On 1 Sep, 00:54, MIG wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, James Farrar wrote:

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"
So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...

Who wouldn't try protect their interests following the collapse of a
failed system?

Err, they've been promised no redundancies until Metronet goes out of
administration. That's a hell of a lot better than anyone working in
the real world could expect.

The difference is that the mates of the Government who were expecting
vast amounts of money to be channeled to them indefinitely through PPP
are protecting their interests in less public ways than by going on
strike (not like they do any work anyway) but you can bet that they
are protecting their interests, probably to the detriment of the
workers' interests if they could get away with it.

Sorry, what the hell are you talking about? Metronet's shareholders
have written off their interest, so who are these "mates of the
Government" and how are they "protecting their interest"?

[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

If the threat of strike action will protect the interests of people
actually doing the work and who were definitely not the architects of
the system, then that's a Good Thing, particularly if sense is seen
soon enough for the strike to be averted.

********: when a company fails, its employees are just as responsible
as its management. Sack the lot of them and rehire on the minimum
wage; if they don't like that there are plenty of people in Poland and
South Asia who'd like their jobs...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org