On 6 Dec 2006 07:26:57 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

wrote:

Exactly Paul


I was amazed that Silverlink staff/stations are being absorbed into LU
whereas presumably East London Line station/train staff are being
firmed up for privitisation!!!!


I'm sure I'd read or heard somewhere that the Mayor's idea was that the
existing ELL station staff would stay working for LU, and ELL stations
such as Surrey Quays would continue to be managed by LU. I guess that
operationally this might actually be a bit daft as there are only four
ELL-only stations (Surrey Quays, Rotherhithe, Wapping, Shadwell).

Err I think we need to be careful here. You could just as reasonably
argue that Shoreditch High St should be LU because it replaces
Shoreditch. As S High St, Hoxton, Haggerston and Dalston Junction are
all being constructed to LU design standards and thus LU's operational
philosophy why not say they are operated by LU ELL staff?

I'm not saying what is right or wrong - just that there is room for
debate.

It makes sense that the extended ELL be run as part of the London
Overground concession (i.e. the operator that TfL will pick to run the
North London Railway) as at least some (if not most) of the extended
East London Line services will continue - once the Dalston curve has
been reconnected - oto teh North London Line.

Does it? You could argue that a whole range of scenarios are valid
depending on what you are trying to achieve.

Anyway it seems likely that staff working for the London Overground
operator will enjoy similar pay and benefits to LU staff, as the Mayor
will stipulate this as part of the concession agreement with the chosen
operator.

Similar will not be good enough - the word is "identical". I would
expect the biggest issue will be pensions - the TfL scheme is considered
to be very good. I am unsure whether it could cope with liabilities with
respect to people in the operating concessionaire's business. There is
already the complexity of employees tupe-ed out of LRT / TfL to PFI
contractors, bus companies and the Infracos.

In part I guess the threats from the unions to strike over the ELL
'privatisation' are just a way of ensuring that any of their members
who are transferred to the London Overground operator don't get
degraded pay and benefits.

I think it stretches a bit further than that. This is about power and
control as well in respect of pay negotiations and what "levers" can be
pulled in respect of industrial action. I can see why the RMT would
wish to see a bigger LU membership. However they are just as adept at
applying the screws on the management of whatever set up is adopted -
witness signallers strikes on Network Rail, TOC disputes and pressure on
the DLR franchisee Serco. This is both a strategic and detail issue for
all the parties involved. I think the Mayor has been convinced that an
operating concession can work (witness DLR and the fact there has been
no change to the operating concept there or the willingness of TfL to
procure extensions via design, build, maintain contracts). Therefore he
is happy to see a new operation be established without the baggage of
decades worth of LU culture - some of which is good, some of which is
dreadful. The other point here is that TfL and the Mayor are being
entrusted with a range of new developments by the government that might
be test beds for future development of transport policy nationally or
for London.

The change is happening and it makes sense. The unions campaign against
the 'privatisation' of the ELL also makes sense as they're just working
to ensure their members continues to get the same deal the have at the
moment (though of course there's a bit of ideology about public sector
good private sector bad thrown in as well - but the Mayor shares such
notions, which is why he'll stipulate the employee conditions of the
new operator).

I think the Mayor has mixed views - see previous paragraph.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!