TFL Tube Strikes
Discussion
iphonedyou said:
Du1point8 said:
The reason they are striking is due to the 950 job cuts of the ticket office workers...
They work them so hard
That's the best bit, though. It's not job cuts - no compulsory redundancies, they can be redeployed if they wish.They work them so hard
I have the unabridged letter sent to Bob when RMT popped their heads around the door at the meeting, declared a dispute and walked out without so much as a goodbye. It would be hilarious were it not actually happening. Crow is a buffoon, and must know that he is categorically wrong on a number of levels so high I'm not sure I can count far enough. The letter, as it happens, was wonderfully written - a point by point destruction of Crow (and TSSA's) position.
Once I was in France and the toll booth guys were on strike. They still manned their stations but let you through for free thus not inconveniencing us drivers but massively inconveniencing their bosses.
I'd have far more sympathy for the tube workers plight, whatever that is, if they just ran everything as normal but opened all the gates/barriers thus feking their bosses and not us.
I'd kill to work on the Tube. It has got to be the safest and best paid job outside of the City.
BTW when I say safest, I meant as in job security.
I'd have far more sympathy for the tube workers plight, whatever that is, if they just ran everything as normal but opened all the gates/barriers thus feking their bosses and not us.
I'd kill to work on the Tube. It has got to be the safest and best paid job outside of the City.
BTW when I say safest, I meant as in job security.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I can see what you are getting at but I don't really think the two are comparable (union balloting versus an election).For example, in the union ballot there is no difference between voting against a strike, and not voting at all. It seemingly makes no difference, so it's no wonder 60% don't vote, implying they are against it (if they are not for the strike, it's effectively a no vote, but it doesn't get counted as such - If it did it'd be 70% against, 30% for, and they'd probably STILL go on strike!).
Du1point8 said:
iphonedyou said:
Du1point8 said:
The reason they are striking is due to the 950 job cuts of the ticket office workers...
They work them so hard
That's the best bit, though. It's not job cuts - no compulsory redundancies, they can be redeployed if they wish.They work them so hard
I have the unabridged letter sent to Bob when RMT popped their heads around the door at the meeting, declared a dispute and walked out without so much as a goodbye. It would be hilarious were it not actually happening. Crow is a buffoon, and must know that he is categorically wrong on a number of levels so high I'm not sure I can count far enough. The letter, as it happens, was wonderfully written - a point by point destruction of Crow (and TSSA's) position.
ewenm said:
james_tigerwoods said:
I think you'll find that Bob's fine thankyouverymuch...
I'm on a train from Doncaster heading to Vauxhall. I may have to get a bus from Victoria... It's not a prospect I relish - A bus? Pah!
Overground rail from Victoria to Vauxhall surely! No need for a bus (although if it wasn't crappy weather a walk might be ok too).I'm on a train from Doncaster heading to Vauxhall. I may have to get a bus from Victoria... It's not a prospect I relish - A bus? Pah!
ReallyReallyGood said:
I can see what you are getting at but I don't really think the two are comparable (union balloting versus an election).
For example, in the union ballot there is no difference between voting against a strike, and not voting at all. It seemingly makes no difference, so it's no wonder 60% don't vote, implying they are against it (if they are not for the strike, it's effectively a no vote, but it doesn't get counted as such - If it did it'd be 70% against, 30% for, and they'd probably STILL go on strike!).
I don't follow your logic there at all.For example, in the union ballot there is no difference between voting against a strike, and not voting at all. It seemingly makes no difference, so it's no wonder 60% don't vote, implying they are against it (if they are not for the strike, it's effectively a no vote, but it doesn't get counted as such - If it did it'd be 70% against, 30% for, and they'd probably STILL go on strike!).
james_tigerwoods said:
ewenm said:
james_tigerwoods said:
I think you'll find that Bob's fine thankyouverymuch...
I'm on a train from Doncaster heading to Vauxhall. I may have to get a bus from Victoria... It's not a prospect I relish - A bus? Pah!
Overground rail from Victoria to Vauxhall surely! No need for a bus (although if it wasn't crappy weather a walk might be ok too).I'm on a train from Doncaster heading to Vauxhall. I may have to get a bus from Victoria... It's not a prospect I relish - A bus? Pah!
BJG1 said:
1 hour 40 minutes from Battersea to Bank by bus, 20 mins of that spent waiting for a bus that wasn't full.
I'll just walk it tomorrow if it isn't raining.
Can you not get to Clapham high street station, take the overground to shoreditch high st and get bus upp bishopsgate.I'll just walk it tomorrow if it isn't raining.
Clapham HS to Shoreditch High St = 27 mins
Overground was nto full when I got it.
ReallyReallyGood said:
It does seem a bit crazy how only 30% of the union actually voted for this action and is allowed to go ahead. (10% voted against, 60% didn't vote: source - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2014/... )
A minimum mandate of 50% of the membership seems sensible, shirley.
This!!A minimum mandate of 50% of the membership seems sensible, shirley.
ReallyReallyGood said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I can see what you are getting at but I don't really think the two are comparable (union balloting versus an election).For example, in the union ballot there is no difference between voting against a strike, and not voting at all. It seemingly makes no difference, so it's no wonder 60% don't vote, implying they are against it (if they are not for the strike, it's effectively a no vote, but it doesn't get counted as such - If it did it'd be 70% against, 30% for, and they'd probably STILL go on strike!).
KTF said:
From a friends facebook post today. Apparently serious.
On the basis that station staff have not been doing any overtime in the last 18 months there won't be that much difference to the service.My local tube station has two entrances with a ticket office in each, one is manned and the other (the one I use) is only sometimes manned. Previous to the overtime ban it was always manned.
There has been absolutely no difference in the service since the overtime ban apart from the chap who, instead of selling tickets, now sits on his arse reading the paper and picking his nose with a sign stuck in the window which reads 'information only'.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff