tube strike and numpy cyclists
Comments
-
Porgy wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Porgy wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Porgy wrote:Headhuunter wrote:[I don't know what yuo do, but it sounds like you are a qualified engineer. If so, there are surely hundreds of ethically concerned companies that are crying out for skilled help. If you're concerned about transport, there are plenty of transport consultancies which need engineering skills. You could even go overseas, I have a friend whose husband is an engineer with the UN in Africa providing much needed transportation advice in far worse of countries than the UK.
If yuo have studied for many years to qualify in something specialist, you have a very serious skill to offer, either for money or for the general good. Stop p*ssing it away at LU. You yourself claimed that many engineers left LU to larger firms like BT, so there is obviously a market for you out there. If the LU doesn't appreciate you, don't fight it, get out and go somewhere they will treat you with respect.
nah - you're alright. 8)
So the truth comes out. It's the money thinly veneered in "concern" about public safety and standards at LU.
how did you come up with that?
According to you caring about London Transport is like p*ssing my life away.
Well pardon me for not agreeing with you matey. I happen to think London transport is important. We can all go off and do good work in Afirca and come back with a warm glow inside, but this is my country, and my grand-kids will be living here, and i want this city to have a damned good transport system.
sod you! :twisted:
So you would happily continue working for LU/The Tube on your current salary and benfits if some guarantees were made about safety, updating signalling etc etc? Yeah right.... It's a thin veneer which everyone can see through I'm afraid....
well i've been here 25 years - and as you said - i could take my engineering skills virtually anywhere.
I guess I'm not allowed to have a different view to you then.
Oh dear :roll:
No, of course you can disagree, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not this strike is about money an conditions for union members or about some kind of concern workers have for the dear old Tube and its passengers. My argument is that the concern is a thin veil and all Tube workers want is more money and better conditions at a time when everyone else is buckling down and taking cover from the recession. You claim to only be standing up for this strike because you believe in the rights of passengers etc. Sorry for my scepticism, but there you have it.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Christophe3967 wrote:
Right. Come back,
all is forgiven...
cheap shot - does you no favoursThe New Deal was not the universal success that many argue it was. Like most things, there were good and bad aspects. The good stuff, like constructing a basic social safety net, made sense on their own terms and would have been desirable in the boom years of the 1920s as well. The bad policies made things worse. Roosevelt instituted a disastrous legacy of agricultural subsidies and sought to force industry into cartels, backed by force of law. Neither policy, it might be argued, helped the economy recover.
The US government also took steps to strengthen unions and to keep real wages high. This helped workers who had jobs, but made it much harder for the unemployed to get back to work. As a result unemployment rates remained high throughout the New Deal period.
The New Deal’s legacy of public works programs has given many people the impression that it was a time of expansionary fiscal policy, but that isn’t quite right. Government spending went up considerably, but taxes rose, too. Under Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the US government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes. None of this did anything to help that recovery.
In essence, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.
By all means lets deal with the banks and insurers, but that doesn't mean that capitalisim isn't working - interference from financial regulators (and governments on both sides of the Atlantic) has been responsible, e.g. the Clinton government's restriction on "red lining". So please lets restrict extraordinary measures to the financial sector as much as possible and resist the temptation to “do something” for its own sake.
well done for the essay - i don;t agree at all.
so the New Deal wasn't perfect - i never said it was - we can learn from it. I really don;t see how piling money into the banking ssystem that got us into trouble in the first place really helps much. It was merely preventing us from entering the abyss - solves nothing in the long term.
actually you're the first person apart from bankers and New Labour that I've heard claiming that throwing money at the banks will save us - are you Gordon Brown?
As oil prices rise, we will probably continue to have credit crunches - people not willing to invest in sectors not returning on their investments, ie, anything affected by rising fuel prices.
To ensure a stable footing for the future it would make sense to invest in non-oil energy - instead of giving endless money tot he bankers and car firms, etc, this investment could be used to transform our society - even the US are beginning to wake up to this - as are many oil and gas firms.
But this is an argument for another thread surely? I just wish to establish that my view on the economy is perfectly valid as some of the criticism coming my way is getting a bit personal tbh.
oh yeah - regarding taxes rising after New Deal - check see what the rates were in the US pre New Deal - I think you'll find they were unsustainably low.0 -
Back th the original topic... just read this on BBCEscorts are also leading cyclists across the capital and extra parking is in place for bicycles
I seldom go with escorts, but if they are free and leading us cyclists on and extra parking is available for when, well, you know
Seriously. Anyone seen this happening?0 -
Porgy wrote:To ensure a stable footing for the future it would make sense to invest in non-oil energy - instead of giving endless money to the bankers and car firms, etc, this investment could be used to transform our society - even the US are beginning to wake up to this - as are many oil and gas firms.
I'm glad to agree with you on something today Porgy!
Although I hate having to cough up to save the banks I do see the logic in it and I'm afraid it seems unavoidable.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Jamey wrote:Porgy wrote:i shouldn't rise to this, but are you about 12? Or just the biggest F.uck.wit ever.
I've never heard of someone sceptical about train crashes before. Do you think that running 32 trains or so an hour, all full of people, at up to 70 mph in a tunnel on an hourly basis is not just potentially dangerous. Or what did you think signals were for.
So all those strikes are just about our safety, are they? You really, really care about us a lot?
Aww... thanks.
Oh, but hang on... There's nothing on RMT's website about safety today, just loads of stuff about pay and unsackability... Strange that you should keep wheeling out the safety card as an excuse then, isn't it?
Blimey - if you can't see the connestion between fair pay deals, good conditions, and the future safety of the tube then I doubt I could explain it to you.
See it's all to do with having skilled personnel behind the equipment, who can maintain and improve on what's there at the moment.
Without properly qualified personnel - you cannot have upgrades - or you have to buy them in. We now know from bitter experience that buying in expertise does not work and is more expensive.
If people do not feel pride in their work - and god knows it's been a long fought war for many of us to ensure that frontline staff are recognised as such - then they do not do a good job, and mistakes occur. The smallest mistake can result in tens of deaths.
I was hoping the bad old days of frequent accidents on the tube were well behind us.0 -
Porgy wrote:Christophe3967 wrote:
Right. Come back,
all is forgiven...
cheap shot - does you no favoursThe New Deal was not the universal success that many argue it was. Like most things, there were good and bad aspects. The good stuff, like constructing a basic social safety net, made sense on their own terms and would have been desirable in the boom years of the 1920s as well. The bad policies made things worse. Roosevelt instituted a disastrous legacy of agricultural subsidies and sought to force industry into cartels, backed by force of law. Neither policy, it might be argued, helped the economy recover.
The US government also took steps to strengthen unions and to keep real wages high. This helped workers who had jobs, but made it much harder for the unemployed to get back to work. As a result unemployment rates remained high throughout the New Deal period.
The New Deal’s legacy of public works programs has given many people the impression that it was a time of expansionary fiscal policy, but that isn’t quite right. Government spending went up considerably, but taxes rose, too. Under Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the US government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes. None of this did anything to help that recovery.
In essence, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.
By all means lets deal with the banks and insurers, but that doesn't mean that capitalisim isn't working - interference from financial regulators (and governments on both sides of the Atlantic) has been responsible, e.g. the Clinton government's restriction on "red lining". So please lets restrict extraordinary measures to the financial sector as much as possible and resist the temptation to “do something” for its own sake.
well done for the essay - i don;t agree at all.
so the New Deal wasn't perfect - i never said it was - we can learn from it. I really don;t see how piling money into the banking ssystem that got us into trouble in the first place really helps much. It was merely preventing us from entering the abyss - solves nothing in the long term.
actually you're the first person apart from bankers and New Labour that I've heard claiming that throwing money at the banks will save us - are you Gordon Brown?
As oil prices rise, we will probably continue to have credit crunches - people not willing to invest in sectors not returning on their investments, ie, anything affected by rising fuel prices.
To ensure a stable footing for the future it would make sense to invest in non-oil energy - instead of giving endless money tot he bankers and car firms, etc, this investment could be used to transform our society - even the US are beginning to wake up to this - as are many oil and gas firms.
But this is an argument for another thread surely? I just wish to establish that my view on the economy is perfectly valid as some of the criticism coming my way is getting a bit personal tbh.
oh yeah - regarding taxes rising after New Deal - check see what the rates were in the US pre New Deal - I think you'll find they were unsustainably low.
I also agree that supporting the banks was the only answer to the current recession. The New Deal in the 1930s took place against a very different backdrop. Under Hoover, the US economy was allowed to do anythnig under "laissez faire", even when the depression began to bite, President Hoover failed to take action, believing that the market would balance itself out. The result was banks and financial institutions crashed and people lost their life savings, pensions and their homes and were forced onto the street, literally. Roosevelt was subsequently obliged to enter a period of publically financed, almost socialist economic support packages to rescue the US economy. If Hoover had acted more quickly, that would not have been necessary.
Current policies to step in and support financial institutions and prevent their collapse has no doubt prevented a similar scenario, as well as the governments guarantee of all savings up to £30k or whatever it is. Whether financial institutions should have been allowed to take the risk that got us into this in the 1st place is another discussion.
The recession we are currently experiencing is based on bad lending not on oil prices, however I do agree that we should invest in non oil energy sources to remove ourselves from the fossil fuel cartels led by the Middle East.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:The recession we are currently experiencing is based on bad lending not on oil prices, however I do agree that we should invest in non oil energy sources to remove ourselves from the fossil fuel cartels led by the Middle East.
And Russian gas...- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Porgy - " I'm a tube worker - and I don't want to get into an argument ..."
Looks like you didn't have a choice there matey. It's not like you called the strike is it. But you are getting one hell of a pounding from some right old ill-informed opinionated wankers.
(this morning I rode in late so I missed all the numpties, am looking forward to seeing them cycling on their instep and irritating me all the way home)0 -
facemunk wrote:Porgy - " I'm a tube worker - and I don't want to get into an argument ..."
Looks like you didn't have a choice there matey. It's not like you called the strike is it. But you are getting one hell of a pounding from some right old ill-informed opinionated wankers.
(this morning I rode in late so I missed all the numpties, am looking forward to seeing them cycling on their instep and irritating me all the way home)
Ill informed? How so?Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhunter - wo'eva
really, if you're so desperate for a fight, go and cross a picket line or something
but, in my ill-informed opinion you making crass statements about another poster's supposed 'motives' is ill-informed indeed:
"... So you would happily continue working for LU/The Tube on your current salary and benfits if some guarantees were made about safety, updating signalling etc etc? Yeah right.... It's a thin veneer which everyone can see through I'm afraid...."
I'm just wondering what planet that came from and how it's a 'veneer' anyway. Erm, also what exactly has Porgy done to deserve the abuse and flaming when all he said was that he didn't want an argument.0 -
jashburnham wrote:Headhuunter wrote:The recession we are currently experiencing is based on bad lending not on oil prices, however I do agree that we should invest in non oil energy sources to remove ourselves from the fossil fuel cartels led by the Middle East.
And Russian gas...
gas prices follow oil prices - about 6 months behind.
hmmm...bad lending yes, but it was the rising oil prices and lack of investment in certain sectors that ultimately brought the crisis on.
I attended a lecture by simon Snowden a while ago - the evidence he provided was compelling.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/managementschool/odig/about.htm0 -
I think you're one of the informed ones, HH. Some people think Porgy wants to overthrow the capitalist state (and I'm tempted, champagne socialist that I am, to help him!).
The safety argument is a simple one. In an industry where safety is paramount, you don't want to be discouraging or demoralising the skilled workers so that less skilled, or motivated, workers come in their place to do the vital stuff that keeps us alive. Seems pretty obvious to me!0 -
Porgy wrote:jashburnham wrote:Headhuunter wrote:The recession we are currently experiencing is based on bad lending not on oil prices, however I do agree that we should invest in non oil energy sources to remove ourselves from the fossil fuel cartels led by the Middle East.
And Russian gas...
gas prices follow oil prices - about 6 months behind.
hmmm...bad lending yes, but it was the rising oil prices and lack of investment in certain sectors that ultimately bright the crisis on.
My point about Russian gas relates to the monopoly they are determined to achieve (and have achieved in some Euro countries. We've already seen the damage the Russian Govt are willing to inflict wielding gas supply as a political weapon.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
biondino wrote:I think you're one of the informed ones. Some people think Porgy wants to overthrow the capitalist state (and I'm tempted, champagne socialist that I am, to help him!).
Reform, not overthrow - I believe in regulated capitalism. I think international Corporations, or possibly Corporations per se, are the problem.
Also I'm a dyed in the wool greeny - some say, disparagingly, hippy. :twisted:The safety argument is a simple one. In an industry where safety is paramount, you don't want to be discouraging or demoralising the skilled workers so that less skilled, or motivated, workers come in their place to do the vital stuff that keeps us alive. Seems pretty obvious to me!
8)0 -
Skilled workers... Victoria Line tube drivers just hold a handle don't they? And then press a button depending on whether they want the left or right doors to open.
The DLR doesn't even need drivers at all.0 -
i'd like to say that I was not intending to brand everyone posting here, or even all those disagreeing with me, as ill-informed, but you gotta admit some of the stuff being posted was ill-informed.
Some of you are just politically biased - a lesser crime. 0 -
Porgy wrote:
Also I'm a dyed in the wool greeny - some say, disparagingly, hippy. :twisted:
Hippy? Oh god! I take it all back. You're worse than Thatcher!0 -
Jamey wrote:Skilled workers... Victoria Line tube drivers just hold a handle don't they? And then press a button depending on whether they want the left or right doors to open.
The DLR doesn't even need drivers at all.
case in point.
DLR isn't part of the tube.
the answer to the Victoria Line drivers question is no.
and why do you think this is about drivers - they are a small part of the workforce, and to be honest in 30 years there won;t be any - not in normal service anyway.
Most of the workforce on the tube are safety critical workers - of various levels of skill from technicians up to chartered engineers.0 -
And if these safety critical workers aren't paid enough then 'accidents will happen'... that's basically your argument, right?0
-
Porgy wrote:Jamey wrote:And if these safety critical workers aren't paid enough then 'accidents will happen'... that's basically your argument, right?
no - look other people understand what i'm saying - i don't care what you think. You are 12 right?
Oh, I'm sorry, it's just that Biondino said this:biondino wrote:The safety argument is a simple one. In an industry where safety is paramount, you don't want to be discouraging or demoralising the skilled workers so that less skilled, or motivated, workers come in their place to do the vital stuff that keeps us alive. Seems pretty obvious to me!
And then you (Porgy) posted a sunglasses smiley which indicates agreement to me (if you were actually using sunglasses to indicate disagreement then make that more clear).
So if you summarise the point that Biondino made (and you 'sunglassed') then that basically boils down to "less pay = more accidents".
Which is what I asked you about a few posts back.
So I'll ask you again... Is that what you think?0 -
:?Jamey wrote:Porgy wrote:Jamey wrote:And if these safety critical workers aren't paid enough then 'accidents will happen'... that's basically your argument, right?
no - look other people understand what i'm saying - i don't care what you think. You are 12 right?
Oh, I'm sorry, it's just that Biondino said this:biondino wrote:The safety argument is a simple one. In an industry where safety is paramount, you don't want to be discouraging or demoralising the skilled workers so that less skilled, or motivated, workers come in their place to do the vital stuff that keeps us alive. Seems pretty obvious to me!
And then you (Porgy) posted a sunglasses smiley which indicates agreement to me (if you were actually using sunglasses to indicate disagreement then make that more clear).
So if you summarise the point that Biondino made (and you 'sunglassed') then that basically boils down to "less pay = more accidents".
Which is what I asked you about a few posts back.
So I'll ask you again... Is that what you think?
You are not Jeremy Paxman 0 -
Porgy wrote:
:?Jamey wrote:Porgy wrote:Jamey wrote:And if these safety critical workers aren't paid enough then 'accidents will happen'... that's basically your argument, right?
no - look other people understand what i'm saying - i don't care what you think. You are 12 right?
Oh, I'm sorry, it's just that Biondino said this:biondino wrote:The safety argument is a simple one. In an industry where safety is paramount, you don't want to be discouraging or demoralising the skilled workers so that less skilled, or motivated, workers come in their place to do the vital stuff that keeps us alive. Seems pretty obvious to me!
And then you (Porgy) posted a sunglasses smiley which indicates agreement to me (if you were actually using sunglasses to indicate disagreement then make that more clear).
So if you summarise the point that Biondino made (and you 'sunglassed') then that basically boils down to "less pay = more accidents".
Which is what I asked you about a few posts back.
So I'll ask you again... Is that what you think?
You are not Jeremy Paxman 0 -
I'm not Jeremy Paxman, no... But I do see him quite often at work.0
-
I'm a producer. If you'd like to get back to the main topic at any point let me know, otherwise I'll line up some more interesting facts about myself and talk about my favourite subject.0
-
Jamey wrote:I'm not Jeremy Paxman, no... But I do see him quite often at work.
I see what Jamey is saying though. Bob Crow and cohorts are basically laying down the law and a thinly veiled threat under the guise of health and safety. If you don't pay us more, we'll leave and the Tube will go to wrack and ruin and people will die. Really, it's nothing to do with the fact that we simply want better pay and conditions for our members nooooo sireeee, bob. It's for your safety. Honest guv....
Why should a bunch of, admittedly highly skilled in some cases, workers be allowed to hold the taxpayer to ransom? (Sorry I like that word, it may be "daily Mail" but it fits the situation perfectly).Do not write below this line. Office use only.0
