Discussion
eccles said:
roachcoach said:
eccles said:
roachcoach said:
eccles said:
roachcoach said:
eccles said:
blindswelledrat said:
As an aside, if TFL wanted to tackle this once and for all - what are the laws about getting rid of the current workforce?
COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
Yay!, back to Victorian times! Bet you'd love it if they decided to do that with your job!COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
You think contractors are never told near renewal "your day rate is cut, like it or lump it"?
You think no-one since victorian times has had the "look, the business is really toiling, we're needing you to do x, y or z which you didn't do before and we can't afford to give you more cash. I'm sorry, but it's that or we go under" conversation?
Or the more common approach to the larger private sector areas:
"We've let X team go, you're now responsible for this, too."
"...but we're already under resourced"
"You let me worry about that, just crack on as best you can"
Because I can assure you, it happens everywhere on a pretty common basis.
Yes, most companies at some point have made your points to permanent staff at some point in their time, and I'm sure most staff have willingly gone the extra mile tp preserve their job.
The point I'm making is to those people who just say sack them and re-emply them/others on less, be careful what you wish for, it could happen to you.
Point being this happens day in, day out all over the world and not as was suggested, confined to the victorian era.
Never seen a team get more responsibility due to a business move without extra pay?
Never seen a "restructure" where "rationalizations" are made resulting in the remaining staff carrying a higher workload and just being glad to still have an job, never mind more pay?
Because I'd bet my mortgage that each and every person in the private sector has seen this over their career. It's an annual event in my workplace.
blindswelledrat said:
eccles said:
blindswelledrat said:
eccles said:
blindswelledrat said:
As an aside, if TFL wanted to tackle this once and for all - what are the laws about getting rid of the current workforce?
COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
Yay!, back to Victorian times! Bet you'd love it if they decided to do that with your job!COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
The fact that there isn't a 'better company' for the tube workers to work for is exactly why it is self evident that the unions of the workers have spent the past 20 years completely perverting all logical laws of market forces. To get a similar job they would have to go elsewhere and work for approximately half the salary/benefits.
I don't actually mind them fighting for better conditions. It's human nature. But they have taken it too far for too long and enough is enough. To earn more than double your peers and still f
king whinge about it is the behaviour of someone who needs a slap, not a pay rise.eccles said:
It's perfectly valid discussion, and no more unrealistic than your version of just sack them and re employ on inferior terms. You're the one who brought up the idea. In your world, where a company can just sack you and then re employ on vastly inferior terms, it seems you think it would only happen the once!
You're just twisting my words. I have never said I favoured doing that,or that it was realistic, I was just hypothetically enquiring as to the legalities of breaking the unions blackmailing chains and questioning how it could be done if the will was there,And yes, I do think it would happen just once.
If a normal company tried to replace their workforce with an inferior paid workforce, they would get worse workers. This is fundamental economics. Most companies actually do the opposite and invest heavily to try and keep workers happy as it is so expensive to replace and retrain workers that they are valued.
It is supply and demand.
The fact that TFL could replace its entire workforce for similar calibre for half the cost speaks volumes. TO me it is beyond comprehension that it has been allowed to get this far.
blindswelledrat said:
eccles said:
It's perfectly valid discussion, and no more unrealistic than your version of just sack them and re employ on inferior terms. You're the one who brought up the idea. In your world, where a company can just sack you and then re employ on vastly inferior terms, it seems you think it would only happen the once!
You're just twisting my words. I have never said I favoured doing that,or that it was realistic, I was just hypothetically enquiring as to the legalities of breaking the unions blackmailing chains and questioning how it could be done if the will was there,And yes, I do think it would happen just once.
If a normal company tried to replace their workforce with an inferior paid workforce, they would get worse workers. This is fundamental economics. Most companies actually do the opposite and invest heavily to try and keep workers happy as it is so expensive to replace and retrain workers that they are valued.
It is supply and demand.
The fact that TFL could replace its entire workforce for similar calibre for half the cost speaks volumes. TO me it is beyond comprehension that it has been allowed to get this far.
