CIE Unions Pathological Strike Culture

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

it's not.

You can't see how waiting up to 20 minutes on peak for a Dart would negatively affect commuters? You can't see how waiting for less time would be a positive. I mean this argument is just so bizarre I'm unable to tackle it in any realistic way.

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So you're happy to negatively affect thousands for hundreds?

i'm not negatively effecting anyone.

pjohnson wrote: »

He is devout to the NBRU so of course he is!

i'm not a member of the NBRU.

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not negatively effecting anyone.

You're negatively affecting the DART users for a hand full of IC users

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You can't see how waiting up to 20 minutes on peak for a Dart would negatively affect commuters? You can't see how waiting for less time would be a positive. I mean this argument is just so bizarre I'm unable to tackle it in any realistic way.

sorry but it's a first world problem. annoying, sure, but of all the things to complain about in the world this is at the bottom or near it.
the thing is we cannot say for sure yet whether you would be waiting less time with a 10 minute dart because to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been tested to scope the possible timings yet.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You're negatively affecting the DART users for a hand full of IC users

i'm not negatively effecting anyone for anyone. the railway just as much belongs to IC passengers as dart users so you will just have to come to terms with it.

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

sorry but it's a first world problem. .

First world problem ? This is the level of debate . Pathetic , I'm out.

tabbey

Stephen15 wrote: »

But IE, BE and DB are all semi state bodies meaning they're staff are not public servants meaning they do follow any public sector pay deals.

The cost of investment and operation is paid from the exchequer, apart from what the fare box contributes. It is exactly the same as the health service, which is part funded by private fees.

CIE employees are members of strong trade unions who are willing to stand up and fight for their members pay and terms and conditions. That is a fact whether you like it or not your gonna have to accept it.

So what you are saying is that the law of the jungle should prevail.

Luas drivers work for Transdev a private company. They are private sector workers so why would they be part of a public sector deal?

Transdev merely operates the service on behalf of the NTA. The service is funded entirely by the exchequer, apart from fare revenue, over which Transdev has no control.

Stephen15

tabbey wrote: »

Transdev merely operates the service on behalf of the NTA. The service is funded entirely by the exchequer, apart from fare revenue, over which Transdev has no control.

But their staff work for Transdev a private company meaning they are private sector employees. That's like saying construction workers building a public building are public sector employees and they should be on the same pay deal.

tabbey

Stephen15 wrote: »

But their staff work for Transdev a private company meaning they are private sector employees. That's like saying construction workers building a public building are public sector employees and they should be on the same pay deal.

Construction workers are not the same, they suffered layoffs during the meltdown, and many had to emigrate.
Tram, train and bus drivers all retained their secure jobs and overtime.

Stephen15

tabbey wrote: »

Construction workers are not the same, they suffered layoffs during the meltdown, and many had to emigrate.
Tram, train and bus drivers all retained their secure jobs and overtime.

I was using construction workers purely as an example the same could be said cleaners, maintence staff and other staff that work for private companies which are contracted to provide a service on behalf of a government body such the NTA, the HSE, The DoE, The DoH etc. They are private sector workers as they work for a private company.

Do have a problem with people who have a secure job with good overtime?

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You're negatively affecting the DART users for a hand full of IC users

Oh would you stop with this line of reasoning. The whole "mentoring is delaying a 10min service" is a copout. Seriously there is 2 real reasons why a 10m service isnt gonna work.

1) Northern Line Bottleneck and
2) 5 level crossings over 2~3KM on the southside.

I honestly think that the 10m service is a bad idea not out of principal but because the DART isnt a standalone system. It has to share capacity with mainline and intercity trains and capacity will be so tight that the smallest of things is all it will take to break the whole lot down.

Idbatterim

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

You seem resistant to change.

Do you not think commuters deserve a 10 minute DART?

of course he does, once his mates receive more pay! Out of interest, did transdev employees receive a pay increase as part of the longer trams introduced or did that even come up?

The problem is actually totally down to government, more than CIE or the unions. Think about this for a minute, when there are strikes, the unions are setting all of the terms, how much they will lose in pay immediately, but will receive in pay increases down the line. Its farcical. If they propose striking again, let them know, there is no way in hell they are going to be financially better off, simple, stops the strikes once and for all... Where in gods name else will they be employed on those lottery like pay, pensions and working conditions? they dont have a leg to stand on realistically!

