CIE Unions Pathological Strike Culture

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2017 people still being paid in cash. 2 years later still no 10 minute darts, driving to Greystones. Shall I continue?

what has driving to greystones got to do with unions?

Stephen15

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Are there extra buttons? Does the driver have to shake all the extra passengers hands?

Longer trains= more passengers, more passengers= extra responsibility as the driver is responsible for the safety of their passengers. Longer trains also means a greater stopping distance and greater risk of overshooting the platform.

Colonel Claptrap

Stephen15 wrote: »

Longer trains= more passengers, more passengers= extra responsibility as the driver is responsible for the safety of their passengers.

Passenger numbers have increased since the recession. More passengers = extra responsibility.

Why was this not an issue for unions?

The company i work for won a few extra contracts this year. It meant more responsibility for all of us. You know what we did? Celebrated.

goingnowhere

Stephen15 wrote: »

Longer trains= more passengers, more passengers= extra responsibility as the driver is responsible for the safety of their passengers. Longer trains also means a greater stopping distance and greater risk of overshooting the platform.

Rubbish

Stopping distance of an 8 coach DART is the same as a 2 coach, indeed under poor conditions the 8 coach will stop in a shorter distance

There is no additional skill or effort required. WRC/LRC/LC agreed and told the DART drivers they had no claim.

Same thing goes for 26, 27, 28, 29 and 22 fleets. The Dublin Belfast and Dublin Cork are fixed length so braking characteristics are fixed

Back in the days of the Cravens, Mk2 and Mk3 fleet there was a need for a high degree of skill with braking but now in the land of EP brakes and WSP its all the same

uptherebels

Stephen15 wrote: »

Longer trains= more passengers, more passengers= extra responsibility as the driver is responsible for the safety of their passengers. Longer trains also means a greater stopping distance and greater risk of overshooting the platform.

surely the responsibility to not crash is the same regardless of the number of passengers on board? I mean how much more careful are they with 100 passengers than they are with 50?

Longer trains? suuuuuure their highly skilled operators remember;)

end of the road

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Passenger numbers have increased since the recession. More passengers = extra responsibility.

Why was this not an issue for unions?

why not pop them an email and ask? or ask them via their twitter/facebook if availible.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

The company i work for won a few extra contracts this year. It meant more responsibility for all of us. You know what we did? Celebrated.

so what?

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

Longer trains= more passengers, more passengers= extra responsibility as the driver is responsible for the safety of their passengers. Longer trains also means a greater stopping distance and greater risk of overshooting the platform.

Complete tosh the driver's job is to drive the DART be that 4,6 or 8 carriage units it's fundamentally the same job. Do drivers get paid more for driving in the rain greater stopping distance...


I assume when the 4 carriage sets were introduced they returned the increase, less responsibility and all that

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Complete tosh the driver's job is to drive the DART be that 4,6 or 8 carriage units it's fundamentally the same job. Do drivers get paid more for driving in the rain greater stopping distance...


I assume when the 4 carriage sets were introduced they returned the increase, less responsibility and all that

why would they. saves them looking for the increase back when the 8 cars would come back.

Hilly Bill

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2017 people still being paid in cash. 2 years later still no 10 minute darts, driving to Greystones. Shall I continue?

Only continue if you want to go past greystones.

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

what has driving to greystones got to do with unions?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/dart-threat-averted-as-drivers-training-deferred-1.224168

When talks broke down on Friday the unions had told Iarnrod Eireann that drivers would probably settle for the £8,000-a-head Labour Court award to allow new trainees on the DART provided it was made on a tax-free basis. Alternatively, the drivers might accept £11,000 if some of the lump sum was tax-free

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2017 people still being paid in cash. 2 years later still no 10 minute darts, driving to Greystones. Shall I continue?

You DO know that there will be no 10m service to Greystones anytime because of a certain single line track between there and Bray and its a good 10m+ to traverse that section. Best they can do is one every 30m.

LeinsterDub

end of the road wrote: »

why would they. saves them looking for the increase back when the 8 cars would come back.

Classic one way streetism

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/dart-threat-averted-as-drivers-training-deferred-1.224168

That article is from 1999.....

Seriously thats irish punts in it. Talk about necro article......

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

You DO know that there will be no 10m service to Greystones anytime because of a certain single line track between there and Bray and its a good 10m+ to traverse that section. Best they can do is one every 30m.

What's that got to do with anything. It's like you're answering a different post?

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

That article is from 1999.....

Seriously thats irish punts in it. Talk about necro article......

Doesn't make it any less true. Your defense of anything you don't like seems to be to just dismiss it out of hand.

end of the road

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Doesn't make it any less true. Your defense of anything you don't like seems to be to just dismiss it out of hand.

it does make it untrue however as that article was from 19 years ago and whatever dispute is going on now isn't relevant to back then.

The Bishop Basher

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you are annoyed that IE are happy in their jobs and intend to retire in their current positions.

I can see no reason for their lack of ambition to annoy me. What does annoy me off however is that they want me to work harder and longer to pay for their lack of ambition.

If I want more money I have to go earn it. I don’t see why the public sector should be any different. At least then we might get something close to value for money.

Right now it’s a complete farce..

end of the road

Swanner wrote: »

I can see no reason for their lack of ambition to annoy me. What does annoy me off however is that they want me to work harder and longer to pay for their lack of ambition.

If I want more money I have to go earn it. I don’t see why the public sector should be any different. At least then we might get something close to value for money.

Right now it’s a complete farce..

what lack of ambition. sometimes people like their chosen profession and decide to stay in it. it's not people's job to change jobs for the craic or just to suit you.
you aren't being asked to work harder or longer for them. the public sector have to go and earn more money if they want it as well, the unions simply help get them the best deal.

Seth Brundle

Stephen15 wrote: »

Longer trains= more passengers, more passengers= extra responsibility as the driver is responsible for the safety of their passengers. Longer trains also means a greater stopping distance and greater risk of overshooting the platform.

They are responsible for more people but their job doesn't change. Drive train. Stop train. Open doors. Close doors. Rinse and repeat.
As for the longer trains, is there an additional skill required that isn't taught during driver training?

bebeman

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In a previous job I had to be in a union, for all the good it did. The union negotiated pay rise I got at some point during that was tiny, their yearly membership fee increase that year was 3 times the size! Some benefit
:

Bollóx!
The largest ever rise in union dues i have ever had was .50c a week.
so a 39 hour work week , you expect us to believe the union got you a fraction of a penny per hour for a pay rise?
I would wager after your statement you have never had a job never mind been a member of a union.
If you are going to spout anti union BS at least try make it believable.

bebeman

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Passenger numbers have increased since the recession. More passengers = extra responsibility.

Why was this not an issue for unions?

The company i work for won a few extra contracts this year. It meant more responsibility for all of us. You know what we did? Celebrated.

Train capacity has not changed has it?
Driver take responsibility for a train at full capacity, now add extra carriages you now have extra people and extra...............

Seth Brundle

bebeman wrote: »

Train capacity has not changed has it?
Driver take responsibility for a train at full capacity, now add extra carriages you now have extra people and extra...............

Can you elaborate on how exactly the drivers job changes here?
Either way they're not to kill their passengers so should the numbers make much of a difference?
They aren't physically pulling the train so what extra effort is required by the driver for the train to pull an extra carriage or two?

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything. It's like you're answering a different post?

You complain about no 10minute Darts then point out your driving to Greystones. I'm just pointing out the fact that there's no real chance of a 10m Service to Greystones because of that single line track bottleneck!

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Doesn't make it any less true. Your defense of anything you don't like seems to be to just dismiss it out of hand.

Trying to use an article from nearly 20 years ago to make a point over whats happening today DOES make one tend to dismiss it due to AGE and lack of understanding of the CURRENT circumstances atm.

kbannon wrote: »

Can you elaborate on how exactly the drivers job changes here?
Either way they're not to kill their passengers so should the numbers make much of a difference?
They aren't physically pulling the train so what extra effort is required by the driver for the train to pull an extra carriage or two?

What I would probably tend to point out is that unlike the past there's a tendancy to use litigation rather excessively for even simple things these days (eg: I slipped on a chip I want money!). To be fair I the primary reason anyone will avoid taking on anything extra these days is not because of lazyness but out of caution of being blindsided into being held responsible for things they werent aware of being responsible for. It would be the feeling that management would try and throw someone "under the train" to paraphrase to save their own hides and the only way of not getting hit that way is to avoid agreeing to anything in the firstplace.

StreetLight

kbannon wrote: »

They are responsible for more people but their job doesn't change. Drive train. Stop train. Open doors. Close doors. Rinse and repeat.
As for the longer trains, is there an additional skill required that isn't taught during driver training?

A natural aptitude to be able to safely stop a hundred tonnes of metal crashing through the station buffers would be an advantage.

Seth Brundle

Infini wrote: »

You complain about no 10minute Darts then point out your driving to Greystones. I'm just pointing out the fact that there's no real chance of a 10m Service to Greystones because of that single line track bottleneck!

Are you deliberately not seeing their comma!

Infini wrote: »

What I would probably tend to point out is that unlike the past there's a tendancy to use litigation rather excessively for even simple things these days (eg: I slipped on a chip I want money!). To be fair I the primary reason anyone will avoid taking on anything extra these days is not because of lazyness but out of caution of being blindsided into being held responsible for things they werent aware of being responsible for. It would be the feeling that management would try and throw someone "under the train" to paraphrase to save their own hides and the only way of not getting hit that way is to avoid agreeing to anything in the firstplace.

Litigation can occur with one or a million passengers. Surely the driver should not be making mistakes that could injure any of their passengers?
Are drivers using suvh different levels of care that extra skills are required?

Seth Brundle

StreetLight wrote: »

A natural aptitude to be able to safely stop a hundred tonnes of metal crashing through the station buffers would be an advantage.

Are potential new drivers screened for this aptidude or are they taught it in their extensive training or does it only come upon receipt of more money?
I'm not saying that driving a train is easy but don't try to portray it as an equivalent to brain surgery

hurler32

Is it the case that in many other forms of employment be it through weak union or weak staff many reasonably paid jobs of the past have become minimum wage jobs , employer greed is a topic not often spoken about ...
Plenty of companies out there doing things in the cheap paying staff circa 400 euro a week that could easily pay a reasonable 600 a week and still make loads ...the company owners not contend been millionaires want to be billionaires ...meanwhile their employees have the toes coming out through their shoes !

Seth Brundle

^^^^ aah the poor employee versus the millionare boss argument. C'mon defendnunions with proper debate rather than childish nonsense!

Colonel Claptrap

hurler32 wrote: »

Is it the case that in many other forms of employment be it through weak union or weak staff many reasonably paid jobs of the past have become minimum wage jobs , employer greed is a topic not often spoken about ...
Plenty of companies out there doing things in the cheap paying staff circa 400 euro a week that could easily pay a reasonable 600 a week and still make loads ...the company owners not contend been millionaires want to be billionaires ...meanwhile their employees have the toes coming out through their shoes !

Have you seen the financial health of IE?

LeinsterDub

Infini wrote: »

You complain about no 10minute Darts then point out your driving to Greystones. I'm just pointing out the fact that there's no real chance of a 10m Service to Greystones because of that single line track bottleneck!

Trying to use an article from nearly 20 years ago to make a point over whats happening today DOES make one tend to dismiss it due to AGE and lack of understanding of the CURRENT circumstances atm.

I posted a listed of issues some related some not.10 minutes dart and greystones are not related and also I am not driving to Greystones.

I posted 3 current examples which you're ignoring or deliberately misconstruing and an older example to illustrate that the attitude doesn't appear to be improving over time.

Also we'll soon see how irrelevant Greystones is soon when drivers will be expected to drive to Dundalk.

Stephen15

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Also we'll soon see how irrelevant Greystones is soon when drivers will be expected to drive to Dundalk.

There's no plan to extend the DART to Dundalk

LeinsterDub

Stephen15 wrote: »

There's no plan to extend the DART to Dundalk

Drogheda and Maynooth my apologies

trellheim

The thread is not about unions in general ; people trying to make it so are missing the point ( I suspect deliberately) ; its specifically about the CIE group of unions and their incredibly poor attitude

Unions are great - I've nothing against them - many wouldn't be here otherwise.


Look at the terminology used "thatcherite", "blueshirt" . Many are "nothing-for-nothing cos the bosses will screw us over" and so on; the classic zero-sum language of the '70s


However for some here a decent debate will be akin to turkeys voting for christmas

Wanderer78

trellheim wrote:

Look at the terminology used "thatcherite", "blueshirt" . Many are "nothing-for-nothing cos the bosses will screw us over" and so on; the classic zero-sum language of the '70s

I do think the union movement needs a good kick, it needs modernisation and quick, or it faces extinction

Wishbone Ash

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2017 people still being paid in cash....

That's a legal entitlement. Under the Payment of Wages Act, an employer can't change the method of payment to an employee without the consent of that employee or a representative of the employee. Presumably those employee still being paid in cash, were paid in cash initially and chose not to change.

In my workplace, up until a few years ago, 2 of our employees were still being paid in cash and we still have about 10 being paid by cheque.


(Just to add - do you mean that there are 2,017 people still being paid in cash or that in 2017, people were still being paid in cash?)

The Bishop Basher

end of the road wrote: »

what lack of ambition. sometimes people like their chosen profession and decide to stay in it.

There’s a difference between a job and a profession.

