On Feb 20, 9:32*am, "Lüko Willms" wrote:
* As an old unionist I'm of course always on the side of the union,
but I have some questions on this London Overground issue:

It seems the question of whether or not there'll be guards on the new
trains is one issue - this is a quote from the piece:
"The union also claims that rail bosses have failed to confirm verbal
assurances that new trains will be staffed by guards."

* Are there guards on London Underground?

No - it's one of the (depressingly few) parts of the UK where the
entirely pointless role was successfully abolished through the 1980s
and 1990s. Given that LUL staff are normally even more militant-crazy
than national rail staff, I have no idea how they managed to push this
through.

However it sounds as though that's not the only issue - facilities, or
rather the lack of them, at the now far more comprehensively staffed
stations seems to be an issue too. I recall talk of how at least some
new such facilities were on the cards so as to cater for all the new
staff - perhaps what they've got doesn't equate to what they thought
was promised in the bright new shiny orange future.

* "All the new staff" -- former guards can be used here, isn't it? If
they are not retrained to become drivers. *

That's the sort of thing which would have Bob Crow spitting fire - you
can't expect someone who currently sits at the back of a train pushing
buttons to actually have to go out and talk to passengers and
generally do things that are useful...

* Besides that, LOROL should hurry to build the facilities for the
staff. Where's the problem with that?

That's certainly true, assuming they aren't doing so already, which
may be an erroneous assumption. If Bob Crow told me the sun rose in
the east and set in the west, I'd still check an encyclopaedia to be
sure...

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