On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:58 -0800, DaveyWavey wrote:

So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone realised
that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public what
they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an impression
that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to support this
absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face by
scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting at
dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike. Fairly
absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is not much
evidence that there actually were any) would have been a direct result of
the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article, authored
by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

I only got past the headline

"Safety concerns were central to tube strike"

to be greeted in the first paragraph

"staff in the RMT union walked out on New Year’s Eve to defend the deal
we’d won for a shorter working week."

Is it worth reading on?