London Banter - View Single Post - tube driver wanna strike but what about the...

[email protected] · October 27th 03, 11:21 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(dave F) wrote:

Tube drivers want to strike but what about the poor passengers
(customers)
who have to put up with not only been injured on the system but delays
caused by bad workmanship, staff either knocking off early or not
turning up
at all! I'm probably going to get some stick now but come on it does
happen.

If passengers also decided to take some kind of demonstration like not
using
the system for a day KEN LIVINGSTONE would only tax those people forcing
them back onto the trains.

Next time tube driver wanna strike because they demand a pay increase
why
not find some other way of protesting against your EMPLOYER and not your
customer!

daveF

The RMT jump on anything as a reason o ballot for a strike - look at the
past strikes and the so-called reason for them. However they also have a
record having to climb down because they don't get anywhere with them. All
the strikes do is inconvenience the passengers and mean their members lose
money.

Very few people ever want a strike. However it is the sheep that don't
bother to vote and just follow the result that mean a strike gets called
most times. Look at the amount of returned ballot papers and you will find
that there is nearly always an overwhelming majority for a yes vote.
However, broken down, all it means is that the union activists voted yes,
whilst the majority of members (who would probably have voted no) couldn't
be bothered to vote and then bleat that they're losing money when called
out on strike. (Although given the number of people that seem to have
second jobs, they probably don't mind being on strike - especially those
that do mini cabbing). The percentage of the actual membership that vote
for a strike is usually very low when compared to the no vote and the
"can't be bothered to vote" members.

It will be interesting to see how the "go slow" works. I expect that the
union activists will be going slow, whilst everybody else goes at the
usual speed. Where will it end?, what is a "slow" speed?. A derailment or
collision at 5mph could cause just as much harm in certain circumstances
as one at a higher speed. Derailing at 1mph, in front of an approaching
train on the opposite track, could be fatal. Obviously if there is this
concern over the condition of the track in general, then people should
already be going slow and over every set of points, not just over certain
areas.

Drivers know where they think the track might be dodgy (although it may
well be safe) and will usually adjust their driving accordingly. After
all, the driver is thinking about his own safety just as much as that of
the passengers.

Approaching Archway NB, on the bend at the site of the old scissors
crossover, the train is often thrown violently as it passes over
(presumably) a join in the track. This has been like it for about 9+
months and is often being reported by drivers (and passengers). It has
been examined and passed as "OK". This means that trains can go over it at
the normal line speed of 35mph. There are other similar circumstances to
this. However, drivers not trusting the track will usually slow down
anyway.

Roger