Sunday, 30 December 2012

From the horses mouth - why the bus drivers went on strike again.

Dear all,

I thought that the last post would be the final one of the year, but I was sent this document by a reader and felt it was too important not to share.

Today we had another strike from the Connex workers (this one being fully balloted, not a wildcat strike like the last one) and my views remain unchanged from what they were in October.

It is clear from the information provided here, which I have provided links to, that there was always an understanding and intention that all bus drivers would have their terms and conditions automatically transferred unaltered. This was done on the basis that the last time there was a transfer, the same problems were encountered, so they couldn't be allowed to happen again. In fact, so determined were they to make sure there wasn't a repeated scenario, that they were absolutely unequivocal in specifically saying that the transfer had to be of the exact terms and conditions and not just "similar".

You would think that this undertaking would be enough to make it happen, but apparently not. And of course we have had the same thing happen to the scrap metal workers who have mostly lost their jobs because of a failure to provide for a TUPE transfer in the tender.

It is clear that the TTS Minister was either totally incompetent, or purposely engineered this situation to impose the changes.

Either way, I don't believe he is fit for the job, because ordinary people have paid for his mistakes with their jobs and livelihoods. And it frankly makes me angry to hear him be so complacent on the radio, dismissing any suggestions that it is unfair for hard working folk to lose their jobs on Christmas Eve, for goodness sake, on the basis that "the tender process was fair" when it so clearly was not.

And how convenient this all is for the first strikes at the beginning of this period of discontent to be from the bus drivers, rather than a profession that is far harder to demonise, like the nurses. This coupled with the populist upcoming proposition from Constable Rennard on States Members pay is all just part of the overall strategy to create a consensus that public pay increases are unacceptable in any circumstances. And the principle that those in positions of authority have the right to bully those below them and force them to accept worse conditions.

But anyway, have a read of this. It is what the bus drivers hung up at the bus station during their strike and is well worth a read.

Happy new year!


Following the Channel Report news article on the strike and Deputy Lewis, I wanted to address the points that were made there.

The report can be read here -

Here Deputy Lewis says that the dispute is about the overtime arrangements and how it is worked out, which are not part of the workers terms and conditions package, but are part of an "informal agreement". Since it is part of this informal agreement, it does not constitute a part of the transfer, which has been an exact transfer of the standard terms in a week.

This is absolute nonsense and would not stand up in court for one moment.

It is my view that there is absolutely no way it could be considered an "informal agreement" in the legal sense of it.

Why? Simply because for something to be a legally binding contract, it needs to satisfy these three elements -

  1. There must be a clear agreement (consisting of an offer and acceptance). 
  2. There must be consideration (i.e. what is actually transferred between the parties, e.g. money, goods, a service etc) that has passed between both parties (it cannot just be a one way transfer). 
  3. There must be an intention for it to be legally binding.

Note, that it is NOT a requirement for there to be a written document with a signature on it at any stage. If all contracts had to be written down to be binding, we would spend most of our lives signing papers because we can enter up to dozens of contracts every day. And when things are written down, it is also not a requirement for all of it to be consolidated in one document. All that matters is proving that those three elements are present.

When a bus driver works overtime, all three of those elements are so blindingly obviously there. If a driver worked a few extra hours and was not paid for that work, the employer would be sued and it would fall under breach of contract. Despite it not being written down, it would be implied into any contract anyway because it was obviously a proper arrangement in employment and the usual business practices are adopted.

This is basic contract law. It was not an informal agreement, it was a wider part of their terms of employment and should have been transferred along with the rest of the contract.

"The amounts of overtime that some drivers were doing with Connex do not comply with health and safety."

Well there are a few things to be said there. If Connex were operating under standards that were not health and safety compliant, then TTS should be coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Given the mistakes he made on referring to the law before, I am unsure when he says it isn't compliant as to whether he means that in a strict legal sense or not. There is plenty of things that aren't safe, but aren't covered by health and safety laws yet, but the phrase may still be used to refer to them by laymen (which he so evidently is). Given that no action was taken against Connex, I'm inclined to think that he is not actually saying there has been a breach of the law.

This coupled with the fact that the hours that can be spent behind a wheel for bus drivers is exactly the same for taxi drivers and coach drivers etc so are all of them in breach of health and safety too? If they are, why on Earth is the TTS Minister just focusing on the bus drivers when he should be pursuing all of them?

An interview with one of the bus drivers can be heard here from 02:07:20 -

It is clear from this that one of the workers primary concerns is keeping the public safe (and of course it would be because if a bus is crashed a driver will be hurt too!) and they are happy to have limits put on them over how many hours they can drive.

Their view is that imposing contract changes on the bus drivers does not address the problem, which can only be fixed by legislation.

If Deputy Lewis was genuine about his supposed desire to limit the hours they could drive, why did he not bring it up in his negotiations with the workers earlier in the year, before the tender was put out? Why did he bury his head in the sand and wait until it was too late and industrial action became inevitable? This was totally irresponsible of him. If he didn't know that such a change would annoy the workers, then we really have to wonder if he is fit to be the minister.


Why more bus strikes?

Back in 2002 when Connex took over the running of the bus service in Jersey it was placed in to the tender documentation that all staff were to be transferred with their terms and conditions unchanged, Connex abided by this with the exception of the shift allowance that had been awarded as part of a pay negotiation prior to them starting the service. The public services committee (now TTS) overruled Connex's claim that they had no knowledge of this pay adjustment and upheld the conditions of tender that stated they had to pay this to relevant staff. A Judicial Greffe enquiry was then carried out into the problems that had been caused over this pay deal that culminated in an official response in Aug 2005. The findings of this were that the wording of the tender was not clear enough and they recommended that the wording should be changed regarding the T&C to state that all staff should be transferred 'with T&C similar or no less favourable , the committee responded by saying that THEY felt this was still open to misinterpretation & that they HAVE ALREADY changed the CONTRACT TO RUN THE BUS SERVICE IN JERSEY to state that any renewal of the contract or any new tender MUST TRANSFER ALL STAFF WITH THE EXISTING TERMS & CONDITIONS SET AT THE INITIAL DATE OF THE TENDER PROCESS, (available at the States assembly web site, document no R.C.58/2005, recommendation 4). The Chief Minister also made a commitment to follow the Cabinet Office Statement of practice for TUPE (Transfer of undertakings & protection of Employees) which protects employees in these types of situations.
This is why we feel the need to show our anger at the failure of the Transport Minister to protect employee rights and his failure to follow his OWN DEPARTMENTS conditions of contract.
Recommendation 4
In the absence of “Transfer of Undertakings: Protection of Employment” Regulations such as are in force in the United Kingdom, in the event that a Committee or Minister has to give an undertaking as to future terms and conditions of employment it should be “on terms no less favourable than those in force on [the operative date].”
The Committee does not understand how the inclusion of the term ‘no less favourable than’ will ensure that the shift allowance experience cannot recur. If the tender documents had included this phrase, the Committee believes the issue could still have arisen and tenderers could have submitted bids on differing terms and conditions but still fulfilled the ‘no less favourable than’ clause. However, the Committee does accept that absolute clarity as to employees’ terms and conditions must be ensured in any future tendering process. To this end, the Committee had already amended the Conditions of Contract for Local Bus Services agreed between the current operator and the Committee (of which the Committee of Inquiry had received a copy) to include a clear statement regarding the operative date. Clause 18.3, which refers to ‘Consequences of Termination’, includes the following conditions –

“ On expiry of the Contract . . . the Committee shall . . . . require in any tender documentation that the incoming service provider submit proposals that ensure that all of the Contractor’s staff . . . . are taken on by the incoming service provider on the same terms and conditions as apply at the date of the issue of any tender documentation. . .”

What this revision does is to ensure that ‘the operative date’ is not some months in the past – as it was during the tender process under review where the 1st August date had been agreed by the States during the Bus Strategy debate – but is current and relevant. The Committee believes this will ensure that all tenderers submit bids on the same basis and any change to terms and conditions can then be accounted for subsequently.


