RedAspect wrote:
"DaveyWavey" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

In this article, they claim the following reasons for strike:

- Some Transport for London staff apparently earn quite a decent wage.

- The Queen didn't award an MBE to every single RMT member working at
King's Cross.

Hardly conclusive justification for a strike, is it? And it doesn't
really line up that well with the spin that the RMT leadership are
desperately trying to create about why these strikes are occurring.

Ultimately, Bob Crow and his cronies are letting the decent hardworking
RMT membership down with this charade of misrepresentation. But he's
not fooling anyone.


My post on The Transport Forum sums it and I hope explains why
this is just as important for the public as it is for the station staff.
I reproduce it he

"Great Stuff a lively discussion so let's clarify a few things.


The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central

London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.

LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated

with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts

would go but no job losses.



To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward

the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being

taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you

cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off

with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and

bank holidays).



I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I

could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a

back door way of reducing staff.



The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly

500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that

the present level of staff was required how can this be right we

now have the terrorist threat as well?



Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design

and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC

is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.



We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

Well, you are correct that *some* of the strike supporters are claiming
the strikes are about jobs and safety, albeit supported with fairly
tenuous arguments.

But, we can also see that some strike supporters think the strikes are
about a lack of medals being awarded by the Queen, or about the
supposedly high wages being paid to TFL staff.

So, I'll stand by my original point that the public justification for
these strikes is somewhat incoherent (or, at best, inconsistent). A
fact that seems to be borne out by the apparent low participation in
the strike action (both on NYE and today).

In article .com,
Chris! wrote:
LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

Section 12 of what? Can you provide a link to it? All recent
legislation is on http://www.hmso.gov.uk

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Cross_fire
} The Fennell Investigation into the fire prompted the introduction
} of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations
} 1989 (usually referred to as the Section 12 Regulations because
} they were introduced under section 12 of the 1971 Fire Precautions
} Act).

FWIW: the relevant regulations are online at hmso.gov.uk; it's
Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 1401.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

I don't condone the strike for one moment.

But, unless and until ticket machines can, for example, at Fulham
Broadway, sell me a return from Zone 2 boundary to Harwich, then the
machines are not covering all of the complicated eventualities that, at
present, require a ticket office. I frequently buy a Zone 1 & 2
Travelcard at my newsagent, but often need an extension as
aforementioned which, at present, machines cannot cope with, especially
if it invoves National Rail.

Why can't the ticket office staff being redeployed (presumably outside
peak hours) be equipped with portable machines like National Rail
travelling ticket inspectors who seem to be able to sell any
combination of tickets on their portable machines for any date up to
364 days in advance, and accept credit cards as well?

Presumably they would howl with resentment at, a) being removed from
their cosy ticket office and b) having the additional duties of
carrying equipment and dealing with the public but, frankly, so what?
We all have aspects of our jobs we don't like, and some of us don't
even get guaranteed pensions and paid leave etc.

Marc.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 02:58:29 -0000, "RedAspect"
wrote:

The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central
London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.
LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

Sorry but I understood that the legislative change was a government
change and not something sponsored by LU. I have seen nothing that
would suggest that LU is promoting this change.

The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated
with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts
would go but no job losses.

Where is the evidence - not rhetoric - that there will be job losses?

To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward
the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being
taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you
cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off
with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and
bank holidays).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I
could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a
back door way of reducing staff.

Perhaps you need to take over from the Bob and Bobby show then?

The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly
500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that
the present level of staff was required how can this be right we
now have the terrorist threat as well?

Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design
and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC
is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.

Without diminishing for one moment what staff did after the incidents I
do not see the moral basis for using the threat of terrorist attack as a
way of justifying the retention of staff in ticket offices or for strike
action. No member of staff was able, in any practical sense, to prevent
the suicide attacks. It would be utterly wrong to make the accusation
that they could have done - that would simply heap guilt on peoples'
shoulders. It is wrong for the RMT to suggest that retention of current
staffing arrangements would in any way prevent an attack.

They could happen tomorrow in exactly the same circumstances as it is
utterly impractical and, dare I say dangerous, for LU staff to
physically inspect every piece of luggage before it enters the LU
network.

We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

Regrettable but necessary. Don't make me laugh. The RMT are only looking
after the (apparent) interests of their members. This is nothing to do
with passengers and everything to do with being out negotiated and
trying to correct a mess they created when they accepted the original
deal.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 9 Jan 2006 06:57:14 -0800, "Jonathan Morris"
wrote:

Oyster cards are excellent, although I accept that technically they're
regarded as proprietary, and as such there are a lot of issues/concerns
with the TOCs about their use.

Could you try that again in English please?

Laurence Payne wrote:
Oyster cards are excellent, although I accept that technically they're
regarded as proprietary, and as such there are a lot of issues/concerns
with the TOCs about their use.

Could you try that again in English please?\

It was. What could you not understand from the above text?

To clarify; the cards apparently aren't 'industry standard' and as such
are seen as proprietary. This can cause problems in the future, with
other examples being the Countdown system used on the buses. Great to
begin with, and be one of the first, but very quickly it's obsolete and
incompatible with new technology.

TOCs have expressed concerns about Oyster, although there are perhaps
many other reasons for not taking Oyster on - and some may well be due
to their peceived losses in revenue. I don't claim to know what all
these issues are.

Finally, I think they're excellent. Hence me saying that from the
outset.

Is that clear now?