Stephen15

Idbatterim wrote: »

of course he does, once his mates receive more pay! Out of interest, did transdev employees receive a pay increase as part of the longer trams introduced or did that even come up?

No what makes you think that?

Idbatterim

Stephen15 wrote: »

No what makes you think that?

because it nearly beggars belief that they wouldnt be out tying to thieve more money for it, as IR drivers certainly would and have...

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

The whole "mentoring is delaying a 10min service" is a copout.

I never mentioned mentoring

IRISH RAIL HAS postponed its plans to run Darts every 10 minutes due to what it described as the “intransigence” of unions.

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-rail-10-minute-dart-2687904-Mar2016/

That was 2 years ago!

Infini

Stephen15 wrote: »

No what makes you think that?

People read too much internet and think and react like the whole lot is on strike every few weeks. They see the same people on the news and because theyre the same representatives its all the same. C_C

Seriously CIE is a shell company for property only these days there more or less 3 seperate companies with limited shared resources from legacy issues. What I find silly is people think its always on strike yet in real terms in my experience I've only been out on strike 3 days..... in 13 YEARS.

Problem I find is people are too quick to give out and blame anything for any inconvenience (I blame cancer media for that). Things get done through negotiations. The reason half the time things blow up like this is usually not simply because "the union said no" but because someone with an ego or on a power trip tries forcing an agenda through without talking to the people on the ground who work the job, pisses off too many people doing so and in the end nothing gets done because they aggrivated too many people and noone will agree because of it.

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

Problem I find is people are too quick to give out and blame anything for any inconvenience (I blame cancer media for that). Things get done through negotiations.

It seems like nothing is getting done through negotiations. 2 years of talk about driving the Dart every ten minutes. Does this seem reasonable?

The unions hold all the cards here. Management can't hire people willing to work, they can't promote from within nor can they take action against drivers refusing to drive the new rosters.

Meanwhile the commuter suffers

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It seems like nothing is getting done through negotiations. 2 years of talk about driving the Dart every ten minutes. Does this seem reasonable?

The unions hold all the cards here. Management can't hire people willing to work, they can't promote from within nor can they take action against drivers refusing to drive the new rosters.

Meanwhile the commuter suffers

The commuter suffers because they (the government) still treat public transport as a money making company instead of an infrastructure. Lets be honest the investments in the PHYSICAL infrastructure should have been done sooner not as an afterthought. I dont see the 10m service running very well because of the previous bottlenecks i mentioned.

As for the drivers refusing to train mentee, do you really expect them to put their own job and financial security at risk and take the blame for someone elses mistake? Do you think any of them would want to take that risk considering the kind of untrustworthy management running the place tends to throw the lowest level employee under the train at the first opportunity?

Jamie2k9

Infini

Are existing DART drivers and unions refusing to cooperate with roster changes to enable a 10 minute DART....

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

of course he does, once his mates receive more pay! Out of interest, did transdev employees receive a pay increase as part of the longer trams introduced or did that even come up?

their pay deal will cover it.

Idbatterim wrote: »

The problem is actually totally down to government, more than CIE or the unions. Think about this for a minute, when there are strikes, the unions are setting all of the terms, how much they will lose in pay immediately, but will receive in pay increases down the line. Its farcical. If they propose striking again, let them know, there is no way in hell they are going to be financially better off, simple, stops the strikes once and for all...

no it won't stop the strikes. at all.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Where in gods name else will they be employed on those lottery like pay, pensions and working conditions?

well seeing as we are discussing IE, the staff (the drivers at least) would get similar over in the uk, and further afield.

Idbatterim wrote: »

they dont have a leg to stand on realistically!

they do.

end of the road

Infini wrote: »

Oh would you stop with this line of reasoning. The whole "mentoring is delaying a 10min service" is a copout. Seriously there is 2 real reasons why a 10m service isnt gonna work.

1) Northern Line Bottleneck and
2) 5 level crossings over 2~3KM on the southside.

I honestly think that the 10m service is a bad idea not out of principal but because the DART isnt a standalone system. It has to share capacity with mainline and intercity trains and capacity will be so tight that the smallest of things is all it will take to break the whole lot down.

oh no, i'm apparently negatively effecting these people by reminding them the railway is for all users and not just the dart. this is dispite the fact it's well known here i don't work for IE, NTA or any of the transport companies.

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

The commuter suffers because they (the government) still treat public transport as a money making company instead of an infrastructure. Lets be honest the investments in the PHYSICAL infrastructure should have been done sooner not as an afterthought. I dont see the 10m service running very well because of the previous bottlenecks i mentioned.

