Did the Dept of Transport secretly agree to the excessive pay award to Luas drivers which unwittingly triggered militant public sector pay claims?

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
Did the Dept of Transport secretly agree to the excessive pay award to Luas drivers which unwittingly triggered militant public sector pay claims?

See Luas operator Transdev put up

In the third last paragraph, there is a newsworthy statement the Department of Transport defended suggestions that it could pay Transdev more to operate Luas services. This deserved elaboration but presumably the explanation lies in the previous mention of Transdev's operating losses which makes its contract commercially dubious.

I've heard the Ministry of Transport secretly agreed to contribute financially to the excessive pay award of the Luas drivers which unwittingly triggered militant pay claims across the public sector. Wasn't Minister Shane Ross publicly claiming to be taking a hands off approach? Did his department and the government completely bungle it?

Similarly,if Dublin Bus comes with the begging bowl to cover strike costs and prevent bus driver redundancies related to higher than expected pay, will the Department cave in? Bus fare increases to cover these costs could backfire if passenger numbers drop as people cycle or walk.
 
Last edited:


VHF

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
2,932
Simple solution - migrate the entire Luas fleet over to fully autonomous mass transit system. Get rid of the drivers. Cut that cost out of the network pass on the savings to society. Next - roll that out for Dart, and so on.
 

nakatomi

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,709
Very stupid if true.

This award will cost the state hundreds of millions.
They should have fined the company, perhaps they would have pulled out - and that would have sent a clear message to the unions.

They are as bad as the unionised taxi drivers.
 
Last edited:

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
9,977
If that is true then Shane Ross deserves special opprobrium but the entire FG govt has created this problem (with help from Labour) by refusing to deal with the housing crisis in any manner at all until recently and now that they are dealing with it their method is to inflate in further and completely ignore the only sane and logical route open to them to deflate the overinflated market... BUILD.
Of course they also gave everyone the idea that they should expect goodies soon with their election promises.
6 years of utter, static dross from FG preceded by arrogant incompetence from FF.
 

integratetransport

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
864
I can answer this, then the thread can be closed because it's another patslat anti-worker rant and full of nonsense as per.
This claim is complete bull and not true. I know this because anyone with any bit of a clue will know The department of transport cannot agree to change the contract, including paying the operator of luas more. the contract is a fixed fee contract and that fee cannot rise or fall for the duration of the contract. If the government interferes in the contract including bringing up or down the fee then the other bidders can sue the government. The fee can be reviewed as part of the next tender of the contract, but pay rises or no pay rises it' would happen anyway as transdev were apparently making a loss on the contract, so the government won't want that again. Otherwise potential bidders might not bid.

Simple solution - migrate the entire Luas fleet over to fully autonomous mass transit system. Get rid of the drivers. Cut that cost out of the network pass on the savings to society. Next - roll that out for Dart, and so on.
Can't be done due to the open nature of both systems. To enclose them to facilitate would cost hundreds of billions meaning huge fares to pay for it as well as mass cuts else where. It's not financially or anything viable. Where driverless technology does exist it is on enclosed fully segregated systems built with it from the start.

Very stupid if true.

This award will cost the state hundreds of millions.
They should have fined the company, perhaps they would have pulled out - and that would have sent a clear message to the unions. They are as bad as the unionised taxi drivers.
The company pulling out wouldn't have sent any message to the unions. It would have just meant god knows what while the contract was re-tendered, probably causing long term disruption at worst. While the unions wouldn't want transdev to pull out the reality is ultimately the state or someone else would have had to take the operation on. The company didn't get paid for operating the services on the strike days, as is the way for all transport operators operating on behalf of the government including CIE. However to have fined transdev on top of that for something that was out of their control would have been unreasonable and possibly would have turned companies off from bidding for the contract in future. The award won't cost the state anything, it will be transdev paying them. All workers are correct right and justified in fighting for better terms conditions and pay.
 

freewillie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,295
See Luas operator Transdev put up

In the third last paragraph, there is a newsworthy statement the Department of Transport defended suggestions that it could pay Transdev more to operate Luas services. This deserved elaboration but presumably the explanation lies in the previous mention of Transdev's operating losses which makes its contract commercially dubious.

I've heard the Ministry of Transport secretly agreed to contribute financially to the excessive pay award of the Luas drivers which unwittingly triggered militant pay claims across the public sector. Wasn't Minister Shane Ross publicly claiming to be taking a hands off approach? Did his department and the government completely bungle it?

Similarly,if Dublin Bus comes with the begging bowl to cover strike costs and prevent bus driver redundancies related to higher than expected pay, will the Department cave in? Bus fare increases to cover these costs could backfire if passenger numbers drop as people cycle or walk.
You have some great sources of information or alternatively an overactive imagination.
I reckon its the latter
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,505
What about the newspaper's third last paragraph? Mistaken reporting?
Yes it is an article from April and badly written and wrong as the Dept of Transport back then were insisting they could not pay more than agreed already. The LC solution was payrises promised for 2020 which is the first year of the next contract, so the current contract won't need to be breached and anyone bidding for the new contract in 2019 will do so on the basis that they will have to pay the increases due in 2020.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top