tube strike and numpy cyclists
Comments
-
facemunk wrote: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.
Follow the thread back and you'll see exactly why I came to that conclusion. It wasn't a single, flaming statement made in isolation. You're too late to this party....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
cjw wrote:Jamey Howard, 29, living in Croydon, studied journalism, worked for BBC News for a while and now I'm a Digital Content Producer for Red Bee Media. ...
Great photos by the way
Thank you
Although that must have been a couple of years ago as I'm now 31, more's the pity.0 -
Porgy wrote: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)
I, too, am concerned about "green" issues and think that environmental problems are currently the greatest threat to mankind and I also believe that capitalism needs some proper regulation, if the FSA, the BoE and the government had had their eye on the ball, we would never have got into this mess, however allowing unions to run roughshod over management is not the answer.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Why not? A load of highly paid bankers did it with more serious consequences than having to walk to work for a couple of days. Plus all this "pay cuts / redundancies - that's just the way things are" - well it is if you let it. Strike on.0
-
Headhuunter wrote: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).
yeah - but what Jamey said was not what I said - I did write a lot more - deleted because this is such a complex issue i cannot do it justice here.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Really, it's nothing to do with the fact that we simply want better pay and conditions for our members
Heaven forbid any of the rest of us should think this sounds like a positive.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Porgy wrote: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)
I, too, am concerned about "green" issues and think that environmental problems are currently the greatest threat to mankind and I also believe that capitalism needs some proper regulation, if the FSA, the BoE and the government had had their eye on the ball, we would never have got into this mess, however allowing unions to run roughshod over management is not the answer.
Or indeed management running roughshod over the workers. after all we are a public asset. Unions have an informed view. They are stakeholders.
This is the first strike since a 24 hour one in 2007 - I hardly think that the RMT have run roughshod over management in recent years. Maybe with Boris in management have become more confrontational, but you won;t read about that in your Tory Daily.0 -
I swear that I spent more time going left to right today than I have all year !
Elephant and Castle to London Bridge was hell !0 -
I wish I'd quit when I intended to - you can't win in argument slike these. And I don;t suppose anybody's opinion is in any danger of being changed, including mine.Soul Boy wrote:Can't believe this is still going, and Porgy is still defending the strike all by himself (how many times have you left this thread?)
Would make good reading, if I could just keep up...
I'm of the opinon that opening the barriers and refusing to accept fares as the best way to get at management, but what do I know, it seems nobody is getting the full story.
I missed this - so am I Soul Boy - and I'm not sure why it doesn't happen but think it may have soemthing to do with pre-paid passes - throwing open the gates would not make a huge amount of difference in terms of income.
Just a guess0 -
will3 wrote:tsk, inexperienced riders, how awfull.
Spose you were all born awsome?
yep have to agree with you there
there are are a lot of opinionated bikers on this fourm with high end bikes
and i dont see any european or world championship medals :?
so where is the justification of getting a four grand road bike just to use in the summer and at weekends .?
some folks cant afford high end bikes . so while you smirk at other cyclists just remember YOU dont have the lungs of armstrong.
as a famous person once said
"it is easy to critise and break down the spirit of others but to know yourself takes a lifetime"0 -
Not so - I'm a champas socialist as well (a.k.a. pragmatist). To me, a strike is a last resort, it should be somewhere after everyone's best efforts, not an opening gambit followed by "if you don't back down we'll do it again".Porgy wrote:
I wish I'd quit when I intended to - you can't win in argument slike these. And I don;t suppose anybody's opinion is in any danger of being changed, including mine.Soul Boy wrote:Can't believe this is still going, and Porgy is still defending the strike all by himself (how many times have you left this thread?)
Therefore, I thought I'd make some effort to investigate if this was the case.
I also think a strike has to have a basis. Sure, we all WANT to be paid more, but is there a case for a strike? Hence, questions about how the T&C's compare to other similar businesses. To me, that defines the going rate, as it were.
Now, if you were to come back at me and say, well, an electrical engineer working for network rail earns 15% more than the guy working on the underground, you would probably persuade me that something wasn't quite right. If an independent pay body has recommended A% and you'd been awared less, again, you'd have to question management.
But simply stating that terms and conditions are crap and you are underpaid isn't persuasive. All you managed to do was to indicate that you'd had an inflationary pay rise and you skirted questions regarding overtime provisions.
Questioning the veracity of those statements isn't "vitriol" Porgy, its debate.
All the other tosh about russian gas and banking bail outs is irrelevant (but a little entertaining).0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Not so - I'm a champas socialist as well (a.k.a. pragmatist). To me, a strike is a last resort, it should be somewhere after everyone's best efforts, not an opening gambit followed by "if you don't back down we'll do it again".Porgy wrote:
I wish I'd quit when I intended to - you can't win in argument slike these. And I don;t suppose anybody's opinion is in any danger of being changed, including mine.Soul Boy wrote:Can't believe this is still going, and Porgy is still defending the strike all by himself (how many times have you left this thread?)
Therefore, I thought I'd make some effort to investigate if this was the case.
I also think a strike has to have a basis. Sure, we all WANT to be paid more, but is there a case for a strike? Hence, questions about how the T&C's compare to other similar businesses. To me, that defines the going rate, as it were.
Now, if you were to come back at me and say, well, an electrical engineer working for network rail earns 15% more than the guy working on the underground, you would probably persuade me that something wasn't quite right. If an independent pay body has recommended A% and you'd been awared less, again, you'd have to question management.
But simply stating that terms and conditions are crap and you are underpaid isn't persuasive. All you managed to do was to indicate that you'd had an inflationary pay rise and you skirted questions regarding overtime provisions.
Questioning the veracity of those statements isn't "vitriol" Porgy, its debate.
All the other tosh about russian gas and banking bail outs is irrelevant (but a little entertaining).
oh fuck - I'm not going to bother again.
and you can quote me on that - i'm sticking to bike talk in future.0 -
M'Kay. Thanks for explaining that for me.0
-
Porgy wrote:This is the first strike since a 24 hour one in 2007 - I hardly think that the RMT have run roughshod over management in recent years. Maybe with Boris in management have become more confrontational, but you won;t read about that in your Tory Daily.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that they've showed impressive restraint by not going on strike for a whole 20 months?0 -
Blimey! I go to Paris for a day and you've all had a big argument!
I have to say, Porgy, I think you were being a little naive to think that most people would be anything but livid at the striking tube workers. I'm certainly leaning that way, I wonder if there's a union for investment managers who could negotiate me a pay rise and ensure I can't be made redundant... that would be nice. Maybe I'll go on strike tomorrow. Take the power back and all. That'll show them.
However, I thought it was interesting that the jubilee line was running, and sections of other lines. Could it be that not all tube workers think this strike is reasonable?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Blimey! I go to Paris for a day and you've all had a big argument!
I have to say, Porgy, I think you were being a little naive to think that most people would be anything but livid at the striking tube workers. I'm certainly leaning that way, I wonder if there's a union for investment managers who could negotiate me a pay rise and ensure I can't be made redundant... that would be nice. Maybe I'll go on strike tomorrow. Take the power back and all. That'll show them.
However, I thought it was interesting that the jubilee line was running, and sections of other lines. Could it be that not all tube workers think this strike is reasonable?
We're lost without your guidance and calming nature!
I thought it was pretty interesting when a lot of the tubes started up again, email went around my workplace that 9 out of 11 of them were running before I left for the day.
I kinda suspect that the union leaders aren't necessarily accurately representing the workforce.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:However, I thought it was interesting that the jubilee line was running, and sections of other lines. Could it be that not all tube workers think this strike is reasonable?
A nice thought but there are two unions. Only one of them is on strike.0 -
Blimey _ I stay at home for a day, Porgy gets a kicking, the LU is out on strike.....must WFH more often!
Poor ol' Porgy - Understand your point of view and you sound like a reasonable and decent human being.
Understand the rest of you having your life turned upside down because of the strike, and you are annoyed - can't say, I understand much about the whole thing, but we don't have these problems in Brizzle.....only the bin men strike around here.
+1 for Blondie and LiT - I have just read the fricking lot with avid interest!
So, you can all come and live at my house and a tube strike will never affect you again!0 -
Always Tyred wrote:M'Kay. Thanks for explaining that for me.
I'm with you. To summarise, this discussion started with a comment along the lines of Tube workers not having had a pay rise and facing redundancy and therefore the strike is entirely justified. This was met with howls of derision - we're all facing this at the moment, that is if we still have jobs at all.
Later the tack was changed completely to portray strikers as the Tube's knights in shining armour - management are simply in it to run down the system, whereas striking engineers are the last bastion of safety and support for the Tube and that money and conditions have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Yet when I suggest that the money the strikers are demanding in their pay packets could be poured into our beloved Tube system and that the engineers could work for the same money, I'm not given an answer. So my opinion remains - they're all in it for the money.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
You work purely for the love of your job??
The tube has an infrastructure that's actually THERE, unlike most of our industries. You can't streamline it into an online service. So while efficiencies can (and should) be made, by and large the network supports a number of jobs, and this number isn't going to shrink all that much under any circumstances. So redundancies in this area are often - not always - going to be harder to justify than in other areas such as banking.
When this is combined with the fact that fewer skilled staff = potential safety issues, and savings now may lead to bigger expenses, paid for by the taxpayer and the passengers, along the line, you can see the unions have a lot to protect, and rightly so. Abuse of union power - and it does sound like there are elements of this - is a bad thing, just as any abuse of power is bad, but very few people here are taking it in any realistic context.0 -
Jobs have perks, right. A perk of being a teacher is long summer holidays. A perk of being a film agent is that occasionally I get to meet famous people. A perk of working for LU is that you have a strong and active union to ensure fair pay and treatment.0
-
You know, sometimes I worry about my inevitable drift to the right in my beliefs. But then I remember all I have to do is get into an internet argument with blinkered tories and I turn into Trotsky :twisted:0
-
Cycled in this morning and I was surprised by how light the traffic was and the lack of numpty cyclists. Maybe people learned their lesson from yesterday and decided to work from home, or took the day off.0
-
I had to go via bayswater road last night JESUS H CHRIST it was madness, people passing lorries on the left all over the shop.
There was also a rider down in Hammersmith, word has it it was a lorry, hope they are ok !0 -
Of course, in SE London there is no tube and the driverless DLR is running like clockwork.0
-
biondino wrote:You work purely for the love of your job??
The tube has an infrastructure that's actually THERE, unlike most of our industries. You can't streamline it into an online service. So while efficiencies can (and should) be made, by and large the network supports a number of jobs, and this number isn't going to shrink all that much under any circumstances. So redundancies in this area are often - not always - going to be harder to justify than in other areas such as banking.
When this is combined with the fact that fewer skilled staff = potential safety issues, and savings now may lead to bigger expenses, paid for by the taxpayer and the passengers, along the line, you can see the unions have a lot to protect, and rightly so. Abuse of union power - and it does sound like there are elements of this - is a bad thing, just as any abuse of power is bad, but very few people here are taking it in any realistic context.
I understand what is being said but can't comment specifically on the infrastructure of the Tube and what's needed to keep it going, however the suggestion that somehow the managers of the Tube are trying to run the system down at the expense of passengers and its workers seems entirely baseless.
I'm sure that part of the reasons redundancies and cost cutting is necessary is partly due to the collapse of the ridiulous Metronet PPP/PFI which has left the taxpayer saddled with enormous costs. However do you really believe that maintaining the current workforce and even increasing their salaries and benefits and therefore increasing the costs to the Tube, do you seriously think that is going to be of benefit at a time when consolidation is necessary and the rest of the economy is in the doldrums?
If staff levels are maintained and staff costs increased then you can bet your bottom dollar that costs will simply be cut elsewhere, I have no idea where these may come about as I cannot comment specifically on the Tube itself, but perhaps these cuts, wherever they come, will affect Tube safety too?
I'm afraid that my view is that demanding more money and better conditions from your employer supposedly to benefit everyone does not wash.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
biondino wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:However, I thought it was interesting that the jubilee line was running, and sections of other lines. Could it be that not all tube workers think this strike is reasonable?
A nice thought but there are two unions. Only one of them is on strike.
Oh, I see. So, I wonder what members of the other union think about this? Did they do a press release?
Perhaps they think the RMT should wind their necks in, rather like most of the rest of London.
Traffic was utterly dreadful this morning, the buses seemed particularly aggressive and people cycling like muppets everywhere. I know I used to cycle like a muppet, but it still annoys me!0 -
It is a bit irritating but you have to marvel at the power the union still retains. I wish I was represented so strongly at work.0
-
Sewinman wrote:It is a bit irritating but you have to marvel at the power the union still retains. I wish I was represented so strongly at work.
If your not going to work could affect the economy and a few million people, I bet you'd have a strong union. TBH it seems to me like this Crow fellow is abusing this power somewhat.
Unfortunately, for me anyway, I can only affect the shareholders. And I doubt they'd look kindly on a strike.0 -
The RMT are no better then terrorists, holding the city to ransom.0
