Bob crow based noddergedon is coming - BOB CROW DIES

notsoblue

menthel wrote:

I didn't cycle as I had to drop my son to school as well as going on a sausage making course tonight so had to brave the trains. They were much busier than usual (not sure how this is possible!) so I stayed on to Vauxhall and walked to Victoria rather than changing. Didn't bother me but some people can't deal with that type of thing!

Isn't that the whole point of a strike though? To show that the workers are an important part of the service you usually take for granted?

I think care has to go both ways tbh. "Employed to serve" implies that they should just put up with what they're given and shut up. Do you really want the people who deliver services you rely upon to just be happy they have a job at all? This kind of attitude leads to really poor customer service.

DonDaddyD

jds_1981 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Southgate wrote:

A human being should be on duty at every station to help passengers (especially the elderly, children, and tourists).

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Like they actually do. My wife can't use our local tube station with the buggy. She tried once, had to get a member of public to help her carry the buggy up the stairs, the tube staff flatly refused to help.

RMT have been too greedy for too long.

And my wife, her buggy down the stairs..

And mine, but to be fair that's all trainstations; British Rail station staff won't help either. Interestingly though, despite this Ms DDD said that she sees the benefit of having staff on hand to help, give advice and generally sort out oyster card problems when they occur (she gets the underground more than I do).

It's a myth that ticket offices aren't needed, especially when London Underground are racking millions in unclaimed Oyster card refunds and overcharges.

A customer help desk, where you don't buy tickets may be needed but then, like in one trainstation, what happens when the ticket machines fail - and they do - you go to the ticket office and get pissed off because they can't help and send you to the corner shop (and that might be some walk away).

I fear train (all trains) staff are between a rock and hard place. Should they be criticised for their salary? No, they are paid what they are paid. Should they be blamed because they have a large militant union? No. Should they be blamed that London Underground have raised the ticket prices and have failed to effectively reinvest any of that money in a meaningful way where the outcome is an improved service/customer service? No.

The actual problem is the bosses at London Underground, if they were effective Bob Crow and the like would lose meaning and purpose.

menthel

notsoblue wrote:

menthel wrote:

I didn't cycle as I had to drop my son to school as well as going on a sausage making course tonight so had to brave the trains. They were much busier than usual (not sure how this is possible!) so I stayed on to Vauxhall and walked to Victoria rather than changing. Didn't bother me but some people can't deal with that type of thing!

Isn't that the whole point of a strike though? To show that the workers are an important part of the service you usually take for granted?

I think care has to go both ways tbh. "Employed to serve" implies that they should just put up with what they're given and shut up. Do you really want the people who deliver services you rely upon to just be happy they have a job at all? This kind of attitude leads to really poor customer service.

But you have to have the sympathy of those that you inconvenience and I really think that the RMT etc lost that a long time ago. Too many strikes and often no real reason obvious to the public. They seem to strike at the drop of a hat (probably the fault of the polititians not standing up to them on certain things), whereas to retain public support it is often better to pick and choose your battles. I am not sure that ticket offices is a good one- no compulsory redundancies and the percieved holding back of modernisation are just two points that mean the public don't see the benefit. A change of tack and leadership might be good for the RMT as I think it has lost the general public.

jds_1981

DonDaddyD wrote:

Should they be criticised for their salary? No, they are paid what they are paid.

They aren't normally, they are criticised when they strike for more. Most people change jobs if they feel they aren't paid enough.

Should they be blamed because they have a large militant union? No.

They should be, they're the ones who vote them in.

Should they be blamed that London Underground have raised the ticket prices and have failed to effectively reinvest any of that money in a meaningful way where the outcome is an improved service/customer service? No.

Problem here is that LUL is already subsidised a lot by government subsidy (our tax money.) Unless the government gives them a lot more, there isn't any money...

The actual problem is the bosses at London Underground, if they were effective Bob Crow and the like would lose meaning and purpose.

How would they be effective? Fire all the workers and replace with more reasonable people?

DonDaddyD

jds_1981 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Should they be criticised for their salary? No, they are paid what they are paid.

They aren't normally, they are criticised when they strike for more. Most people change jobs if they feel they aren't paid enough.

Should they be blamed because they have a large militant union? No.

They should be, they're the ones who vote them in.

Should they be blamed that London Underground have raised the ticket prices and have failed to effectively reinvest any of that money in a meaningful way where the outcome is an improved service/customer service? No.

Problem here is that LUL is already subsidised a lot by government subsidy (our tax money.) Unless the government gives them a lot more, there isn't any money...

The actual problem is the bosses at London Underground, if they were effective Bob Crow and the like would lose meaning and purpose.

How would they be effective? Fire all the workers and replace with more reasonable people?

I still don't think they should be blamed for having a large militant union. If I was part of a union two things would matter 1. will they fight for me and my rights. 2. How good are they at winning. I wouldn't even care if I agreed with the thing they are fighting for, if it benefits me and they win there job is done.

The NHS is funded by tax payers money, it had to make 3% savings before the recession. Some Trust's have to make 4-5% savings these days. This means service redesign, workforce reductions mergers and new business deals. I cannot accept that LUL cannot spend the money more effectively/efficiently and come up with different ways to generate money.

In this way they would be more effective. It's a nonesense to simply not assess them for their performance and effectivness.

notsoblue

menthel wrote:

A change of tack and leadership might be good for the RMT as I think it has lost the general public.

Does it need the general public?

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

Fire all the workers and replace with more reasonable people?

"Reasonable" usually means people willing to do a job that has less security and less pay. I'm not sure that would be the best way to improve services. It hasn't with postal workers...

tgotb

DonDaddyD wrote:

I cannot accept that LUL cannot spend the money more effectively/efficiently and come up with different ways to generate money.

Whenever they try to do this this, Bob Crow pops out of the woodwork and everyone downs tools. This is a perfect example; they're planning to make changes that will save money and improve the service at the same time, but the RMT are up in arms because they won't accept any form of change.

anonymousblackfg

Bob has done a very good job for them, the problem is that they're now in such an entrenched position with such a step down if they were to get normal jobs it is heading to a point where:

a) everyone stops caring about his strikes so he starts to loose his effectiveness. (happening now)
b) political intervention raised the number of votes higher (unlikeley)
c) the public & government become motivated to fund the technology to render the workers useless (evidently, the oyster card is already doing this)

I think he has over reached and c is going to be accellerated.

jds_1981

DonDaddyD wrote:

I cannot accept that LUL cannot spend the money more effectively/efficiently and come up with different ways to generate money.

In this way they would be more effective. It's a nonesense to simply not assess them for their performance and effectivness.

I thought they were trying to work out new ways, such as grocery pick-up.
They are assessed on performance and effectiveness. See this http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... t-2012.pdf

menthel

notsoblue wrote:

menthel wrote:

A change of tack and leadership might be good for the RMT as I think it has lost the general public.

Does it need the general public?

As a union for public sector workers, yes.

cookeeemonster

Ultimately none of us would react differently if our jobs were threatened like this and we had no reasonable chance of getting something similar elsewhere.

People have mortgages/bills/lifestyle and so on based on what they earn - remove that and it's a massive change including moving house etc - no, none of you would accept that if you had a choice (i.e. union to fight your cause).

According to this only 450 of them have accepted voluntary redunancy not the figure (750/1000) mentioned: http://londonist.com/2014/02/a-look-at- ... strike.php (nicely balanced article by the way, unlike the evening standard)

There's another point - polititcians are liars and TFL are being very slippery with their ultimate plans. What's being said today will be forgotten tomorrow and the real plans will come into effect - basically what they've said plus probably something a lot worse.

Not a big fan of the ticket office people btw, like other's I don't see them doing f'all...

