Bob Crow, 1961 - 2014, RIP

fat_tail

rjsterry wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

itboffin wrote:

dying at 52 makes me sad for any person's family regardless of their job, religion, politics or anything else for that matter.

Fixed.

Wasn't broken. Why on earth should you not be sad for the person who's died too? It's sad that he missed out on another maybe 30 or 40 years of life.

Thousands of people die every day - many are children.

Gazzaputt

drlodge wrote:

I struggle to feel sorry for the man. Suffered when the strikes were on, which seemed to be frequent.

To be fair - his members did very well under him, but at what cost to society as a whole. I have admiration for the outcomes he achieved for his members, but zero respective for his methods.

Lets just hope he's replaced by someone a little more "reasonable" and someone who understands the pain the public go through whenever a strike is called.

Cost to society?????? Seriously?

No I hope who replaces him sticks up for their members and fights against the cut in working pay and practises. We seem to forget Boris promised no ticket station closures in his manifesto for re-election. What has happened? Look at what Boris is doing to the Fire service. Buffoon but a sly, shrewd and calculated one .

Yes the RMT union has a great weapon in inconveniencing the public but hey why not use it?

As I said earlier I think the tactics used by the RMT will lead to more job losses in the long run but it's a battleground and personal between City Hall, LU and the unions.

jds_1981

Gazzaputt wrote:

We seem to forget Boris promised no ticket station closures in his manifesto for re-election. What has happened?

Are you sure - not researched myself, but read in several places that it was not in his last election manifesto?

jds_1981

Also, kudos to the OP for managing to pull the daily mail, thatcher and immigrants into his post.

Sewinman

He inconvenienced some people on a few days over the last few years in order to make a better life for some other people - therefore his death should carry no sympathy or compassion. Nice bunch aren't we, us humans! :roll:

MrSweary

rjsterry wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

itboffin wrote:

dying at 52 makes me sad for any person's family regardless of their job, religion, politics or anything else for that matter.

Fixed.

Wasn't broken. Why on earth should you not be sad for the person who's died too? It's sad that he missed out on another maybe 30 or 40 years of life.

I have to disagree. The idea of feeling sorry for someone who is dead is simply illogical - they're dead, they can't care and aren't suffering. Unless you believe they persist after death in some way feeling sorry for them makes as much sense as feeling sorry for a tree you've just chopped up and thrown on the fire.

You may feel sorry for those left behind or feel sorry that they didn't accomplish some things they might have but that, of course, is simply feeling sorry for yourself or for those potentially affected by these possible future deeds, it isn't really feeling sorry for the dead person. They're just a lump of decaying flesh.

I guess it is an issue of sematics really, but that I how I see it.

drlodge

Gazzaputt wrote:

Cost to society?????? Seriously?

No I hope who replaces him sticks up for their members and fights against the cut in working pay and practises. We seem to forget Boris promised no ticket station closures in his manifesto for re-election. What has happened? Look at what Boris is doing to the Fire service. Buffoon but a sly, shrewd and calculated one .

Yes the RMT union has a great weapon in inconveniencing the public but hey why not use it?

As I said earlier I think the tactics used by the RMT will lead to more job losses in the long run but it's a battleground and personal between City Hall, LU and the unions.

Yes seriously. The attitude you're showing is exactly what I have an issue with. Strikes should be the "weapon" of last resort, instead the RMT see a strike is their only effective weapon which demonstrates they can not effectively debate with TfL. Strikes seriously impact the public - society - inconveniencing thousands of people and costing businesses £££s. I have no issue with Unions representing their members needs *if* they do this through dialogue and use strikes as a last resort.

IMHO Bob Crow was a bully, plain and simple. He wasn't holding a gun to TfL/Boris's head, he was holding a gun to the public's head. Just like a Terrorist that's pointing a gun unless you give him what he wants - but the gun isn't pointing at you, its pointing at your loved one. Strikes should "punish" the employer, NOT the public. I have no time for these bullying Union types.