We obviously have different ideas about what constitutes a lack of ambition. That said, lifers with your attitude make it much easier for people with ambition to get on quicker and ultimately earn a better wage. So please keep doing exactly what your doing, literally.

end of the road wrote: »

you aren't being asked to work harder or longer for them. the public sector have to go and earn more money if they want it as well, the unions simply help get them the best deal.

You’re all slowly being replaced by machines. That’s the result of all these “deals” you keep winning.

I was out with a few people from IE over Christmas. I had to bite my tongue a few times. The culture is very much one of get as much as you can for doing as little as possible and screw the fare paying customer. It’s all one big jolly for a bunch of lads in there. I know managers who are home by lunchtime every day. It’s a sham and it’s at the expense of the taxpayer.

The unions need to be stamped out. They’ve had enough chances and while they may once have been the guardians of progress they now stand in the way.

PeterParker957

bebeman wrote: »

Aint you marvellous standing up for yourself!
Reading back on discussions when DB/IE/BE go on strike there are plenty of examples of posters who are not able to fight their corner, thats where the Unions come in, they will fight for you and your rights.
If you are not in a Union and are having problems at work , what excuse do you have for not joining a union and improving the quality of your life?
In previous anti union discussions we see You get pay cuts, increased work load, and some even admit to unpaid overtime, “I’m lucky to have a job”, you are being taken advantaged off, end of story!

It is a case of battered wives syndrome, you dont believe you can do better so you stay and get abused, but once you make the move to leave a whole better life opens up before them.

Join a Union and see improvement in work conditions, or stay abused in work and hold your tongue when DB/IE/BE get better pay and conditions than you because they are not afraid to fight for them.

How idiotic a view there!!!! I'm akin to a battered wife because I can stand up for myself without a f**king Marxist mouthpiece trouble maker on several times a year what I earn ?

Cop yourself on ffs!!

The Bishop Basher

hurler32 wrote: »

Plenty of companies out there doing things in the cheap paying staff circa 400 euro a week that could easily pay a reasonable 600 a week and still make loads ...the company owners not contend been millionaires want to be billionaires ...meanwhile their employees have the toes coming out through their shoes !

Those employees are free to walk at any time and get another job with better pay and conditions elsewhere.

This isn’t the 1800’s.

Wishbone Ash

Swanner wrote: »

....The unions need to be stamped out....

That's a bit of a bold statement to make and would require a change in our constitution.

PeterParker957

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That's a bit of a bold statement to make and would require a change in our constitution.

We've done it before and will do it again, EOTR/Ogle/O'Leary will wet themselves like.

Worth it though!

LeinsterDub

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That's a legal entitlement. Under the Payment of Wages Act, an employer can't change the method of payment to an employee without the consent of that employee or a representative of the employee. Presumably those employee still being paid in cash, were paid in cash initially and chose not to change.

In my workplace, up until a few years ago, 2 of our employees were still being paid in cash and we still have about 10 being paid by cheque.


(Just to add - do you mean that there are 2,017 people still being paid in cash or that in 2017, people were still being paid in cash?)

I meant in 2017 and that's exactly the point , Yes they are legally entitled to not have their means of payment changed, however this is a change that benefits all parties. We have a few stuck in the mud types who will appose all change. The unions are happy to use a majority (often gerrymandered but a majority non the less) to go on strike or engage in industrial action but also want the minority pandered too.

Wishbone Ash

LeinsterDub wrote: »

... this is a change that benefits all parties....

How does it benefit all parties? I'd love to be paid in cash. The employees who are being paid in cash must see a benefit or they would change over.

Wishbone Ash

LeinsterDub wrote: »

... We have a few stuck in the mud types who will appose all change....

We only hear about the changes that are opposed. In my experience, plenty of changes are made which go through smoothly.

Cookie_Monster

bebeman wrote: »

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In a previous job I had to be in a union, for all the good it did. The union negotiated pay rise I got at some point during that was tiny, their yearly membership fee increase that year was 3 times the size! Some benefit
:

Bollóx!
The largest ever rise in union dues i have ever had was .50c a week.
so a 39 hour work week , you expect us to believe the union got you a fraction of a penny per hour for a pay rise?
I would wager after your statement you have never had a job never mind been a member of a union.
If you are going to spout anti union BS at least try make it believable.

Never had a job, is that the type of off topic pointless snide dig you need to get in while trying to make a point...
Union fee rise was 13% odd, Pay rise negotiated on behalf was about 3 or 3.5%. I cant rember exactly, it was about 12 years ago.

bebeman

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Never had a job, is that the type of off topic pointless snide dig you need to get in while trying to make a point...
Union fee rise was 13% odd, Pay rise negotiated on behalf was about 3 or 3.5%. I cant rember exactly, it was about 12 years ago.

