TFL Tube Strikes

[legzr1]

sidicks said:

Now you're just being a stupid troll.

And I could accuse you of being an ahole but that doesn't take the 'argument' any further does it?

If you have a problem with transport monopolies I suggested you word an angry letter to the DfT and ask them to change to the terms of the franchises.

Or don't and continue pointlessly moaning on a motoring forum.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

And I could accuse you of being an ahole but that doesn't take the 'argument' any further does it?

If you have a problem with transport monopolies I suggested you word an angry letter to the DfT and ask them to change to the terms of the franchises.

Or don't and continue pointlessly moaning on a motoring forum.

I think the 'ahole' is the person trying to justify strikes that disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of public and private sector workers, by individuals already paid huge amounts for relatively simple jobs who are desperate to prevent any sort of progress in their industry and who are reluctant to offer any sort of 'customer service'.

[legzr1]

Smelly bait.

Now who's the troll?

I'm justifying nothing - I'm sure any ballot for industrial action is perfectly legal and above board and any consequences have been taken into account.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

Smelly bait.

Now who's the troll?

I'm justifying nothing

So exactly what is your point?

legzr1 said:

- I'm sure any ballot for industrial action is perfectly legal and above board and any consequences have been taken into account.

Who said it wasn't legal? It's almost as if you are deliberately missing the point.

[Slaav]

legzr1 said:

Relatively speaking, the railway is a safe place to embark on a journey and every vacancy attracts 300-500 candidates.

I'd say it works best for all.

Bob is dead and the vast majority of drivers are members of Aslef, not RMT.

I'm suggesting that it is the right of any individual to (legally) withdraw labour if that's what the majority have voted in favour of.

Are you suggesting that striking should be banned for any profession that could interrupt the commute of a typical Londoner?

Perspective please

Now where to start......

Must get to a proper PC so that I can format but will have a quick go here.

Yes, pretty safe considering journey miles. How does the record compare to the other common methods of travel? Any idea?

The massive competition for the few vacancies says all we need to know about pay and conditions. I had forgotten that Aslef had such a high membership. The overall splits would interesting but I always thought that the RMT were the more militant?

And on the right to strike, absolutely.... Strike all you want and stick to your guns until you are out of a job. Having the right and being in the right are very opposite in this circumstance and IMHO in mosh TfL disputes. Abuse your right to strike and let's see where that gets you in the long run

I would be quite supportive of a process whereby genuine essential services have different rules before they can legally strike! Maybe the ballot rules are different or some form of ACAS could be legally binding on BOTH sides?

I think that the Police are an essential service and cannot strike. This leads to problems and issues for morale amongst other things.

The underground IMO is an essential service to London! I don't give a damn about an inconvenient commute. This is London FFS and on the world stage. Being held to ransom to protect unrealistic working practices is just not on I am afraid.

You will no doubt disagree but careful what you and any other 'militants' wish for. It is only a matter of time before London is pushed too far..... Then you will end up with a lot less than a negotiated result!

And your beloved strikes are an inconvenience to me..... And I don't even travel on the damn tube as a rule!

Traffic can be a b1tch on strike days

[Mario149]

legzr1 said:

Mario149 said:

Thanks for the answer. Hmmm...."line of promotion" sounds a bit dodgy and archaic to me. I can understand how some professions require lines of promotion (e.g. military), but driving a train is not one of them in my book. While I'm sure there are some transferrable skills between say a LU manager and your next possible promotion which might be to become a driver say, I think closing it down to only internal people is potentially going to limit your available talent to give the job to, as well as making it look a bit "closed shop" which when you add union action to, leaves a distinctly bad impression.

It's a shame you feel that way but it's what I hear quite often from people outside the industry with no real knowledge of how things are done.
There is no 'closed shop' or 'jobs for the boys'.

