Incoming - tube strike

lardboy

I couldn't use the bike today due to knee pain. Got on the bus at the top of Brixton Hill at 8.10. By 8.40, I'd just got through Brixton town centre and onto Brixton Road. I eventually got into work on Bishopsgate at 10.15, well over 2 hours after leaving the house.

Depending on the weather, I might walk home tonight. It'll be quicker and less annoying.

snooks

DonDaddyD wrote:

Stratford, however was gridlocked.

I likened my filtering to the Lightbikes game from the film tron.

DDD what are you doing in the East? I thought you were in wombleville

Yeah Stratford was gridlocked from half way down my road, onto Leytonstone road and then bumper to bumper to Southwark bridge 7 miles of stationary traffic to filter through.

I was treating it like single track, given the state of the road surface in places it wasn't much different.

I did have a sea parting moment though, when a police motorbike came down the middle....followed by a load of motorbikes...and then ME!

Clarion

My commute is along the Northern Line, so a lot of eejits had decided to go out in their boxes and park along the A3. Pretty gridlocked.

Lots of cyclists out there, which can only be good in the end, though I had to be cautious round a few. I had more problems with regular commuters pushing through. Idiots.

People out on bikes can only be a good thing.

Oh -and the kneejerk 'Bob Crow is eeeevil' stuff is boring recycling from the Evening Standard. Fine if you don't want to think beyond that, but the dispute is about safe staffing levels. Personally, if I'm stuck in a hole in the ground with thousands of other people, lots of electricity, and big trains popping out of the dark, I want staff to be around.

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

biondino wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

If it really were the case that tube workers were downtrodden members of the proletariat then fine but the fact is their self serving unions have londoners over a barrel and workers already have some of the best working conditions in the city! And bob crow has just been voted an inflation busting pay rise himself

And arent' those working conditions worth protecting?

Exactly. I don't buy this common opinion that workers with good working conditions don't have a right to defend them. Many people feel resentment of other's situations and would rather criticise them than seek to improve their own.

+1. Also, Headhuunter, most people in the city don't work in tunnels hundreds of feet below the surface. Your idea of "best working conditions" is pretty f*cked up.

"Ave wages of a tube driver? £40k
Number of days holiday? 43 days

shocking conditions, how can we treat them so badly?"

I rest my case. These people choose t.o work underground, no one forces them down there like kids into Victorian coal mines! Workshy layabouts. Sack the bleedin't lot of them...

They choose to work down there because it's relatively well paid. Why don't you do it if you're such a fan? A cushy number like that. Go for it! Even better, I hear oil rig workers are paid loads, and have weeks off between postings! You must be moist at the thought! I've already booked your helicopter.

georgee

I had one moment crossing Park Lane where two nodders thought a gap in the traffic was the lights changing, stupidly I blindly took off only to realise we'd all be run over fairly swiftly.

Judging by the number of colleagues who tube'd it in, for £130k a year Bob Crow puts on a pretty poor strike

W1

biondino wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

biondino wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

If it really were the case that tube workers were downtrodden members of the proletariat then fine but the fact is their self serving unions have londoners over a barrel and workers already have some of the best working conditions in the city! And bob crow has just been voted an inflation busting pay rise himself

And arent' those working conditions worth protecting?

Exactly. I don't buy this common opinion that workers with good working conditions don't have a right to defend them. Many people feel resentment of other's situations and would rather criticise them than seek to improve their own.

+1. Also, Headhuunter, most people in the city don't work in tunnels hundreds of feet below the surface. Your idea of "best working conditions" is pretty f*cked up.

"Ave wages of a tube driver? £40k
Number of days holiday? 43 days

shocking conditions, how can we treat them so badly?"

I rest my case. These people choose t.o work underground, no one forces them down there like kids into Victorian coal mines! Workshy layabouts. Sack the bleedin't lot of them...

They choose to work down there because it's relatively well paid. Why don't you do it if you're such a fan? A cushy number like that. Go for it! Even better, I hear oil rig workers are paid loads, and have weeks off between postings! You must be moist at the thought! I've already booked your helicopter.

If they don't like the pay or conditions they are free to leave and find another job. What isn't acceptable is to strike, thereby extorting their demands through blackmailing London into giving in.

I don't buy this safety nonsense - Oyster has genuinely made a number of ticket office jobs redundant. The unions just spout "safety" to do a bit of scaremongering, rather than accepting that some jobs need to go (as has been done in the private sector).

I think the tube should be banned from striking, as the police and army are.

biondino

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

W1

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

Workers rights are a good thing. But when the workers are lead by greedy self serving champagne socialists it's nothing to do with rights and all to do with greed.

Tube drivers have a very cushy number which they've managed to "negotiate" by effectively holding London to ransom. Yet they want more - plus job security, inflation busting pay rises etc etc. The private sector can't support that, so why should the tax payer?

The BA lot are another shining beacon of stupidity.

DonDaddyD

snooks wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Stratford, however was gridlocked.

I likened my filtering to the Lightbikes game from the film tron.

DDD what are you doing in the East? I thought you were in wombleville

Yeah Stratford was gridlocked from half way down my road, onto Leytonstone road and then bumper to bumper to Southwark bridge 7 miles of stationary traffic to filter through.

I was treating it like single track, given the state of the road surface in places it wasn't much different.

I did have a sea parting moment though, when a police motorbike came down the middle....followed by a load of motorbikes...and then ME!

Aren't you a bit posh for the East End?

Still in South Wimbledon though I commute to Goodmayes. From Stratford I take Romford Road and follow the train route past Seven Sisters, Ilford to Goodmayes.

DonDaddyD

Why are they striking?

desweller

I believe they are striking in protest at planned redundancies; ~800 jobs IIRC.

cjcp

I came in a bit later today, but the traffic was still at a standstill from PS to Embankment tube, and then through B'frairs Tunnel up to London Bridge.

What I don't understand is why people decide to drive in knowing they'll be stood in traffic for God knows how long :?: .

asprilla

DesWeller wrote:

I believe they are striking in protest at planned redundancies; ~800 jobs IIRC.

Actually the reduction of 800 roles though natural wastage (retirement, etc). It's a small difference, but has a very big impact as far as I'm concerned.

biondino

DesWeller wrote:

I believe they are striking in protest at planned redundancies; ~800 jobs IIRC.

Or is it because Bob Crow is demanding more hookers and coke at the public's expense, and for every commuter in London to be forced to eat a dog turd? That's the impression I'm getting.

notsoblue

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

+1 Their reasons for striking are debatable, but the right to strike is a principle worth defending imo. There is *always* a drive to cut costs in business, but more often than not this is achieved by eroding employee working conditions and service provision. Why why why do people support this? I can only put it down to resentment and bitterness of others who may be seen to be doing better out of something.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

Workers rights are a good thing. But when the workers are lead by greedy self serving champagne socialists it's nothing to do with rights and all to do with greed.

Tube drivers have a very cushy number which they've managed to "negotiate" by effectively holding London to ransom. Yet they want more - plus job security, inflation busting pay rises etc etc. The private sector can't support that, so why should the tax payer?

The BA lot are another shining beacon of stupidity.

This one does not seem to be anything to do with driver pay, it is about station staff - no? They all join in for solidarity.

I don't know enough to make a judgement, but it certainly seems to have come out of nowwhere. Usually there is a lot of warning and sometimes they make a deal and cancel it.

biondino

notsoblue wrote:

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

+1 Their reasons for striking are debatable, but the right to strike is a principle worth defending imo. There is *always* a drive to cut costs in business, but more often than not this is achieved by eroding employee working conditions and service provision. Why why why do people support this? I can only put it down to resentment and bitterness of others who may be seen to be doing better out of something.

There's still a perception that public servants are lazy, over-abundant and have ridiculously appealing perks. Whereas oddly, the reality that private enterprise is actually specifically designed and encouraged to take more of your money than it needs doesn't have much traction.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

Workers rights are a good thing. But when the workers are lead by greedy self serving champagne socialists it's nothing to do with rights and all to do with greed.

Tube drivers have a very cushy number which they've managed to "negotiate" by effectively holding London to ransom. Yet they want more - plus job security, inflation busting pay rises etc etc. The private sector can't support that, so why should the tax payer?

The BA lot are another shining beacon of stupidity.

Exactly. Over strong unions are just as bad for an organisation as over strong management. Tube workers' rights have gone too far the wrong way.

rjsterry

cjcp wrote:

I came in a bit later today, but the traffic was still at a standstill from PS to Embankment tube, and then through B'frairs Tunnel up to London Bridge.

What I don't understand is why people decide to drive in knowing they'll be stood in traffic for God knows how long :?: .

I'm mystified as well. Surely walking would be preferable and quicker.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

+1 Their reasons for striking are debatable, but the right to strike is a principle worth defending imo. There is *always* a drive to cut costs in business, but more often than not this is achieved by eroding employee working conditions and service provision. Why why why do people support this? I can only put it down to resentment and bitterness of others who may be seen to be doing better out of something.

"Doing better out of something" by blackmailing London on highly dubious grounds is not to be championed.