Yea yea yea yea your full of it!
the .50c increase wiped out the pay rise you got, no one believes you, stop digging when you are in a hole.
Anti Union posters have nothing but ignorance or lies to put against the unions.
Time after time i see in old discussions, "my pay and conditions are terrible, but im lucky to have a job, how dare the unions improve pay and conditions for DB/IE/BE"
Go-Ahead are hiring as of now, go for it, the land of milk and honey awaits, if it does not work out, getting a new job wont be a problem as i read that these posters are constantly up skilling, they will walk into another job no problems.

Battered wives syndrome, you cant believe that life can get any better so you stay in a bad job with bad pay and conditions and refuse to believe it can get any better, yet those who work for DB/IE/BE get better pay and conditions than you, but now you are stubborn, if you leave your current job to seek greener pastures , its admitting you are been taken advantaged off in your current job, your pride wont allow you, so you dig your heels in, bitch about unions and others who have a better life than you, instead of improving yourself you would rather see other dragged down to your miserable pay and conditions, its a sad pathetic existence to live like this.

hurler32

Swanner wrote: »

Those employees are free to walk at any time and get another job with better pay and conditions elsewhere.

This isn’t the 1800’s.

So no matter how profitable the company is you want to pay the employees minimum wage ensuring they struggle to exist rather than a reasonable standard of living ?

We won't be happy until all our children and grandchildren are all back in tenantments or homeless ....

Seth Brundle

hurler32 wrote: »

So no matter how profitable the company is you want to pay the employees minimum wage ensuring they struggle to exist rather than a reasonable standard of living ?

We won't be happy until all our children and grandchildren are all back in tenantments or homeless ....

If thats the case then what happened with all the non-unionised companies who aren't paying minimum wage?

end of the road

trellheim wrote: »

The thread is not about unions in general ; people trying to make it so are missing the point ( I suspect deliberately) ; its specifically about the CIE group of unions and their incredibly poor attitude

Unions are great - I've nothing against them - many wouldn't be here otherwise.


Look at the terminology used "thatcherite", "blueshirt" . Many are "nothing-for-nothing cos the bosses will screw us over" and so on; the classic zero-sum language of the '70s


However for some here a decent debate will be akin to turkeys voting for christmas

the "CIE" unions aren't exclusively CIE unions though.

Swanner wrote: »

There’s a difference between a job and a profession.

We obviously have different ideas about what constitutes a lack of ambition. That said, lifers with your attitude make it much easier for people with ambition to get on quicker and ultimately earn a better wage. So please keep doing exactly what your doing, literally.



You’re all slowly being replaced by machines. That’s the result of all these “deals” you keep winning.

I was out with a few people from IE over Christmas. I had to bite my tongue a few times. The culture is very much one of get as much as you can for doing as little as possible and screw the fare paying customer. It’s all one big jolly for a bunch of lads in there. I know managers who are home by lunchtime every day. It’s a sham and it’s at the expense of the taxpayer.

The unions need to be stamped out. They’ve had enough chances and while they may once have been the guardians of progress they now stand in the way.

yeah, a job is a job and a profession is a profession. the profession of the train drivers is to drive trains. their job is to drive trains. my idea of what constitutes lack of ambition is the correct one as it does not include the idea that staying in a particular job means lack of ambition.
people being replaced with machines is nothing to do with the deals people get. even if everyone was on minimum wage automation would be coming down the tracks anyway. your anecdotal evidence is meaningless and does not corelate with my experiences, i've heard the same nonsense before and it doesn't stand up to scruteny.
there will always be the odd individual who will want to do little work and get what they can but it's not unique to any company. the unions can't be stamped out, there are no grounds and there is no way it can be done. unions are the gardians of progress and never stand in the way of it. your statements don't stand up to scruteny.

Swanner wrote: »

Those employees are free to walk at any time and get another job with better pay and conditions elsewhere.

This isn’t the 1800’s.

or they can join a union.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

We've done it before and will do it again, EOTR/Ogle/O'Leary will wet themselves like.

Worth it though!

you haven't done it before and will never be able to do it. a small union breaking up and the members rejoining the other unions is not what the other poster is talking about when he references "stamping them out"

LeinsterDub

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

We only hear about the changes that are opposed. In my experience, plenty of changes are made which go through smoothly.

Care to list some of I'd be very interested in hearing them.

Colonel Claptrap

end of the road wrote: »

unions are the gardians of progress and never stand in the way of it.

This gets my vote for quote of the year.
Fantastic stuff!