| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The real reasons behind the strike?
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. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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? |
The real reasons behind the strike?
steve wrote: 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? Depends. It's worth it for amusement value, to see how laughably incoherent (and contradictory) the arguments for the strike seem to be. But don't read it if you're looking for any sensible justification for the strikes. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
DaveyWavey wrote:
steve wrote: 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? Depends. It's worth it for amusement value, to see how laughably incoherent (and contradictory) the arguments for the strike seem to be. But don't read it if you're looking for any sensible justification for the strikes. Do you think Chairman Bob has misread his Communist worker 2006 sport wall planner and thinks the World Cup is on now :) |
The real reasons behind the strike?
www.waspies.net wrote: DaveyWavey wrote: steve wrote: 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? Depends. It's worth it for amusement value, to see how laughably incoherent (and contradictory) the arguments for the strike seem to be. But don't read it if you're looking for any sensible justification for the strikes. Do you think Chairman Bob has misread his Communist worker 2006 sport wall planner and thinks the World Cup is on now :) At last, a plausible reason for the strikes. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the
T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry, for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age! Marc. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
wrote in message oups.com... Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry, for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age! Marc. Not according to this http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/abt_members.asp |
The real reasons behind the strike?
wrote in message oups.com... Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry, for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age! Marc. From the BBC's site 'Key players in the union movement' re Bob Crow: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4197262.stm A former communist, he professes admiration for Arthur Scargill and for Chairman Mao, and he began his own climb up the ranks of the RMT in 1983, succeeding the late Jimmy Knapp as boss in 2002. He has said: "I'm not one of those union officials who continually say they regret the inconvenience caused by industrial action. You cannot have a dispute without inconvenience to the travelling public." Sums him up quite well really.. Paul |
The real reasons behind the strike?
|
The real reasons behind the strike?
Oh, right, "how to win friends and influence people" - another of those
concepts the brainfree zone failed to understand! Marc. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
www.waspies.net wrote:
wrote: Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry, for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age! Marc. He quit the TFL board after a massive 8 week stint, (lightweight) 2 years actually. He was appointed to the board on 1 June 2002 and resigned on 25 June 2004 after a row with Livingstone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3838961.stm -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Thanks for the info and link, Richard: that picture of Crow just about
proves my point! Marc. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Richard J. wrote:
www.waspies.net wrote: wrote: Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry, for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age! Marc. He quit the TFL board after a massive 8 week stint, (lightweight) 2 years actually. He was appointed to the board on 1 June 2002 and resigned on 25 June 2004 after a row with Livingstone. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3838961.stm I stand (well sit) corrected |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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. It seems the strike failed miserably, proving that those people who didn't turn up are possibly not needed at all. Maybe LUL should consider getting rid of them to save a few quid?! I wonder if the union members that supported this action have considered the long term damage for their careers? Bob Crow doesn't exactly care; on a nice salary, taking leave when the strike is on (I'm guessing, I don't actually know where he was - but I bet it was a nice hotel/beach or whatever) and probably set up for life. If he was sacked, he'd get a nice golden handshake anyway. I can only see that most workers were sensible and totally unsupportive of the pathetic strike. When we travelled in to London on Saturday (31st), the train company was warning people that there were no tubes. In that sense, the strike did 'work' as a lot of people would have stayed away. We didn't need the tube at Kings Cross, but found it working fine and used it to Liverpool Street. Maybe the deep level station was closed, but it didn't seem that anything was going on at all. I felt like thanking the staff that had turned up, but wondered if they knew the strike was on either!! Jonathan |
The real reasons behind the strike?
"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." |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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? 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. 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. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Are LU offering voluntary redundancy? Surely if the package was
generous enough, we could eliminate unnecessary ticket office staff without a strike? If the same tickets can be bought from a newsagent or machine as from a ticket office, what is the point of a ticket office? |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Richard Adamfi wrote:
If the same tickets can be bought from a newsagent or machine as from a ticket office, what is the point of a ticket office? Exactly. If you make a ticket machine good enough, that it can handle all forms of payment, make it clear what tickets are on offer (and also display the options in numerous languages) then ticket staff are, fairly, redundant. When I go abroad, the machines are usually easy to use, although - to be fair - the ticket staff are usually excellent and their knowledge of our language puts some of us to shame. 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. We may well see a switch to a different card in the future, although I guess the Oyster name will remain. Whether we needed to have people forced into getting an Oyster is another story, as I'm surprised anyone who has used one would go back to using cash - and as more people get them, surely word gets around ('what you're still using cash?'). Jonathan |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Richard Adamfi wrote: If the same tickets can be bought from a newsagent or machine as from a ticket office, what is the point of a ticket office? Many newsagents add a service charge for any credit or debit card transaction on oyster only, however large the transaction, (eg Londis) |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Ok, Dom1234, heres my response / questions... hope you can help...
RedAspect wrote: 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. Section 12 of what? Can you provide a link to it? All recent legislation is on http://www.hmso.gov.uk 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. OK 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). How do the figures not add up? Why can't you run the tube with less staff hours, particularly now there is apparently much less work to be done in ticket offices. I thought the main pont of Oyster was to reduce the number of paper tickets bought and hence reduce the burden on staff. 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. How? Have they reduced the number of staff at all. Is there a single job loss, or demotion to a lower grade with lower pay? 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? They are seeking to cut 500 staff. Do you mean sack 500 staff? What evidence do you base this on, the only evidence you give in that paragraph is that Mike Brown has denied it. How is *increasing* the number of staff on platforms *less* safe? I would have thought it more safe/ 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. Indeed. But whats the use in having extra staff in ticket offices? Surely if there is a fire underground and they are at surface level, the HSE wouldn't allow them to enter the station? 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." I completely disagree with the way you are trying to make the strike about 'safety' when you provide no evidence of how moving the staff around is going to make the stations less safe. The only safety issues I can see are the incidents highlighted in Bob Crow's letter to HMRI. But if HMRI are already starting to investigate I fail to see what a strike will do to help. Let the independant HMRI enquiry decide, don't appoint yourselves judge, jury and executioner. Happy trolling Mr Dom1234/RedAspect -- C |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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). |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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) |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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! |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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? |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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 |
The real reasons behind the strike?