RedWheels

Firstly the RMT aren't the only one's out on strike, so is the TSSA, So the argument that is all Bob Crow and the RMT is both an expression of ignorance and flawed.

Secondly, it is not the case that ticket office staff are inhibiting the development of a good service. in fact an increase in both Machines and greater staffing levels will by definition provide a better service.
This is only classed as unaffordable when you analyse the underground network out of its context, we pay taxes so the government can provide us with a service (NHS for example) it is not supposed to make a profit, and in fact when services do make a profit it is generally a sign that they are doing a rubbish job to there customers ( Energy firms, water firms, privatised rail, the list goes on)

For low paid workers in london the cost of transport can be as much as 20% of there wage - i know i was one before i got my bike. The best thing for the 'customers' and londoners and all commuters across the country would be for us to have a heavily subsidised cheap transport network, making us less reliant on private cars

however our government would rather spend money on blowing the limbs off kids in pakistan and bailing out millionaire bankers then funding a better transport system, safer roads for cyclists, improved education, solving the housing crisis and so on.

The workers out on strike are not there because they enjoy it, they are there because they are protecting there livelihoods and the service that so many londoners rely on.

when was the last time you got made redundant and had to tell your child they can't have a Christmas present and decent food on there plate and are forced to jump through hoops being called a scrounger because you've been forced onto the dole - it's not nice, and if you were in that situation you would do anything to avoid it

jds_1981

RedWheels wrote:

The best thing for the 'customers' and londoners and all commuters across the country would be for us to have a heavily subsidised cheap transport network, making us less reliant on private cars

Welcome!

Why should we heavily subsidise public transport? People in cars don't generally bother me much, so why should I pay more taxes because people can't be bothered to cycle?

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

Why should we heavily subsidise public transport?

Because not everyone rides a bike, and owning a car in London is largely a waste of time?

I don't know why we *wouldn't* want to. The public transport is really one of the best things about living London. Nowhere else in the country has anything like it.

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

Because not everyone rides a bike, and owning a car in London is largely a waste of time?

I don't know why we *wouldn't* want to. The public transport is really one of the best things about living London. Nowhere else in the country has anything like it.

So that people using something bare the true costs?

Bikequin

RedWheels wrote:

Firstly the RMT aren't the only one's out on strike, so is the TSSA, So the argument that is all Bob Crow and the RMT is both an expression of ignorance and flawed.

Secondly, it is not the case that ticket office staff are inhibiting the development of a good service. in fact an increase in both Machines and greater staffing levels will by definition provide a better service.
This is only classed as unaffordable when you analyse the underground network out of its context, we pay taxes so the government can provide us with a service (NHS for example) it is not supposed to make a profit, and in fact when services do make a profit it is generally a sign that they are doing a rubbish job to there customers ( Energy firms, water firms, privatised rail, the list goes on)

For low paid workers in london the cost of transport can be as much as 20% of there wage - i know i was one before i got my bike. The best thing for the 'customers' and londoners and all commuters across the country would be for us to have a heavily subsidised cheap transport network, making us less reliant on private cars

however our government would rather spend money on blowing the limbs off kids in pakistan and bailing out millionaire bankers then funding a better transport system, safer roads for cyclists, improved education, solving the housing crisis and so on.

The workers out on strike are not there because they enjoy it, they are there because they are protecting there livelihoods and the service that so many londoners rely on.

when was the last time you got made redundant and had to tell your child they can't have a Christmas present and decent food on there plate and are forced to jump through hoops being called a scrounger because you've been forced onto the dole - it's not nice, and if you were in that situation you would do anything to avoid it

Unless it's already been coined elsewhere I'm claiming Bikequin's Law: "That as all internet discussion grows longer the chance of someone blaming the "bankers" approaches 1."

And how are the RMT (and the TSSA) protecting a service that all Londoner's rely on? As far I can see they're just standing in the way of modernisation which would improve the service.

As for paying taxes to provide for services, I'd rather I paid less tax for a more efficient service.

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Because not everyone rides a bike, and owning a car in London is largely a waste of time?

I don't know why we *wouldn't* want to. The public transport is really one of the best things about living London. Nowhere else in the country has anything like it.

So that people using something bare the true costs?

Ah I see. The old "I don't use it personally, so why should I contribute to it" argument.

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

Ah I see. The old "I don't use it personally, so why should I contribute to it" argument.

Not at all, when I use it, I should contribute to it.

jds_1981

jds_1981 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ah I see. The old "I don't use it personally, so why should I contribute to it" argument.

Not at all, when I use it, I should contribute to it.

bleh, that doesn't make much sense
Think there are plenty of people who do use it and should contribute to it. It's not an insurance type scheme like the nhs. I believe in this case, the users should bare the full costs. Does someone in Wigan care much about the underground?
There are alternatives people can take if they so wish - buses, cycling, etc.

notsoblue

jds_1981 wrote:

bleh, that doesn't make much sense
Think there are plenty of people who do use it and should contribute to it. It's not an insurance type scheme like the nhs. I believe in this case, the users should bare the full costs. Does someone in Wigan care much about the underground?
There are alternatives people can take if they so wish - buses, cycling, etc.

I get your point, I just disagree
If you live in London, you benefit from there being a decent mass transit system, even if you personally never use it. And tbh, if you live in Wigan, you're probably being part subsidised by Londoners anyway...

jds_1981

meh, rough figures (hopefully correctish).
I'm paying £23.50/year so other people can travel with tfl
Each tfl journey is subsidised by £1.25

RedWheels

I wasn't blaming the bankers i was blaming the governments priorities, which include sinking money into bailing out debt, The bankers themselves have actually done a very good job, which is make money for themselves and when the mess up get other people to pay for it. If i was a banker i would be patting myself on the back. . or employing a newly redundant underground worker on a low wage to pat it for me.

As for the Law it has unfortunately been claimed;

Bikequin's law: For every additional reader of the Daily Mail an additional Plonka is born

now onto the point
On a very simplistic level
The intended purpose of a transportation service is to take large numbers of people from location A to location B, For it to be more efficient it would do this quicker. If your intended use of efficiency was in this regard, then you should understand that cutting ticket offices will not increase efficiency (likely even cause delay's to the service in cases of serious problems).

However if you are suggesting that its a cost ratio then since boris got in, it's become much less efficient from the users point of view with prices rising through the roof


As for the whole modernisation = improved service, this is a false argument. A person on the the other side of a phone is less modernised then an automated response program, yet i find talking to people much more fulfilling and helpful then those things are.
The implementation of a modernisation program is not inhibited by station staff, in fact station staff would make the introduction of a modernisation program more successful if done properly. You also wouldn't need to sacrifice peoples livelihoods

roger_merriman

notsoblue wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

bleh, that doesn't make much sense
Think there are plenty of people who do use it and should contribute to it. It's not an insurance type scheme like the nhs. I believe in this case, the users should bare the full costs. Does someone in Wigan care much about the underground?
There are alternatives people can take if they so wish - buses, cycling, etc.

I get your point, I just disagree
If you live in London, you benefit from there being a decent mass transit system, even if you personally never use it. And tbh, if you live in Wigan, you're probably being part subsidised by Londoners anyway...

It's less great out in the edge, public transport to work is double the time and cost, assuming it's not canceled or stuck in traffic, which does happen bike and car are both a lot cheaper and faster, admitly my car has very low running cost.

But yes on the whole London public transport is good, it's fantastic outer to inner, but fairly rubbish outer to outer often requiring going outer inner outer etc.

tgotb

RedWheels wrote:

The implementation of a modernisation program is not inhibited by station staff, in fact station staff would make the introduction of a modernisation program more successful if done properly. You also wouldn't need to sacrifice peoples livelihoods

Except that in this case the station staff are attempting to inhibit the modernisation programme. TFL are trying to get them out of the ticket office ad onto the platforms where they can actually be useful, and the staff, alert to the possibility of having to do some real work and not being within arm's reach of the kettle, are up in arms.

