|
LU redundancies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm
Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer. B2003 |
LU redundancies
On Jan 29, 4:47�pm, wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer. B2003 'Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT), said: "Any attempt to impose compulsory redundancies among our members or to undermine their terms and conditions will be met with a ballot for industrial action." ' Good on you Bob, that will just add a few more to the list of redundancies! Marc. |
LU redundancies
On 29 Jan, 19:55, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:47:43 -0800 (PST), wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer. FWIW no front-line staff are going, and they are the ones that who really seem to have the clout to negotiate better pay deals as opposed to those in admin posts. I don't know why I say this as I suspect it'll just incite you further. I thought you'd be unable to resist a comment or two. Not quite as vehement as I expected but close. Paul, I'm tempted to ask all sorts of questions that I rather suspect you can't really address, at least not on a public forum - so I'll ask this one instead. What is the thinking behind these cuts - is it in expectation of lower passenger numbers and hence lower revenue courtesy of the recession, or is it part of a (or should I say the) wider cost-cutting exercise across TfL - and if so has this budget- crunch been brought on by Crossrail or are the factors at work rather wider than that? |
LU redundancies
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:20:10 GMT, "Peter Lawrence"
wrote: Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without some tasks just not getting done any more. Do companies and other organisations not realise that by jumping on the redundancies bandwagon (aka burying bad news) they make the recession all the worse? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
LU redundancies
"Peter Lawrence" wrote in news:49822ae5.6325519
@europe.news.astraweb.com: On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:47:43 -0800 (PST), wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer. Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without some tasks just not getting done any more. You are Bob Crow, AICMFP. |
LU redundancies
Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Paul, I'm tempted to ask all sorts of questions that I rather suspect you can't really address, at least not on a public forum - so I'll ask this one instead. What is the thinking behind these cuts - is it in expectation of lower passenger numbers and hence lower revenue courtesy of the recession, or is it part of a (or should I say the) wider cost-cutting exercise across TfL - and if so has this budget- crunch been brought on by Crossrail or are the factors at work rather wider than that? I have to admit to being baffled as to the logic behind the cuts, too. |
LU redundancies
Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay
settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer. I wonder if the nasty little fascists will rejoice in others' redundancy so much when they lose their own jobs. But I suppose they don't work anyway ... I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements', the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit around looking at porn all day. But I travel by TfL - and I don't rejoice that they are being targetted - not least because travelling will get worse. -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman |
LU redundancies
If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week-
long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs, would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they save by these probably needless redundancies? I would support Bob Crow and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation, that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic climate. Neill |
LU redundancies
On 30 Jan, 11:03, Neill wrote:
If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week- long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs, would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they save by these probably needless redundancies? I would support Bob Crow and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation, that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic climate. Neill Apparently the BBC is suffering because "the growth of households will slow". They budgeted, not based on the current number of license fee payers, but on the projected number based on the housebuilding boom. If TFL budgeted on overly optimistic future expectations, such as fare increases (which seem politically more unlikely in a deflationary economy), and increase in passenger numbers (when they're actually going to be decreasing), the will have a big budget shortfall for the next few years. Had they budgeted on this years figures, and next years agreed price rise, without assuming anything in the future, they should have been ok. The long distance TOCs will be hit by buisness travel. Last minute £200+ open-return jaunts to Manchester are going to be rarer. |
LU redundancies
Neill wrote:
If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week- long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs, would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they save by these probably needless redundancies? That would be the mandatory redundancies which the article specifically says will be avoided? I would support Bob Crow and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation, that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic climate. Yeah, comrade! Can I point out the glaring contradiction between the words "Bob Crow and his union represent the workers" and "public service organisation"? While obviously a compromise must be struck between the interests of Undergound employees and the interests of the public, they are heading in opposite directions, and to invoke the word "public" when discussing Bob Crow's actions, which have always been contrary to the interest of the public, is utterly dishonest. People in the private sector are losing jobs all over. If this latest move helps to keep business rates down and prevents businesses going to the wall, it will be a good thing for Londoners as a whole. |
LU redundancies
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:20:10PM +0000, Peter Lawrence wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:47:43 -0800 (PST), wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without some tasks just not getting done any more. Only if the people losing their jobs are doing useful work. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Us Germans take our humour very seriously -- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme, about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001 |
LU redundancies
On Jan 29, 10:37*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:20:10 GMT, "Peter Lawrence" wrote: Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without some tasks just not getting done any more. Do companies and other organisations not realise that by jumping on the redundancies bandwagon (aka burying bad news) they make the recession all the worse? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. The other week someone plummy was proposing pay cuts on the news. It's the "workers" who stop spending when announcements like that are made, and stopping spending means ... as you say, recession. Trouble is that asking an economist why there's no money is like asking an electrician why there's no coal. This is really a pyschological and social phenomenon. |
LU redundancies
On Jan 29, 9:04 pm, Mizter T wrote:
FWIW no front-line staff are going, and they are the ones that who really seem to have the clout to negotiate better pay deals as opposed to those in admin posts. I don't know why I say this as I suspect it'll just incite you further. Well of course - the blue collar workers are all unionsed so LU dare not fire them. So the white collar workers will get the push. B2003 |
LU redundancies
On Jan 30, 9:32 am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements', the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit Pretty bloody low? You might want to check this out. http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-sa...be_Driver_3207 around looking at porn all day. Yeah ,. because thats what everyone in an office does. If they want to get fired. B2003 |
LU redundancies
"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer. I wonder if the nasty little fascists will rejoice in others' redundancy so much when they lose their own jobs. But I suppose they don't work anyway ... I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements', the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit around looking at porn all day. But I travel by TfL - and I don't rejoice that they are being targetted - not least because travelling will get worse. -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman Right so we have to put up with sky high fares, crap service, held to ransom by strikes and now we have to feel sorry that some of them are losing their jobs. I am rejoicing in them being made redundant, well I am out of work too but I am, presumably, one of the lazy, overpaid, porn watching workers. Kevin |
LU redundancies
"Zen83237" wrote...