Southgate

^ "Just like a terrorist"? Don't be silly. If workers were paid a decent wage, they wouldn't need to go on strike, would they?

Do you have any idea what most rail workers actually earn?

A quick google on the guys who maintain the track shows that: "Apprentices earn between £12,000 and £14,000 a year. Experienced staff can earn £20,000 or more, depending on their skills and the hours worked. Track maintenance staff with supervisory or inspection duties can earn up to £30,000 a year."

How far do you think 20 grand (minus tax) goes in London? My daughter is a newly qualified primary school teacher, and they earn something like the above. She lives in a one bedroom council house on an estate in London. Her weekly rent is around £260, or annually around £13,500 net. When she starts her first teaching role, she will not earn enough to cover the rent on a council flat, fares to work, and food. Forget about electricity or heating or feeding and clothing her child. Or going out for a meal or to a bar.

I wish her union was as strong as the RMT. Maybe she would then earn a living wage and be able to pay her own way. Teachers are essential to society. So are the people who maintain the track your train goes on. So are lots and lots of normal everyday people doing normal everyday jobs. They are not "greedy" or "just like terrorists", and nor are their union leaders. They are shat upon daily from a great height by billionaire media moguls, and some people unfortunately are taken in by this unrelenting stream of propaganda.

Meanwhile, the super rich and big corporations get away without paying tax. And the private owners of our once public rail service continue to stuff their pockets at our expense. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening, and the even the so-called 'squeezed middle' is being squeezed to breaking point. None of this appears to bother you at all. It's all the workers fault, and those terrorist union leaders, huh!

vermin

Millwall was his sole redeeming qualification. Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil. COYL. etc.

Southgate

^ You have that back to front. It's his other redeeming qualities that excuse his Millwall support

Stevo_666

drlodge wrote:

Yes seriously. The attitude you're showing is exactly what I have an issue with. Strikes should be the "weapon" of last resort, instead the RMT see a strike is their only effective weapon which demonstrates they can not effectively debate with TfL. Strikes seriously impact the public - society - inconveniencing thousands of people and costing businesses £££s. I have no issue with Unions representing their members needs *if* they do this through dialogue and use strikes as a last resort.

IMHO Bob Crow was a bully, plain and simple. He wasn't holding a gun to TfL/Boris's head, he was holding a gun to the public's head. Just like a Terrorist that's pointing a gun unless you give him what he wants - but the gun isn't pointing at you, its pointing at your loved one. Strikes should "punish" the employer, NOT the public. I have no time for these bullying Union types.

Spot on. You should not punish people who have nothing to do with the dispute.

Sewinman said he 'inconvenienced' some people to make life better for some people. The inconvenienced 'some' probably number millions - many of these ordinary working people who don't earn a great deal anyway and those who don't get paid if they don't get to work of miss hours due to the disruption. Then there's the effect on the economy - less business done and less tax paid...

The 'some' whose life is improved is how many - a few thousand?

cookeeemonster

Southgate wrote:

^ "Just like a terrorist"? Don't be silly. If workers were paid a decent wage, they wouldn't need to go on strike, would they?

Do you have any idea what most rail workers actually earn?

A quick google on the guys who maintain the track shows that: "Apprentices earn between £12,000 and £14,000 a year. Experienced staff can earn £20,000 or more, depending on their skills and the hours worked. Track maintenance staff with supervisory or inspection duties can earn up to £30,000 a year."

How far do you think 20 grand (minus tax) goes in London? My daughter is a newly qualified primary school teacher, and they earn something like the above. She lives in a one bedroom council house on an estate in London. Her weekly rent is around £260, or annually around £13,500 net. When she starts her first teaching role, she will not earn enough to cover the rent on a council flat, fares to work, and food. Forget about electricity or heating or feeding and clothing her child. Or going out for a meal or to a bar.

I wish her union was as strong as the RMT. Maybe she would then earn a living wage and be able to pay her own way. Teachers are essential to society. So are the people who maintain the track your train goes on. So are lots and lots of normal everyday people doing normal everyday jobs. They are not "greedy" or "just like terrorists", and nor are their union leaders. They are shat upon daily from a great height by billionaire media moguls, and some people unfortunately are taken in by this unrelenting stream of propaganda.