Slightly OT, because I'm not claiming it's quite this bad, but I can't believe no-one's posted this yet:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/picture-of-tube-booth-worker-sleeping-on-the-job-at-paddington-emerges-as-strike-starts-9108252.html

RedWheels

There were staff on trains on the London Overground 'Where they were useful' but we don't have them any more.

Ticket office staff are useful, if you regard staff on the platform also as useful then why don't we have both. given what this country spends it's money on, we can most certainly afford it

Finally you don't want to start going down the slippery slope of once you see one example of something applying it to the whole group, that very quickly leads to some very ugly views of the world. This photo, from a notoriously rightwing paper (partly owned by the Daily Mail which supported the Nazi's) is attempting to make you do just that.

Mikey23

There was a clip on beeb news about the strike. There were hundreds of cyclists passing in the background.

Applespider

The good thing about nodders on the road is that you can feel really really fast even when you're not really since they are generally really really slow.

I had more problems today with moronic drivers pulling into the 'turn left' lane at junctions even if they weren't so that when the lights changed, they could try to be first off the line and perhaps get one whole car length ahead. Unfortunately, they were so moronic that they were doing this while the lights were actually still green thereby blocking the bus/cycle lane for those wanting to go straight on on bikes/buses or turn left in cars. Twunts!

tgotb

RedWheels wrote:

There were staff on trains on the London Overground 'Where they were useful' but we don't have them any more.

Ticket office staff are useful, if you regard staff on the platform also as useful then why don't we have both. given what this country spends it's money on, we can most certainly afford it

Finally you don't want to start going down the slippery slope of once you see one example of something applying it to the whole group, that very quickly leads to some very ugly views of the world. This photo, from a notoriously rightwing paper (partly owned by the Daily Mail which supported the Nazi's) is attempting to make you do just that.

Brilliant! Only your third post in this forum and Godwin's Law is invoked

Southgate

TGOTB wrote:

RedWheels wrote:

There were staff on trains on the London Overground 'Where they were useful' but we don't have them any more.

Ticket office staff are useful, if you regard staff on the platform also as useful then why don't we have both. given what this country spends it's money on, we can most certainly afford it

Finally you don't want to start going down the slippery slope of once you see one example of something applying it to the whole group, that very quickly leads to some very ugly views of the world. This photo, from a notoriously rightwing paper (partly owned by the Daily Mail which supported the Nazi's) is attempting to make you do just that.

Brilliant! Only your third post in this forum and Godwin's Law is invoked

Godwin's Law doesn't apply to the Daily Heil. It is part of a nasty, petty and vindictive newspaper group which so richly deserve all the opprobrium that can be heaped on it, including reminding people that they supported Adolf abroad and the British Union of Fascists at home.

They're a bit more subtle these days, but their values haven't shifted much over the intervening period. Only an editor of low morals would print a photo of a single worker and use it to smear an entire workforce. It's a cynical and manipulative move designed to fool the gullible and reinforce prejudice and ignorance. I guess they know their readership well.

As RedWheels eloquently argued (in stark contrast to your rambling misinformed diatribe), ticket staff are indeed useful and this is about cutting jobs not redeploying people to improve the service. There is plenty of money available for public transport, and the NHS for that matter. The government merely has to collect the billions in unpaid tax from their mates in big business.

Funny that a pic of a tube worker (allegedly) caught sleeping on the job causes net curtains in suburbia to twitch, but the far greater problem of endemic tax evasion by the super rich is met with a "move along, nothing to see here". The idea of a few thousand working class people in a strong union earning 40 grand a year (that's train drivers, other staff earn far less) and not being crushed down onto the minimum wage seems to have the 'outraged of Tunbridge Wells' frothing at the mouth.

Let 'em froth, I say!