Right so we have to put up with sky high fares, crap service, held to ransom by strikes and now we have to feel sorry that some of them are losing their jobs. I am rejoicing in them being made redundant, well I am out of work too but I am, presumably, one of the lazy, overpaid, porn watching workers. Yopu don't have to feel sory for anyone (except yourself, of course), but to rejoice in others' misfortune (especially as it's 99.9999% certain they had no responsibility for your whines), makes you pure scum. But then, you knew that, didn't you? Andrew |
LU redundancies
Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:04:33 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote: Paul, I'm tempted to ask all sorts of questions that I rather suspect you can't really address, at least not on a public forum - so I'll ask this one instead. What is the thinking behind these cuts - is it in expectation of lower passenger numbers and hence lower revenue courtesy of the recession, or is it part of a (or should I say the) wider cost-cutting exercise across TfL - and if so has this budget- crunch been brought on by Crossrail or are the factors at work rather wider than that? The following is what I have posted somewhere else - not on usenet. I think it covers the broad issues. It's also in line with our internal comms messages. It's not about the recession at all. It is do with the impact of the government's funding settlement and the integration of the former Metronet companies. Taking all that resource back in house means there is duplication of roles, people and systems. There is a lack of efficiency as a result of all of this. LUL also has the huge task of delivering the Line Upgrades and some of the reorganisation is to make those projects work more effectively. It also needs to be borne in mind that we do not yet have the cost of restating the contract with Tube Lines (for post 2010) and there may be a multi billion pound bill from that. That's why Boris is saying that bill is for government to meet as PPP was their initiative. There are cuts being made in TfL - some of that is the result of changed Mayoral priorities and some is down to lack of cash more generally despite the £39bn ten year settlement. There has been a long standing drive to achieve efficiencies within TfL since it was created out of various organisations. It can be argued that the current review is simply a more intensive version of what has gone before. It needs to be borne in mind that Crossrail may offer job opportunities for a number of years for people who are displaced or who opt to leave. However those jobs may be with the private sector contractors chosen to deliver Crossrail rather than TfL itself. I doubt we will see service cutbacks or effects on maintenance - all of those staff are out of scope of the review despite the union comments. As Boris has said that improvements to the bus network will continue then I'm not sure that we will see cutbacks in that area or even in the spec for tender awards (if he keeps his word). I am already noticing a reduction in crowding on the tube in the mornings when I travel so I am sure ridership is falling a bit but nonetheless the peak is still extremely busy and operational resources are typically geared to the peak service level. I haven't noticed much of a change on the buses but I guess there may be a fall there given so many routes feed the tube network. A point that just dawned on me earlier today is that the nature of TfL's revenue stream may switch out of season tickets and more towards PAYG given the current employment situation - what that will do in terms of TfL's credit rating and bond issues remains to be seen. We live in interesting times. We've all done our calculations using the voluntary severance calculator that has been put on our intranet. We shall find out in a few weeks whether we still have our existing jobs, will have to go through a selection process or if our job has disappeared. Boltar can start praying or whispering incantations to get as many sacked as possible! I hope the above goes some way to offering an explanation as to what is going on. Of course, how could I overlook Metronet coming back in house - that's inevitably going to shake things up. I haven't closely followed the Tube Lines contract business, but this is essentially Tube Lines appealing to the PPP Arbiter that they aren't getting paid enough for what they do, and the subsequent result of that appeal, right? When does the figure come in, and when it does can TfL appeal that figure at all? I guess that with regards to what Boris is saying about the government funding the extra bill is little different from what Ken would have said, the difference perhaps being how Boris says it compared to Ken - the ex-Mayor was at least marginally the same hue as the government and had some influence there. Changed Mayoral priorities is a broad brush stroke - the immediate things that come to mind are his mantra of "taxpayer value" which I suppose results in cuts to what I suppose one might call 'non-core' activities, also putting the Tramlink extension, Cross River Tram and other stuff on the (far) back burner. Has not the budget for cycling has been cut - daft if so. Were there not to be cuts in the TfL promotion and marketing operation? I very much hope that Boris doesn't mess up the bus network. I think the withdrawal of the bendies is a bad move but that really shouldn't mean people take their eye off what is happening elsewhere - it's only a relatively small part of the bus network after all. The specifications for tender absolutely need to be kept at their high level, otherwise things will fall apart and confidence in the bus network will erode - we don't want a race to the bottom with bus companies bidding low and delivering lower. Of course the other danger is that the 'Boris bus' project will divert funding away from the day to day operation of the network leading to a deterioration - one very much hopes this irony will be avoided. Interesting point about the revenue stream and the recession. Less season ticket holders and the level of season ticket refunds is something the TOCs keep on coming up with. I wonder if one of the TOCs issues with implementing PAYG is that more people might switch to PAYG from season tickets (or even Travelcard seasons) - even if NR fares on PAYG were set the same level as paper ticket fares, people might well still be tempted because of the flexibility and ease of use of Oyster. Regarding the timing of this announcement - presumably it's been on the cards for a while? It's just that one wonders if there's a grain of truth in Neil's rather cynical view that this has been timed so as to 'bury the bad news' amongst all the other bad tidings of job losses. Lastly, best of luck what with the jobs review and all that. It would be distinctly remiss of LU to lose talent such as yourself because of this shake-up. |