Jobs for the boys may be a bit strong, but if you're only recruiting internally, then it is a closed shop IMO and open to abuse as such.

legzr1 said:

Because of the safety critical nature of the role there are lots of interviews, tests and exams to pass before even being considered for the role all overseen by a Government agency.

There are no shortcuts - that goes for internal as well as external vacancies.

You're allowed two attempts at the 'exam' - fail one and you wait six months for another try - fail the second and that's the end.

Without trying to sound pedantic, there are many safety critical jobs. A quick google suggests that becoming an air traffic controller may require at least similar, if not more training/qualification/exams to be passed/completed over a 3 year period. Salary is £51k-£57k on qualification which is not vastly different from what a tube driver earns (a quick search suggests about £48k currently), yet becoming an ATC is open to anyone with correct qualifications (which are not a lot incidentally, so pretty open). I think we can safely say that an ATC has more lives in their hands than a tube driver. And this example only took me about 30s to find.

legzr1 said:

Most companies advertise externally too - if you're interested check out their respective websites.

We're not talking generally and most companies though, we're talking about LU which is internal. From what you describe, I could be a ScotRail driver with 15 years reasonably relevant experience yet not be able to apply for LU drivers job because I'd not been a generic bod at an LU station in a previous role.

legzr1 said:

As I said earlier, it's a system that works and has been proven over many decades - station staff on £20K a year know that doing a good job reliably and safely stands them in good stead for a decent shot at a drivers vacancy eventually.
Employers can judge candidates on years of service rather than a CV, a dodgy reference and 60 minutes interviews.

Works? I guess so if we're talking about the current service being acceptable which many would consider not exactly a given (but that's another discussion). Proven? Not really if it's only ever been done that way in modern-ish times and there's nothing to compare it to directly. As for judging candidates, see my ATC comments.

[Mario149]

legzr1 said:

sidicks said:

So supply and demand should dictate that wages fall significantly....

Perhaps it irks to know that wages have trebled (and quadrupled in the case of some FOC companies)and 100% pensionable pay is the norm in an industry that was publically owned a couple of decades ago.

It doesn't irk so much as feel like a dodgy "stitch up" whereby the pool of potential doers of the job is artificially limited to create the illusion that it is somehow more special/challenging than it really is.

[legzr1]

Slaav said:

Now where to start......

Must get to a proper PC so that I can format but will have a quick go here.

Posting on an ipad I know what you mean!

Slaav said:

Yes, pretty safe considering journey miles. How does the record compare to the other common methods of travel? Any idea?

I don't have the figures to hand but I can get them if it's important.

Slaav said:

The massive competition for the few vacancies says all we need to know about pay and conditions. I had forgotten that Aslef had such a high membership. The overall splits would interesting but I always thought that the RMT were the more militant?

I'll put this as delicately as possible - in the main, Aslef take a more pragmatic approach but they do have a better hand to start with.
It's far easier for a low-ranking manager to cover station duties, train dispatch and ticket office duties during industrial action than it is to cover the drivers role.

This is just my opinion but I suspect that it's easier for Aslef to reach agreement when the whole job can be stopped...

Slaav said:

And on the right to strike, absolutely.... Strike all you want and stick to your guns until you are out of a job. Having the right and being in the right are very opposite in this circumstance and IMHO in mosh TfL disputes. Abuse your right to strike and let's see where that gets you in the long run

And there's the rub - what if the dispute concerns job losses?

Don't strike and it's a certainty.
Do strike and it's a possibility.
Difficult to be objective when it's not your job on the line.*

• 

Slaav said:

I would be quite supportive of a process whereby genuine essential services have different rules before they can legally strike! Maybe the ballot rules are different or some form of ACAS could be legally binding on BOTH sides

I gave a flippant reply earlier to a more 'vocal' member but my point remains - there are alternatives to trains when travelling and commuting around London.
The emergency services are essential - LUL? I'd suggest not.

Slaav said:

The underground IMO is an essential service to London! I don't give a damn about an inconvenient commute. This is London FFS and on the world stage. Being held to ransom to protect unrealistic working practices is just not on I am afraid.

The majority of RMT members in a recent ballot disagree with you.

It's their call.

Slaav said:

You will no doubt disagree but careful what you and any other 'militants' wish for. It is only a matter of time before London is pushed too far..... Then you will end up with a lot less than a negotiated result!

Where do you get the idea I'm militant from?

Over 30 years I've voted no to strike action in roughly 75% of ballots.

Slaav said:

And your beloved strikes are an inconvenience to me..... And I don't even travel on the damn tube as a rule!

I haven't been on strike since around 1991.

Sorry if that fact is inconvenient

Slaav said:

Traffic can be a b1tch on strike days

It's London - it's a bh most days...

[legzr1]

Mario149 said:

Jobs for the boys may be a bit strong, but if you're only recruiting internally, then it is a closed shop IMO and open to abuse as such.

But it's NOT internal only recruitment - 90% of companies advertise externally too.
The remaining 10% don't train their own staff and rely on poaching already-qualified drivers from elsewhere.

Mario149 said:

Without trying to sound pedantic, there are many safety critical jobs. A quick google suggests that becoming an air traffic controller may require at least similar, if not more training/qualification/exams to be passed/completed over a 3 year period. Salary is £51k-£57k on qualification which is not vastly different from what a tube driver earns (a quick search suggests about £48k currently), yet becoming an ATC is open to anyone with correct qualifications (which are not a lot incidentally, so pretty open). I think we can safely say that an ATC has more lives in their hands than a tube driver. And this example only took me about 30s to find.

You need to compare like with like.

ATC is the equivalent of a signaller, the training lasts a similar amount of time and top grade signallers can crack £50K.
As with the vast majority of trainee drivers vacancies, these jobs can be found externally.
Again, no 'closed shop'.

Training for drivers lasts from 12 - 18 months for basic stuff. Add another six months for route knowledge then add another two years of post-qualified assessments. Then, and only then are you a qualified driver.
Your competency is formally re-assessed every two years and every second of driving is recorded by on-board Qtron.

Still, some PH experts KNOW all you do is press a button and don't know the difference between safety critical communications and safety critical duties on and about the line.

Mario149 said:

We're not talking generally and most companies though, we're talking about LU which is internal. From what you describe, I could be a ScotRail driver with 15 years reasonably relevant experience yet not be able to apply for LU drivers job because I'd not been a generic bod at an LU station in a previous role.

They have advertised externally in the recent past - not sure why they've changed their policy - perhaos there were issues with 'strangers' and they prefer to promote from a pool of known staff. It makes sense to me.

Mario149 said:

It doesn't irk so much as feel like a dodgy "stitch up" whereby the pool of potential doers of the job is artificially limited to create the illusion that it is somehow more special/challenging than it really is.

That comment was aimed at the 'charcater' who seems to think private = good and fair, public = bad and overpaid.
I'm guessing the fact that my wage has quadrupled and pension is doing rather well SINCE moving FROM public TO private must smart somewhat

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

That comment was aimed at the 'charcater' who seems to think private = good and fair, public = bad and overpaid.

Of course no-one has said any such thing.

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

legzr1 said:

That comment was aimed at the 'charcater' who seems to think private = good and fair, public = bad and overpaid.

Of course no-one has said any such thing.

Indeed.

Making up fictitious claims that nobody has made - the last gasp of the lost cause.

[NomduJour]

legzr1 said:

The emergency services are essential - LUL? I'd suggest not.

The Tube is an essential service, it is not some union's plaything.

[Slaav]

legzr1 said:

Slaav said:

Now where to start......

Must get to a proper PC so that I can format but will have a quick go here.

Posting on an ipad I know what you mean!

Slaav said:

Yes, pretty safe considering journey miles. How does the record compare to the other common methods of travel? Any idea?

I don't have the figures to hand but I can get them if it's important.

Slaav said:

The massive competition for the few vacancies says all we need to know about pay and conditions. I had forgotten that Aslef had such a high membership. The overall splits would interesting but I always thought that the RMT were the more militant?

I'll put this as delicately as possible - in the main, Aslef take a more pragmatic approach but they do have a better hand to start with.
It's far easier for a low-ranking manager to cover station duties, train dispatch and ticket office duties during industrial action than it is to cover the drivers role.

This is just my opinion but I suspect that it's easier for Aslef to reach agreement when the whole job can be stopped...

Slaav said:

And on the right to strike, absolutely.... Strike all you want and stick to your guns until you are out of a job. Having the right and being in the right are very opposite in this circumstance and IMHO in mosh TfL disputes. Abuse your right to strike and let's see where that gets you in the long run

And there's the rub - what if the dispute concerns job losses?

Don't strike and it's a certainty.
Do strike and it's a possibility.
Difficult to be objective when it's not your job on the line.*

• 

Slaav said:

I would be quite supportive of a process whereby genuine essential services have different rules before they can legally strike! Maybe the ballot rules are different or some form of ACAS could be legally binding on BOTH sides

I gave a flippant reply earlier to a more 'vocal' member but my point remains - there are alternatives to trains when travelling and commuting around London.
The emergency services are essential - LUL? I'd suggest not.

Slaav said:

The underground IMO is an essential service to London! I don't give a damn about an inconvenient commute. This is London FFS and on the world stage. Being held to ransom to protect unrealistic working practices is just not on I am afraid.

The majority of RMT members in a recent ballot disagree with you.

It's their call.

Slaav said:

You will no doubt disagree but careful what you and any other 'militants' wish for. It is only a matter of time before London is pushed too far..... Then you will end up with a lot less than a negotiated result!

Where do you get the idea I'm militant from?

Over 30 years I've voted no to strike action in roughly 75% of ballots.

Slaav said:

And your beloved strikes are an inconvenience to me..... And I don't even travel on the damn tube as a rule!

I haven't been on strike since around 1991.

Sorry if that fact is inconvenient

Slaav said:

Traffic can be a b1tch on strike days

It's London - it's a bh most days...

Your response is much clearer than mine.... And I bet you did it on an iPad as well?

Loads to come back on that comprehensive answer, most of which is pretty reasonable, so will do when the GP gets processional. (Well it is PH after all.....)

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Making up fictitious claims that nobody has made - the last gasp of the lost cause.

The impression was quite clear.

Now, get over yourselves

[legzr1]

NomduJour said:

The Tube is an essential service, it is not some union's plaything.

Essential?

I think not.

Agreed, it's not a 'plaything' - I suggest RMT members aren't playing any kind of game

Industry insiders reckon on 30 years before a fully-automated LUL system is underway.

I wonder where Boris sources his information...

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

NomduJour said:

The Tube is an essential service, it is not some union's plaything.

It's moving that way and not before time.

http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/l...

Union dinosaurs will eventually become extinct, also not before time.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

It's moving that way and not before time.

http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/l...

Union dinosaurs will eventually become extinct, also not before time.

Greed is good, greed is God!

Don't suppose you have a more recent link do you?

You know, a link where the union leader is actually alive showing progression of the subject.

Granted, you may need to google for more than 15 seconds.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

Greed is good, greed is God!

Presumably you are referring to the attitude of the LU workers?

[legzr1]

sidicks said:

Presumably you are referring to the attitude of the LU workers?

Presumably you think a collective working to better the conditions of all members and secure jobs is 'greed'.

Seems it my turn to question your understanding.

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

sidicks said:

Presumably you are referring to the attitude of the LU workers?

Presumably you think a collective working to better the conditions of all members and secure jobs is 'greed'.

Holding people to ransom sounds more like whatever it is.