"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. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
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. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:01:06 -0000, "RedAspect"
wrote: Both the uninformed and the anti RMT mob in this NG If there is an anti-RMT "mob", I would suggest you reflect upon the expression "you reap what you sow". are just refusing to see that the strike is about job losses and safety. Since it isn't It's a good excuse for a strike; or at least, it would be if it hadn't been worn out. I suggest you reflect upon the moral of the tale of the boy who cried "Wolf!". -- James Farrar . @gmail.com |
The real reasons behind the strike?
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
... wrote in message oups.com... Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry, for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age! Marc. From the BBC's site 'Key players in the union movement' re Bob Crow: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4197262.stm A former communist, he professes admiration for Arthur Scargill and for Chairman Mao, and he began his own climb up the ranks of the RMT in 1983, succeeding the late Jimmy Knapp as boss in 2002. He has said: "I'm not one of those union officials who continually say they regret the inconvenience caused by industrial action. You cannot have a dispute without inconvenience to the travelling public." Sums him up quite well really.. Paul What a dick. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
wrote in message
ups.com... 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. That's an excellent idea. The only time I have to use a ticket office is when I need to buy a Silverstink ticket from Highbury & Islington - and I'm usually stuck in the queue behind 10 people all wanting something they can get from the ticket machines. Absolutely ridiculous. Something clearly has to be done with the organisation of the ticket offices on the underground - there seems to be something seriously awry with the amount of staff and the amount of service. Ridiculous. Marc. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
"RedAspect" wrote in message
... "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. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I've not heard a single argument from ANYONE as to how the strikes have anything to do with safety. The safety argument begins and ends at the word "safety" - perhaps you could tell us how having less staff in ticket offices makes us more unsafe? Pretty please? :) |
The real reasons behind the strike?
d wrote in uk.transport.london on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:07:34 GMT
k: wrote in message oups.com... 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? That's an excellent idea. Well, apart from severely increasing the risk of robbery from what would, in effect, be mobile unprotected cash machines, these staff wouldn't have an interface with Oyster. There does appear to have been a significant increase in the number of face-to-cafe enquiries at ticket offices about Oyster card problems. The only time I have to use a ticket office is when I need to buy a Silverstink ticket from Highbury & Islington - and I'm usually stuck in the queue behind 10 people all wanting something they can get from the ticket machines. Absolutely ridiculous. Something clearly has to be done with the organisation of the ticket offices on the underground - there seems to be something seriously awry with the amount of staff and the amount of service. Ridiculous. You're losing me here; people want to use ticket offices rather than machines, but we should have less ticket offices? -- hike - a walking tour or outing, esp. of the self-conscious kind Chambers 20th Century Dictionary |
The real reasons behind the strike?
d wrote in uk.transport.london on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:12:10 GMT
. uk: I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but I've not heard a single argument from ANYONE as to how the strikes have anything to do with safety. The safety argument begins and ends at the word "safety" - perhaps you could tell us how having less staff in ticket offices makes us more unsafe? I'd understood that the references to safety were regarding the use of either untrained staff (or, alternatively, no staff at all) as part of LUL management's efforts to keep stations open during the strikes. BICBW. -- hike - a walking tour or outing, esp. of the self-conscious kind Chambers 20th Century Dictionary |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Dave Hillam ]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : 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? That's an excellent idea. Well, apart from severely increasing the risk of robbery from what would, in effect, be mobile unprotected cash machines, It's hardly an idea without precedent - and I'd have thought that somebody standing on a bus or in a ticket hall selling tickets was less likely to be robbed than a machine standing alone at a bus stop... Besides, if National Rail can do it, why can't TfL? these staff wouldn't have an interface with Oyster. Why not? Ticket inspectors already have hand-held Oyster wands. |
The real reasons behind the strike?
In article . 170,
Adrian wrote: these staff wouldn't have an interface with Oyster. Why not? Ticket inspectors already have hand-held Oyster wands. That may not be sufficent for the more complex problems[1]. Y'know, the ones the machines can't cope with, and that a person at a ticket office needs to resolve. -- RIP Morph (1977-2005) |
The real reasons behind the strike?
In article ,
Dave Hillam wrote: Well, apart from severely increasing the risk of robbery from what would, in effect, be mobile unprotected cash machines, these staff wouldn't have an interface with Oyster. There does appear to have been a significant increase in the number of face-to-cafe enquiries at ticket offices about Oyster card problems. I don't know how much it costs, but you can (or used to be able to anyway) set up private groups on mobile phone networks. Can that include GSM data services ? With a few extra microcells in mobile dead spots (that I'm sure everyone is going to tell me about :-)) that might be workable. I'd expect Mobile Oyster to be a big enough market that TFL could at least talk to the networks nicely ... Nick -- So when is Tony Blair going to start treating *us* with respect ? |
The real reasons behind the strike?
Mike Bristow ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : these staff wouldn't have an interface with Oyster. Why not? Ticket inspectors already have hand-held Oyster wands. That may not be sufficent for the more complex problems[1]. Y'know, the ones the machines can't cope with, and that a person at a ticket office needs to resolve. The ones a person needs to resolve? Yeh, I'd reckon that could be arranged. All you'd need to do is have a person holding the wand, and have a wand with sufficient software. Shouldn't be difficult. Build a cheap PDA into it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:19 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk