Incoming - tube strike

lost_in_thought

ketsbaia wrote:

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.

It's due to:

People taking out loans they can't afford, OR depending on your political stance, what Blondie said. It's kind of like blaming McD's for obesity.

Then it's due to the restructuring and sale of those packaged debts, and those debts being incorrectly rated by the ratings agencies to give them an artificially high rating.

FSA should have stepped on the ratings agencies from the out, banks shouldn't have bought the debt, nor lent money to people who couldn't afford to repay it, and those people shouldn't have borrowed that money in the first place.

gtvlusso

Slightly OT.....

Public sector pay has by far outpaced private pay in the last 10 years in my industry.

Every year, I have had staff leave for public sector IT Project based jobs on 5k to 10k higher + bonus, better pentsion and fixed pay increases, that beat inflation.

I keep in touch with a few ex-colleagues and they even say how much easier their life is! Less pressure and easier to cover screw ups - the PS staff that I know are responsible for much less than I am earn about 10% more than I do and get a fixed payrise no matter how they perform.........they love it!

In private business it has been impossible to compete with the wages in PS and consequently we have lost allot of very experienced people to the likes of the MOD and Foreign Office - we had 30 applicants for a job recently advertised. Some people had been out of work for more than 3 months, some of them did not even have a skill or qualification that was of any use, ultimately - when we made the offer, the person rejected as their wage was higher in PS and the job spec looked to "intense" for the wage (apparently!)! The second person offered tried to haggle (as you would) on wage - we relented a little, Vacancy filled. It was a technical vacancy - so the job spec is usually a bit acronym heavy!

As such, we are taking on younger staff, relocated to the south west and now only offer a basic pension and quite basic allowances. My dept, comparitively with other depts, has a low rate of staff churn - probably because the money is not bad for the area, but no one in London would work for what we pay!

In my time in this industry in 17 years, I have only received payrises when I have changed jobs or been promoted (and subject to a 10% promotion salary rule - hence it is better financially to move jobs - every 2 years). My performance has always been good to excellent (never "best") - I have only had bonuses in the last 3 years, but don't expect any from now on. I have got a car allowance, medicare and a reasonable pension....but that is after 17 years!

I don't want to see anyone made redundant or struggling, but something has to give - and to keep their jobs some people may have to accept some extreme actions. The gravy train has derailed, but is salvageble.

I do not think that the Tube workers need more than they have - from what I have read, it is good money for the type of job and this just seems self serving and intent on screwing over hard working Londoners....

*I may be mis-informed as I have been keeping up with this on Sky news* :-)

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Some of them sell ten tickets an hour. So you're right, I'm wrong - some of them spending substantially more than half their time doing nothing.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/838440-tube ... cond-union

The gravy train is where the public sector believe there is a bottomless pit of resources to pay their demands, or deal with their bloated, inefficient and poor value service. There isn't. Have a look at the Taxpayers Alliance website for examples - fill yer boots.

DonDaddyD

Througout the entire boom no one would give me a loan. Increasing my overdraft was easy they even told me how much they'd increase it to (exactly the same as my monthly salary - madness).

Then as soon as the recession went into full swing i visited the bank and was asked to sit down in their office. I thought I was in real trouble. Turns out they wanted to reassure me that everything was OK and offered me support on a mortgage or a loan which worked out to £100 repayments per month over a period relative to the amount you take. So £2000 = £100 for 2years. I thought that was pretty good to be honest.

ketsbaia

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's due to:

People taking out loans they can't afford, OR depending on your political stance, what Blondie said. It's kind of like blaming McD's for obesity.

Then it's due to the restructuring and sale of those packaged debts, and those debts being incorrectly rated by the ratings agencies to give them an artificially high rating.

FSA should have stepped on the ratings agencies from the out, banks shouldn't have bought the debt, nor lent money to people who couldn't afford to repay it, and those people shouldn't have borrowed that money in the first place.

Bit unfair to blame the FSA for what the Fed should have been doing over the pond, innit? Much of the bad debt was US sub-prime the FSA had no control over. Plus I'm not sure how much jurisdiction the FSA has over international ratings agencies.

lost_in_thought

ketsbaia wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's due to:

People taking out loans they can't afford, OR depending on your political stance, what Blondie said. It's kind of like blaming McD's for obesity.

