to these warhorses and bat the ball over the boundary for John Q. Taxpayer.

Time to cry halt folks.


Won't be much marches in support of that! Nn

end of the road

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yes it is, very interesting .

Transport unions seem to have launched an offensive against the taxpayer.

You had Luas, Dublin Bus and now Bus Eireann.

What's at stake here is who is in charge.

Bus Eireann seems to be a basket case, the unions want to involve the Minister at all cost and ignore the basic facts.

The company is ready to fold very shortly.

Options are screw the taxpayer, or hand the operation to pvt companies, or take cuts and operate in a cost effective way.


Hopefully Ross will have the chungas to cry halt to these warhorses and bat the ball over the boundary for John Q. Taxpayer.

Time to cry halt folks.


Won't be much marches in support of that! Nn

there are no "war horses" . there is no "offensive against the tax payer" and never were. luas staff are paid by a private company. time to cry hault to BE'S bad management indeed. replace them with new management who want to build the company, they exist.

n97 mini

We all know the procedure. There'll be talk of doom on both sides, the strikes will start, it'll ping pong into the Labour court a few times, most of the concessions will be on the company side thanks to the taxpayer footing the increased bill and the unions will largely get what they want. Rinse and repeat in a few years time.

Like benchmarking both parties are effectively on the same side of the table and those ultimately footing the bill are not represented. It's all a charade.

Infini

n97 mini wrote: »

Like benchmarking both parties are effectively on the same side of the table and those ultimately footing the bill are not represented. It's all a charade.

To be pefectly honest the semi-states are service companies to provide services that would otherwise be significantly higher or non existent. That being said whats charade is how this has been allowed to get to this stage in the first place. Its also silly to think unions would rather let the place go out of buisness it would cost them members for starters.

n97 mini

Infini2 wrote: »

To be pefectly honest the semi-states are service companies to provide services that would otherwise be significantly higher or non existent. That being said whats charade is how this has been allowed to get to this stage in the first place. Its also silly to think unions would rather let the place go out of buisness it would cost them members for starters.

I'm not arguing the service aspect, I'm saying the predictable outcome will be more taxpayer money headed in BE's direction. All these disputes end that way.

magentis

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm not arguing the service aspect, I'm saying the predictable outcome will be more taxpayer money headed in BE's direction. All these disputes end that way.

And thats the way it should be!

The crux of the issue here is that public transport in this country is ridiculously underfunded and badly managed,the workers are not to blame.Indeed if you saw the conditions of canteen and driver facilities at depots around the country you would be shocked.

I note no figures relating to the golden handshakes given to the outgoing Bus Eireann management have been released.

devnull

magentis wrote: »

And thats the way it should be!

The crux of the issue here is that public transport in this country is ridiculously underfunded and badly managed,the workers are not to blame.Indeed if you saw the conditions of canteen and driver facilities at depots around the country you would be shocked.

I note no figures relating to the golden handshakes given to the outgoing Bus Eireann management have been released.

The debate is about the commercial arm, not the publicly funded arm.

magentis

devnull wrote: »

The debate is about the commercial arm, not the publicly funded arm.

There are no "arms",the company is one and the same.

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

there are no "war horses" . there is no "offensive against the tax payer" and never were. luas staff are paid by a private company. time to cry hault to BE'S bad management indeed. replace them with new management who want to build the company, they exist.

Of course there are 'war horses' always was .

Luas a 'private company' ?

Who pays for the infrastructure and instAllment.

Time to call out these war horses and protect the taxpayer, whatever it takes.

This one is a step too far, watch them try to involve Min. Ross at all costs.

Hopefully he will have the chungas to face them and their ilk down and protect the taxpayer.

Time to call a halt folks.

WomanSkirtFan8

i agree. don't want to see anyone lose their job but I don't see Minister Ross getting involved in this at any stage. IMHO he shouldn't as it may be seen as interfering in an industrial relations dispute which could end up making the whole thing much worse than it is.

I only hope that some degree of common sense will eventually prevail at some point.

Del.Monte

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Of course there are 'war horses' always was .

Luas a 'private company' ?

Who pays for the infrastructure and instAllment.

Time to call out these war horses and protect the taxpayer, whatever it takes.

This one is a step too far, watch them try to involve Min. Ross at all costs.

Hopefully he will have the chungas to face them and their ilk down and protect the taxpayer.

Time to call a halt folks.

I'm puzzled by this - how is it that other ministers such as Mary Harney, James Reilly etc. got involved in their portfolios and dictated policy whereas at Transport - with the exception of the late Seamus Brennan - they adopt this ridiculous hands-off approach? What does Shane Ross do with his days except interfere with the judiciary and making sure that Stepaside Garda reopens.

hmmm

Del.Monte wrote: »

dictated policy whereas at Transport - with the exception of the late Seamus Brennan - they adopt this ridiculous hands-off approach?

Because transport has private companies willing to step in and provide the same service at a reduced cost and in a way that the public prefers if needs be - the only place that strikes have worked is in monopoly public services. This might be another Irish ferries if the unions keep up their stance.

end of the road

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Of course there are 'war horses' always was .

Luas a 'private company' ?