LU redundancies
In message , Zen83237
writes Yopu don't have to feel sory for anyone (except yourself, of course), but to rejoice in others' misfortune (especially as it's 99.9999% certain they had no responsibility for your whines), makes you pure scum. But then, you knew that, didn't you? Sorry should have read I am not rejoicing. But since you refer to me as scum, I have never been on a days strike in my life, unlike the scum at London Underground. As you support strikers I guess that makes you scum as well. As one of the 'scum' at LU, I can honestly say I've never yet been on strike whilst I've been there (7 years and counting). -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
LU redundancies
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message ... In message , Zen83237 writes Yopu don't have to feel sory for anyone (except yourself, of course), but to rejoice in others' misfortune (especially as it's 99.9999% certain they had no responsibility for your whines), makes you pure scum. But then, you knew that, didn't you? Sorry should have read I am not rejoicing. But since you refer to me as scum, I have never been on a days strike in my life, unlike the scum at London Underground. As you support strikers I guess that makes you scum as well. As one of the 'scum' at LU, I can honestly say I've never yet been on strike whilst I've been there (7 years and counting). -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) For the record Andrew Heenan referred to me as scum first. I am returned the compliment to him. I didn't refer to any LU staff as scum. |
LU redundancies
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, MIG wrote:
avoiding any route or means of transport that was on strike, even if anything is running, because it would feel like scabbing. The 1980s called, they want their rhetoric back. B2003 |
LU redundancies
On Feb 1, 7:03*pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, MIG wrote: avoiding any route or means of transport that was on strike, even if anything is running, because it would feel like scabbing. The 1980s called, they want their rhetoric back. Of all the people who could have said that ... |
LU redundancies
|
LU redundancies
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:06:39AM -0800, wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:32 am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements', the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit Pretty bloody low? You might want to check this out. http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-sa...be_Driver_3207 I'd say 40k's pretty bloody low given the level of responsibility *for peoples' lives*, the consequences of error, the antisocial hours, ... It's certainly not enough to make me want to do it. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Us Germans take our humour very seriously -- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme, about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001 |
LU redundancies
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 09:25:03AM -0000, Zen83237 wrote:
For the record Andrew Heenan referred to me as scum first. He said that after you said that you rejoiced in other people losing their jobs: "I am rejoicing in them being made redundant". I am returned the compliment to him. I didn't refer to any LU staff as scum. Yes you did. You said: " I have never been on a days strike in my life, UNLIKE THE SCUM AT LONDON UNDERGROUND. " So that just makes you lieing scum, I suppose. -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" Did you know that shotguns taste like candy canes? Put the barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger for an extra blast of minty goodness! |
LU redundancies
On Feb 5, 12:16*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:06:39AM -0800, wrote: On Jan 30, 9:32 am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements', the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit Pretty bloody low? You might want to check this out. http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-sa...be_Driver_3207 I'd say 40k's pretty bloody low given the level of responsibility *for peoples' lives*, the consequences of error, the antisocial hours, ... Oh please. Its far more dangerous on the roads than driving a train protected by trip cocks or run but ATO. How many bus accidents are there compared with tube ones? As for the hours , I agree its probably not pleasent , but plenty of other trades work hours just as bad or even worse. 24 hour plumbers, pest control, milkmen etc. B2003 |
LU redundancies
|
LU redundancies
"David Cantrell" wrote in message ... On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:06:39AM -0800, wrote: On Jan 30, 9:32 am, "Andrew Heenan" wrote: I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements', the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit Pretty bloody low? You might want to check this out. http://www.mysalary.co.uk/average-sa...be_Driver_3207 I'd say 40k's pretty bloody low given the level of responsibility *for peoples' lives*, the consequences of error, the antisocial hours, ... It's certainly not enough to make me want to do it. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive Us Germans take our humour very seriously -- German cultural attache talking to the Today Programme, about the German supposed lack of a sense of humour, 29 Aug 2001 That would be about twice a nurse's wage I think. Just as well some people are prepared to do that job. Kevin |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk