On 22/11/2019 16:52, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:18:51 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/11/2019 12:49, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:47:05 +0000
MikeS wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:36, wrote:

Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on strike for
a month soon I can't say it surprises me to find out they're a bunch of tits
as well.


Do keep up, it's the guards that are striking.

Will any of the drivers cross the picket line and run the trains OPO? I think
we know the answer to that.


They can't operate the trains OPO because the equipment to do so is not
fitted to the trains or the stations.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:25:25 on Fri, 22 Nov
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on
strike for
a month soon

That's guards, not drivers.
A wonderful advert for Labour's manifesto commitment to return
guards to all trains. Whose side are these strikers on, exactly?

All part of Cash's self-appointed class war, after all only toffs
travel by train into London.

If we return to the workers' paradise that was BR in the 70's, why would
drivers, and signalmen be striking because the nationalised BR wouldn't
give them the pay rise they demanded?

Yes, but with a bigger impact (national rather than regional) thus more
likely to get the desired result?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:18:51 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/11/2019 12:49, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:47:05 +0000
MikeS wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:36, wrote:

Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on strike for
a month soon I can't say it surprises me to find out they're a bunch of tits
as well.


Do keep up, it's the guards that are striking.

Will any of the drivers cross the picket line and run the trains OPO? I think
we know the answer to that.



SWR can't do DOO. They say they're planning to run 50% of services,
presumably using management/office staff as guards.

As for crossing or not crossing picket lines, I believe it's technically
secondary industrial action and therefore technically illegal, but also
AIUI most TOCs involved in similar disputes have said they won't take
action (beyond loss of a day's pay) against those of other grades who don't
cross picket lines.

Incidentally AIUI the RMT will be paying the striking guards to compensate
for loss of income; that won't of course apply to other grades.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 15:37:21 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:25:25 on Fri, 22 Nov
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on
strike for
a month soon

That's guards, not drivers.
A wonderful advert for Labour's manifesto commitment to return
guards to all trains. Whose side are these strikers on, exactly?

All part of Cash's self-appointed class war, after all only toffs
travel by train into London.

If we return to the workers' paradise that was BR in the 70's, why would
drivers, and signalmen be striking because the nationalised BR wouldn't
give them the pay rise they demanded?

When the air traffic controllers in the USA pushed their luck once too often
and went out on strike for the umpteenth time in the 80s, Reagan fired the lot
of then AND banned them for working for the federal government for a number of
years yet planes kept flying. We should do the same with train staff - its
not exactly a hard job physically or mentally no matter what they pretend and
they could be replaced pretty quickly. Certainly quicker than air traffic
controllers.


Several months to train a guard and 12-18 months to train a driver; over
half of which is done on trains with other crews (training with
instructors, route learning with regular crews). Sack *everyone* at once
and you're going to find it very difficult to run any trains at all for at
least a year, and probably at least three years before you can run anything
like a full service.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message , at 20:46:16 on Fri, 22 Nov
2019, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on
strike for
a month soon

That's guards, not drivers.
A wonderful advert for Labour's manifesto commitment to return
guards to all trains. Whose side are these strikers on, exactly?

All part of Cash's self-appointed class war, after all only toffs
travel by train into London.

If we return to the workers' paradise that was BR in the 70's, why would
drivers, and signalmen be striking because the nationalised BR wouldn't
give them the pay rise they demanded?

Yes, but with a bigger impact (national rather than regional) thus more
likely to get the desired result?

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?
--
Roland Perry

On 22/11/2019 20:46, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 15:37:21 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:25:25 on Fri, 22 Nov
2019, Graeme Wall remarked:
Luckily ****s like him seem
to be rarer these days.

Apparently you don't use Waterloo very often.

Not for years. But given the SWR drivers are planning to go on
strike for
a month soon

That's guards, not drivers.
A wonderful advert for Labour's manifesto commitment to return
guards to all trains. Whose side are these strikers on, exactly?

All part of Cash's self-appointed class war, after all only toffs
travel by train into London.

If we return to the workers' paradise that was BR in the 70's, why would
drivers, and signalmen be striking because the nationalised BR wouldn't
give them the pay rise they demanded?

When the air traffic controllers in the USA pushed their luck once too often
and went out on strike for the umpteenth time in the 80s, Reagan fired the lot
of then AND banned them for working for the federal government for a number of
years yet planes kept flying. We should do the same with train staff - its
not exactly a hard job physically or mentally no matter what they pretend and
they could be replaced pretty quickly. Certainly quicker than air traffic
controllers.


Several months to train a guard and 12-18 months to train a driver; over
half of which is done on trains with other crews (training with
instructors, route learning with regular crews). Sack *everyone* at once
and you're going to find it very difficult to run any trains at all for at
least a year, and probably at least three years before you can run anything
like a full service.


More or less what actually happened with the Air Traffic Controllers in
the States, flights were reduced by about 50% for several months and it
was 10 years before the system finally recovered, ironically after
having to introduce many of the reforms the Controllers were striking
for in the first place.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]

On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?


I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/11/2019 21:58, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?


The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

â€* Quote:
The Labour Party is much better understood through its defeats than
through its victories, and not just because there are more of them. For a
party that was founded to be the parliamentary wing of organised labour it
has been signally unsuccessful. Of the 119 years that have elapsed since
Labour issued its first manifesto, it has spent only 33 of them in office
and 13 of those were won by the unperson Blair. There have been 31
elections and Labour has won a working majority just five times.

…

That's a quote from what?

The Times article I cited.



I am always puzzled by why Labour wants the government (which is usually
Tory) to run the trains. “Put Chris Grayling in charge,� said nobody, ever.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-2019-labours-manifesto-is-mere-wishful-thinking-mflqs79sc?shareToken=0abbdeb43c9af906fbd956f843a80 c15

[In the 74 years since 1945, Labour has spent 24 years in power, 10 of
which were under the now-hated Blair. So, only 14 out of 74 years, 19%,
were under leaders the unions approve of. That proportion looks likely to
shrink.]



Yes the left have never forgiven Blair for making Labour electable.

In message , at 21:58:07 on Fri, 22 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:

Surely the desired result from he point of view of the workers is to
have a Labour government in power, and running the railways for the
workers. Why would they ever need to go on strike?

The odd thing is that UK governments are generally Tory-ledâ€*, so by
demanding government-owned railways, broadband, gas, electricity, etc, the
unions are, in effect, trying to ensure they will be working directly for
Tory ministers.

In the General Election, voters won't be looking over their shoulder at
the past, but hoping for a sustained brighter future.

One of the aspects of this campaign which I think might be different
from previous ones, however, is the way manifesto promises are not just
looked at from the point of view of being deliverable, but whether or
not they are deliverable within 5yrs.
--
Roland Perry