Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see the rail unions are persisting with wall to wall strikes on the Southern network this month over the massive issue of who closes the doors on the trains. Wonder how much longer this will last and whether the law will be changed - given that patience seems to be running out?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38296623

Southern was dreadful before this all kicked off. As much as the unions want to maintain their control, this is also a convenient distraction for Southern and Grayling.

It suits both parties to sit tight.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see the rail unions are persisting with wall to wall strikes on the Southern network this month over the massive issue of who closes the doors on the trains. Wonder how much longer this will last and whether the law will be changed - given that patience seems to be running out?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38296623

Southern was dreadful before this all kicked off. As much as the unions want to maintain their control, this is also a convenient distraction for Southern and Grayling.

It suits both parties to sit tight.

They weren't much good agreed - one of their London Bridge services goes from my station. But that has nothing to do with what the unions are doing now.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see the rail unions are persisting with wall to wall strikes on the Southern network this month over the massive issue of who closes the doors on the trains. Wonder how much longer this will last and whether the law will be changed - given that patience seems to be running out?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38296623

Southern was dreadful before this all kicked off. As much as the unions want to maintain their control, this is also a convenient distraction for Southern and Grayling.

It suits both parties to sit tight.

They weren't much good agreed - one of their London Bridge services goes from my station. But that has nothing to do with what the unions are doing now.

Oh, for sure they have their agenda but so do Southern and Grayling. Neither are that interested in solving the problem or they would have done it by now. The thing is, it's Southern's job to provide a service.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

The thing is, it's Southern's job to provide a service.

Somebody should remind the unions that it's not their job to stop Southern from providing that service. Something that they are dojng extremely efficiently right now.

Do you think that the multiple strikes are a proportionate response to the question of who closes the doors on the trains?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The thing is, it's Southern's job to provide a service.

Somebody should remind the unions that it's not their job to stop Southern from providing that service. Something that they are dojng extremely efficiently right now.

Do you think that the multiple strikes are a proportionate response to the question of who closes the doors on the trains?

No, but as I suggested previously, I don't think that's what it's really about. Why would the unions make such a fuss about Driver Only Operation if it's not affecting staff numbers or their pay, and the safety argument is so thin? Equally, why is Grayling/Southern so intent on doing something that appears to have so little benefit?

Stevo_666

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

Modernisation = cutting costs to boost shareholder value at the expense of the worker.....

fwiw our company is taking a hit on this as we ve several engineers on the s coast who are engaged on a large project in the city - the client isnt understanding and the engineers are family people who dont want to be put up in hotels away from their families and why should they?

With all these disputes, its down to poor management, they are supposed to be the leaders, earning the big bucks, so start leading and earn your money!
well motivated staff dont go on strike and the S and SE are hardly known for their left wing militantism.

no strike clauses have worked well in the prison service where the Gov had free reign to cut staff to such an extent, it has become unsustainable.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

Modernisation = cutting costs to boost shareholder value at the expense of the worker.....

fwiw our company is taking a hit on this as we ve several engineers on the s coast who are engaged on a large project in the city - the client isnt understanding and the engineers are family people who dont want to be put up in hotels away from their families and why should they?

With all these disputes, its down to poor management, they are supposed to be the leaders, earning the big bucks, so start leading and earn your money!
well motivated staff dont go on strike and the S and SE are hardly known for their left wing militantism.

no strike clauses have worked well in the prison service where the Gov had free reign to cut staff to such an extent, it has become unsustainable.

Boosting efficiency is not necessarily linked to disadvantage to the workers. How are the 'workers' suffering in this case?

So you're OK with the network being inefficient and run in line with practices set out in thr previous century, as long as a few train guards are happy?

Not sure exactly what the position is in your company but did your engineers not realise travel and staying away was part of the job when they signed up for the job? In any event this sounds like client demands rather than an unreasonable employer. Those pesky customers...

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

Modernisation = cutting costs to boost shareholder value at the expense of the worker.....

fwiw our company is taking a hit on this as we ve several engineers on the s coast who are engaged on a large project in the city - the client isnt understanding and the engineers are family people who dont want to be put up in hotels away from their families and why should they?

With all these disputes, its down to poor management, they are supposed to be the leaders, earning the big bucks, so start leading and earn your money!
well motivated staff dont go on strike and the S and SE are hardly known for their left wing militantism.

no strike clauses have worked well in the prison service where the Gov had free reign to cut staff to such an extent, it has become unsustainable.

Boosting efficiency is not necessarily linked to disadvantage to the workers. How are the 'workers' suffering in this case?

So you're OK with the network being inefficient and run in line with practices set out in thr previous century, as long as a few train guards are happy?

Not sure exactly what the position is in your company but did your engineers not realise travel and staying away was part of the job when they signed up for the job? In any event this sounds like client demands rather than an unreasonable employer. Those pesky customers...

