wrote in message
oups.com...
I bet that they wont give that up.

Drivers got no more money when guards were removed

Loony T

Well how would have guards have prevented it happening. Part of the
reason they want guards is to have less work for drivers, they know
they are not going to getting them so at the end of the day they will
want a bigger pay rise for drivers because of 'increased risks'. I bet
if extra money for drivers was offered the guards campaign would soon
go on.

I find it sad that the recent bombings are being used as the latest
excuse to start another dispute

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted can a
company get?
--
Clive

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:42:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted can a
company get?

I don't think 33k per annum is exacty 'mean fisted'.

As Marc says, more police, fewer train staff....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

In message , Robert Woolley
writes
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:42:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted can a
company get?

I don't think 33k per annum is exacty 'mean fisted'.

As Marc says, more police, fewer train staff....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk
Do you want to have the responsibility of a train plus a thousand
passengers for only 33k after overtime and before stoppages? Indeed why
should public service worker work longer hours just to supplement their
wage? If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen. All bus and
tube drivers should resign, then see how the capital copes without them.
--
Clive

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Robert Woolley
writes
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:42:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted can a
company get?

I don't think 33k per annum is exacty 'mean fisted'.

As Marc says, more police, fewer train staff....

Do you want to have the responsibility of a train plus a thousand
passengers for only 33k after overtime and before stoppages?

If you think 33k is a low wage then I think you need to think again. There
are many people in London earning much less. Also most of use don't have to
think about our pay "before stoppages" as we don't feel the need to walk out
of jobs on a regular basis.

Dave

Dave Liney wrote:
"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Robert
Woolley writes
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:42:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted
can a company get?

I don't think 33k per annum is exacty 'mean fisted'.

As Marc says, more police, fewer train staff....

Do you want to have the responsibility of a train plus a thousand
passengers for only 33k after overtime and before stoppages?

If you think 33k is a low wage then I think you need to think again.
There are many people in London earning much less. Also most of use
don't have to think about our pay "before stoppages" as we don't feel
the need to walk out of jobs on a regular basis.


Perhaps if more people were willing to walk out they might have better pay
and conditions?

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 07:49:04 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

Dave Liney wrote:
"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Robert
Woolley writes
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:42:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted
can a company get?

I don't think 33k per annum is exacty 'mean fisted'.

As Marc says, more police, fewer train staff....

Do you want to have the responsibility of a train plus a thousand
passengers for only 33k after overtime and before stoppages?

If you think 33k is a low wage then I think you need to think again.
There are many people in London earning much less. Also most of use
don't have to think about our pay "before stoppages" as we don't feel
the need to walk out of jobs on a regular basis.


Perhaps if more people were willing to walk out they might have better pay
and conditions?


If I walked out, I'd get fired.

--
James Farrar

September's coming soon

Dave Liney wrote:
"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Robert Woolley
writes
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:42:28 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Loony Tune
writes
Drivers got no more money when guards were removed
They took extra responsibility for no extra pay? How mean fisted can a
company get?

I don't think 33k per annum is exacty 'mean fisted'.

As Marc says, more police, fewer train staff....

Do you want to have the responsibility of a train plus a thousand
passengers for only 33k after overtime and before stoppages?

If you think 33k is a low wage then I think you need to think again. There
are many people in London earning much less. Also most of use don't have to
think about our pay "before stoppages" as we don't feel the need to walk out
of jobs on a regular basis.

Dave
Can you imagine the reaction he would get with that attitude if he
rolled up at A&E having had an accident.

Kevin

If you think 33k is a low wage then I think you need to think again. There
are many people in London earning much less. Also most of use don't have
to
think about our pay "before stoppages" as we don't feel the need to walk
out
of jobs on a regular basis.

Dave



33k isn't a low wage. However, how many people could survive on 33k in
London? Is it the Tube's staff's fault that they get paid a wage that
reflects what you actually need to earn to live in London? Shouldn't we be
saying to every other company, 'stop ****ing us over and give us terms and
conditions that befit the 21st century' or should just say 'you earn more
than me so we should reduce your terms and conditions'? We all know nurses,
police, LFB etc SHOULD be paid more, but isn't that down to the unions to
fight for it? Isn't right that their employers should be paying the right
and proper wages in the first place?

Loony T