My understanding is all the infrastructure required for 10 minute DARTs is in place. If it runs very well or not isn't the drivers concern.

Colonel Claptrap

end of the road wrote: »

oh no, i'm apparently negatively effecting these people by reminding them the railway is for all users and not just the dart. this is dispite the fact it's well known here i don't work for IE, NTA or any of the transport companies.

Which of these is true?

Unions will not accept 10 minute DART because it is incompatible with intercity services?

Unions will not accept 10 minute DART because older members refuse to mentor new entrants?

trellheim

The commuter suffers because they (the government) still treat public transport as a money making company instead of an infrastructure. Lets be honest the investments in the PHYSICAL infrastructure should have been done sooner not as an afterthought. I dont see the 10m service running very well because of the previous bottlenecks i mentioned.

That is the NTAs concern. Lets put the 10 minute service on and its up to them to sort it out. The driver of the bus is hardly the one fixing the potholes.

tabbey

Stephen15 wrote: »

Do have a problem with people who have a secure job with good overtime?

Not at all.

But I do have with one group of them demanding to be treated more favourably than another group paid from the same public source.

There should be equality all round.

The problem was one created by the two governments between 2008 and 2013. A case of divide and rule.

end of the road

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Which of these is true?

Unions will not accept 10 minute DART because it is incompatible with intercity services?

Unions will not accept 10 minute DART because older members refuse to mentor new entrants?

pop an email off to the union and ask them.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My understanding is all the infrastructure required for 10 minute DARTs is in place. If it runs very well or not isn't the drivers concern.

the signalling is in place yes. however the concern is in relation to whether there is enough contingentsy in terms of track capacity.

Stephen15

tabbey wrote: »

The problem was one created by the two governments between 2008 and 2013. A case of divide and rule.

But the government doesn't have a say in pay deals sought by workers in semi state bodies

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

the signalling is in place yes. however the concern is in relation to whether there is enough contingentsy in terms of track capacity.

Who's concern? Drivers are paid to drive as we are so often reminded. If only there was a way to find out if we have enough capacity like I don't know running the trains to a 10 minute schedule?

Working class heroes

end of the road wrote: »

pop an email off to the union and ask them.



the signalling is in place yes. however the concern is in relation to whether there is enough contingentsy in terms of track capacity.

Pc@siptu.com is it?

Stephen15

I generally take a neutral view when it comes to arguments about industrial disputes regarding CIE companies but I have to say I think there might be a certain element of jealousy coming from certain people who are jealous that CIE workers have strong unions that are willing to fight for a pay rise for them.

Then some complain saying that they "would gladly drive a bus/train for the money those lads are on" but yet DB and BE have recruited for drivers on numerous ocassions in recent years and unless these people who constantly complain on here and in comments sections are the ones applying which I somehow doubt as I believe uptake for these positions isin't that high I'm sure you near fill every DB, IE and BE driving position with everyone who has said that at this stage.

They really should stop saying they'd happily do the job whenever there is a strike or if they are going to say then maybe they should look at getting a D licence and applying for a job as a driver for DB or BE whenever they come or they're just pure and utter hypocrites.

Colonel Claptrap

Come off it. The only reason we are giving out is because of begrudgery?

I am a customer of IE. I am also a taxpayer. It infuriates me to see this sort of carry on because I am directly effected by It, not because I'm jealous of their cushy number.

Further to your point, I would not want to work in a closed shop with a hive mind of union members. I previously worked in 2 jobs with overbearing union heads on power trips. I didnt stick around for long. I improved my "terms and conditions" by upskilling and getting the hell out of there.

Flex

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Come off it. The only reason we are giving out is because of begrudgery?

I am a customer of IE. I am also a taxpayer. It infuriates me to see this sort of carry on because I am directly effected by It, not because I'm jealous of their cushy number.

Further to your point, I would not want to work in a closed shop with a hive mind of union members. I previously worked in 2 jobs with overbearing union heads on power trips. I didnt stick around for long. I improved my "terms and conditions" by upskilling and getting the hell out of there.

