"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
So how do we find out about this, bugger all on the TfL site. That Ken
really is a smart cookie. Called for Metronet to go bankrupt, got what
he wanted and what is the first thing that the cretins in the union
do.
I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved, or what Ken wished
upon them.


This strike is supposedly about job guarantees ... what industry can
guarantee their employees jobs when the business is currently f*cked?
Bankers are getting laid off in their droves etc etc ... cannot see a
logical reasoning to their argument.

I'm probably just going to give up on public transport in its entirety and
cycle the 30 miles a day.

So, thanks tube drivers, for when I've got a six pack and five fit birds on
my arms in six months .. .

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 12:37:15 +0100, "elyob"
wrote:

"Kev" wrote in message
roups.com...
So how do we find out about this, bugger all on the TfL site. That Ken
really is a smart cookie. Called for Metronet to go bankrupt, got what
he wanted and what is the first thing that the cretins in the union
do.
I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved, or what Ken wished
upon them.

Ken may not have wanted PPP but he had to accept its existence. However
I don't believe he would want this failure to have occurred - he simply
wanted the railway to run and the work done. He is at great risk of the
government refusing to fund any of the costs resulting from the failure
of Metronet and thus a whole load of other TfL plans and projects being
chopped to pay for it. I don't believe anyone really wants to see a
regime of cuts being imposed in London just at the time we are starting
to see some expansion. No one wants to see strikes either and people
need to be cognizant of the potential political fall out for the Mayoral
elections next year. Any threat here and you may well see things move
quite quickly.

This strike is supposedly about job guarantees ... what industry can
guarantee their employees jobs when the business is currently f*cked?
Bankers are getting laid off in their droves etc etc ... cannot see a
logical reasoning to their argument.

This is the RMT - where does logic fit in? To be strictly fair though
pensions is another big issue here and for transferred employers there
are statutory guarantees (the Prescott pledge) and these have to be
honoured. Given the pensions problems in many other industries I am not
surprised that the unions and their members are distinctly worried about
any possible breach in this area.

I'm probably just going to give up on public transport in its entirety and
cycle the 30 miles a day.

Well there if it does all go ahead the only line likely to be unaffected
in terms of train services is the Northern Line. The Picc runs over
Metronet tracks and the Jubilee has some trains parked in a Metronet
depot. If station assets fail at Metronet locations and repairs cannot
be effected then it is possible that Northern Line services will be
affected by station closures or possibly partial line suspensions if
multiple Metronet managed stations close. Even though the action is for
a maximum of 72 hours if there is a backlog of repair work then normal
services may take some time to resume.

So, thanks tube drivers, for when I've got a six pack and five fit birds on
my arms in six months .. .

The initial RMT and TSSA dispute is nothing to do with the tube drivers.
The RMT have threatened related action if drivers are forced to drive
trains or work onto track that has not been inspected in accordance with
required standards. As no request to do that has happened there is no
dispute on this front (yet).

The BBC news article saying the strikes are proceeding does say more
talks are planned for Monday and I understand Midday is the key point.
Late in the day I agree but then the unions will seek to gain maximum
leverage from the threat - that's negotiation for you. Wait until Monday
lunchtime.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 2007-08-31 11:49:38 +0100, Kev said:

So how do we find out about this, bugger all on the TfL site. That Ken
really is a smart cookie. Called for Metronet to go bankrupt, got what
he wanted and what is the first thing that the cretins in the union
do.
I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved, or what Ken wished
upon them.

Kevin

In a masterpiece of timing, I'm visiting London next week. If the
strike does go ahead, what's the best alternative to the Tube? My
activities will be in the zone 1 area. Bus? Walk? Will all of the
underground be affected?

On 31 Aug, 15:23, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:

So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...

I would tend to disagree with you there.
At least one union (the Transport Salaried Staffs Association) has not
called it's members out on strike for decades, as there has been no
need.

The fact that they have voted in favour of a strike shows how
aggrieved they are by the whole Metronet fiasco, which includes
mismanagement of their business and then calling in the
administrators, thus leaving a £50M defecit in the Pension Fund which
they are no longer repsonsible for paying and despite having given up,
whilst remaining intent on getting rid of 691 jobs completely and
transferring a large number of the remaining staff to Bombardier who
were one of the first partners in the consortium to write off their
investment and throw in the towel.

On 1 Sep, 13:33, Paul Corfield wrote:
The BBC news article saying the strikes are proceeding does say more
talks are planned for Monday and I understand Midday is the key point.
Late in the day I agree but then the unions will seek to gain maximum
leverage from the threat - that's negotiation for you. Wait until Monday
lunchtime.

By which time everyone is at work, a strike means they'll be unable to
get home and be stuck without alternative transport. Oh well, it wont
go ahead, bunch of cry-wolves.

wrote in uk.transport.london on Sat, 01 Sep
2007 12:36:23 +0100 :

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:19:23 -0700, John B wrote:

[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

Probably as hard as the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers.

Now I know all I need to know about you.

What he said.

--
hike
- a walking tour or outing, esp. of the self-conscious kind
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary

On Sep 1, 12:36 pm, wrote:
[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

Now I know all I need to know about you.

If there's anyone at LUL who works 60-80 hour weeks on a regular
basis, then I apologise to them.

If not, then my statement is unequivocally true.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Sep 2, 1:54 pm, John B wrote:
On Sep 1, 12:36 pm, wrote:

[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

Now I know all I need to know about you.

If there's anyone at LUL who works 60-80 hour weeks on a regular
basis, then I apologise to them.

If not, then my statement is unequivocally true.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

Just because you don't work long hours, doesn't mean that you don't
work hard and have to make decisions that if acted out wrongly could
cause injury or just make people late.

I am not a consultant or an investment banker (where computers are now
a key part of their work, I believe) so dont know about all the things
that make up their jobs. Likewise you don't do my job, so have no idea
what antiquated equipment I use that doesn't work the way it should do.

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:54:17 -0000, John B wrote:

On Sep 1, 12:36 pm, wrote:
[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

Now I know all I need to know about you.

If there's anyone at LUL who works 60-80 hour weeks on a regular
basis, then I apologise to them.

Quite frankly working those sorts of hours is either grossly inefficient
or the sign of someone who is solely chasing obscene amounts of money
with no regard to their well being or else someone in a very low paid
job and virtually no employment rights. None of them is an attractive
prospect nor are they relevant or appropriate in an organisation where
safety is a key factor in the service that the public use.

There are plenty of hard working people in LU and being macho about the
quantity of hours anyone puts in is silly.

If not, then my statement is unequivocally true.

Well it is not true at all and to be quite honest I'm surprised to see
you resort to such a low form of "argument".

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

( working 60-80 hours a week)

Quite frankly working those sorts of hours is either grossly inefficient

I suggest you tell that to my former teaching colleagues who, having
spent 7 hours at school with no breaks, come home to 4 hours of marking,
preparation and form-filling-in (unless there are parents' evenings,
drama nights, concerts, and the like, when it means working weekends as
well). And holidays? That's when you are expected to do training.

or the sign of someone who is solely chasing obscene amounts of money
with no regard to their well being or else someone in a very low paid
job and virtually no employment rights.

Much though I appreciate your detailed observations about LU, I cannot
help think you are revealing yourself as one of those lucky people in a
protected industry without any real competition.

In the area in which I now work (publishing), real competition forces
down income to the extent that working long hours are the only way to
survive.

You are VERY lucky in having such well-protected working conditions ...
but before getting on your high horse I suggest you reflect on the fact
that very many people are not as privileged as you.

Sorry, Paul, but for once you have come across (perhaps unwittingly ...
but there's the worry) as extremely arrogant and quite out of touch with
the real world in which most of us live.
--
Paul Terry