Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I,
a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how many of
this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel qualified to complain
about "a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs"?

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possble that with redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a mmeber of station staff?

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should I,
a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how many
of
this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel qualified to
complain
about "a whole museum worth of staff to be found jobs"?

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possible that with
redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a member of station staff?

Agreed. There are never enough station and ticket-office staff, so they
should be redeployed wherever possible.

But more importantly: WTF are they doing to the LT Museum for it to take 18
months to be refurbished? Sounds like a pretty radical overhaul. I look
forward to seeing the end result. I'm glad I read that it was going to be
closed: I was thinking about going up to London some time soon and I was
planning to go there - haven't been for a few years. Do they still charge
for admission or has it gone free entry like the Science Museum? Are any of
the exhibits being moved to a temporary exhibition elsewhere for all that
time.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:28:49 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possible that with
redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a member of station staff?

If it is true that the staff are being made redundant then I think that
is crazy. As you say what about the need to recruit in future, retrain
etc. A proportion of the staff are highly knowledgeable and it would be
a nonsense to make them leave. However the TfL approach to staffing and
conditions is one of great contrasts - you can draw your own conclusions
as to what that means.

This may explain why the shop staff were deep in conversation about work
matters this lunchtime.

Agreed. There are never enough station and ticket-office staff, so they
should be redeployed wherever possible.

And there is plenty of other work requiring people - a £10bn investment
programme for a start.

But more importantly: WTF are they doing to the LT Museum for it to take 18
months to be refurbished? Sounds like a pretty radical overhaul. I look
forward to seeing the end result. I'm glad I read that it was going to be
closed: I was thinking about going up to London some time soon and I was
planning to go there - haven't been for a few years. Do they still charge
for admission or has it gone free entry like the Science Museum? Are any of
the exhibits being moved to a temporary exhibition elsewhere for all that
time.

I understand that they are enlarging the display space and creating a
theatre and other facilities. The building itself needs substantive
repairs to stop it decaying further.

http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/support/cgp.html

The shop will relocate to one of the units on the piazza. It closes
from late August so you should still be able to visit if you are coming
to London soon.

Charges still apply. Don't know what is happening to the exhibits but
I'd assume some will go to the Depot at Acton Town and will still be
accessible on the open weekends.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for
18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should
I,
a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need
doing
before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how
many of
this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel qualified to
complain
about "a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs"?


I don't know how many people work there but it's a pretty big place so
it will be a non negligible amount.

Judging by the quote from the RMT it is all these staff who are being
made redundant.

I do feel qualified to make my point known, yes. In my opinion it
would be a waste of money to CREATE one extra un-needed job just
because you had someone who had to be doing something. To try and
find/make up jobs for several people would be an intollerable waste

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possble that with
redundacy
payments and the costs associated with hiring new people that it
might
actually prove cheaper to put these people into some useful job
somewhere,
even if it is "only" as a mmeber of station staff?

If it was *cheaper* then there wouldn't be an issue and conflict with
the unions would there?

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't anything
stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an application
form and applying is there?

"Chris!" wrote in message
ups.com...

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't anything
stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an application
form and applying is there?

Who actually employs the LT Museum staff? Is it LT (or whatever they're
called this week) themselves or is it a separate company. Even if the staff
get temporary jobs as station staff or get re-employed as museum staff after
the refurbishment, they've lost their continuity of service despite some of
them having worked there a long time.

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Chris!" wrote in message
ups.com...

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application
form and applying is there?

Who actually employs the LT Museum staff? Is it LT (or whatever
they're called this week) themselves or is it a separate company.
Even if the staff get temporary jobs as station staff or get
re-employed as museum staff after the refurbishment, they've lost
their continuity of service despite some of them having worked there
a long time.

The Museum comes under the TfL umbrella and recruitment is handled throught
the TfL human remains system, so I would conclude that they are TfL
employees.

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
2. "The transport museum is being closed for refurbishment for 18
months, yet rather than redeploy the staff and use their talents
elsewhere in the organisation they are making them redundant."

They expect a whole musuem worth of staff to be found jobs within
TFL? Where does the sudden influx of jobs come from? Why should
I, a taxpayer, fund extra people to do something that didn't need
doing before.

How many people work at the museum and how many of them are being
made redundant?

The RMT ommits the important facts from its website... One assumes
from the quote that they are all being made redundant

So you don't know how many people work there and you don't know how
many of this unknown figure are losing thir jobs yet you feel
qualified to complain about "a whole musuem worth of staff to be
found jobs"?


I don't know how many people work there but it's a pretty big place so
it will be a non negligible amount.

Judging by the quote from the RMT it is all these staff who are being
made redundant.

I do feel qualified to make my point known, yes. In my opinion it
would be a waste of money to CREATE one extra un-needed job just
because you had someone who had to be doing something. To try and
find/make up jobs for several people would be an intollerable waste

What about when the mueum reopens, how much will have to be spent on
training and equipping the new people, it is not possble that with
redundacy payments and the costs associated with hiring new people
that it might actually prove cheaper to put these people into some
useful job somewhere, even if it is "only" as a mmeber of station
staff?

If it was *cheaper* then there wouldn't be an issue and conflict with
the unions would there?

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already employed
by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?

Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed
by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in by
someone rather than some form of transfer request?

Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in by
someone rather than some form of transfer request?

You really don't have a clue as to what's involved in dismissing and hiring
staff do you?

Before coming on here and making your self look silly it might be worth
doing some basic research.

A bit late for you on this occasion but you might care to think about it
next time.

Brimstone wrote:
Chris! wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

If the staff wanted to be a station assistant then there isn't
anything stopping them going to the tube website, downloading an
application form and applying is there?

All of which is unnecessary additional work since they are already
employed by TfL, and you claim to want to reduce the expenditure?


So how much more does it cost to read an application form filled in
by
someone rather than some form of transfer request?

You really don't have a clue as to what's involved in dismissing and
hiring
staff do you?

Ok so they have to be paid redundancy pay as well but they lose certain
rights from leaving and joining so it roughly cancels out or is better
for them. So why are they striking?




Before coming on here and making your self look silly it might be
worth
doing some basic research.

A bit late for you on this occasion but you might care to think about
it
next time.