It really is very simple. If you don't like your pay or conditions, then leave. There are other jobs. If no-one fills the roles, then the pay or conditions must be improved until they do.

rick_chasey

cjcp wrote:

What I don't understand is why people decide to drive in knowing they'll be stood in traffic for God knows how long :?: .

Beats working a shitty 9-5 you hate!

Music on, aaand relax...

biondino

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

+1 Their reasons for striking are debatable, but the right to strike is a principle worth defending imo. There is *always* a drive to cut costs in business, but more often than not this is achieved by eroding employee working conditions and service provision. Why why why do people support this? I can only put it down to resentment and bitterness of others who may be seen to be doing better out of something.

"Doing better out of something" by blackmailing London on highly dubious grounds is not to be championed.

It really is very simple. If you don't like your pay or conditions, then leave. There are other jobs. If no-one fills the roles, then the pay or conditions must be improved until they do.

So you're arguing that if the workers aren't happy with the pay and conditions then they must be improved? Or are you arguing that school-leavers and ex-cons are going to end up the only ones willing to work underground for piddling wages? Because then we're in agreement!

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

cjcp wrote:

I came in a bit later today, but the traffic was still at a standstill from PS to Embankment tube, and then through B'frairs Tunnel up to London Bridge.

What I don't understand is why people decide to drive in knowing they'll be stood in traffic for God knows how long :?: .

I'm mystified as well. Surely walking would be preferable and quicker.

I was thinking the same. I rode through Deptford to hit absolute gridlock all the way into Central London. I was thinking, if you can't somach cycling, why sit in traffic? It would be so much easier, quicker and more pleasant to walk along the Thames Path. It was a lovely morning and the Thames Path (south) is pleasant, wide and almost completely abandoned and has nice views across the river. Those people sat in traffic at Deptford probably didn't make it to the office til 2 hours or so after I buzzed past them...

W1

biondino wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

biondino wrote:

Ban the tube from striking and you see what happens to wages. Soon the only people who'll take the jobs are the ones too incapable to do anything else. Not sure I want them looking after my safety.

Christ, do any of you nimby bastards actually think your arguments through? Workers rights are a GOOD THING. But no, you're all so focused on a) yourself and b) the micro-short term that you'd have a more or less fair system crumble to dust because you have to get the f*cking bus once in a while.

+1 Their reasons for striking are debatable, but the right to strike is a principle worth defending imo. There is *always* a drive to cut costs in business, but more often than not this is achieved by eroding employee working conditions and service provision. Why why why do people support this? I can only put it down to resentment and bitterness of others who may be seen to be doing better out of something.

"Doing better out of something" by blackmailing London on highly dubious grounds is not to be championed.

It really is very simple. If you don't like your pay or conditions, then leave. There are other jobs. If no-one fills the roles, then the pay or conditions must be improved until they do.

So you're arguing that if the workers aren't happy with the pay and conditions then they must be improved? Or are you arguing that school-leavers and ex-cons are going to end up the only ones willing to work underground for piddling wages? Because then we're in agreement!

No. I'm saying that if "a" worker doesn't like the pay or conditions then they should leave. If no-one takes that job then pay/conditions need to be improved in order to fill that role. If however that role can be filled for less pay/worse conditions then so be it. Market forces come into play. Do you think that no-one would work on the tubes if TfL sacked all the striking workers?

I'm not suggesting "piddling" wages are to be paid - but if the pay isn't good enough then workers are free to leave, and if there are suitable replacements happy to work for less then great.

The army and the police aren't allowed to strike (by law) - as far as I'm aware they aren't wholly populated by ex-cons and school leavers on piddling wages.

DonDaddyD

So they're striking because they aren't renewing upto 800 jobs when once the selected jobs have been vacated.

Where's Progy?

nich

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

cjcp wrote:

I came in a bit later today, but the traffic was still at a standstill from PS to Embankment tube, and then through B'frairs Tunnel up to London Bridge.

What I don't understand is why people decide to drive in knowing they'll be stood in traffic for God knows how long :?: .

I'm mystified as well. Surely walking would be preferable and quicker.

I was thinking the same. I rode through Deptford to hit absolute gridlock all the way into Central London. I was thinking, if you can't somach cycling, why sit in traffic? It would be so much easier, quicker and more pleasant to walk along the Thames Path. It was a lovely morning and the Thames Path (south) is pleasant, wide and almost completely abandoned and has nice views across the river. Those people sat in traffic at Deptford probably didn't make it to the office til 2 hours or so after I buzzed past them...

I think there's a lot of people in this city that are lazy, unfit, or just don't know their own abilities.

Talking to a friend the other day, he wouldnt' even consider walking from London Bridge to Moorgate. It's like 25 mins!!