Jonathan

On 9 Jan 2006 02:06:45 -0800, wrote:


Actually, given that drivers and signalling staff were not involved
(despite the RMT's best, or worst, intentions), over 50 stations were
closed at one point on New Year's Day, including quite a few adjacent
ones, so to describe it as failing miserably is not quite right.

Clearly, with the 'success' of Oyster (i.e. bully people into taking it
up through skewed fare increases), LU is looking for a 'BR' type
scenario with ticket offices at many stations staffed only M-F
mornings. Mike Brown says we can't have staff in offices selling just
one or two tickets an hour. What stations is he talking about? North
Weald? Blake Hall?

I would guess the issue would be exactly how many staff you have in
the ticket office.

Putting staff back on the gateline and platform sounds good, except
those very same staff perobably started off there and took promotion to
ticket seller to get away from that environment and all the hassle it
involves. Yeah, maybe they should be grateful they've still got a job
but they're not going to be very happy about it (viz. the strike). Then
there's the repeal of the Section 12 legislation and the likely affect
that too will have on jobs.

It strikes me that they're throwing a hissy fit because they're
finally being forced to accept the flexibility that most other workers
in the public and private sector got used to more than a decade ago.

Why doesn't LU publish the 'before' and 'after' staffing ratios for the
station groups at the heart of this dispute? (Or someone who reads this
with inside info.). Then if the RMT are telling lies, it will then be
plain to see.

More to the point, why don't the RMT publish _their_ "figures"?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 02:58:29 -0000, "RedAspect"
wrote:

The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central
London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.
LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

Sorry but I understood that the legislative change was a government
change and not something sponsored by LU. I have seen nothing that
would suggest that LU is promoting this change.

The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated
with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts
would go but no job losses.

Where is the evidence - not rhetoric - that there will be job losses?

To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward
the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being
taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you
cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off
with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and
bank holidays).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I
could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a
back door way of reducing staff.

Perhaps you need to take over from the Bob and Bobby show then?

The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly
500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that
the present level of staff was required how can this be right we
now have the terrorist threat as well?

Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design
and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC
is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.

Without diminishing for one moment what staff did after the incidents I
do not see the moral basis for using the threat of terrorist attack as a
way of justifying the retention of staff in ticket offices or for strike
action. No member of staff was able, in any practical sense, to prevent
the suicide attacks. It would be utterly wrong to make the accusation
that they could have done - that would simply heap guilt on peoples'
shoulders. It is wrong for the RMT to suggest that retention of current
staffing arrangements would in any way prevent an attack.

They could happen tomorrow in exactly the same circumstances as it is
utterly impractical and, dare I say dangerous, for LU staff to
physically inspect every piece of luggage before it enters the LU
network.

We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

Regrettable but necessary. Don't make me laugh. The RMT are only looking
after the (apparent) interests of their members. This is nothing to do
with passengers and everything to do with being out negotiated and
trying to correct a mess they created when they accepted the original
deal.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!


Both the uninformed and the anti RMT mob in this NG are just refusing to see
that the strike is about job losses and safety. To include the awarding of
"Me Before Everybody" (MBE) to a manager that didn't earn it is just the
kind of non sequitur thrown in by losers who haven't really got anything to
say.

Of course, RMT members could NEVER be accused of deserving an MBE (Me
Before Everybody), could they?! Those selfless souls are striking
purely altruistically for the benefit of the travelling public and if,
perchance, they were offered a £1 million redundancy package they would
decline it as immoral and highly offensive to those not so rewarded.

Marc.

RedAspect wrote:
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 02:58:29 -0000, "RedAspect"
wrote:

The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central
London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.
LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

Sorry but I understood that the legislative change was a government
change and not something sponsored by LU. I have seen nothing that
would suggest that LU is promoting this change.

The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated
with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts
would go but no job losses.

Where is the evidence - not rhetoric - that there will be job losses?

To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward
the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being
taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you
cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off
with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and
bank holidays).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I
could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a
back door way of reducing staff.

Perhaps you need to take over from the Bob and Bobby show then?

The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly
500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that
the present level of staff was required how can this be right we
now have the terrorist threat as well?

Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design
and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC
is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.

Without diminishing for one moment what staff did after the incidents I
do not see the moral basis for using the threat of terrorist attack as a
way of justifying the retention of staff in ticket offices or for strike
action. No member of staff was able, in any practical sense, to prevent
the suicide attacks. It would be utterly wrong to make the accusation
that they could have done - that would simply heap guilt on peoples'
shoulders. It is wrong for the RMT to suggest that retention of current
staffing arrangements would in any way prevent an attack.

They could happen tomorrow in exactly the same circumstances as it is
utterly impractical and, dare I say dangerous, for LU staff to
physically inspect every piece of luggage before it enters the LU
network.

We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

Regrettable but necessary. Don't make me laugh. The RMT are only looking
after the (apparent) interests of their members. This is nothing to do
with passengers and everything to do with being out negotiated and
trying to correct a mess they created when they accepted the original
deal.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!


Both the uninformed and the anti RMT mob in this NG are just refusing to see
that the strike is about job losses and safety. To include the awarding of
"Me Before Everybody" (MBE) to a manager that didn't earn it is just the
kind of non sequitur thrown in by losers who haven't really got anything to
say.




What are you trying to say?

1. There is an article about "MBEs" on the socialist worker website
authored by a person of the same name as the one who leases the domain
name you keep spamming here
2. You now reckon the strike is about job losses and safety.
3. Your argument about safety and job losses was proved foundless by
Paul C.
4. You try to destroy his argument by criticising people who talk
about MBEs

Paul didn't mention MBEs in his post (the one you reply to), it is in
an article which is believed to originate from you.