How can 2 train drivers hold the country to ransom

[WeAreRovers]

Like I said, I refuse to jump to conclusions. The facts simply aren't out there. If you all want to think what your favourite newspaper tells you to, or what your blatant preconceptions lead you to believe, that's your lookout.


That's the bottom line. Like Adam I don't know the ins and outs of this but others seem to be experts.......based on what they've read in the Irish Independent. William Martin Murphy must be sleeping happy in his grave.

KOH

[dahamsta]

have you driven a train or talked to any driver btw ???No. Have you driven one of the trains? And one the old ones? Can you list the statistics of the trains, beyond superficialities?

I'm afraid talking to a driver wouldn't do much for me, for the reasons outlined above. And above that, and above that....

[max power]

No. Have you driven one of the trains? And one the old ones? Can you list the statistics of the trains, beyond superficialities?

I'm afraid talking to a driver wouldn't do much for me, for the reasons outlined above. And above that, and above that....

i have spoken to drivers, i take the train 10 times a week and through using a service you get to know a little about it, drivers were looking forward to these new vechiles and getting away from the old ones.

i can list one stat, look above at how many people support them, if it was safety we would, if its about greed we won't.

also the points i listed about safety above and about the dart drivers also striking when now trains came into operation, not answered.

also about speed and breaking, not a problem, there are speed restrictions on the cork line, thats why 1 train i get is 20 mins late every morning, did you know that ??

ok and i went from a golf to a gtdi and didn't need a days training.

[pete]

I refuse to believe that there was such a serious safety issue that the driver can now be trained in a matter of hours & start driving them next monday. They probably getting treble time pay at the weekend during "training"...

I judge train drivers on their previous actions & the drivers union have one of the worst records of any public "service" union in the country. They have striked in the past for more money to drive new Dart carraiges & other stupid issues.

I've no doubt the irish rail management incompetent but that doesn't excuse the "workers" actions.

[Dodge]

i have spoken to drivers, i take the train 10 times a week and through using a service you get to know a little about it, drivers were looking forward to these new vechiles and getting away from the old ones.

FFS you sound like a saftey hazard. Leave them alone to do their job ;)

[John83]

FFS you sound like a saftey hazard. Leave them alone to do their job ;)
Maybe that's what this is all about - they want more money to drive with Max on the train. ;)

[max power]

Maybe that's what this is all about - they want more money to drive with Max on the train. ;)

:D......

[dahamsta]

I judge train drivers on their previous actions & the drivers union have one of the worst records of any public "service" union in the country.I judge Irish Rail bosses on their previous actions and Irish Rail has one of the worst records of any public "service" in the country.


I've no doubt the irish rail management incompetent but that doesn't excuse the "workers" actions.I've no doubt the drivers are greedy but that doesn't excuse the "management" actions.

You guys seem to think I'm supporting the drivers. If you read my posts without your inbuilt bias, you'd see that I've pretty solidly been a devil's advocate.

Want to prove me wrong? Point out in this thread where I've supported the drivers. Or Irish Rail. Or anyone.

adam

[rebs23]

that doesn't excuse the "management" actions.

adam

Management went throught the internal dispute procedures, spent 117 million of taxpayers money to introduce new trains to give an hourly service between Cork and Dublin . They spent the best part of the year negotiating witht the unions, they went to the Labour Court, got a recomendation in favour of Irish Rail, they spent the last few months training and doing test runs between Limerick Junction and Hueston.
Imagine if they left the trains parked up in Limerick Junction (anyone who has got the Cork-Dublin train will have seen them there) rusting away until they gave in to ridicolous claims of more money and a reduction in the working week. What would we be saying about the management then? We would rightly condem management for not doing anything about the waste of taxpayers money. The situation had to be brought to a head.

Management of Irish Rail did everything IR wise according to the book. Union members with the support "unofficially" of course of their unions did not. They cost the country and taxpayers millions as a result of bully boy tactics that have worked in the past at Kent station in Cork. The Cork depot has been the subject of numerous "unofficial action" over the last number of years where the unions and their members refuse to abide by agreed procedures and dipute resolution recommendations.

[John83]

You guys seem to think I'm supporting the drivers. If you read my posts without your inbuilt bias, you'd see that I've pretty solidly been a devil's advocate.

