"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 02:58:29 -0000, "RedAspect"
wrote:

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.

Sorry but I understood that the legislative change was a government
change and not something sponsored by LU. I have seen nothing that
would suggest that LU is promoting this change.

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.

Where is the evidence - not rhetoric - that there will be 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).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

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.

Perhaps you need to take over from the Bob and Bobby show then?

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.

Without diminishing for one moment what staff did after the incidents I
do not see the moral basis for using the threat of terrorist attack as a
way of justifying the retention of staff in ticket offices or for strike
action. No member of staff was able, in any practical sense, to prevent
the suicide attacks. It would be utterly wrong to make the accusation
that they could have done - that would simply heap guilt on peoples'
shoulders. It is wrong for the RMT to suggest that retention of current
staffing arrangements would in any way prevent an attack.

They could happen tomorrow in exactly the same circumstances as it is
utterly impractical and, dare I say dangerous, for LU staff to
physically inspect every piece of luggage before it enters the LU
network.

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."

Regrettable but necessary. Don't make me laugh. The RMT are only looking
after the (apparent) interests of their members. This is nothing to do
with passengers and everything to do with being out negotiated and
trying to correct a mess they created when they accepted the original
deal.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!


Both the uninformed and the anti RMT mob in this NG are just refusing to see
that the strike is about job losses and safety. To include the awarding of
"Me Before Everybody" (MBE) to a manager that didn't earn it is just the
kind of non sequitur thrown in by losers who haven't really got anything to
say.