TFL Tube Strikes

[legzr1]

No recent link then?


Figures...

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

No recent link then?

Link to what? The most recent public sector union strike holding people to ransom?

[legzr1]

No.

A link showing that LUL is about to become an essential service as you claimed toady (I guess you knew that).


Quick note for the dullards:


"Ransom is the practice of holding a prisoner or item to extort money or property to secure their release".


"No trains today so walk, ride, drive, taxi or catch a bus" doesn't hold as much gravitas.

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

No.

A link showing that LUL is about to become an essential service as you claimed toady (I guess you knew that).

I made no such claim.

What actually happened was that a link I posted said the tube may become an essential service as back in Feb this year the government were considering it.

My words were: it's moving that way, and not before time. This is not a claim that it is already an essential service or will imminently become one. It means that HMG are considering it, and that I consider it about time.

Try reading for comprehension, or Specsavers

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

I made no such claim.

That's ok then - for a moment I thought you'd had word from industry insiders or Government bodies.

But no, just wishful thinking on your part and an 8 month old link discussing the thoughts of dead ex- union leaders

Phew.

[egor110]

turbobloke said:

legzr1 said:

No.

A link showing that LUL is about to become an essential service as you claimed toady (I guess you knew that).

I made no such claim.

What actually happened was that a link I posted said the tube may become an essential service as back in Feb this year the government were considering it.

My words were: it's moving that way, and not before time. This is not a claim that it is already an essential service or will imminently become one. It means that HMG are considering it, and that I consider it about time.

Try reading for comprehension, or Specsavers

Too late , nurses,midwives and ambulance staff are due to walk out tomorrow.

I'd call them a essential service but i'd also say if there trying to get more pay and hitting a brick wall what other option do they have.

Unlike low skilled workers the predictable answer if they don't like it move won't work as the problem is they are moving and working in other countries after we've funded there training.

[legzr1]

egor110 said:

Too late , nurses,midwives and ambulance staff are due to walk out tomorrow.

I'd call them a essential service but i'd also say if there trying to get more pay and hitting a brick wall what other option do they have.

Unlike low skilled workers the predictable answer if they don't like it move won't work as the problem is they are moving and working in other countries after we've funded there training.

Good post.

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

turbobloke said:

I made no such claim.

That's ok then - for a moment I thought you'd had word from industry insiders or Government bodies.

Phew.

No more than you have insider info that it isn't under Gov't consideration, which it clearly is. Yay.

legzr1 said:

But no, just wishful thinking on your part and an 8 month old link discussing the thoughts of dead ex- union leaders

8 month old links can be relevant, as can 7 and 9 month old links, where they're relevant. That one is. It's about the gov't and its considerations, not Bob Crow. He gets an aside a few lines in, and is then dropped, appropriately.

The webpage linked to said that HMG was considering making the tube an essential service.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

The webpage linked to said that HMG was considering making the tube an essential service.

Yep, and I considered having a cup of coffee an hour ago.

I went for tea in the end. (No doubt you'll disapprove but such is life.)


Btw, read a couple of posts up - essential services can and do take industrial action.

Shame...

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

turbobloke said:

The webpage linked to said that HMG was considering making the tube an essential service.

Yep, and I considered having a cup of coffee...

Your coffee considerations don't appear to be considered for either national policymaking or any Party manifesto. Unlike making the tube an essential service. As per the link I posted. HTH.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

Your coffee considerations don't appear to be considered for either national policymaking or any Party manifesto. Unlike making the tube an essential service. As per the link I posted.

The point you try to avoid is that 'consider' means nothing - the decision can go either way.

See: Tea -vs- Coffee, PH 12-10-2014

turbobloke said:

HTH

What do you think?

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

turbobloke said:

Your coffee considerations don't appear to be considered for either national policymaking or any Party manifesto. Unlike making the tube an essential service. As per the link I posted.

The point you try to avoid is that 'consider' means nothing - the decision can go either way.

See: Tea -vs- Coffee, PH 12-10-2014

If I'd claimed it had happened or was definitely going to happen you would have a point, but I didn't, so you don't.

[legzr1]

turbobloke said:

If I'd claimed it had happened or was definitely going to happen you would have a point, but I didn't, so you don't.

A link stating 'might happen, might not' is as useful as no link stating 'might happen, might not'.

No matter, I assume you think it proved something

[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!

Fingers crossed this works

legzr1 said:

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.

Not that important but I did quickly manage to find some and trains are pretty safe but I think Civic busses came up safer! We are in danger of digressing on this point though as the safety systems are well and truly drummed into the system and network now aren't they? My belief is that it is next to impossible to drive through a red signal underground without several fail safe checks etc? Safety systems on doors etc? I think these came in when a well paid and safety consicous driver opened the doors on the wrong side of the train

legzr1 said:

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...

Just an opinion then? Aren't they all - obviously including mine!

There is a very large part of me that simply does not believe that driving a train is that hard, tricky, taxing or dangerous. Sorry; just my opinion.

Boys (especially) want to drive trains and put out fires! That is a simple fact and leads to massive over supply of new recruits. Cut the perks, salaries and pension (reasonably ) and there will still be massive oversupply of new recruits. WHilst this is not a race to teh bottom, nor should it ever be, striking to keep on pushing for ever and ever better conditions, longer holidays, bullet proof pensions and lax workign practices generally, is simply unsustainable in the modern world.

There is a bit of me that understands the anger at giving stuff up; but constantly demanding more? Remember the miners (and nobody came out of that one very well but we know who really got shafted!)

legzr1 said:

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?

If it doesn't, why strike? And I mean if it involves NO compulsory redundencies, why strike? Define job losses? Compulsory R? Sackings for being idiots (there was one a short while ago,) or are we talking about 'my job has been taken away from me' - AKA, I cannot sit on my 4rse all day doing SFA in my vital role keeping the undergroudn running? (That last one may be a little harsh....)

legzr1 said:

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.*

• 

I was under the impression any job losses were to come from natural wastage? In that definition, there are DEFINITELY goign to be job losses - as there probably need to be! Offer VR to everyone and I bet a load take it? (God, I hope that hasn't already happened and I have egg all over my face.)

legzr1 said:

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.

LUL is an essential service (definition?) IMHO - it is one of the greatest capital cities in the World and would simply grind to a halt or be unworkable in a modern day without an efficient underground system. London is MASSIVE when compared to many other 'great cities' and we need to stay out front; that simply cannot be done without a reliable and efficient underground/tube.

legzr1 said:

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.

And there is a huge surprise? Of course they won't agree with me. I bet the coal miners didnt agree with that whole debacle either? I bet the Dodos in Mauritius weren't happy how that all ended either?

legzr1 said:

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.

It was a slightly lazy use of language by me - which I think you knew

But you did vote 'for' quite a bit? I wonder which votes and on what debates/details? But let's not derail this particular point (SWIDT) any further?

legzr1 said:

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

Not at all inconvenient. I am glad to hear it! I wish more people took your higher moral stand....

legzr1 said:

Slaav said:

Traffic can be a b1tch on strike days

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

Something we can be 100% in agreement on! Imagine how bad it would always be without an efficient, modern and reliable underground system?

[Slaav]

Bloody hell that worked!!!! Don't dare go back and correct some speeling in case I balls it all up

[turbobloke]

legzr1 said:

turbobloke said:

If I'd claimed it had happened or was definitely going to happen you would have a point, but I didn't, so you don't.

A link stating 'might happen, might not' is as useful as no link stating 'might happen, might not'.

No matter, I assume you think it proved something

Sure it did. It demonstrated that serious consideration is being given by the gov't to making the tube an essential service. That was the point of posting the link, and I would agree with that decision if and when it happens.

[legzr1]

legzr1 said:

No matter, I assume you think it proved something

Yay me

[legzr1]

Slaav said:

Not that important but I did quickly manage to find some and trains are pretty safe but I think Civic busses came up safer! We are in danger of digressing on this point though as the safety systems are well and truly drummed into the system and network now aren't they? My belief is that it is next to impossible to drive through a red signal underground without several fail safe checks etc? Safety systems on doors etc? I think these came in when a well paid and safety consicous driver opened the doors on the wrong side of the train

I think the railway in general is a safe place to travel - imagine a bus carrying 600 people from London to Peterborough travelling at 100mph departing every 15 minutes for a bit of a comparison.

Railway safety systems tend to fail safe - however, when these systems do fail it's up to the driver and signaller to get the system moving.
This where the training comes in, this the reason for regular re-assessment and (some wold argue) Drivers earn their wage.

No safety system is 100% foolproof (hence the constant tinkering and upgrading - TPWS is now onto V4) and mechanical and electrical systems can do as they please at times.
Human intervention is essential.

As for doors - there's a very recent case on RAIB website detailing how a woman decided to put her arm in closing doors to stop the train.
The doors closed and she was dragged along the station for a few yards at low speed - it cold have been far worse - imagine no staff, fully automated systems and high acceleration towards an approaching tunnel wall...

Slaav said:

There is a very large part of me that simply does not believe that driving a train is that hard, tricky, taxing or dangerous. Sorry; just my opinion.

An opinion you're entitled to.

When things are going well, the driver is well rested and people decide to leave it another day before throwing themselves at your cab window it can be (relatively) easy.

Unfortunately, not every day is like that.

Slaav said:

Boys (especially) want to drive trains and put out fires! That is a simple fact and leads to massive over supply of new recruits. Cut the perks, salaries and pension (reasonably smile) and there will still be massive oversupply of new recruits. WHilst this is not a race to teh bottom, nor should it ever be, striking to keep on pushing for ever and ever better conditions, longer holidays, bullet proof pensions and lax workign practices generally, is simply unsustainable in the modern world.

There's no doubt salary and terms have made the role attractive for a number of people.
30-ish years ago I witnessed qualified drivers leaving the industry to go and try HGV and PSV driving - all to do with making a little more money.
Now we have ATC, pilots, police sergeants and public and private service middle managers desperate to get on board.

However, as I said earlier I think you're a little 'off' with this 'drivers constantly striking for more' routine.
It might not be a race to the bottom just yet but some people on here seem to relish the thought of it and, again it stinks of 'I'm alright, just sort out the peasants'.

Have you googled a little and found out when and why drivers last called for strike action?

Slaav said:

If it doesn't, why strike?

It didn't and 'I' didn't.

Slaav said:

I was under the impression any job losses were to come from natural wastage? In that definition, there are DEFINITELY goign to be job losses - as there probably need to be! Offer VR to everyone and I bet a load take it? (God, I hope that hasn't already happened and I have egg all over my face.)

I'm pretty sure the offer of v/r is on the table

Define natural wastage - retirement, death and ill-health?
Yes, I'll go with that.

A cynical action that almost feels like a ploy to ruffle feathers?
Well, no.

There's another angle here - if (for example) ticket office staff are all offered alternative roles elsewhere, where did these vacancies come from?
Is the system running under-staffed?
Has THAT impacted on safety?

Slaav said:

LUL is an essential service (definition?) IMHO - it is one of the greatest capital cities in the World and would simply grind to a halt or be unworkable in a modern day without an efficient underground system. London is MASSIVE when compared to many other 'great cities' and we need to stay out front; that simply cannot be done without a reliable and efficient underground/tube.

First thing, London isn't just about the LUL - there are many surburban and mainline TOCs operating and servicing London stations.

LUL isn't 'essential' in my opinion - emergency services, yes. A functioning government, yes. A transport system where there are alternatives, no.

Granted, any alternative might mean 'getting off your lazy arse ' but alternatives there are.

Slaav said:

But you did vote 'for' quite a bit? I wonder which votes and on what debates/details? But let's not derail this particular point (SWIDT) any further?

Contrary to popular belief (escalated by the press and certain individuals on PH)personally I've only ever been balloted for industrial action on four occasions over 27 years.
Three 'no's', one 'yes'.

On the occasion I voted yes there was an overwhelming majority for action (leading up to and including) strike action - high 80's % turnout with a high 90's% in favour.

Three weeks later (months before any strike dates had been announced) both parties were around the table re-negotiating.

Sometimes the threat is enough to focus minds.

Naturally, any threat can be over-used and over-played to the detriment of both sides (and the travelling public) - I'm not an RMT member so can't make a definitive statement but I'm guessing you know where I'm going here...

Slaav said:

Not at all inconvenient. I am glad to hear it! I wish more people took your higher moral stand....

Error:

'We' were actually out on strike in 2012 for a day (sorry! I was on annual leave so missed the 'fun').

I recall it was nothing whatsoever to do with money or jobs and everything to do with management reneging on agreements.

Something not worth striking over?

Slaav said:

Oh yes