Christmas Rail Strike - RMT Morons
Discussion
Searched for another thread but couldn't see one here or in the Scotland forum. Basically the signallers in Glasgow are striking over Christmas because they used to be able to 'slot' into a nice cushy position after a few years on the job, but now Network Rail have decided to actually appoint the most suitable person for the job based on merit/qualification.
I was listening to Radio Scotland yesterday morning, and the RMT area leader for Scotland actually said live on national radio, 'We are opposed to the principle of appointment based on suitability.'
What-the-merry-christmassing-f
k? They're basically in the huff and walking out because the old 'jobs for the boys' agreement has been torn up - and refusing to return to talks until Network Rail actually fire the employee in the position at the centre of the whole thing.
How can they expect the public to have any sympathy with them? If they'd walked out over pay and conditions, or a safety issue, fair enough, but Network Rail seem to be doing the right thing here (signalling is a safety critical job ffs!) and this bunch of self-important seat warmers have taken the hump. Would have been more honest if they just said they wanted Christmas off...
I was listening to Radio Scotland yesterday morning, and the RMT area leader for Scotland actually said live on national radio, 'We are opposed to the principle of appointment based on suitability.'
What-the-merry-christmassing-f
k? They're basically in the huff and walking out because the old 'jobs for the boys' agreement has been torn up - and refusing to return to talks until Network Rail actually fire the employee in the position at the centre of the whole thing.How can they expect the public to have any sympathy with them? If they'd walked out over pay and conditions, or a safety issue, fair enough, but Network Rail seem to be doing the right thing here (signalling is a safety critical job ffs!) and this bunch of self-important seat warmers have taken the hump. Would have been more honest if they just said they wanted Christmas off...
BonzoG said:
Searched for another thread but couldn't see one here or in the Scotland forum. Basically the signallers in Glasgow are striking over Christmas because they used to be able to 'slot' into a nice cushy position after a few years on the job, but now Network Rail have decided to actually appoint the most suitable person for the job based on merit/qualification.
There's not really enough information in that article to know why the employer is changing the longstanding method used.Was it a promotion to a more difficult job with more responsibility or just a more cushy job which was viewed as a reward for being in the company long time?
Was the old method resulting in unsuitable people getting the job? If not then why change it, it sounds like it was seen as rewarding employees for long service to the company. It might not be perfect but if there's hundreds of employees doing the pretty much the same job then sometimes who's been there the longest might actually be the fairest way to offer a position, assuming they're actually capable of doing it. If the old method was leading to unsuitable people automatically getting a position and there was safety issues then I can understand why it needs to be changed.
Presumably all the employees themselves signed up knowing that this was the method used when offering these posts.
The gist I got from the radio interviews yesterday was that it had been a system which worked well both as a reward for service, but also for promoting people out of harms way. In this particular case however, the vacancy was one were Network Rail (claim to have) needed someone specifically qualified/competent at the job and the system of automatic promotion of the next in line wouldn't have been appropriate.
Which is a long winded way of saying that the next person in the promotion chain wasn't deemed fit for the vacancy, so has filed a grievance and brought the union on side.
Now if it's just some managerial role where little harm can be done and the person has given years of good service under the assumption that this agreement was in place as a reward, then fair enough, I'd be pissed too. But again from the radio interviews yesterday, they never specifically mentioned the role but hinted at it being something with a bit of responsibility on the safety side of things - i.e. a signaller!
If this is the case I stand by my original post. That's the kind of job you want people to be vetted, tested and assessed for. Not just bumped into because the bloke above them has popped his clogs and you've been part of the furniture for a few years.
Edit: And just to clarify, the morons comment in the title is aimed specifically at the union spokespersons who think it's a good idea to go live on air without being able to string a coherent sentence together, never mind prepare a reasonable sounding argument in their favour to bring the people suffering their disruption on side. NOT at those simply fulfilling their membership and taking part in a perfectly legal strike.
Which is a long winded way of saying that the next person in the promotion chain wasn't deemed fit for the vacancy, so has filed a grievance and brought the union on side.