Meanwhile, the super rich and big corporations get away without paying tax. And the private owners of our once public rail service continue to stuff their pockets at our expense. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening, and the even the so-called 'squeezed middle' is being squeezed to breaking point. None of this appears to bother you at all. It's all the workers fault, and those terrorist union leaders, huh!

+1

Good points, well made.

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

Spot on. You should not punish people who have nothing to do with the dispute.

Sewinman said he 'inconvenienced' some people to make life better for some people. The inconvenienced 'some' probably number millions - many of these ordinary working people who don't earn a great deal anyway and those who don't get paid if they don't get to work of miss hours due to the disruption. Then there's the effect on the economy - less business done and less tax paid...

The 'some' whose life is improved is how many - a few thousand?

Its in all our interests for workers at the lower end of the tax scale to have a livable wage. And if they can't strike, then what can they do?

drlodge

notsoblue wrote:

Its in all our interests for workers at the lower end of the tax scale to have a livable wage. And if they can't strike, then what can they do?

Sit round the negotiating table and debate it. Its the 21st century, that's how it should be done.

warreng

drlodge wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Its in all our interests for workers at the lower end of the tax scale to have a livable wage. And if they can't strike, then what can they do?

Sit round the negotiating table and debate it. Its the 21st century, that's how it should be done.

BoJo didn't want to talk for the last round of strikes, he's quite happy for them to strike too given that public sympathy is never going to be with the tube workers. Not surprising given the bile that the Standard and their mates spew

I find it amazing that given the history of industrial relations since the 70s that the RMT had as much public sympathy as they do get

Edit - the decision to strike is the last straw - when my wife strikes it's a real financial hardship - she loses her salary. People don't take that decision at the drop of a hat - the detailed work that unions have to do once the decision to strike has been taken to ensure that a strike is legal is phenomenal.

jds_1981

WarrenG wrote:

[BoJo didn't want to talk for the last round of strikes, he's quite happy for them to strike too given that public sympathy is never going to be with the tube workers. Not surprising given the bile that the Standard and their mates spew

While BoJo should talk to tfl, I think his view was that the dispute was between tfl and the unions and it was they who needed to sit down. That's what he said isn't it?

warreng

Yes.

secretsam

Wouldn't it be ironic if the undertakers decided 10 minutes before Bob's interment that they wanted more money and better conditions and less black stuff in their uniforms, and decided not to put him in the ground after all, well for at least 24 hours. And if that means that Bob (RIP) suffers and begins to smell a bit, well that's the position that they were forced into by inflexible management.

warreng

"AND WE COULDN'T EVEN BURY THE DEAD"

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Spot on. You should not punish people who have nothing to do with the dispute.

Sewinman said he 'inconvenienced' some people to make life better for some people. The inconvenienced 'some' probably number millions - many of these ordinary working people who don't earn a great deal anyway and those who don't get paid if they don't get to work of miss hours due to the disruption. Then there's the effect on the economy - less business done and less tax paid...

The 'some' whose life is improved is how many - a few thousand?

Its in all our interests for workers at the lower end of the tax scale to have a livable wage. And if they can't strike, then what can they do?

Do you honestly think that people who earn an averge of £50k a year for driving a tube train are at the 'lower end of the tax scale'? They are higher rate tax payers

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/03/tube-drivers-salaries-50000

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do you honestly think that people who earn an averge of £50k a year for driving a tube train are at the 'lower end of the tax scale'? They are higher rate tax payers

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/03/tube-drivers-salaries-50000

a) The only reason driver salaries are that high is because of the threat of industrial action.
b) The recent industrial action wasn't over driver salaries.

You're making my point for me. Which is that industrial action or threat of industrial action is the only tool people in this field have to maintain working standards and remuneration. People who don't have the option of striking, in similarly skilled jobs, earn a pittance. This isn't a good thing for anyone.

Southgate

^ Why are you focussing on tube drivers? There are only around 3,500 of 'em, of which just 1,500 are RMT members.

The RMT has around 80,000 members, so 98% of their members are not tube drivers and earn nowhere near 50 grand a year.

But you wish to focus on the RMT's best paid 2%, as if their salaries were typical. Most rail workers barely earn enough to house, feed and clothe their families, as I have demonstrated in my previous post. Of all the economic wrongs and unfairness in Britain you could pick up on, why out of tens of millions, does three and a half thousand working class people earning a good crust upset you so much? It's 50 grand, or three grand a month take home. Hardly bankers' bonus figures!!

rjsterry

People other than drivers are RMT members Stevo. See post above about track maintenance. A quick google suggests station staff are on a lot less than that too. The modal salary at TfL looks to be between £25K and £27K based on this

http://www.thejobcrowd.com/employer/transport-london/salary

fat_tail

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Do you honestly think that people who earn an averge of £50k a year for driving a tube train are at the 'lower end of the tax scale'? They are higher rate tax payers

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/03/tube-drivers-salaries-50000

a) The only reason driver salaries are that high is because of the threat of industrial action.
b) The recent industrial action wasn't over driver salaries.

You're making my point for me. Which is that industrial action or threat of industrial action is the only tool people in this field have to maintain working standards and remuneration. People who don't have the option of striking, in similarly skilled jobs, earn a pittance. This isn't a good thing for anyone.

If the work that they "do" can be done by someone else for less money then that's what should happen.
Where do you think the money comes from ? From hardworking people who use the tube and are themselves subject to the vagaries of economics.

jds_1981

fat_tail wrote:

From hardworking people who use the tube and are themselves subject to the vagaries of economics.

Actually, from my rough calcs, everyone in the country will be subsidising TFL by £23.50 this year through tax....

fat_tail

jds_1981 wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

From hardworking people who use the tube and are themselves subject to the vagaries of economics.

Actually, from my rough calcs, everyone in the country will be subsidising TFL by £23.50 this year through tax....

Given that London subsidises the rest of the country then I think you will find that all of the money comes from tube users.

jds_1981

fat_tail wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

From hardworking people who use the tube and are themselves subject to the vagaries of economics.

Actually, from my rough calcs, everyone in the country will be subsidising TFL by £23.50 this year through tax....

Given that London subsidises the rest of the country then I think you will find that all of the money comes from tube users.

I don't use the tube (normally) and I'm in London, how does that work?
Anyway, with all of the country spending money on london maintenance and transport, no wonder it has gotten ahead. Perhaps the money could be better spent to develop other areas?

fat_tail

jds_1981 wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

From hardworking people who use the tube and are themselves subject to the vagaries of economics.

Actually, from my rough calcs, everyone in the country will be subsidising TFL by £23.50 this year through tax....

Given that London subsidises the rest of the country then I think you will find that all of the money comes from tube users.

I don't use the tube (normally) and I'm in London, how does that work?
Anyway, with all of the country spending money on london maintenance and transport, no wonder it has gotten ahead. Perhaps the money could be better spent to develop other areas?

tax avoidance is a criminal offence.

for your edification please see this link
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html

jds_1981

fat_tail wrote:

tax avoidance is a criminal offence.

for your edification please see this link
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html

I'm not convinced you read what I wrote?

(also, I believe avoidance is legal, don't know why you mentioned it though?)

fat_tail

jds_1981 wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

tax avoidance is a criminal offence.

for your edification please see this link
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2100345/Londons-taxes-prop-rest-UK-One-pound-earned-capital-funds-rest-country.html

I'm not convinced you read what I wrote?

Is your point that areas outside London contribute to the maintenance of London's infrastructure when the figures indicate otherwise ?

(also, I believe avoidance is legal, don't know why you mentioned it though?)

indeed it is evasion that is illegal. I mentioned it because you said you didn't use the tube - point being that you pay taxes unless you are avoiding/evading them.