Indeed the begrudgery line is refuge of the lazy and ignorant. If I own shares in a company where staff is paid significantly above market rates of pay and are returning mediocre outputs and obstructing improvements in efficiency, agility and performance I would be equally disgusted and demand results before withdrawing my investment in said company

As a tax payer I have a stake in these companies and I fund them through my income taxes and so on. I cant withdraw my taxes from the government so my only means of retort when I see staff paid significantly above market rates of pay and are returning mediocre outputs and obstructing improvements in efficiency, agility and performance is to demand the government to take a harder line.

I don't have a lobby group (in the form of trade unions) to represent me in strike debates/demands, and I am at a huge disadvantage because these same staff have 'jobs for life' (further vexing, as this privilege is funded by taxpayers and used a tool to gouge those same taxpayers further) so there is effectively absolutely no downside for this bad attitude and sense of entitlement; the result is I have to hand over more of my money through taxation than I would otherwise. Beyond that, theres simple fact we have such mediocre public services in Ireland due to the fact the high unionisation means the services are viewed as a means of employing people who would otherwise be unemployed, so those services are ran for the benefit of the staff, rather than the public, which as a socially left-wing individual I find very frustrating

brokenarms

Flex wrote: »

Indeed the begrudgery line is refuge of the lazy and ignorant. If I own shares in a company where staff is paid significantly above market rates of pay and are returning mediocre outputs and obstructing improvements in efficiency, agility and performance I would be equally disgusted and demand results before withdrawing my investment in said company

As a tax payer I have a stake in these companies and I fund them through my income taxes and so on. I cant withdraw my taxes from the government so my only means of retort when I see staff paid significantly above market rates of pay and are returning mediocre outputs and obstructing improvements in efficiency, agility and performance is to demand the government to take a harder line.

I don't have a lobby group (in the form of trade unions) to represent me in strike debates/demands, and I am at a huge disadvantage because these same staff have 'jobs for life' (further vexing, as this privilege is funded by taxpayers and used a tool to gouge those same taxpayers further) so there is effectively absolutely no downside for this bad attitude and sense of entitlement; the result is I have to hand over more of my money through taxation than I would otherwise. Beyond that, theres simple fact we have such mediocre public services in Ireland due to the fact the high unionisation means the services are viewed as a means of employing people who would otherwise be unemployed, so those services are ran for the benefit of the staff, rather than the public, which as a socially left-wing individual I find very frustrating

Yet the very post you deny begrudgery , you exhibit it in the next paragraph?

Stephen15

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Come off it. The only reason we are giving out is because of begrudgery?

I am a customer of IE. I am also a taxpayer. It infuriates me to see this sort of carry on because I am directly effected by It, not because I'm jealous of their cushy number.

Further to your point, I would not want to work in a closed shop with a hive mind of union members. I previously worked in 2 jobs with overbearing union heads on power trips. I didnt stick around for long. I improved my "terms and conditions" by upskilling and getting the hell out of there.

When did I say begrudge. I said I think some people are jealous of CIE workers as they say they would gladly do the job for whatever money the CIE workers are on. I was not targeting this post at you you never said that I was targeting it at other people who they would gladly drive bus/train but never apply for a job as one.

StreetLight

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Come off it. The only reason we are giving out is because of begrudgery?

I am a customer of IE. I am also a taxpayer. It infuriates me to see this sort of carry on because I am directly effected by It, not because I'm jealous of their cushy number.

Further to your point, I would not want to work in a closed shop with a hive mind of union members. I previously worked in 2 jobs with overbearing union heads on power trips. I didnt stick around for long. I improved my "terms and conditions" by upskilling and getting the hell out of there.

Who mentioned begrudgery?

You view someone who works a full week with anti-social shifts (and sometimes with even more anti-social customers) on the average industrial wage as having a cushy number?

The politicians are laughing at you.

end of the road

Flex wrote: »

Indeed the begrudgery line is refuge of the lazy and ignorant. If I own shares in a company where staff is paid significantly above market rates of pay and are returning mediocre outputs and obstructing improvements in efficiency, agility and performance I would be equally disgusted and demand results before withdrawing my investment in said company

As a tax payer I have a stake in these companies and I fund them through my income taxes and so on. I cant withdraw my taxes from the government so my only means of retort when I see staff paid significantly above market rates of pay and are returning mediocre outputs and obstructing improvements in efficiency, agility and performance is to demand the government to take a harder line.

I don't have a lobby group (in the form of trade unions) to represent me in strike debates/demands, and I am at a huge disadvantage because these same staff have 'jobs for life' (further vexing, as this privilege is funded by taxpayers and used a tool to gouge those same taxpayers further) so there is effectively absolutely no downside for this bad attitude and sense of entitlement; the result is I have to hand over more of my money through taxation than I would otherwise. Beyond that, theres simple fact we have such mediocre public services in Ireland due to the fact the high unionisation means the services are viewed as a means of employing people who would otherwise be unemployed, so those services are ran for the benefit of the staff, rather than the public, which as a socially left-wing individual I find very frustrating

on what basis are you claiming "staff are paid significantly above market rates of pay"
there is a difference in being paid over the market rate and not agreeing with their rate of pay. irish rail drivers for example are paid similar to the uk, so are paid within the european rail market rates of pay.
there are no jobs for life in the public service anymore.

Infini

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Infini

Are existing DART drivers and unions refusing to cooperate with roster changes to enable a 10 minute DART....

Havent a clue atm about this because I've heard nothing about it. All I've heard is what's been posted here by other people who are drivers and have said basically that its a liability issue. That's the core problem with the mentoring in the first place: It's the company trying to force driver's to take new drivers out and make them liable for any mistakes the mentor make regardless of how much time as passed.

Driver's said no because
1) its voluntary and
2) they dont trust the company if something goes wrong so the only thing they can do is stay away from it.

Edit: I also wish some poster's would stop using the "I'm a taxpayer" angle as an "argument". Regardless of the fact that EVERYONE here is a taxpayer thank you very much (unless your living in malta! :P ), it seems to be overused as an excuse to come across as self important rather than an actual argument. EVERYONE has problem's we can only deal with them as they come along.

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

make them liable for any mistakes the mentor make regardless of how much time as passed.

Can someone please post a link to this? I can't find it even on the NBRU site. All I found was

Our members have rejected the Recommendation which was designed to facilitate a move from the currently agreed voluntarist system of training new drivers, to one where it would become compulsory for all train drivers to mentor new colleagues.

http://nbru.ie/index.php/nbru-members-reject-labour-court-proposal-on-past-productivity-and-driver-training/

Jamie2k9

Infini wrote: »

Havent a clue atm about this because I've heard nothing about it. All I've heard is what's been posted here by other people who are drivers and have said basically that its a liability issue. That's the core problem with the mentoring in the first place: It's the company trying to force driver's to take new drivers out and make them liable for any mistakes the mentor make regardless of how much time as passed.

Driver's said no because
1) its voluntary and
2) they dont trust the company if something goes wrong so the only thing they can do is stay away from it.

Edit: I also wish some poster's would stop using the "I'm a taxpayer" angle as an "argument". Regardless of the fact that EVERYONE here is a taxpayer thank you very much (unless your living in malta! :P ), it seems to be overused as an excuse to come across as self important rather than an actual argument. EVERYONE has problem's we can only deal with them as they come along.

Well one of the unions said a few months ago they would not co-operate with roster changes to allow the 10 minute schedule.

By right there should be 0 new DART drivers needed to facilitate but "resistance to change" is the problem and not wanting to give up shift/break patterns.

tabbey

Stephen15 wrote: »

But the government doesn't have a say in pay deals sought by workers in semi state bodies

The government had power to enact any legislation it chose prior to the 2016 election. It is also the owner of semi-state companies, with power to change the boards, and/or liquidate the companies. It could also abolish the NTA.

Stephen15

tabbey wrote: »

The government had power to enact any legislation it chose prior to the 2016 election. It is also the owner of semi-state companies, with power to change the boards, and/or liquidate the companies. It could also abolish the NTA.

But pay and conditions are an internal matter for CIE management which is appointed by the minister for transport that's the only connection between the Minister for Transport and his civil servants and CIE. It's an entirely separate entity from the department of transport as they delegate responsibility for CIE and their companies away from the DoT.

fxotoole

Infini wrote: »

Havent a clue atm about this because I've heard nothing about it. All I've heard is what's been posted here by other people who are drivers and have said basically that its a liability issue. That's the core problem with the mentoring in the first place: It's the company trying to force driver's to take new drivers out and make them liable for any mistakes the mentor make regardless of how much time as passed.

Driver's said no because
1) its voluntary and
2) they dont trust the company if something goes wrong so the only thing they can do is stay away from it.

Edit: I also wish some poster's would stop using the "I'm a taxpayer" angle as an "argument". Regardless of the fact that EVERYONE here is a taxpayer thank you very much (unless your living in malta! :P ), it seems to be overused as an excuse to come across as self important rather than an actual argument. EVERYONE has problem's we can only deal with them as they come along.

