Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | 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?

See this speech in context