Now if it's just some managerial role where little harm can be done and the person has given years of good service under the assumption that this agreement was in place as a reward, then fair enough, I'd be pissed too. But again from the radio interviews yesterday, they never specifically mentioned the role but hinted at it being something with a bit of responsibility on the safety side of things - i.e. a signaller!
If this is the case I stand by my original post. That's the kind of job you want people to be vetted, tested and assessed for. Not just bumped into because the bloke above them has popped his clogs and you've been part of the furniture for a few years.
Edit: And just to clarify, the morons comment in the title is aimed specifically at the union spokespersons who think it's a good idea to go live on air without being able to string a coherent sentence together, never mind prepare a reasonable sounding argument in their favour to bring the people suffering their disruption on side. NOT at those simply fulfilling their membership and taking part in a perfectly legal strike.
Edited by BonzoG on Saturday 24th December 12:38
el stovey said:
There's not really enough information in that article to know why the employer is changing the longstanding method used.
Was it a promotion to a more difficult job with more responsibility or just a more cushy job which was viewed as a reward for being in the company long time?
Was the old method resulting in u.nsuitable people getting the job? If not then why change it, it sounds like it was seen as rewarding employees for long service to the company. It might not be perfect but if there's hundreds of employees doing the pretty much the same jobF then sometimes who's been there the longest might actually be the fairest way to offer a position, assuming they're actuallGy capable of doing it. If the old method was leading to unsuitable people automatically getting a position and there was safety issues then I can understand why it needs to be changed.
Presumably all the employees themselves signed up knowing that this was the method used when offering these posts.
You do realise that rewarding someone as you suggest, on the basis of long service, would be illegal under age discrimination laws?Was it a promotion to a more difficult job with more responsibility or just a more cushy job which was viewed as a reward for being in the company long time?
Was the old method resulting in u.nsuitable people getting the job? If not then why change it, it sounds like it was seen as rewarding employees for long service to the company. It might not be perfect but if there's hundreds of employees doing the pretty much the same jobF then sometimes who's been there the longest might actually be the fairest way to offer a position, assuming they're actuallGy capable of doing it. If the old method was leading to unsuitable people automatically getting a position and there was safety issues then I can understand why it needs to be changed.
Presumably all the employees themselves signed up knowing that this was the method used when offering these posts.
Perhaps that's why the employer is changing things?
DSM2 said:
el stovey said:
There's not really enough information in that article to know why the employer is changing the longstanding method used.
Was it a promotion to a more difficult job with more responsibility or just a more cushy job which was viewed as a reward for being in the company long time?
Was the old method resulting in u.nsuitable people getting the job? If not then why change it, it sounds like it was seen as rewarding employees for long service to the company. It might not be perfect but if there's hundreds of employees doing the pretty much the same jobF then sometimes who's been there the longest might actually be the fairest way to offer a position, assuming they're actuallGy capable of doing it. If the old method was leading to unsuitable people automatically getting a position and there was safety issues then I can understand why it needs to be changed.
Presumably all the employees themselves signed up knowing that this was the method used when offering these posts.
You do realise that rewarding someone as you suggest, on the basis of long service, would be illegal under age discrimination laws?Was it a promotion to a more difficult job with more responsibility or just a more cushy job which was viewed as a reward for being in the company long time?
Was the old method resulting in u.nsuitable people getting the job? If not then why change it, it sounds like it was seen as rewarding employees for long service to the company. It might not be perfect but if there's hundreds of employees doing the pretty much the same jobF then sometimes who's been there the longest might actually be the fairest way to offer a position, assuming they're actuallGy capable of doing it. If the old method was leading to unsuitable people automatically getting a position and there was safety issues then I can understand why it needs to be changed.
Presumably all the employees themselves signed up knowing that this was the method used when offering these posts.
Perhaps that's why the employer is changing things?
The claim is usually against indirect age discrimination but i'm not aware that it's ever been successfully challenged.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff