London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · June 22nd 04, 07:36 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(Mait001) wrote:

Was I imagining it, did today's radio (Classic FM) report that next
week's
Underground "strike" is in support of their campaign for a 4-day-week?!

Why don't we just have done with it, and pay these layabouts (no
offence meant
to all those hardworking Underground staff who detest their union
leadership,
if such exist) for a 0-day-week: at least then the "performance target"
will be
guaranteed to be met 100%, and no-one can them complain when there are
no
trains running at all.

Marc.

It's the loony RMT.

I gave up following the reasons ages ago.
Originally, as I understand it (and I may be wrong), one of the things
mooted at around the time Ken Livingston took over (and possibly this was
one of the suggestions from his department) was that there would be a four
day week instead of a five day week. The hours worked (35) would remain
the same. Nothing ever came of it. Now, apparently the RMT have decided
they want a four day week only working 32 hours.

A lot of what gets put out on union propaganda is all pie in the sky in
the hope that it will get members to vote for a strike because they think
they'll be on to a good deal if they win. In reality, the end result is
usually a very watered down version of the original demands or, indeed in
some cases, no change at all!

RMT called the tube strike off that was due on election day and (or
because of) the national rail strike was also called off. Now, of course,
they are getting the tube out on strike again under all sorts of pretences
to effectively give support to the national rail strike which is on the
same day.

Roger