Incoming - tube strike
Comments
-
ketsbaia wrote:W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.
As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.
LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.
If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.
It's not about safety, it's about job losses. The safety element is just a smokescreen to try and justify their actions. The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for ticket office staff at every station all the time - RMT don't like this so they go on strike.
Oh, sorry. I'm not entering into a purely subjective debate. You can think that if it makes you feel more indignant - I can't stop you. But there are safety and security implications of fewer staff at stations.
No one is arguing for 24-hour staffing of all stations.
"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers0 -
rjsterry wrote:Indeed. Not on the tube, but at my local station, the barriers are frequently left open at various times of the day, as they cannot be left shut with no staff (just occasionally Oystercards don't work properly). Equally, if a tube station needs to be evacuated, it's going to take more than a couple of staff to do it properly. Similarly, dealing with drunk and/or violent passengers late at night needs proper staffing levels.
Can't we all just rely on CCTV to do all this? :roll:0 -
W1 wrote:"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Do you get all your news from the Metro?0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Do you get all your news from the Metro?
It was to hand.... I find it hard to read a paper on the bike!
The quote is the key bit, not the source where it was printed.0 -
W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.
As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.
LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.
If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.
It's not about safety, it's about job losses. The safety element is just a smokescreen to try and justify their actions. The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for ticket office staff at every station all the time - RMT don't like this so they go on strike.
Oh, sorry. I'm not entering into a purely subjective debate. You can think that if it makes you feel more indignant - I can't stop you. But there are safety and security implications of fewer staff at stations.
No one is arguing for 24-hour staffing of all stations.
"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Hang on. You're quoting the managing director of LUL as an impartial voice in this?
Could do better.
FYI, the safety 'argument' has been brought up by staff at numerous levels, on a formal basis. But if you're more inclined to believe one side of the dispute, you may or may not take that on board.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Do you get all your news from the Metro?
It was to hand.... I find it hard to read a paper on the bike!
The quote is the key bit, not the source where it was printed.
Apologies, I got all ad hominem for no reason there :P0 -
I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.0 -
To be honest its pretty fecking obvious that if you reduce the workforce and then increase the workload on the remaining workforce who have a finite capacity there are going to be saftey concerns.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
ketsbaia wrote:W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.
As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.
LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.
If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.
It's not about safety, it's about job losses. The safety element is just a smokescreen to try and justify their actions. The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for ticket office staff at every station all the time - RMT don't like this so they go on strike.
Oh, sorry. I'm not entering into a purely subjective debate. You can think that if it makes you feel more indignant - I can't stop you. But there are safety and security implications of fewer staff at stations.
No one is arguing for 24-hour staffing of all stations.
"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Hang on. You're quoting the managing director of LUL as an impartial voice in this?
Could do better.
FYI, the safety 'argument' has been brought up by staff at numerous levels, on a formal basis. But if you're more inclined to believe one side of the dispute, you may or may not take that on board.
it's not been refuted by RMT.
I take it you're closer to this than being a mere observer?0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Do you get all your news from the Metro?
It was to hand.... I find it hard to read a paper on the bike!
The quote is the key bit, not the source where it was printed.
Apologies, I got all ad hominem for no reason there :P
Ha, I'll live. I do find the Metro absorbing though. Sorry, no, absorbent.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Isn't that just vindictive?
"We've suffered so now you have to as well"
Oh yeah because for the past 5 years fat cat public sector workers have benefitted from pay rise after pay rise and pay increase exceeding (not below) the rate of inflation.. :roll:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:To be honest its pretty fecking obvious that if you reduce the workforce and then increase the workload on the remaining workforce who have a finite capacity there are going to be saftey concerns.
Big assumption that the current workforce isn't spending half it's time doing nothing! In which case you can reduce the workforce, there's no increase in workload (if they've been doing nothing - i.e. are redundant) and no safety concerns. The only concern is the job losses.
The RMT are going to have to face facts. The gravy train is over. There will be job losses. There isn't a bottomless pool of money for them to extort. They need to look at the big picture, and fast.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Isn't that just vindictive?
"We've suffered so now you have to as well"
Oh yeah because for the past 5 years fat cat public sector workers have benefitted from pay rise after pay rise and pay increase exceeding (not below) the rate of inflation.. :roll:
No, not at all. Like I said, everyone is taking a hit, to expect to be exempt from that is rather naive. Lots of other public sector workers won't be, why should tube staff get special treatment?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?0 -
W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:W1 wrote:ketsbaia wrote:Are we officially in a recession? I thought there was growth recorded in the last two sets of figures. Ergo no recession.
As someone has already said, this strike is the only thing the tube workers can do to force LUL back to the table to think about the staffing levels. They aren't complaining about the job losses through natural wastage per se, they're drawing attention to the potentially unsafe levels of staffing at stations as a result of said natural wastage. In the only way they can. I don't see them 'holding anyone to ransom' - people have been perfectly capable of getting to work/working from home/using it as an excuse to get in late/delete as applicable.
LUL's problem is that it's been told by the government that cuts are coming, but not how much and when, so it's frantically trying to slash spending in any way it can. The reorganisation is one of the ways it is doing this. RMT thinks it's going too far too quickly (here's essentially what is debatable) and hasn't received satisfactory reassurances from the management over the safety of both the public and its membership as a result of the cutbacks. It's pursuing the only option left to force LUL back to the table, which is kind of what LUL was expecting anyway. Doubtless a settlement will be reached.
If I were a member of the union, I'd be delighted it was standing up for my safety and that of the general public. Despite what people are bleating, this isn't about pay and terms. If I relied on the tube to get to work, I'd be a bit cheesed off for a day or two that my travel plans had been disrupted (but would doubtless have just stayed at home). As it is, I cycle in, so apart from encountering a slightly larger numpty quotient on the road, it hasn't affected me one iota.
It's not about safety, it's about job losses. The safety element is just a smokescreen to try and justify their actions. The fact of the matter remains that there is no need for ticket office staff at every station all the time - RMT don't like this so they go on strike.
Oh, sorry. I'm not entering into a purely subjective debate. You can think that if it makes you feel more indignant - I can't stop you. But there are safety and security implications of fewer staff at stations.
No one is arguing for 24-hour staffing of all stations.
"The safety argument they now deploy - which has never been raised in any formal forum - is completely without foundation. It is simple scaremongering designed to mask their wish to strike."
If it's a legitimate reason, why not raise it formally?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/840173-tube ... passengers
Hang on. You're quoting the managing director of LUL as an impartial voice in this?
Could do better.
FYI, the safety 'argument' has been brought up by staff at numerous levels, on a formal basis. But if you're more inclined to believe one side of the dispute, you may or may not take that on board.
it's not been refuted by RMT.
I take it you're closer to this than being a mere observer?
RMT haven't denied being responsible for last night's bad weather either.
A bit closer than most, yes. But not affected. Close enough to know Mike Brown has responded to safety concerns through formal channels, so quite how he can say what he has is anyone's guess.
It's important to understand that, as someone said earlier, there is a lot of posturing going on from both sides in the dispute. But there are definitely two sides to it.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Isn't that just vindictive?
"We've suffered so now you have to as well"
Oh yeah because for the past 5 years fat cat public sector workers have benefitted from pay rise after pay rise and pay increase exceeding (not below) the rate of inflation.. :roll:
No, not at all. Like I said, everyone is taking a hit, to expect to be exempt from that is rather naive. Lots of other public sector workers won't be, why should tube staff get special treatment?
Except for banks, which are also apparently exempt to the tune of £80 billion or so. £80 billion of taxpayers' money going to private, profit-making corporations, or a few million going to a public company's reasonably paid workers?
DDD is *bossing* this thread right now.0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:To be honest its pretty fecking obvious that if you reduce the workforce and then increase the workload on the remaining workforce who have a finite capacity there are going to be saftey concerns.
Big assumption that the current workforce isn't spending half it's time doing nothing! In which case you can reduce the workforce, there's no increase in workload (if they've been doing nothing - i.e. are redundant) and no safety concerns. The only concern is the job losses.
The RMT are going to have to face facts. The gravy train is over. There will be job losses. There isn't a bottomless pool of money for them to extort. They need to look at the big picture, and fast.
TBH, it's that kind of polemic that helps no one.0 -
notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?
Well I'd say the FSA had a fairly big hand in it...0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?
Well I'd say the FSA had a fairly big hand in it...
And people taking out loans they couldn't afford.
Hell, new can of worms freshly opened!0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Sure, they can find another job, but if their old employer can drive staff out by using market conditions to justify making working conditions/remuneration unacceptable, then what is their to stop any new prospective employers from doing the same?
My point is that the better educated (this is clumsy shorthand for defining class, sorry) you are, the better the conditions you expect at your workplace. If Accenture was based in a series of portacabins on an estate somewhere in Slough, I doubt they would attract the same staff they do now. A market driven approach only favours the higher end of the market. IT Consultants, accountants etc... don't need unions. They can represent themselves. Blue collar workers generally can't/won't for fear of being told to like it or lump it.
Uh, Accenture does use market conditions to drive out workers - it tends to have a turnover of ~18% if I recall correctly, probably higher right now. Also depending on industry the sites can be barely little better than portacabins in Slough.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
lost_in_thought wrote:notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?
