RedAspect wrote:
"DaveyWavey" wrote in message
ups.com...
So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone
realised that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety
grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public
what they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an
impression that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to
support this absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face
by scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting
at dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike.
Fairly absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is
not much evidence that there actually were any) would have been a
direct result of the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article,
authored by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

In this article, they claim the following reasons for strike:

- Some Transport for London staff apparently earn quite a decent wage.

- The Queen didn't award an MBE to every single RMT member working at
King's Cross.

Hardly conclusive justification for a strike, is it? And it doesn't
really line up that well with the spin that the RMT leadership are
desperately trying to create about why these strikes are occurring.

Ultimately, Bob Crow and his cronies are letting the decent hardworking
RMT membership down with this charade of misrepresentation. But he's
not fooling anyone.


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.

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.



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).



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.



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?



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.



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."

Well, you are correct that *some* of the strike supporters are claiming
the strikes are about jobs and safety, albeit supported with fairly
tenuous arguments.

But, we can also see that some strike supporters think the strikes are
about a lack of medals being awarded by the Queen, or about the
supposedly high wages being paid to TFL staff.

So, I'll stand by my original point that the public justification for
these strikes is somewhat incoherent (or, at best, inconsistent). A
fact that seems to be borne out by the apparent low participation in
the strike action (both on NYE and today).