Neill wrote:
If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week-
long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs,
would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they
save by these probably needless redundancies?

That would be the mandatory redundancies which the article specifically says
will be avoided?

I would support Bob Crow
and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I
believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation,
that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at
the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic
climate.

Yeah, comrade! Can I point out the glaring contradiction between the words
"Bob Crow and his union represent the workers" and "public service
organisation"? While obviously a compromise must be struck between the
interests of Undergound employees and the interests of the public, they are
heading in opposite directions, and to invoke the word "public" when
discussing Bob Crow's actions, which have always been contrary to the
interest of the public, is utterly dishonest.

People in the private sector are losing jobs all over. If this latest move
helps to keep business rates down and prevents businesses going to the wall,
it will be a good thing for Londoners as a whole.