2.8.6 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:
I do not want to repeat Deputy Southern’s question but maybe I could be a little bit more specific.  Would the Minister tell the Assembly whether it is his intention to transfer terms and conditions from Connex to the new buscompany?

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Yes, as I say, it is all under negotiation at the moment with the preferred tenderer, CT Plus, that all the basic conditions would be carried forward.  With regard to pay, I think they would be linked to the 2011 pay scale.

2.6.4 Deputy G.P. Southern:

Using the Minister’s own words, what responsibility does the Minister accept for his failure to learn from the trials and tribulations of the previous contract change and to address and minimise the risks associated with the transfer process this time?  There was seemingly a failure.  Here we are a fortnight on from the 10th October meeting and we have had a strike.  Surely the Minister must agree that he has not succeeded in minimising risks.

Deputy K.C. Lewis:

Under the circumstances, I think things have gone very well.  Great play has been made of clause 18.3 on the expiry of the contract or early termination, I will not go through the whole thing, but is taken over on existing terms.  But the proviso is: “Provided always that the contractor shall fully co-operate with both the committee and the incoming service provider by providing them both with such employee information as is reasonably necessary for the committee to compile any tender documentation and for bidders properly to price their bids.”  That was very slow in forthcoming.  There was a document I have here from Deputy Southern as of several weeks ago which is… I believe it could be one of the driver’s documentations.  Employee name redacted, address redacted, salary redacted, pensions redacted.  This was insufficient information for the bid to be compiled.  This is why we have the problems now.  

The successful tenderer's submission

6. HCT Group is the parent company of CT Plus Jersey Limited ("CT Plus"). HCT Group's response to the second stage of the tender process was submitted under covering letter dated 14 June 2012. This response was submitted on the basis of a "seamless transfer of staff".
HCT Group stated:
"…we will not change any of the staff terms and conditions we have been made aware of in
the first stage tender documents, for the first nine months of the contract."

Questions asked by Deputy Geoff Southern and answered by Deputy Kevin Lewis (TTS)

(iii) On what date did the Minister satisfy himself that CT Plus were fully aware of the terms and  conditions under which Connex drivers were employed?

(iii) This was undertaken, as for all tenderers, as part of the First Stage Tender evaluations  between mid October 2011 and end of January 2012.

(iv) If this was after 14th June 2012, what reliance, if any, could be placed on the HCT Group  response of that date, if before, why have those guarantees of no change to terms and  conditions terms not been met?

(iv) CT Plus bid for the 2013 Bus Operator’s Contract was on exactly the same like for like basis as the other tenderers. Of course as a charitable Social Enterprise CT Plus’s company’s structure and motivation is different to the traditional corporate model, as it does not have to return a dividend to shareholders, but reinvests any money made back in the community where it is generated to create social good, such as transport for older and disabled people or community groups or training for the unemployed. This aspect of CTPlus’s operations was excluded from the quality / cost tender assessment as it was not part of the evaluation criteria.


  1. Thank you Sam, this says it all hopefully more people will understand now

  2. Dear Sam, it says in the text above that Connex had to fully cooperate so that the terms+conditions were carried over. It looks like Connex did not cooperate so it is them you should be directing your anger against and no one else.

    1. Maybe so, but that isn't the argument that Lewis has been making since then which is that all the of the changes are fair and just. That suggests that he wasn't bothered about pursuing the required information to complete the tender. That means it's still his fault.

    2. Sorry Sam but if you don't get told all the terms+conditions before a tender then you can't cost them up properly during a tender. If different t+c come to light after a tender then it is no wonder the winner refuses to honour them.

    3. I agree with that. I'm not really criticising CTP much because I think they are just acting like any business would. But I still think that Deputy Lewis should have kicked up a fuss if he couldn't get the T&Cs.

    4. Reasonable endeavours Sam. Not pull teeth, bend over backwards or blood out of a stone.

    5. And how is sitting round a table with a group of people that are open to modernisation not a "reasonable endeavour" ?

    6. Sam. If you had fully and properly researched this, talking to those on all sides if the table and not just those who match up with your pre conceived views, you would know that this happened. The connex union reps idea of modernisation was, a, an extra day off each weak, leading to, b, an increase in overtime!!!!!