Du1point8 said:
They have already proven that the night shifts can be covered by people doing the same hours per week, also if they don't want to do the night shift they don't have to.
This is what was reported by LU to any news media that wanted it in a document.
Union response was that despite having the document, its all BS and it wasn't good enough, but its not about the money its about hours worked and having to do shifts (being compensated very well for too)... but its not about the money.
So what is it about?
Re-read the thread.This is what was reported by LU to any news media that wanted it in a document.
Union response was that despite having the document, its all BS and it wasn't good enough, but its not about the money its about hours worked and having to do shifts (being compensated very well for too)... but its not about the money.
So what is it about?
Silly Mayor announces massive changes without discourse - lets call it a deliberate mistake just when his party have a majority in parliament.
It's news to everyone bar Boris.
His quite-well paid TFL management and PR team are now left with the pieces and have to deal with a powerful and well supported Union representing members a little pissed-off.
Then come the cute little press releases to friendly rags.
Unfortunately on this occasion, the workers faced with massive changes (it's not just 'a few hours' - it's a few hours on a nightshirt dealing with pissed-up Londoners over a weekend) garner support from unlikely corners including so,e vocal DJs on certain London based radio stations.
If the oaf had kept his massive mouth shut and gone through the correct procedures there's a fair chance an amicable solution would have been found.
Got to better than throwing crumbs at the last possible moment then go crying to the normal rags proclaiming they've offered the unions the earth and still they won't accept.
Some more cynical than I are suggesting this is exactly what certain members of the government wanted.
johnfm said:
It isn't the 'workers voices' though in most cases. It is the 'union voices' on a mandate of a small percentage of the workforce.
In this case, indefensible strike action.
Yet perfectly legal even when the saviours of the World / Tories tighten the rules governing legitimate strike action.In this case, indefensible strike action.
Guessing it smarts a little...
legzr1 said:
Re-read the thread.
Silly Mayor announces massive changes without discourse - lets call it a deliberate mistake just when his party have a majority in parliament.
It's news to everyone bar Boris.
His quite-well paid TFL management and PR team are now left with the pieces and have to deal with a powerful and well supported Union representing members a little pissed-off.
Then come the cute little press releases to friendly rags.
Unfortunately on this occasion, the workers faced with massive changes (it's not just 'a few hours' - it's a few hours on a nightshirt dealing with pissed-up Londoners over a weekend) garner support from unlikely corners including so,e vocal DJs on certain London based radio stations.
If the oaf had kept his massive mouth shut and gone through the correct procedures there's a fair chance an amicable solution would have been found.
Got to better than throwing crumbs at the last possible moment then go crying to the normal rags proclaiming they've offered the unions the earth and still they won't accept.
Some more cynical than I are suggesting this is exactly what certain members of the government wanted.
Excuses excuses, those bunch of turds would have found another reason to strike whether that's now or next year.Silly Mayor announces massive changes without discourse - lets call it a deliberate mistake just when his party have a majority in parliament.
It's news to everyone bar Boris.
His quite-well paid TFL management and PR team are now left with the pieces and have to deal with a powerful and well supported Union representing members a little pissed-off.
Then come the cute little press releases to friendly rags.
Unfortunately on this occasion, the workers faced with massive changes (it's not just 'a few hours' - it's a few hours on a nightshirt dealing with pissed-up Londoners over a weekend) garner support from unlikely corners including so,e vocal DJs on certain London based radio stations.
If the oaf had kept his massive mouth shut and gone through the correct procedures there's a fair chance an amicable solution would have been found.
Got to better than throwing crumbs at the last possible moment then go crying to the normal rags proclaiming they've offered the unions the earth and still they won't accept.
Some more cynical than I are suggesting this is exactly what certain members of the government wanted.
I welcome the robots, push the public sector scum back to the gutter.
legzr1 said:
johnfm said:
It isn't the 'workers voices' though in most cases. It is the 'union voices' on a mandate of a small percentage of the workforce.
In this case, indefensible strike action.
Yet perfectly legal even when the saviours of the World / Tories tighten the rules governing legitimate strike action.In this case, indefensible strike action.
Guessing it smarts a little...