Then it's due to the restructuring and sale of those packaged debts, and those debts being incorrectly rated by the ratings agencies to give them an artificially high rating.

FSA should have stepped on the ratings agencies from the out, banks shouldn't have bought the debt, nor lent money to people who couldn't afford to repay it, and those people shouldn't have borrowed that money in the first place.

Bit unfair to blame the FSA for what the Fed should have been doing over the pond, innit? Much of the bad debt was US sub-prime the FSA had no control over. Plus I'm not sure how much jurisdiction the FSA has over international ratings agencies.

Fair play, but the FSA regulate the UK... If I had to pick one group to blame it'd probably be the ratings agencies.

W1

ketsbaia wrote:

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.

I'd be interested to know your view as to:
- whether it's true that Oyster has made a number of ticket offices/staff redundant (as I would expect it to do)
- what those staff members would contribute to safety (or at least a better understanding of that argument) and what they would do for the 99.99% of the time when there isn't some disaster?

My phrasing could be better, but I'd be genuinely interested to know.

biondino

So going with your analogy you'd not blame McDonalds, not blame the fatties, but blame the people whocreated that chart of all the McD's foodstuffs with calorie and nutrition labelling?

Headhuunter

lost_in_thought wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's due to:

People taking out loans they can't afford, OR depending on your political stance, what Blondie said. It's kind of like blaming McD's for obesity.

Then it's due to the restructuring and sale of those packaged debts, and those debts being incorrectly rated by the ratings agencies to give them an artificially high rating.

FSA should have stepped on the ratings agencies from the out, banks shouldn't have bought the debt, nor lent money to people who couldn't afford to repay it, and those people shouldn't have borrowed that money in the first place.

Bit unfair to blame the FSA for what the Fed should have been doing over the pond, innit? Much of the bad debt was US sub-prime the FSA had no control over. Plus I'm not sure how much jurisdiction the FSA has over international ratings agencies.

Fair play, but the FSA regulate the UK... If I had to pick one group to blame it'd probably be the ratings agencies.

But the ratings agencies, like the banks, are simply private enterprises getting paid by banks. It was in their interests that the gravy train of deals keeps coming and that their clients, the banks keen on lending so that they can pay them (the ratings agencies). The ratings agencies are in no way a replacement for a governing body like the FSA doing a proper job and are just doing what private corporations do best - make a profit.

lost_in_thought

Headhuunter wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

It's due to:

People taking out loans they can't afford, OR depending on your political stance, what Blondie said. It's kind of like blaming McD's for obesity.

Then it's due to the restructuring and sale of those packaged debts, and those debts being incorrectly rated by the ratings agencies to give them an artificially high rating.

FSA should have stepped on the ratings agencies from the out, banks shouldn't have bought the debt, nor lent money to people who couldn't afford to repay it, and those people shouldn't have borrowed that money in the first place.

Bit unfair to blame the FSA for what the Fed should have been doing over the pond, innit? Much of the bad debt was US sub-prime the FSA had no control over. Plus I'm not sure how much jurisdiction the FSA has over international ratings agencies.

Fair play, but the FSA regulate the UK... If I had to pick one group to blame it'd probably be the ratings agencies.

But the ratings agencies, like the banks, are simply private enterprises getting paid by banks. It was in their interests that the gravy train of deals keeps coming and that their clients, the banks keen on lending so that they can pay them (the ratings agencies). The ratings agencies are in no way a replacement for a governing body like the FSA doing a proper job and are just doing what private corporations do best - make a profit.

Completely agree.

In an ideal world they have had a bit more backbone, but as you say it wouldn't have been profitable.

lost_in_thought

biondino wrote:

So going with your analogy you'd not blame McDonalds, not blame the fatties, but blame the people whocreated that chart of all the McD's foodstuffs with calorie and nutrition labelling?

Nope, I'd blame the fatties.

If, however, people had been packaging shares in McDonalds with shares in hundreds of crappy chicken shop and selling them all as Burger King, I'd blame the people who didn't say 'oh hang on a minute these aren't really burger king level shares'.... but they haven't!

So I blame the fatties.

W1

lost_in_thought wrote:

So I blame the fatties.

End of thread.

tailwindhome

Couldn't be bothered reading the thread.

Has Porgy turned up yet? Or is he still lurking?

ketsbaia

W1 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

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.

I'd be interested to know your view as to:
- whether it's true that Oyster has made a number of ticket offices/staff redundant (as I would expect it to do)
- what those staff members would contribute to safety (or at least a better understanding of that argument) and what they would do for the 99.99% of the time when there isn't some disaster?

My phrasing could be better, but I'd be genuinely interested to know.

I've just got to get something done, then I'll get back to you on this.

notsoblue

lost_in_thought wrote:

biondino wrote:

So going with your analogy you'd not blame McDonalds, not blame the fatties, but blame the people whocreated that chart of all the McD's foodstuffs with calorie and nutrition labelling?

Nope, I'd blame the fatties.

If, however, people had been packaging shares in McDonalds with shares in hundreds of crappy chicken shop and selling them all as Burger King, I'd blame the people who didn't say 'oh hang on a minute these aren't really burger king level shares'.... but they haven't!

So I blame the fatties.

Meh, people can't be trusted to look after themselves. If left to their own devices they'll constantly make bad decisions. Dietary or financial... Plenty of businesses exploit this for profit. The only way to avoid obesity and recession is paternalistic government regulation. More taxes and government involvement for all!

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Some of them sell ten tickets an hour. So you're right, I'm wrong - some of them spending substantially more than half their time doing nothing.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/838440-tube ... cond-union

When you read the Daily Mail do you believe the quotes and reports within as well?

:roll:

That's a selective extract of a report that highlights the negative elements of the job, it doesn't account for a proper risk assessment it doesn't account for who will be taking up the slack should the 800 go and it doesn't assess capacity of the remaining workforce. I'm not saying that all the jobs must be kept, what my concern is, is that we don't mudsling and think we have some divine right to judge the workload of another person, we don't. My concern is that the process is done right for the staff and the people who use those services.

The gravy train is where the public sector believe there is a bottomless pit of resources to pay their demands, or deal with their bloated, inefficient and poor value service. There isn't. Have a look at the Taxpayers Alliance website for examples - fill yer boots.

You don't work in the public sector do you? Having worked in the public for five years, I can assure you that there isn't and never was a bottomless pit of resources.

Pay demands is utter rubbish.You have no concept of how the public sector works do you? There is a predetermined scale. Each job is assessed for the the skills, responsibility and competencies needed and thus placed on the scale. You don't negotiate or demand a salary it has already been established. You cannot deviate from the scale regardless of experience or what you've earned before. You cannot put a PA on £30,000 for example if the scale states its only £22,000. There are no pay rises, there are pay increases which is less than inflation.

Poor service can be equally put down to lack of re/training, which in turn is a result of lack of funding and staff development.

I work within the public sector, I've worked in the Charity sector and i've worked in the public sector. I know what I'm talking about.

rjsterry

The Taxpayers Alliance, eh? Might as well throw in the towel if you have to resort to them to back up your argument. As for the private sector's mythical efficiency, value and service, I give you three letters:

P F I

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Pay demands is utter rubbish.You have no concept of how the public sector works do you? There is a predetermined scale. Each job is assessed for the the skills, responsibility and competencies needed and thus placed on the scale. You don't negotiate or demand a salary it has already been established. You cannot deviate from the scale regardless of experience or what you've earned before. You cannot put a PA on £30,000 for example if the scale states its only £22,000. There are no pay rises, there are pay increases which is less than inflation.

You'd better tell that to the union - if they can't get given pay rises I wonder why the tube workers bother striking over pay?

Might as well inform the teachers and fire brigage unions whilst you're at it.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

The Taxpayers Alliance, eh? Might as well throw in the towel if you have to resort to them to back up your argument. As for the private sector's mythical efficiency, value and service, I give you three letters:

P F I

What, those government developed ideas for government schemes for the public?

The point is - if a private company is poor value, provides bad service or can't sort it's costs out it goes to the wall. If a public sector body cocks up fear not - no-one gets sacked, and someone else will pay for it.

cjcp

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...

ketsbaia

W1 wrote:

I'd be interested to know your view as to:
- whether it's true that Oyster has made a number of ticket offices/staff redundant (as I would expect it to do)
- what those staff members would contribute to safety (or at least a better understanding of that argument) and what they would do for the 99.99% of the time when there isn't some disaster?

My phrasing could be better, but I'd be genuinely interested to know.

Oyster card usage has had an impact in a sense - fewer Londoners/regular users of the tube buy paper tickets from ticket offices, which is why you get fewer huge queues snaking out of tube stations these days at rush hour. It's visitors to London who don't have season tickets/Oyster Cards who account for most of the ticket office transactions these days. But to say staff in ticket offices are 'redundant' is taking it too far. It's generally accepted that Oyster usage has meant fewer people are reliant on ticket office staff, but there is still plenty the machines/Oyster can't handle, so staff are still needed there.

Point two you make is an interesting one. Station staff perform a number of different roles depending on their position and most can perform a range of duties, from manning the barriers and answering customer queries to ensuring platforms run smoothly and safely. To my knowledge, few if any staff are employed specifically to deal exclusively with disasters, but all can and do pitch in if there are emergency situations (most of which you don't hear about because things are dealt with quickly and without any effect on the service). The fear is that, with fewer staff around, such situations won't be dealt with as efficiently, which will have a knock-on effect on services, passengers and potentially staff and customer safety. On the latter point, customer safety is purportedly LUL's number one priority. There is a huge volume of evidence drawn from customer feedback to back-up the position that staff presence at stations makes them feel safer in the event of either a disaster or under conditions in which they would otherwise feel threatened. Again, reducing the number of staff at tube stations to below a certain level would have a negative impact on customers' perception of their own safety on the LU system. This doesn't take into account DDD's extremely good point about the burden of responsibility falling on others' shoulders and their ability to cope with the extra load.

This is not about people just wanting their cushy jobs for their workmates. It's a disagreement over what constitutes a safe level of staffing and a reasonable workload for those left to be able to do their jobs. Both sides are taking to extremes to achieve the best possible compromise out of the dispute.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The Taxpayers Alliance, eh? Might as well throw in the towel if you have to resort to them to back up your argument. As for the private sector's mythical efficiency, value and service, I give you three letters:

P F I

What, those government developed ideas for government schemes for the public?

The point is - if a private company is poor value, provides bad service or can't sort it's costs out it goes to the wall. If a public sector body cocks up fear not - no-one gets sacked, and someone else will pay for it.

Actually I think as far as the private sector's concerned, PFIs were wonderful. Investment bankers charged millions in fees for setting them up and private landlords now own many of our newest schools and hospitals which they rent back to the public sector at enormous cost. Private sector wins all round!

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The Taxpayers Alliance, eh? Might as well throw in the towel if you have to resort to them to back up your argument. As for the private sector's mythical efficiency, value and service, I give you three letters:

P F I

What, those government developed ideas for government schemes for the public?

Err, that are run by private companies and end up costing far more than if the government had just paid for a new school/hospital/whatever in the first place. Win the contract, buold a school as cheaply as possible then charge trough the nose to come and replace every lightbulb and fix every leaky window that you can under the 'maintenance' contract over the next 30 years. Well it's certainly very good for the private firms, but it results in some pretty dreadful buildings.

Metronet: that was brilliant as well. Or the various rail franchises that have had to be bailed out/brought back under government control when the private companies running them can't make a fist of it.

I'd agree that they were a stupid idea in the first place, mainly dreamt up to make the books look good, but are you suggesting we should only have essential public services if they can turn a profit?

rjsterry

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The Taxpayers Alliance, eh? Might as well throw in the towel if you have to resort to them to back up your argument. As for the private sector's mythical efficiency, value and service, I give you three letters:

P F I

What, those government developed ideas for government schemes for the public?