      Totally out of the question.

    7. Right, so on the one hand, everyone's annoyed at how long the bus drivers are behind the wheel, and so they ask for time off and everyone's just as annoyed! Couldn't make it up.

      But the facts as they are show that to be wrong, because it would have been known in advance that the T&Cs weren't being transferred.

    8. Don't confuse hours paid with hours driving. Most of the overtime was for drivers sitting on their backsides as spare duties.

    9. Quite right. Another reason why all this health and safety stuff is a load of nonsense. I read one interview with a bus driver in which they said some of the new arrangements for shifts would mean drivers behind the wheel for longer on shifts than they currently are, even though the overall shifts are shorter. Just sort of shows how disingenuous the whole thing is.

    10. So what if the driving time is a bit longer than it used to be? They were hardly behind the wheel half the time! about time our tax money was less wasted on inefficiency.

  3. Note, I've added an update to the blog post based on the Channel Report news article with quotes from Deputy Lewis.

  4. The fact remains that once CT Plus have stamped out archaic unfair practices by bus drivers we will be left with a far better bus service that employs more people on better wages and for safer hours. I for one applaud TTS for having the guts to stand up to these bullies.

    1. By "guts to stand up to bullies", you mean be deceptive, lie and break promises? I don't want a government that acts that way.

  5. Public interest v the interests of a small group of drivers who hog all the overtime because they have been there longer. I think you need to look at the bigger picture instead of the technical details of the transfer. The end result is what matters. Its almost like you have to support the drivers because its the 'left wing' thing to do so you grab at any argument you can and ignore anything that doesn't fit.

    The current (unwritten) terms and conditions are archaic and unfair. These sorts of practices were eliminated in most industries decades ago. Let's hope CT Plus have more backbone than connex ever had.

    1. Well I do think that the technical details are important. I believe that governments are not above the law and if there is a prescribed way for something to be done, they should do it that way. If TTS has not been doing things properly, they need to be called out about it.

      Whether the terms are archaic and unfair is a diversion from the real issue, because I'm not disputing that you may well be right on that point. The bus drivers have said that they are open to modernisation and many of them have said they want legislation limiting the number of hours they can spend behind the wheel (sounds perfectly reasonable to me). So, on that basis, it seems pretty obvious for me that the best way to have modernised the system would have been for TTS to have sat down with the bus drivers in March, and instead of saying to them "all of your T&Cs will be automatically transferred unaltered", they should have said "we're happy for almost all of your T&Cs to go across, but we think the overtime system should be updated, lets talk about it." That way they could have spent a bit of time round the table coming up with a way to make both parties happy, and we would have avoided any strikes.

      That's my real issue here. Instead, they swept it under the carpet. That was an inappropriate way to do it and was destined to lead to this situation.

      But most importantly, if you want to pursue the argument of public interest v interests of the drivers (which I actually think are not in conflict with each other), then you have to accept the premise that this situation has been deliberately engineered to force through the changes without negotiation. Otherwise, why wouldn't the minister have told the drivers in March that he wanted the new company to have a modernised system? To accept that argument is to admit that that was the ministers intention all along. He never had any inclination to have all the T&Cs transferred, he actually wanted them to be changed. And as my post shows, that was not what was meant to happen.

      On whether it's the left wing thing to do, I said in my original post that I don't automatically support strikes and I believe in negotiation. If you want me to make a criticism of the bus drivers, I'll say that I think they should have done a totally different sort of strike. Maybe they could have run the buses on a reduced service and not taken fares. That would have gotten their point across and not hurt the public as much. (Though there may have been legal issues about using company property like that).

  6. I usually enjoy reading your blog but I think you've got it horribly wrong this time, you appear to be condoning a few employees getting huge slices of the wages cake while a larger number have to be content with the crumbs. That's not very progressive of you!

    1. Unfortunately that argument doesn't stack up when you consider that all of the bus drivers have been on strike, not just a few top union hacks. If many of them were so bothered about taking crumbs, they wouldn't have gone on strike would they?

    2. Much of the payroll was bullied into striking by a few core militants, by threats that they would not be given overtime if they noted against action.

    3. Talk to the people who know anonymous, its not the overtime or hours etc and it isn't just the drive it is ALL connex staff and just to clarify when you said connex didn't cooperate oh yes they did. TTS wanted personal info handed over, this shouldn't need to be done because of a little thing called DATA PROTECTION!!! Read the real info Lewis is trying to dig his way out of a very badly handled situation, and is blaming the drivers for his mess. This is what happened to the scrap metal workers too and I can guess who will be next. Read the reports for yourself first before listening to Lewis or reading the jep which is states owned anyway

    4. You want TUPE style transfer? Read the UK TUPE laws then tell us if data protectjon still applies. TUPE requires far more than Connex were willing to reveal. Ask yourself why........ Oh yes it's because the union didn't want the earnings out in the open isn't it!!!!!!!

    5. No it wasn't about the earnings at all, rates of pay (including overtime rates) are available to anyone who wanted to know. TTS wanted personal info that is currently data protected (even by TUPE law) to be given to the new company. Lewis had no right to do that as breaking data protection is against the law. I have done enough research into the reasons for the disputes and into TUPE law and the reasons why our states haven't brought it in yet to know the truth. Voice your opinion by all means but at least do it after you have all the facts otherwise you are just making assumptions.

    6. I know a few people at the moment that are currently worried about losing their jobs in a few months when the company they work for is sold to someone else.

      Jersey needs a TUPE law and needs one right away. It's morally wrong that ordinary working people can be subjected to the sort of uncertainty and unfairness that non-automatic transfers cause.

    7. Fair enough but why is nobody banging this drum in the states?

  7. Sam, are you not aware how unions work? I bet you now that several employess who voted for and did indeed strike would have rather not done so. There are employees in the States of Jersey who are still called "scab" over 10 years after they didn;t strike when the the majority did.

    It's incredibly naive to assume that all votes cast in favour were done truly willingly.

    1. Sounds awfully presumptive to say you know why they voted the way they did.

  8. To Anonymous, just to let you know that all ballots are carried out anonymously and this last one was carried out through JACS and ALL members of staff (not just the bus drivers) were balloted by post, to avoid the kind of bullying comments you have made here. The result was 87% IN FAVOUR of action. As in any democracy (see various comments about Plemont) this is how the world works!!! Get a grip and read the facts first before posting ridiculous and unsubstantiatable drivel!!! One final point. If the T & C hadn't been included as the minister claims, NO ONE would have been able to quote AND THEY DID. (Check the radio interview in October 2012 with Chris Lewis from Tantivy if you don't believe me)

    1. It's Chris Lewis fault were in this whole mess because he let the wage bill spiral out of control in jersy bus days.

    2. Presuming you meant Kevin Lewis, he and his predecessors were not responsible for the wages of the bus drivers. The department provides a subsidy to the company that provides the bus service and then they decide how to allocate it to provide the service.

    3. No, Chris Lewis of Tantivy fame, you know the one, shabby old coaches belching out fumes. He ran Jersey Bus and couldn't ever say no to a pay rise demand. The staff got used to this and acted the same once buses went over to Connex.

      You're probably too young to remember Jersey Bus Sam but it was the same shambles as Connec. Low staff morale, bad manners and poor service all round

    4. Ah I stand corrected! I don't remember any bus service before Connex so can't really recall anything about Tantivy.

      I remember hearing a story though about them sort of fixing their accounts with their other company so that they could pretend their profits were lower than they were so they could get more of a subsidy from the States. Anyone care to elaborate that, or have I got the wrong idea there?

    5. Can't say I ever heard that Sam. We heard that it was Crowcroft who took a dislike to him over some sort of personal dispute.

    6. Insinuated but nothing untoward found. Committee of enquiry into Connex getting the contract touched on the subject.

      Jersey Bus was thoroughly run into the ground though

  9. Chris Lewis tendered for taking over from Connex as did several others all of whom, (including HCT) quoted for transfer of staff with FULL term and conditions, ( see Hansard report dated 6th November 2012 Point 6 on states assembly website). Kevin Lewis himself states that he received a letter from HCT stating "we will not change any of the staff terms and conditions we have been made aware of in the first stage tender documents, for the first nine months of the contract" This included hourly rates of pay, and standard contractual terms and conditions that were in force at time of the start of the tender process, as this is a LEGAL requirement for any company to be able to quote. CT Plus were allowed certain personal info but unlike what Deputy Lewis keeps saying it is not LEGALLY required until 2 weeks prior to starting the contract, (under TUPE guidelines which they have ignored anyway) I welcome your opinion no matter how wrong it is but for the love of God anonymous get your facts straight first!!!!

  10. It never ceases to amaze me how the general public and some States Members argue over diversionary points and then take you (Sam) to task because they have missed the (intentional or otherwise!) point.

    As you state Sam:

    "Maybe so, but that isn't the argument that Lewis has been making since then which is that all the of the changes are fair and just. That suggests that he wasn't bothered about pursuing the required information to complete the tender. That means it's still his fault."

    Exactly, it is/was for Lewis to deal with the whole matter in a clear, honest and transparent way, it appears he did not have the "balls" to front it and so he is to blame.

    1. Thanks anonymous. As I said on another posting, it's all about divide and conquer. If they can have us distracted and bickering over irrelevant points like the health and safety, it stops us arguing over the real issue, which is whether we are happy or not to have a government that doesn't go by due process.

  11. Have a watch of this -

    The head of CTP says that no one has a right to have a job, they only have it by putting on a good service.

    Well maybe so, but workers do have the right to keep their jobs unless they do a bad job and certainly have the right not to have their terms and conditions changed without their agreement.

  12. Sam, Are you saying TTS should have allowed all of this to continue?

    As said by Dai Powell

    Who gets overtime: Our first shock was in the allocation of overtime. This is not controlled by management under the current working arrangements. Some drivers earn up to £70k per year by working up to 70 hours per week. Many other staff are stuck on part time contracts, struggling to support their families. This is patently unfair and worse, the needs of the service itself are left out of the picture. Under the new arrangements, overtime will be allocated fairly and by management.

    Who gets what shift: Shift patterns are not controlled by management. For example, in a bus operation there are always some drivers on standby to ensure that the service can be covered in case of sickness or disruption. Traditionally considered an easy duty, this is paid at time and a half on Jersey. The decision about who gets these shifts is not taken by management. For reasons that pass our understanding, there are over 60 of these shifts per week.

    In the future, we will control shift patterns, ensure that they are shared equitably and in the best interest of the service.

    Union permission to recruit: The employer needs union agreement before it is able to employ extra full-time staff.. We find this position repugnant when so many part time drivers want more, and when unemployment in Jersey is a real concern for everyone. Job creating is a very high priority for us as a social enterprise.

    Time and a half for disciplinaries: When staff do have a disciplinary hearing, (for example as the result of an accident), they are paid time and a half to attend a hearing. We believe that this is wrong.

    PS I have posted this information on thisisjersey several times and nobody has outright disputed any of it. Many have said "I wouldn't believe him, he would say that wouldn't he etc etc but no one has outright said he made it all up.

    The union permission to recruit is backed up by the threatened strike of June 2012 when Connex issued a press release to say the strike is off and a deal had been made to increase the pay offer by 1/2% with Connex being "allowed" to recruit three more drivers.

    1. The reason why no one has disputed any of it is because there is no need to. It misses the point.

      You ask me a question that I feel I've already answered several times.

      Whether everything Powell says is accurate or not doesn't change the fact that (as my blog post proves) the Ministers job was to transfer all of the terms and conditions as they are. Unless all parties could agree to a new set.

      I think there are lots of things in the way the service works that should change and the bus drivers have said that they are up for changes. What is wrong, is not going through the prescribed process for changing them.

  13. Allowing the union to control the amount of drivers employed until negotiated away is not feasible. I wouldn't be surprised if such agreements aren't illegal? If they are it has to stop?

    1. Evidently it is legal. If it weren't it would have been challenged. What business would put up with it if they didn't have to?

      But ultimately, how a business operates (so long as it is within the law) is up to them. If the workers and management negotiate and agree on terms and processes etc, it's not really anyone else's concern.

    2. Seriously, Anonymous do you really believe everything you read or hear. Of course Dai Powell and Deputy Lewis are gonna say these things because they want to divert attention away from all their mistakes. How many times does it have to be said, the drivers DO NOT earn 70k plus a year, All overtime is VOLUNTARY and the union do NOT have a say in who or how many are employed. If you need someone to stand up and say Powell is making it up I WILL!!! It seems to me that TTS told CT Plus a lot of false information as an excuse to not follow through on their OWN commitment to the transfer of staff and Dai Powell and You, just like many others have believed everything Deputy Lewis has said which is why you are slating the drivers now, (please remember that it is ALL staff involved not just the drivers). I would have thought that people wouiold be able to check the facts for themselves instead of believing a deliberately misleading Politician who won't even answer states members questions in states sittings.

    3. Thanks for all your comments Annette.

      Do you know if there is any central online hub in which the Jersey Unite branch publishes statements on things like this?

      I'm friends with Unite on facebook but the page isn't particularly active and I haven't seen anything online that can be easily pointed to by people like me to others to show them the official union view.

      I think it's really important for the union to really be out there putting their views across to the public given that there is likely to be hostility from most other forums.

      Obviously it's right that most union officials would be pretty busy being in negotiations, helping members with their employment issues etc etc but it's important not to neglect their public relations side.

      I am a member of Unite, so if it's something they wanted someone to volunteer to help out with, I'd be happy to do so...

    4. Thanks for the message Annette. I haven't published it just because it's probably best to keep contact details private.

  14. Such issues have been discussed for centuries in one Jersey forum or another.
    This year on Saturday 28 September is JERSEY REFORM DAY and is another opportunity to consider why such things are as they are now...
    shall you be organising any sort of public meeting or manifestation to add to our knowledge of Trades Unions and their part in Jersey history on that Day Sam? Everybody has the chance to bring ideas to the table - there are no boundaries - this should be an All Island event taking place throughout the twelve parishes and in all sorts of forms.
    There is no organising committee or grand plan - but the months will soon pass. What suggestions do you have...?

  15. So then Annette how do you explain the June 2012 pay deal where staff got an extra 1/2 percent in exchange for connexion being allowed to employ three more drivers? Remember, these are Eric le rouxs words not daily Powell's!

  16. Anonymous, could you please let me know were you got the info from. Have been over it all and can find nothing about 1/2 percent increase in exchange for staff. Only thing in June was about strike action concerning a 2.5 percent increase and there was no mention of extra staff. Spoke to my husband who is a bus driver and he says he can't remember this Being the issue. He believes that connex staff took a lower pay deal to make it possible to employ extra staff for the rest of the year. I can have an opinion on this but until I have ALL the facts I am afraid I can't properly comment.

  17. I've found it here Annette and it was also on channel tv at the time but can't find it on their website.

    I'm not having a go at anyone here, just trying to make 2 + 2 add up to something. I find it peculiar that Erci Le Roux announces a compromise that includes 1/2 percenr for staff and an agreement to employ more drivers. Add to that what Dai Powell said about union agreement needed before employment of additional drivers and it could be true that's the case, or was?

  18. Thanks for that this is what i found out.What was meant in June was that by taking a lower pay increase connex would now be able to employ additional staff. The union obviously would have been involved with wage negotiations but would have had nothing to do with the extra staff. The fact that Dai Powell took it to mean something else simply shows that if he and Tts can muddy the waters enough then the drivers will appear to be what the so called transport minister calls them. The union and management were in a difficult position with this because there was a need for more drivers but they had to make sure the staff weren't missing out either, I believe that if you are a member of a union then the union looks after its members as was the case in June. Nothing untoward about it just phrased wrong, which clearly Dai Powell used to his advantage.