Well I'd say the FSA had a fairly big hand in it...
Isn't that a bit like saying it's the police's fault people's bikes keep being nicked?0 -
biondino wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:I don't recall getting a huge bonus... not for the past ooooooh 3 years in fact.
What it boils down to from my perspective is that everyone's suffering in the downturn we're experiencing, and I don't see why the public sector should be any different.
Isn't that just vindictive?
"We've suffered so now you have to as well"
Oh yeah because for the past 5 years fat cat public sector workers have benefitted from pay rise after pay rise and pay increase exceeding (not below) the rate of inflation.. :roll:
No, not at all. Like I said, everyone is taking a hit, to expect to be exempt from that is rather naive. Lots of other public sector workers won't be, why should tube staff get special treatment?
Except for banks, which are also apparently exempt to the tune of £80 billion or so. £80 billion of taxpayers' money going to private, profit-making corporations, or a few million going to a public company's reasonably paid workers?
DDD is *bossing* this thread right now.
Lucky the tax man is now a major shareholder in these profit making banks then, eh?0 -
ketsbaia wrote:
A bit closer than most, yes. But not affected. Close enough to know Mike Brown has responded to safety concerns through formal channels, so quite how he can say what he has is anyone's guess.
It's important to understand that, as someone said earlier, there is a lot of posturing going on from both sides in the dispute. But there are definitely two sides to it.
[snipped to avoid quoting complaints]
Care to tell us what's really going on then?0 -
jds_1981 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?
I thought the downturn was ultimately caused by people borrowing more money then they could realistically pay back.
The downturn was ultimately caused by irresponsible money-hungry banks making money available at high interest rates to people borrowing more money then they could realistically pay back. 0 -
W1 wrote:
[snipped to avoid quoting complaints]
Care to tell us what's really going on then?
Long and the short of it is management and union disagree on the numbers. Union accepts one number of job losses, management wants more. It'll end up somewhere in the middle.
Twas ever thus. Neither side are being totally unreasonable; nor are they being particularly adult about it at the moment either.0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:To be honest its pretty fecking obvious that if you reduce the workforce and then increase the workload on the remaining workforce who have a finite capacity there are going to be saftey concerns.
Big assumption that the current workforce isn't spending half it's time doing nothing! In which case you can reduce the workforce, there's no increase in workload (if they've been doing nothing - i.e. are redundant) and no safety concerns. The only concern is the job losses.
The RMT are going to have to face facts. The gravy train is over. There will be job losses. There isn't a bottomless pool of money for them to extort. They need to look at the big picture, and fast.
It's a big assumption that the current workforce is spending half its time doing nothing. You're mudslinging to enforce a non-existent point.
What gravy train? The public sector doesn't expand blindly and pay its workforce in kind relative to that expansion. Again you are applying a private sector theory onto the public sector.No, not at all. Like I said, everyone is taking a hit, to expect to be exempt from that is rather naive. Lots of other public sector workers won't be, why should tube staff get special treatment?
It's completely different. When a previous employer of mine decided to close an emergency clinic they could prove that it would save money and actually improve quality (maintain quality and the level of service available would have been enough, they managed to improve all that).
If you close a station or reduce the Underground workforce could anyone honestly say the same thing?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
biondino wrote:jds_1981 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?
I thought the downturn was ultimately caused by people borrowing more money then they could realistically pay back.
The downturn was ultimately caused by irresponsible money-hungry banks making money available at high interest rates to people borrowing more money then they could realistically pay back.
I'd say much of it was caused by irresponsible loan syndicators lumping all that bad debt in with saleable debt and flogging said syndicated loans to unsuspecting (read effing stupid) banks who didn't really understand the structure of the products they were buying.0 -
biondino wrote:jds_1981 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Well, to be fair, the downturn was caused by the private sector. Why should the public sector be irreparably damaged by it?
I thought the downturn was ultimately caused by people borrowing more money then they could realistically pay back.
The downturn was ultimately caused by irresponsible money-hungry banks making money available at high interest rates to people borrowing more money then they could realistically pay back.
Here I was thinking it was the fairies down the bottom of the garden deciding freebies were no longer possible? What it was that was free I still don't know...Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
ketsbaia wrote:I'd say much of it was caused by irresponsible loan syndicators lumping all that bad debt in with saleable debt and flogging said syndicated loans to unsuspecting (read effing stupid) banks who didn't really understand the structure of the products they were buying.
A good explanation - takes irresponsible borrowers (homebuyers) and lenders to tango. Then if the banks don't correctly price risk due to artificially benign condition we get issues.FCN 9 || FCN 50