How is it boosting efficiency if there are supposed to be no job losses? doesnt make sense!
its the longest running dispute for 50 years and talks broke down because SR wouldnt suspend the intro of the new technology whilst talks went on.... possibly slightly unreasonable, surely waiting until the outcome of talks would have been the wiser course of action.

No, they like me have fixed hour contracts 37.5 hr & OT is optional, we will work away when necessary, most the guys i know are doing 50 or 60 hr weeks as it is, possibly not enough for you, as you d say the first 20 hours of ot should be given to the company yes?
but if our company have to foot the cost of extra OT and london hotel prices it comes off the bottom line, doesnt it or shall we charge it back to the client? the job was priced for day rate only, which is why i said we are taking a hit on this.

i take your point on technology though, last nights newsnight looked at UK farmers using technology with newer types of weeding machinery and production line technology to get round shortages of labour, of course farming has always looked to newer ways of working and brexit seems to have hastened it, i m not sure that is going to benefit many in rural areas who voted for leave.

Stevo_666

Maybe they want the guards to do something else useful rather than pressing bloody open and close buttons that the driver can very easily do? (and does so already on quite a few Southern services).

Sounds like somebody priced the job wrong in your outfit. Overtime for someone like me is just more hours worked even if I am on a fixed hours per week contract - I get a bonus if I and company do well. For others, I can see why overtime is appropriate, especially if more hours can be billed to the client or if they are the lower end of the pay scale with no bonus type arrangements.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

Modernisation = cutting costs to boost shareholder value at the expense of the worker.....

fwiw our company is taking a hit on this as we ve several engineers on the s coast who are engaged on a large project in the city - the client isnt understanding and the engineers are family people who dont want to be put up in hotels away from their families and why should they?

With all these disputes, its down to poor management, they are supposed to be the leaders, earning the big bucks, so start leading and earn your money!
well motivated staff dont go on strike and the S and SE are hardly known for their left wing militantism.

no strike clauses have worked well in the prison service where the Gov had free reign to cut staff to such an extent, it has become unsustainable.

Boosting efficiency is not necessarily linked to disadvantage to the workers. How are the 'workers' suffering in this case?

So you're OK with the network being inefficient and run in line with practices set out in thr previous century, as long as a few train guards are happy?

Not sure exactly what the position is in your company but did your engineers not realise travel and staying away was part of the job when they signed up for the job? In any event this sounds like client demands rather than an unreasonable employer. Those pesky customers...

How is it boosting efficiency if there are supposed to be no job losses? doesnt make sense!
its the longest running dispute for 50 years and talks broke down because SR wouldnt suspend the intro of the new technology whilst talks went on.... possibly slightly unreasonable, surely waiting until the outcome of talks would have been the wiser course of action.

No, they like me have fixed hour contracts 37.5 hr & OT is optional, we will work away when necessary, most the guys i know are doing 50 or 60 hr weeks as it is, possibly not enough for you, as you d say the first 20 hours of ot should be given to the company yes?
but if our company have to foot the cost of extra OT and london hotel prices it comes off the bottom line, doesnt it or shall we charge it back to the client? the job was priced for day rate only, which is why i said we are taking a hit on this.

i take your point on technology though, last nights newsnight looked at UK farmers using technology with newer types of weeding machinery and production line technology to get round shortages of labour, of course farming has always looked to newer ways of working and brexit seems to have hastened it, i m not sure that is going to benefit many in rural areas who voted for leave.

So Mamba, how much has this strike cost your outfit. Multiply that by God knows how many times to get an idea of how much companies have lost.
You can certainly appreciate this guy's point of view.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itain.html

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

So Mamba, how much has this strike cost your outfit. Multiply that by God knows how many times to get an idea of how much companies have lost.
You can certainly appreciate this guy's point of view.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itain.html

No idea, the job was priced way before the reliability of the rail service was in question and who would be travelling in to do it, i guess what ll happen is other will swap their roles and go into the city and the guys in the south will do their role.

i can see both sides to this, but i do get fed up up with always taking the employers side, they ve responsibilities too.
Both sides are at ACAS tomo, tbh its like stepping back to the bad old days of the 1970's

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

As I read it, GTR are being made a scapegoat for the side effects of the DfT forcing through 'increased productivity'. Rather gives the lie to the "no job losses" line. It also makes a mockery of the supposedly privatised nature of the railways. If they are privatised, what business is it of the DfT how GTR staff their trains? As I said, neither side wants a deal - it's death or glory.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

As I read it, GTR are being made a scapegoat for the side effects of the DfT forcing through 'increased productivity'. Rather gives the lie to the "no job losses" line. It also makes a mockery of the supposedly privatised nature of the railways. If they are privatised, what business is it of the DfT how GTR staff their trains? As I said, neither side wants a deal - it's death or glory.

I thought it was no compulsory job losses. Which means job losses but no replacements.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/southern-rail-strike-why-has-it-happened-explained-london-trains-doors-dispute-a7471381.html
As I read that, the unions are a bunch of luddites that need dragging into the 21st century. Who would have thought it, eh?

As I read it, GTR are being made a scapegoat for the side effects of the DfT forcing through 'increased productivity'. Rather gives the lie to the "no job losses" line. It also makes a mockery of the supposedly privatised nature of the railways. If they are privatised, what business is it of the DfT how GTR staff their trains? As I said, neither side wants a deal - it's death or glory.

I thought it was no compulsory job losses. Which means job losses but no replacements.

Well quite. I do wonder how "slightly fewer guards" is the answer to any of GTR's problems.

Stevo_666

Even if they were getting rid a of few rather than deploying, how many people would that be? To do a job another person can do anyway. Times change, needs change, technology changes businesses change, it would seem however that unions cannot. As I said, bunch of luddites.

By all means have a dispute with your employer. But don't hold hundred of thousands of people who have nothing to do with your dispute as hostages. The economic damage is large. Totally disproportionate response to the issue even if some redundancies are involved.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Even if they were getting rid a of few rather than deploying, how many people would that be? To do a job another person can do anyway. Times change, needs change, technology changes businesses change, it would seem however that unions cannot. As I said, bunch of luddites.

By all means have a dispute with your employer. But don't hold hundred of thousands of people who have nothing to do with your dispute as hostages. The economic damage is large. Totally disproportionate response to the issue even if some redundancies are involved.

Agreed my point was that GTR and DfT also share some of the blame for being equally stubborn. By the way, I also think the unions are playing into the DfT's hands by striking. For their own sake they should be a bit more creative.

briantrumpet

I don't think he quite gets it... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ll-ratings

rick_chasey

On Southern rail, Ian Hislop takes the other side to Stevo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2ZQQHzPrwo

Stevo_666

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

rick_chasey

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

like the train drivers you mean?

rick_chasey

No I don't.

rick_chasey

Amazon
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 58159.html

Sports Direct
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-36855374

...are the two most obvious ones - and they're pretty bad!!!

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

Do you think it is acceptable for union bosses to deliberately coordinate strike action to try to bring about a change of government?

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

Amazon
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 58159.html

Sports Direct
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-36855374

...are the two most obvious ones - and they're pretty bad!!!

But it is at least in part because of the past actions of militant unions that the unions are under represented in places like that.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It is odd that you're calling for that at a time where there are tonnes of stories around very low paid workers who are working in terrible terrible conditions.

Do you think it is acceptable for union bosses to deliberately coordinate strike action to try to bring about a change of government?

I think that's a loaded and misleading question.

I don't, but I don't think it's relevant to the debate, bluntly.

I think we need to be careful about reactionary legislation against collective action because it may have unintended consequences.

It may very well stop things like Southern Rail happening (though, as some would suggest, the operator is quite comfortable to have the strikes since they make money either way, and if they get the public on their side they can have the gov't legislate further against the workers), but there are increasing numbers of instances where workers are being abused and taken advantage of, and, I would argue, part of that is down to the difficulties of arranging collective action.

I feel it quite keenly in my industry. There is no TU, there is no co-ordinated action, and there are absolutely firms, and firms I have worked for, who take advantage of that. I don't think, in the instances I've seen in my own industry, that it's been beneficial to anyone apart from the short term bank balances of the bosses.

So I think we need to be very careful before restricting the rights for collective action further.

Some have quite convincingly argued that the lack of bargaining power on behalf of workers has reduced the general income and quality of life, and, from my own experience, I have some sympathy for that.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Amazon
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 58159.html

Sports Direct
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-36855374

...are the two most obvious ones - and they're pretty bad!!!

But it is at least in part because of the past actions of militant unions that the unions are under represented in places like that.

Sure, I don't disagree with that.

But I don't think the solution is further reducing the ability to organise collective action as part of collective bargaining.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

rick_chasey

The southern rail issue is a fairly anachronistic issue that needs to be resolved.

The solution isn't to legislate further against collective action.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Given that the current wave of strikes appears to be coordinated to achieve political ends, I think it's time to introduce some suitable legislation to remind the union bosses that they don't actually run the country:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rmt-aslef-union-strikes-bring-down-tory-government-a7482461.html

Bunch of complete tw@ts, causing misery and inconvenience for so many people to achieve the political aims of a few union leaders.

Really difficult to go on strike, our union (when i was in one) tried it a while ago and its got harder since then.

So, its the democratic wishes of the workers isnt it? just like you d say that because 17m voted for Brexit, we must have Brexit and stuff what pain and upset it causes for everyone else.... anyone who voted to leave are obviously a complete bunch of tw@ts then?