London Banter - View Single Post

Nick Cooper · January 10th 06, 04:58 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 9 Jan 2006 02:06:45 -0800, wrote:

Actually, given that drivers and signalling staff were not involved
(despite the RMT's best, or worst, intentions), over 50 stations were
closed at one point on New Year's Day, including quite a few adjacent
ones, so to describe it as failing miserably is not quite right.

Clearly, with the 'success' of Oyster (i.e. bully people into taking it
up through skewed fare increases), LU is looking for a 'BR' type
scenario with ticket offices at many stations staffed only M-F
mornings. Mike Brown says we can't have staff in offices selling just
one or two tickets an hour. What stations is he talking about? North
Weald? Blake Hall?

I would guess the issue would be exactly how many staff you have in
the ticket office.

Putting staff back on the gateline and platform sounds good, except
those very same staff perobably started off there and took promotion to
ticket seller to get away from that environment and all the hassle it
involves. Yeah, maybe they should be grateful they've still got a job
but they're not going to be very happy about it (viz. the strike). Then
there's the repeal of the Section 12 legislation and the likely affect
that too will have on jobs.

It strikes me that they're throwing a hissy fit because they're
finally being forced to accept the flexibility that most other workers
in the public and private sector got used to more than a decade ago.

Why doesn't LU publish the 'before' and 'after' staffing ratios for the
station groups at the heart of this dispute? (Or someone who reads this
with inside info.). Then if the RMT are telling lies, it will then be
plain to see.

More to the point, why don't the RMT publish _their_ "figures"?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/