I quite happily walk from Moorgate to Victoria which is about 40 mins, and that's when the tubes are happily working

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

No. I'm saying that if "a" worker doesn't like the pay or conditions then they should leave. If no-one takes that job then pay/conditions need to be improved in order to fill that role. If however that role can be filled for less pay/worse conditions then so be it. Market forces come into play. Do you think that no-one would work on the tubes if TfL sacked all the striking workers?

I'm not suggesting "piddling" wages are to be paid - but if the pay isn't good enough then workers are free to leave, and if there are suitable replacements happy to work for less then great.

The army and the police aren't allowed to strike (by law) - as far as I'm aware they aren't wholly populated by ex-cons and school leavers on piddling wages.

I think the 'like-it or lump-it' approach to worker's rights is exactly why we have trade unions today. It leads to exploitation of unskilled jobs.

biondino

W1 wrote:

No. I'm saying that if "a" worker doesn't like the pay or conditions then they should leave. If no-one takes that job then pay/conditions need to be improved in order to fill that role. If however that role can be filled for less pay/worse conditions then so be it. Market forces come into play. Do you think that no-one would work on the tubes if TfL sacked all the striking workers?

I'm not suggesting "piddling" wages are to be paid - but if the pay isn't good enough then workers are free to leave, and if there are suitable replacements happy to work for less then great.

The army and the police aren't allowed to strike (by law) - as far as I'm aware they aren't wholly populated by ex-cons and school leavers on piddling wages.

I wouldn't work on the tube if TFL starting illegally sacking people who asked for better conditions, no! You do understand it works the other way round, too, don't you? That employers in critical jobs like the underground are able to push harder and harder against their employees because unless they go for strike action, there's very little they can do? It's a game of brinksmanship, played knowingly by both sides, and the current move is the unions have called TFL's bluff. At some point it'll be sorted out, and a new "fair" wage/conditions situation will be established. That's the free market for you.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

"Doing better out of something" by blackmailing London on highly dubious grounds is not to be championed.

It really is very simple. If you don't like your pay or conditions, then leave. There are other jobs. If no-one fills the roles, then the pay or conditions must be improved until they do.

It *is* very simple, but its not very good is it? I mean, its fine for educated workers who do have more mobility in the job market. You'll find that conditions and worker rights are way better in organisations whose employees are generally well qualified. Because they have a choice... Companies have to look after them or they'll just leave. But for more blue collar roles, the employers have staff over a barrel and can tell them to put up with whatever they deem acceptable for them or leave. Going on strike or organised union action is the only power that workers like this have. Not having the right to unionise or strike will result in a disenfranchised, poorly paid workforce feeling trapped terrible conditions. This disproportionately affects the working class, and is a major driver of inequality in society.

If you're cool with all that, and just care about getting to work on time, then thats fine. But don't kid yourself that all this hassle is just because Bob Crow wants a new Bentley. Because thats just a ridiculous position. You can argue all you want about the reasons for them going on strike, but its important for workers to still have that option. And "Because the rest of us have f@ck all rights" isn't a good enough reason to oppose it imo.

DonDaddyD

biondino wrote:

W1 wrote:

No. I'm saying that if "a" worker doesn't like the pay or conditions then they should leave. If no-one takes that job then pay/conditions need to be improved in order to fill that role. If however that role can be filled for less pay/worse conditions then so be it. Market forces come into play. Do you think that no-one would work on the tubes if TfL sacked all the striking workers?

I'm not suggesting "piddling" wages are to be paid - but if the pay isn't good enough then workers are free to leave, and if there are suitable replacements happy to work for less then great.

The army and the police aren't allowed to strike (by law) - as far as I'm aware they aren't wholly populated by ex-cons and school leavers on piddling wages.

I wouldn't work on the tube if TFL starting illegally sacking people who asked for better conditions, no! You do understand it works the other way round, too, don't you? That employers in critical jobs like the underground are able to push harder and harder against their employees because unless they go for strike action, there's very little they can do? It's a game of brinksmanship, played knowingly by both sides, and the current move is the unions have called TFL's bluff. At some point it'll be sorted out, and a new "fair" wage/conditions situation will be established. That's the free market for you.

You know i do think this is a result of heavy handed Government and lack of protection from the top. TFL had a plan to upgrade the lines, yest it was hugely inconvienient I believe they wanted blanket line closures as oppose to the longer more staggered upgade process. Then came the hot summer and then statements that not as much money was going to be invested and that TFL (or the tube() would have to make efficiency savings. There didn't seem to be a period of consultation where staff views could be heard so seems like the likliest response.