Who pays for the infrastructure and instAllment.

Time to call out these war horses and protect the taxpayer, whatever it takes.

This one is a step too far, watch them try to involve Min. Ross at all costs.

Hopefully he will have the chungas to face them and their ilk down and protect the taxpayer.

Time to call a halt folks.

the staff who went on strike are paid by a private company. they're are no war horses. there is nothing to face down. i have all ready agreed that a hault must be called to bad management of BE, replaced with proper management who will work with all stakeholders to build the company.

hmmm wrote: »

Because transport has private companies willing to step in and provide the same service at a reduced cost and in a way that the public prefers if needs be

really? they will step in at less cost on the PSO routes which make nothing? doubt that tbh. nor would i blame them for not doing so.

Infini

devnull wrote: »

The debate is about the commercial arm, not the publicly funded arm.

Bit of a moot point. Sure theres the commercial arm but theyre implimenting sweeping cuts across the company after a decade of stagnant wages. You'd be mad to think after all that the staff are gonna take any more of it.

The whole private company vs semi state thing is a bit of a murky argument as BE is gonna be saddled with legacy issues and costs as well. Fact is this whole thing is being done not through negotiations its trial by media atm using out of context quotes. Take the sunday premium time. Double time sure sounds like a lot. The thing is tho from what I know BE are on legacy contracts where the core pay is rather modest and to make a decent wage OT and the premium time are used to boost income to a decent level.

It COULD come to nothing as usual but its not always a given tho.

Cookie_Monster

magentis wrote: »

And thats the way it should be!

The crux of the issue here is that public transport in this country is ridiculously underfunded and badly managed,the workers are not to blame.

i though we had gotten over this fallacy by now, no? Subvention plus free assets plus free depots = not underfunded even remotely

Bass Reeves

It will be interesting to see if the unions now enter negotiations to resolve this issue. When you read the company statement it has delayed implementation until the 20 February to allow time for a negotiated settlement. From the posting of some here you would imagine that the management have refused to sit down to negotiations. The truth is a little different,on one hand you have a management with an issue where they are running down capital reserves by a 5 million loss per year and are very unlikely to be able to get state aid as they are competing in a commercial area. On the other side you have unions that still think that there is a good fairy out there that will magic all there problems away.

Within the workers there will be many different cadre. Those that are near retirement that will not want to see pension entitlement reduced significantly and are so near retirement that they care little of what is left after. You will have nutty leftist that if a company was running a 1-2 million profit it excessive and the workers deserve a pay rise but a five million loss is a management issue. Then you will have a cadre of workers that see reality. The issue with transport workers is that the nutty one usually exceed the sane ones.

What is happening here is a smaller version of the financial crisis of 2009 the unions could see where the government had no choice with the second FEMPI pay cut but were unable to negotiate it. It could be a bit like that here unions that may be waiting for there hands to be forced and to go back to the membership with a reduction in pay costs or the closure/winding down of the expressway service

Infini

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What is happening here is a smaller version of the financial crisis of 2009 the unions could see where the government had no choice with the second FEMPI pay cut but were unable to negotiate it. It could be a bit like that here unions that may be waiting for there hands to be forced and to go back to the membership with a reduction in pay costs or the closure/winding down of the expressway service

There's a number of differences between there and now one of them being a decade of stagnant wages and built up frustrations hardening resolve. Take in the feelings that the staff may feel theyre being undermined by the government and NTA and they might be willing to stand their ground. Pay cuts at this stage are a lightning rod for trouble.

Brendan Bendar

Infini2 wrote: »

There's a number of differences between there and now one of them being a decade of stagnant wages and built up frustrations hardening resolve. Take in the feelings that the staff may feel theyre being undermined by the government and NTA and they might be willing to stand their ground. Pay cuts at this stage are a lightning rod for trouble.

For the first time in the trio of transport disputes there are job losses on the table.

Maybe this might shunt a little sense into the workforce who, it seems to me anyway, are being led into battle by a hardline bunch who have already ruled out all changes to conditions.

This might concentrate minds a little and help to protect the taxpayer from forces who seek to undermine society as we see it now.

end of the road

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Maybe this might shunt a little sense into the workforce who, it seems to me anyway, are being led into battle by a hardline bunch who have already ruled out all changes to conditions.

nobody can rule out changes on behalf of anyone. the workers themselves decide whether the changes happen, nobody else.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

This might concentrate minds a little and help to protect the taxpayer from forces who seek to undermine society as we see it now.

there are no forces who seek to "undermine society" involved in this dispute.

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

nobody can rule out changes on behalf of anyone. the workers themselves decide whether the changes happen, nobody else.



there are no forces who seek to "undermine society" involved in this dispute.

Did I hear correctly that Dermot O'Leary categorically ruled out any changes to workers conditions?

If that is the case little point in spending yonks 'sitting down discussing' while the company sinks down the tube.

No hope with that kind of attitude.

Dyr

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

This might concentrate minds a little and help to protect the taxpayer from forces who seek to undermine society as we see it now.

I hear the possibility of a Bus Eireann strike was one of the reasons that the atomic clock was put forward by a minute recently.

I mean if we're going to exaggerate, why not go large?