The point is - if a private company is poor value, provides bad service or can't sort it's costs out it goes to the wall. If a public sector body cocks up fear not - no-one gets sacked, and someone else will pay for it.

Actually I think as far as the private sector's concerned, PFIs were wonderful. Investment bankers charged millions in fees for setting them up and private landlords now own many of our newest schools and hospitals which they rent back to the public sector at enormous cost. Private sector wins all round!

Exactly, and pretty sh!tty schools and hospitals they are too. A good use of taxpayers' money?

W1

ketsbaia wrote:

W1 wrote:

I'd be interested to know your view as to:
- whether it's true that Oyster has made a number of ticket offices/staff redundant (as I would expect it to do)
- what those staff members would contribute to safety (or at least a better understanding of that argument) and what they would do for the 99.99% of the time when there isn't some disaster?

My phrasing could be better, but I'd be genuinely interested to know.

Oyster card usage has had an impact in a sense - fewer Londoners/regular users of the tube buy paper tickets from ticket offices, which is why you get fewer huge queues snaking out of tube stations these days at rush hour. It's visitors to London who don't have season tickets/Oyster Cards who account for most of the ticket office transactions these days. But to say staff in ticket offices are 'redundant' is taking it too far. It's generally accepted that Oyster usage has meant fewer people are reliant on ticket office staff, but there is still plenty the machines/Oyster can't handle, so staff are still needed there.

Point two you make is an interesting one. Station staff perform a number of different roles depending on their position and most can perform a range of duties, from manning the barriers and answering customer queries to ensuring platforms run smoothly and safely. To my knowledge, few if any staff are employed specifically to deal exclusively with disasters, but all can and do pitch in if there are emergency situations (most of which you don't hear about because things are dealt with quickly and without any effect on the service). The fear is that, with fewer staff around, such situations won't be dealt with as efficiently, which will have a knock-on effect on services, passengers and potentially staff and customer safety. On the latter point, customer safety is purportedly LUL's number one priority. There is a huge volume of evidence drawn from customer feedback to back-up the position that staff presence at stations makes them feel safer in the event of either a disaster or under conditions in which they would otherwise feel threatened. Again, reducing the number of staff at tube stations to below a certain level would have a negative impact on customers' perception of their own safety on the LU system. This doesn't take into account DDD's extremely good point about the burden of responsibility falling on others' shoulders and their ability to cope with the extra load.

This is not about people just wanting their cushy jobs for their workmates. It's a disagreement over what constitutes a safe level of staffing and a reasonable workload for those left to be able to do their jobs. Both sides are taking to extremes to achieve the best possible compromise out of the dispute.

I appreciate that response. I prefer not to rely on the Metro when there is an "insider" who is prepared to comment.

But - if someone is sitting in a ticket office (twiddling their thumbs due to Oyster being more widely used) then they aren't down on the platforms helping out or providing any form of "visible" presense. At the moment, presumably there are sufficient people doing that job in order for it to be safe. So surely it's the thumb twiddlers who are redundant and should be let go - there would be no reduction in safety or service as these people are already "depolyed" in the ticket offices. It's just that they aren't selling as many tickets as before?

If that's the case, what's the dipsute? In addition I understand that a number of roles are "back office" jobs - these can't be argued to be safety related (on the basis you outline above), surely?

W1

rjsterry wrote:

I'd agree that they were a stupid idea in the first place, mainly dreamt up to make the books look good, but are you suggesting we should only have essential public services if they can turn a profit?

Absolutely not - but they do need to be seen to run efficiently and well. Sometimes a profit making company has an incentive to be much more efficient than a nationalised company. At the moment there appears to be little accountability.

lost_in_thought

Ketsbaia - what percentage of the total staff of that nature is the 800 that are not being replaced?

ketsbaia

W1 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

W1 wrote:

I'd be interested to know your view as to:
- whether it's true that Oyster has made a number of ticket offices/staff redundant (as I would expect it to do)
- what those staff members would contribute to safety (or at least a better understanding of that argument) and what they would do for the 99.99% of the time when there isn't some disaster?

My phrasing could be better, but I'd be genuinely interested to know.

Oyster card usage has had an impact in a sense - fewer Londoners/regular users of the tube buy paper tickets from ticket offices, which is why you get fewer huge queues snaking out of tube stations these days at rush hour. It's visitors to London who don't have season tickets/Oyster Cards who account for most of the ticket office transactions these days. But to say staff in ticket offices are 'redundant' is taking it too far. It's generally accepted that Oyster usage has meant fewer people are reliant on ticket office staff, but there is still plenty the machines/Oyster can't handle, so staff are still needed there.

Point two you make is an interesting one. Station staff perform a number of different roles depending on their position and most can perform a range of duties, from manning the barriers and answering customer queries to ensuring platforms run smoothly and safely. To my knowledge, few if any staff are employed specifically to deal exclusively with disasters, but all can and do pitch in if there are emergency situations (most of which you don't hear about because things are dealt with quickly and without any effect on the service). The fear is that, with fewer staff around, such situations won't be dealt with as efficiently, which will have a knock-on effect on services, passengers and potentially staff and customer safety. On the latter point, customer safety is purportedly LUL's number one priority. There is a huge volume of evidence drawn from customer feedback to back-up the position that staff presence at stations makes them feel safer in the event of either a disaster or under conditions in which they would otherwise feel threatened. Again, reducing the number of staff at tube stations to below a certain level would have a negative impact on customers' perception of their own safety on the LU system. This doesn't take into account DDD's extremely good point about the burden of responsibility falling on others' shoulders and their ability to cope with the extra load.

This is not about people just wanting their cushy jobs for their workmates. It's a disagreement over what constitutes a safe level of staffing and a reasonable workload for those left to be able to do their jobs. Both sides are taking to extremes to achieve the best possible compromise out of the dispute.

I appreciate that response. I prefer not to rely on the Metro when there is an "insider" who is prepared to comment.

But - if someone is sitting in a ticket office (twiddling their thumbs due to Oyster being more widely used) then they aren't down on the platforms helping out or providing any form of "visible" presense. At the moment, presumably there are sufficient people doing that job in order for it to be safe. So surely it's the thumb twiddlers who are redundant and should be let go - there would be no reduction in safety or service as these people are already "depolyed" in the ticket offices. It's just that they aren't selling as many tickets as before?

If that's the case, what's the dipsute? In addition I understand that a number of roles are "back office" jobs - these can't be argued to be safety related (on the basis you outline above), surely?

The point is, those 'twiddling their thumbs' aren't really doing that. There needs to be someone there to answer queries about tickets/broken Oyster cards, etc., otherwise that function isn't fulfilled and there becomes an issue. Also, those behind the counter are frequently assigned to other roles in the ticket office. It's not like those in the ticket office only do the (necessary) behind-the-counter role.

There are, however, plenty of back office jobs that could go. And probably will, tbh.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Couldn't be bothered reading the thread.

Has Porgy turned up yet? Or is he still lurking?

Secondary picketing. He'll be long a bit later to moan at how the police picked especially on him.

I can't be arsed to read all of this. From what I got from a high speed skim, it's the Socialist Worker subscribers' alliance vs right minded people. As usual. Right? And the Union is bitching and moaning about safety, but wants at least as much money for its members as previously, if not more. Because better paid employees provide better safety standards, obv - that's a well known direct connection. And (I assume) the current staffing levels are already pared to the bone after years and years of Labour "you can have a job too" credo. So not a single employee can be lost.without compromising the safety standards of THE ENTIRE TUBE NETWORK!!! "Making me redundant is like murdering a passenger".

What a load of old tosh.

This is all about a Union throwing its weight around to make itself important in the Labour leader contest. That fat shite Crow should be chucked under one of his beloved tubes. Except he'd probably squash it against the ceiling of the tunnel.

ketsbaia

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ketsbaia - what percentage of the total staff of that nature is the 800 that are not being replaced?

It's difficult to say as the consultation is ongoing during the dispute and natural wastage is hard to calculate.

In fact, there's no way I can put a figure on it. And even if I wanted to, I doubt I'd get access to exact figures either.