Ok, Dom1234, heres my response / questions... hope you can help...


RedAspect wrote:
My post on The Transport Forum sums it and I hope explains why
this is just as important for the public as it is for the station staff.
I reproduce it he

"Great Stuff a lively discussion so let's clarify a few things.


The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central

London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.

LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

Section 12 of what? Can you provide a link to it? All recent
legislation is on http://www.hmso.gov.uk


The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated

with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts

would go but no job losses.

OK


To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward

the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being

taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you

cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off

with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and

bank holidays).

How do the figures not add up? Why can't you run the tube with less
staff hours, particularly now there is apparently much less work to be
done in ticket offices. I thought the main pont of Oyster was to
reduce the number of paper tickets bought and hence reduce the burden
on staff.

I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I

could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a

back door way of reducing staff.

How? Have they reduced the number of staff at all. Is there a single
job loss, or demotion to a lower grade with lower pay?

The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly

500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that

the present level of staff was required how can this be right we

now have the terrorist threat as well?

They are seeking to cut 500 staff. Do you mean sack 500 staff? What
evidence do you base this on, the only evidence you give in that
paragraph is that Mike Brown has denied it.

How is *increasing* the number of staff on platforms *less* safe? I
would have thought it more safe/

Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design

and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC

is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.

Indeed. But whats the use in having extra staff in ticket offices?
Surely if there is a fire underground and they are at surface level,
the HSE wouldn't allow them to enter the station?

We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

I completely disagree with the way you are trying to make the strike
about 'safety' when you provide no evidence of how moving the staff
around is going to make the stations less safe.

The only safety issues I can see are the incidents highlighted in Bob
Crow's letter to HMRI. But if HMRI are already starting to investigate
I fail to see what a strike will do to help. Let the independant HMRI
enquiry decide, don't appoint yourselves judge, jury and executioner.

Happy trolling Mr Dom1234/RedAspect
--
C