Want to prove me wrong? Point out in this thread where I've supported the drivers. Or Irish Rail. Or anyone.

adam
I'm not about to read over the whole thread again, but if you're referring to Pete's last post, or the last OT one from Max, they're not accusing you of anything, just stating their positions. :p

[dahamsta]

Sorry reb23, but as long as it's cheaper for me to drive to Dublin than take the train, I won't be giving Irish Rail any credit for anything. It's a bloated, inefficient, badly run organisation that deserves zero respect. The drivers are partly to blame for that, but only partly. I'd say about 50/50 driver greed and management incompetence.

I realise that this is off-topic, but since I still haven't been pointed/linked to a single source of unbiased information in this thread - in fact I don't think anyone's linked to any source of information, meaning everything here is second-hand speculation - that's where I stand at the moment.

EDIT: Sorry max, I didn't notice your comment about my not answering you RE why not all drivers. However I have already answered the question as best I can, several times: I don't know, and I doubt you do either. Since you have an opportunity to talk to the drivers, why not ask them instead of me?

adam

[Macy]

Ash, I'm sorry but non-train driving Irish Rail staff are not unbias sources either.

The whole strike was brought about by management introducing the new trains without consultation and agreement - I repeat they were due to go into talks on Tuesday, so what was the need to introduce the trains on a Monday morning?

Anyone who knows the public service knows that the head of CIE is a union basher, and it is obvious that the introduction of the trains was designed to provoke this reaction. People should consider the timing and why they told no one before Monday that they were introducing them.

The unions have won every right workers have in this country - ignorance in the extreme for people to claim they do nothing for them. It may be true that some unions (especially some of the Civil Service ones) could be more active on the issues that effect members, but ultimately a union is only as strong as it's membership.

[pete]

Privatise Irish Rail & we need not worry about them every again.

Dublin-Cork
- Bus is 12 euro return
- Ryanair prices start at 25 euro return all taxes included.

If the workers strike in a privatised rail company the customer will desert them & company go bust so no jobs for the workers.

[Dodge]

Sounds like a plan pete. Privatisation has obviously worked in the UK, so why not here

[NeilMcD]

Yeah look at the Uk train service its crap. Look at the French train service its fantastic. Which one is privatised. Yeah you guessed it the UK. Privatisation is not the answer to every problem. It works for some things and it does not for other. Case in point is ESB

For 15 years our ESB bill did not go up but about 3 years ago the government instructed the ESB to have a bill increase as it was not attractive enough to potential private buyers like O Brien etc. This was done so that they could privatise the ESB in the future. So what was happening was that our ESB bill increased although there was no need for it just so private investors could make more money in the future. So dont talk about privatisation as the answer to all of thse issues.

[max power]

The whole strike was brought about by management introducing the new trains without consultation and agreement - I repeat they were due to go into talks on Tuesday, so what was the need to introduce the trains on a Monday morning?.

the workers knew this was going to happen after the labour court ruling on jan 12 whih found in favour of management in which workers looked for extra pay for these trains, which they were givin in 2000.

now on the other issues it was agreed to deal with these at a later date and this was agreed in writing.

if drivers felt so strong about this why did they wait until may for a protest, 5 months later ?????

safery in jan was the same as safety in may ??? pay was the same over the 5 months. thye knew the publicity of doing it when the new trains were due to come into action would get best media coverage.

on privatising it, no way. selected services on routes that will make money. not a hope.

[dahamsta]

When it comes to non-natural monopolies, I have no problem with privatisation. However it simply doesn't work with natural monopolies. It never has, and it never will.

adam

[max power]

When it comes to non-natural monopolies, I have no problem with privatisation. However it simply doesn't work with natural monopolies. It never has, and it never will.

adam

ok at last we agree on something:)

[Macy]

now on the other issues it was agreed to deal with these at a later date and this was agreed in writing.

if drivers felt so strong about this why did they wait until may for a protest, 5 months later ?????
Because they were due to go into talks about the other issues, as per the Labour Court Rec. If they introduced them after one month like this there would've been a dispute, if they'd done it next month (assuming no talks had taken place) it would've been a dispute. They knew the trains were going to be introduced at some point, not specifically on Monday, and after discussions on the other issues like the Labour Court ruled.

Maybe you should ask why management delayed the talks, and then introduced the trains the day before they were due to start the talks on their introduction?

Can people really not see that they whole situation at the start of the week was a stunt orchestrated by Irish Rail Management? Maybe it's not clear if you're not involved/ interested in IR stuff, but it seems obvious to me.

[Block G Raptor]

Just reading this thread and what comes on Itunes?? runaway Train by Soul Asylum:D ...........any way back to the debate..............

[rebs23]

Can people really not see that they whole situation at the start of the week was a stunt orchestrated by Irish Rail Management? Maybe it's not clear if you're not involved/ interested in IR stuff, but it seems obvious to me.

You're correct it's whats called in IR bringing issues to a head and after a full year or more of negotiations, Labour Court recommendations etc, management brought it to a head so the trains could be introduced and the issue resolved once and for all.
That still doesn't change for me anyway that the response of the drivers was typical of the bully boy tactics of some militant trade unionists not accepting compromise and Labour Court reccommendations and costing us millions of Euro.
Interesting that a very similar issue with the introduction of the new Dart trains in Dublin did not result in the drivers there taking "unofficial action" because they knew wouldn't get support. At the Cork depot they have been using this tactic for years and getting away with it. Didn't work this time though.

[Macy]

Didn't work this time though.
Don't see the new trains running this week.

It was management that delayed talks, as per the Labour Court rec, so why did they need to bring matters to a head? Why not start talks? All CIE's actions did was delay the talks that were scheduled for Tuesday, and cause the disruption to the public. You admit it was management that caused this, but it's still the unions fault? Bizarre rationale.

[WeAreRovers]

That still doesn't change for me anyway that the response of the drivers was typical of the bully boy tactics of some militant trade unionists not accepting compromise and Labour Court reccommendations and costing us millions of Euro.


I work in the public service and our management routinely ignore Labour Court rulings, despite the fact they are legally obliged to implement them.

I don't know the ins and outs of this case but I do know that I wouldn't trust public service management as far as I could throw the over-paid, lazy, incompetent tossers.

This applies to An Post, Irish Rail, my employers, Aer Lingus, ESB etc. Undoubtedly the unions are part of the problem in the public service but there's two sides to it.

To think that management are trying their best to bring about efficency and positive change while the workers doss about reading tabloids and claiming overtime is an Irish Independent style fantasy. The reality, for those of us who actually know about public service employers, is far, far different.

KOH

[rebs23]

Don't see the new trains running this week.

It was management that delayed talks, as per the Labour Court rec, so why did they need to bring matters to a head? Why not start talks? All CIE's actions did was delay the talks that were scheduled for Tuesday, and cause the disruption to the public. You admit it was management that caused this, but it's still the unions fault? Bizarre rationale.

Talks have been ongoing for over a year. It is managements job to manage and to introduce the trains.
Management did not walk off the job and engage in illegal industrial action costing the country millions. Talks cannot go on indefinitely. Trains will be running next week, hopefully.
The drivers had a choice engage and use the dispute procedures in place or cause mayhem costing the country millions. They chose mayhem to further their "cause". Do you think management asking them to drive new more efficient and safer trains is a reason for them to cause the damage they did. That to me is bizarre logic.
On an almost identical issue in Dublin the Dart drivers eventually accepted the Labour Court recommendation. Why did the drivers in the Cork depot refuse to do likewise?
Because they have been used to getting away with it for years.

[Macy]

I work in the public service and our management routinely ignore Labour Court rulings, despite the fact they are legally obliged to implement them.
...
This applies to An Post, Irish Rail, my employers, Aer Lingus, ESB etc. Add FAS to that list, as thats the crux of that ongoing dispute too, with decentralisation obviously the bigger picture.


The drivers had a choice engage and use the dispute procedures in place or cause mayhem costing the country millions. They chose mayhem to further their "cause". Do you think management asking them to drive new more efficient and safer trains is a reason for them to cause the damage they did. That to me is bizarre logic. Why could management not wait until after Tuesday's scheduled talks to introduce the trains? The labour court ruled they had to sort out the issues, this hadn't been done yet, so management introduce them anyway. The trains are still not operational, so did management's tatic work?

If you want further proof of the way CIE management are acting, they nearly escalated the dispute again after the deal had been done to get the drivers back to work by going public with details that hadn't been formally agreed in an effort to prolong the strike and cause more disruption that they could spin against the unions involved.

[rebs23]

I work in the public service and our management routinely ignore Labour Court rulings, despite the fact they are legally obliged to implement them.

. The reality, for those of us who actually know about public service employers, is far, far different.

KOH
It is very unusual for the Public Sector or semi state management or any employer to reject a Labour Court recommendation, the only ones I can think of recently were Irish Independant (surprise, surprise!) and a recommendation involving Aer Lingus.
Most Labour Court recommendations are just that recommendations. it can be accepted or rejected. Far more common for unions to ballot members on Labour Court recommendations that are then rejected.
On industrial relations issues referred, the only way a Labour Court can issue a legally binding decision are those referred in under Trade Union recognition legislation (2001 and 2004 IR Acts)
Up until recently our IR system is based on a voluntary system.
I don't doubt what you say in realtion to Public Sector management, its' just in this case the unions and their members behaviour was ridicolous and unwarranted.
I am sure there will be plenty of cases in the future where employers are wrong but in this instance they were n't. In any event I don't think there will ever be an instance where illegal industrial action can be justified in the context of our Employment Legislation and vast Industrial Relations system. We really do have one of the most extensive systems of protection for employees in the world.
Enforcement well thats another matter.


Why could management not wait until after Tuesday's scheduled talks to introduce the trains? The labour court ruled they had to sort out the issues, this hadn't been done yet, so management introduce them anyway. The trains are still not operational, so did management's tatic work?

If you want further proof of the way CIE management are acting, they nearly escalated the dispute again after the deal had been done to get the drivers back to work by going public with details that hadn't been formally agreed in an effort to prolong the strike and cause more disruption that they could spin against the unions involved.
From managements point of view in Irish Rail they have had enough of the type of union militancy holding up services.
Equally why did the train drivers refuse to accept the recommendation on the introduction of the trains? Why did they engage in those tactics and why did they refuse to agree to dispute procedures and enage in illegal action? I am repeating myself but there can be no justification for engaging in illegal industrial action costing the company millions on an issue that could be sorted out and had been the subject of a recommendation already.
What issues are you referring to there?

[WeAreRovers]

It is very unusual for the Public Sector or semi state management or any employer to reject a Labour Court recommendation, the only ones I can think of recently were Irish Independant (surprise, surprise!) and a recommendation involving Aer Lingus.
Most Labour Court recommendations are just that recommendations. it can be accepted or rejected. Far more common for unions to ballot members on Labour Court recommendations that are then rejected.


I said "ignore" not "reject." They will happily agree with the recommendations and then proceed to ignore them for as long as they want.

We have an IR process in which the Labour Court sets up a tribunal for disputes in here. Under our agreements, these tribunal rulings are binding on both parties - only one party routinely ignores them....management.

I have personal knowledge of this - it took me and one other person refusing to carry out particular duties for management to live up to their LC agreed responsibilites. Sound familiar?

I know for a fact that the same goes on in An Post and I would safely assume it's the same in other places.

KOH

[Macy]

Equally why did the train drivers refuse to accept the recommendation on the introduction of the trains? Why did they engage in those tactics and why did they refuse to agree to dispute procedures and enage in illegal action? I am repeating myself but there can be no justification for engaging in illegal industrial action costing the company millions on an issue that could be sorted out and had been the subject of a recommendation already.
What issues are you referring to there?
The issues of agreed policies and procedures that the labour court said should be agreed between the Management and Union. It was ruled that there should be no extra pay for the drivers, but that the operational procedures should be agreed. This wasn't done. The management are only implementing partof the Labour Court Rec by insisting the trains run not all of it, and the union is right to insist they live up to the full lcr.

They've picked the part they like, not the whole lot. This is rife in the Public Service, and seemingly supported by Government - see the pronouncements on the An Post, FAS, Train Drivers etc etc disputes where Ministers back the position of the agency which is ignoring Recommendations.

[rebs23]

I have personal knowledge of this - it took me and one other person refusing to carry out particular duties for management to live up to their LC agreed responsibilites. Sound familiar?

KOH

Indeed it does! I won't ask what duties you were refusing to do, it might sound way too familar!:)

[rebs23]

that the operational procedures should be agreed. This wasn't done. The management are only implementing partof the Labour Court Rec by insisting the trains run not all of it, and the union is right to insist they live up to the full lcr.


That is a very simplistic interpretation of a Labour Court recommendation not available to the public yet. It is also managements right to insist that the Labour Court Recommendation is "lived up to by the unions".
If they didn't like it why didn't the unions ballot their members on it and again I repeat myself why engage in illegal industrial action when there are so many ways and avenues of engaging in official/legal industrial action. Nothing can justify their methods of trying to force/bully the company into doing what they wanted. Again I ask why the different reactions in Cork and Dublin to very similar Labour Court Recommendations?

As I said earlier I work in an industry that has a lot of this type of so called "unofficial industrial action" where the union deny their involvement or support for the actions of their members, it is a widespread tactic that is making a mockery of the system. It is only used where they know they won't get anywhere by going through official procedures.

If union didn't think like the recommendation and thought the company was in breech of the Labour Court recommendation why didn't they ballott for industrial action? No excuse whatsoever for doing what they did last Monday they could have easily worked under protest and then go on strike legally!!
I know we are going round in circles here but why cause all this costly mayhem illegally when they could have held an official strike with 7 day notice. They didn't because they are used to getting their way in the Cork depot by using these bullying tactics.
In Dublin on a similar issue the drivers worked on!! (Can't believe I'm standing up for the dubs on this one and criticising Cork people but anyway)

[Dodge]

Can someone explain to me how it cost IR "millions" in lost revenues? Are those llines that profitable?

[rebs23]

Can someone explain to me how it cost IR "millions" in lost revenues? Are those llines that profitable?
They never said profits they said revenue lost.

[Macy]

If union didn't think like the recommendation and thought the company was in breech of the Labour Court recommendation why didn't they ballott for industrial action? No excuse whatsoever for doing what they did last Monday they could have easily worked under protest and then go on strike legally!!
But there was no dispute until the trains were introduced without consultation! And it's not as simple as working under protest - as once they are being operated they aren't going to be stopped and makes the reasons redundant as to why the dispute happened. Working under protest is a 1920's IR policy... Yes we are going around in circles so not sure it's worth carrying on really. Btw, all Labour Court Rec's are on the website, including the one that relates to this case.


Indeed it does! I won't ask what duties you were refusing to do, it might sound way too familar
It doesn't matter if the Labour Court ruled surely? Ignoring Labour Court Recs is the management equivalent of wildcat strikes, so it's okay once it's the management side?

[Dodge]

They never said profits they said revenue lost.
Sorry, I asked 2 separate questions...

[rebs23]

But there was no dispute until the trains were introduced without consultation! And it's not as simple as working under protest - as once they are being operated they aren't going to be stopped and makes the reasons redundant as to why the dispute happened. Working under protest is a 1920's IR policy... Yes we are going around in circles so not sure it's worth carrying on really. Btw, all Labour Court Rec's are on the website, including the one that relates to this case.


It doesn't matter if the Labour Court ruled surely? Ignoring Labour Court Recs is the management equivalent of wildcat strikes, so it's okay once it's the management side?
They were introduced with consultation that lasted over a year.

Anyway lets call it a day I'm getting dizzy going round in circles.

[John83]

Sorry, I asked 2 separate questions...
It's not that they're so profitable, but the costs aren't really hugely defrayed by not running the trains. You've got to pay station personel, electricity and other overheads in the stations is constant, even the trains are depreciating! A business that size has a lot of expenditure.

I doubt it cost them millions though. Even averaging it som say €40 a head, say 100 punters per train, that's €4000 income lost per train. That might be out by a good bit, but not an order of magnitude. Did they really stop many hundreds of trains? I doubt it.

Still a big chunk of change though.

[rebs23]

Apologies Macy you're right Recommendation is available on website and here's the link Case No.18456.

http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations

I think it says it all really.

[Macy]

I know, that's where I read it. The second last paragraph really does say it all, as that's what this weeks action was about - management ignoring that part of the rec. Let's just leave it at that, or I'd say we'll be going round in circles on this issue too :D

[rebs23]

Or we could go to a third party on it!!:)