I don't work in London. Doesn't affect me one iota.
Legal and ethical are two different things - as the unions keep banging on about when employers exercise legals means to rationalise their workforce or get rid of inefficient, overpriced workers.
I'd make hay while the sun shines. Tube drivers won't exist in 10 years. Trains drivers won't exist in 15-20 if that.
Du1point8 said:
You must be forgetting the lovely idea that is off shoring and that happens to many a private sector employee.
Its a fair point but getting into a broader economic discussion.Certain sectors/job roles become unfeasible in a given economic climate and companies do need to evolve and become more efficient to exist. That is a good thing generally and we all benefit by living in an efficient economy and are generally extremely wealthy compared to other countries.
The cost of this is that we also need to be adaptable as a workforce. There are many jobs available in many different industries for anyone who wants one, that's the most important thing.
johnfm said:
Smarts who?
I don't work in London. Doesn't affect me one iota.
Nor me.I don't work in London. Doesn't affect me one iota.
Great isn't it?
johnfm said:
Legal and ethical are two different things - as the unions keep banging on about when employers exercise legals means to rationalise their workforce or get rid of inefficient, overpriced workers.
I'd make hay while the sun shines. Tube drivers won't exist in 10 years. Trains drivers won't exist in 15-20 if that.
The current industrial action is perfectly legal and that is all that should concern you.I'd make hay while the sun shines. Tube drivers won't exist in 10 years. Trains drivers won't exist in 15-20 if that.
Your last two points show exactly what you know - precisely zero.
I'm guessing that won't stop you commenting further though
legzr1 said:
Unfortunately on this occasion, the workers faced with massive changes (it's not just 'a few hours' - it's a few hours on a nightshirt dealing with pissed-up Londoners over a weekend) garner support from unlikely corners including so,e vocal DJs on certain London based radio stations.
I think that they can probably recover from this terrible burden over their ten weeks of holiday.johnfm said:
I think the tide is only flowing one way - and it isn't in the favour of organised, unskilled labour.
I think the sad thing is that if we do start taking a hard line on unions it will be to the detriment of many people, and unnecessarily.Many industries have unions which ensure fair conditions for their workers whilst accepting the economic realities of the employers. That's how it should be.
THe transport unions involved in this has just created such a bloated, blackmailing,monster that, as you say, public tide is heavily against it now but any actions taken against them will affect all the other people who haven't benefited from the obscene greed.
Zod said:
think that they can probably recover from this terrible burden over their ten weeks of holiday.
Quite possibly.Point is, if they were asked to things could have moved forward.
They weren't asked, they were told.
Just because 95% of the posters in this thread are prepared to take it up the arse doesn't mean that Tube drivers should.
Hope that clarifies the position
said:
I'd make hay while the sun shines. Tube drivers won't exist in 10 years. Trains drivers won't exist in 15-20 if that.
Seriously, stick to writing stuff you know about.
Just this week TfL announced that the SSL upgrade project has been re tendered at double the cost and not until 2023 at the very earliest which in LUL terms means nearer 2030 and this is to bring ATO to the subsurface lines, not driverless,and after that there's the small matter of the Piccadilly, Bakerloo and the Central line.
If you're a spotty 21 year old starting work today, there's a good chance you will be travelling home from your retirement party on a tube manned by a driver/operator.
On the mainline, it's not even being considered yet.
legzr1 said:
Zod said:
think that they can probably recover from this terrible burden over their ten weeks of holiday.
Quite possibly.Point is, if they were asked to things could have moved forward.
They weren't asked, they were told.
Just because 95% of the posters in this thread are prepared to take it up the arse doesn't mean that Tube drivers should.
Hope that clarifies the position...
From reading the posts, reasons for posting don't include your suggestion.
Quite possibly you made it up, with nothing better available to you.
legzr1 said:
Just because 95% of the posters in this thread are prepared to take it up the arse doesn't mean that Tube drivers should.
That is disingenuous at best, 95% of the people in this thread don't work in a closed shop essentially blackmailed by unions to block open, free market recruitment.It may be said that 95% of the posters in this thread live in the real world...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff