Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Luas dispute about? It is about whether the Luas drivers will get a real slice of the profits they have created for their company. In 2014, Luas drivers carried an extra 2 million passengers on the line. Transdev's profits from 2014 to 2015 increased from €24 million to €82 million and the profits for one of the two parent companies, Veolia, amounted to €352.7 million for the first six months of last year. Meanwhile, Luas drivers have been operating under a de factopay freeze for the past five years. This situation is mirrored in hundreds and thousands of companies throughout the State, giving rise to the second question regarding this dispute, namely, will working people get a big slice of the economic recovery? So far, they have not done so.

The National and Economic and Research Institute, NERI, states that between 1995 and 2015 the share of gross domestic product going to wages declined from 55% to 44%. Of 37 countries with similar data available, in only one country - Romania - had the wage ratio declined by more. What is at stake in this dispute is whether the Luas workers can win and in doing so whether they can open the door through which other groups of workers can enter, submit and win pay claims. In that way, working people can win a real slice of the recovery.

The media say the Luas workers turned down an offer of 18%. This was not because Luas drivers are greedy. In part, it was because of the extra hours that were part of the package. Luas drivers are in a job where for health and safety reasons they need to be alert. However, first and foremost, the reason the package was turned down was because the package included a seriously reduced rate for starter staff. In other words, there would be a seriously reduced rate for young workers. The Luas drivers refused to go down the road the public sector was forced to go down and refused to open the door to a two-tier workforce. It is to the shame of the trade union leaders of public sector workers that they allowed a two-tier workforce establish a foot in the door and it is to the credit of the Luas drives that they refused to allow that happen.

Transdev is operating like a cowboy. Veolia is the largest privatiser of public water in the world and Gerry Madden of Transdev earned his management spurs across the water at Royal Mail, where he brought in cuts, outsourcing and yellow pack rates. Look at how Transdev and its management team are handling industrial relations here. They have reduced pay rates by 10% unilaterally.

They have taken away the sick pay scheme and are threatening to dock a full day's pay for every half day's strike - something which is of dubious legality - and they have threatened a lock-out. Does the Minister agree that these policies are Thatcherite policies? Does he agree that Transdev and its management team are acting like cowboys? Does he feel that such a company deserves to run the light rail system in our capital city?

The Minister will be aware of the clause in Transdev's contract that if it fails to deliver a service for 14 days or more in a year, the contract can be reviewed. I and the AAA-PBP are for democratic public ownership of light rail and all public transport. Does the Minister agree that if it goes over the 14 days, as it looks like it will, the review should be implemented and that he should give serious consideration to relieving Transdev of responsibility for running light rail in this city, given the disgraceful, Thatcherite way it has behaved and the cowboy tactics it has used in recent weeks and months?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Barry for raising this topical issue. I share the pain of the hundreds of thousands of commuters who have been inconvenienced by the disruption caused to Luas services since the commencement of this industrial dispute. The fact that it looks like we will endure yet more disruption over the coming period is particularly disappointing considering that agreement was possible with the other three grades involved initially with this dispute. I hope that all in the House would share my view that the taxpayer cannot be expected to bear any financial burden in this dispute.

Any resolution reached cannot impact on the contract that is in place between Transdev and the National Transport Authority-Transport Infrastructure Ireland relating to the operation of the Luas. My focus is to protect the interests of the travelling public and to encourage the parties to work to resolve their differences. Any agreement must deliver sustainable wage rates that do not involve higher fares for the travelling public. Of course, I am aware that there are those who have sought to capitalise on this dispute to attack the very manner in which Luas services are operated. However, I think the success of the Luas speaks for itself.

Luas has been a fantastic addition to our public transport offering since its introduction in 2004. Its success is down to many things: the State's provision of the infrastructure, the private sector's provision of a quality service in a cost-effective manner, and of course the extremely hard work of the employees themselves. The Luas operating framework means we, as taxpayers, continue to own a fantastic piece of public infrastructure and allows the State to ensure value for money for the taxpayer in its operation through allowing companies tender for the right to operate it. In fact, it is a statutory requirement that there be competitive tendering before any award of any Luas contract.

As with other Members, I am of course aware that Transdev has now written to SIPTU regarding the activation of certain clauses in their collective agreement regarding the operation of the sick pay scheme. Similarly, I am aware of announcements by Transdev regarding the measures it may take if the dispute continues, as well as the fact it is now imposing financial penalties on employees engaged in strike action. These actions highlight the seriousness of the situation and underline the importance in securing agreement between both parties to resolve this dispute.

I believe that any intervention by me, or indeed by others without a legal function or role in this dispute, is not helpful. Some of these calls for intervention appear to believe that the taxpayer should be forced to take out the public chequebook or raid the State's ATM machine and underwrite the resolution of a dispute between a private company and its employees. That will not happen. Resolution of the dispute lies with the employer and the employees. If the two sides can narrow their differences, then I hope that the State's industrial relations institutions can assist in facilitating an acceptable and affordable settlement.

There have been other calls for the establishment of a specific task force to deal with the issue. I do not favour the establishment of such a task force given that we have industrial relations bodies in place which stand ready to assist the two parties in reaching an agreement. Agreement is possible. We know that from the agreement already reached with three of the four grades. Therefore the two parties need to get around a table, and if they require assistance, the State, through the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court, is ready to help. I know that all of us in the House would encourage both sides in this dispute to agree a sustainable and affordable agreement which is beneficial to all sides and ends the disruption being inflicted upon the travelling public.