So as a taxpayer with a stake in public services, you’re OK with your taxes being wasted, inefficiency in public services, poor service, public-facing staff with very bad attitudes, and resistance to any sort of effort to change these issues and modernise the service?

sharper

Stephen15 wrote: »

But pay and conditions are an internal matter for CIE management which is appointed by the minister for transport that's the only connection between the Minister for Transport and his civil servants and CIE. It's an entirely separate entity from the department of transport as they delegate responsibility for CIE and their companies away from the DoT.

Why do the unions keeps insisting the minister get involved in these internal matters?

LeinsterDub

sharper wrote: »

Why do the unions keeps insisting the minister get involved in these internal matters?

Because the Minster can give them more money. CIÉs stated position of we are flat broke lads is kinda hard to negotiate around.

sharper

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Because the Minster can give them more money. CIÉs stated position of we are flat broke lads is kinda hard to negotiate around.

Sure, makes sense. I don't think it's reasonable to argue it both ways though - it's an internal matter and nobody's business but also the taxpayer should pay up every time to resolve these disputes.

CIE are semi-state and rely heavily on the taxpayer, therefore the opinion of taxpayers matter.

LeinsterDub

sharper wrote: »

Sure, makes sense. I don't think it's reasonable to argue it both ways though - it's an internal matter and nobody's business but also the taxpayer should pay up every time to resolve these disputes.

CIE are semi-state and rely heavily on the taxpayer, therefore the opinion of taxpayers matter.

I'm not entirely sure so am open to correction here but under EU law a cash injection is illegal. You'll notice BÉ get money for PSO routes, DB get buses which remains the property of the NTA and GA have also gotten this to keep the playing field level. IÉ now have an separate division who maintain the rails.

trellheim

That's the core problem with the mentoring in the first place: It's the company trying to force driver's to take new drivers out and make them liable for any mistakes the mentor make regardless of how much time as passe

And I've asked repeatedly - how the hell do you think it should work - that there should be no comeback on the mentor for anything ?

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

And I've asked repeatedly - how the hell do you think it should work - that there should be no comeback on the mentor for anything ?

The whole driver mentoring thing should fall under a DTE or an actual driver training grade/job IMO (ie. someone whos job is specifically training and taking out new drivers not asking one of the regular drivers to watch the newbie and be responsible for their feck ups). If theres so many liabilities involved or theres issues about regular drivers being on the hook for mentee mistakes then it should be a designated trainer who should be looking after this.

Colonel Claptrap

Infini wrote: »

The whole driver mentoring thing should fall under a DTE or an actual driver training grade/job IMO (ie. someone whos job is specifically training and taking out new drivers not asking one of the regular drivers to watch the newbie and be responsible for their feck ups). If theres so many liabilities involved or theres issues about regular drivers being on the hook for mentee mistakes then it should be a designated trainer who should be looking after this.

How long would it take 1 trainer to train 30 drivers? He would have to take them out individually, while the other trainees sat around drinking cups of tea.

Also, what does the trainer do next year when everyone is eventually trained up? I sure hope he likes tea.

Companies in the real world would go bust with this sort of waste. When a new guy starts in my job, he gets trained up by people on his team. Nobody complains that it's not in their contract. Its common sense. People just get on with it.

Rootsblower

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

How long would it take 1 trainer to train 30 drivers? He would have to take them out individually, while the other trainees sat around drinking cups of tea.

Also, what does the trainer do next year when everyone is eventually trained up? I sure hope he likes tea.

Companies in the real world would go bust with this sort of waste. When a new guy starts in my job, he gets trained up by people on his team. Nobody complains that it's not in their contract. Its common sense. People just get on with it.

In most workplaces the new guy your training hasn’t got the ability to endanger the lives of a few hundred people by his mistakes and the guy training him carrying the can for it.

end of the road

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

How long would it take 1 trainer to train 30 drivers? He would have to take them out individually, while the other trainees sat around drinking cups of tea.

Also, what does the trainer do next year when everyone is eventually trained up? I sure hope he likes tea.

Companies in the real world would go bust with this sort of waste. When a new guy starts in my job, he gets trained up by people on his team. Nobody complains that it's not in their contract. Its common sense. People just get on with it.

what goes on in your company is not comparible to a rail operator who must operate to the absolute bar in terms of health and safety, who have to cary a few hundred or more passengers safely to their destination.