On May 28, 5:04*pm, MIG wrote:

On 28 May, 14:54, rail wrote:

In message
* * * * * Mizter T wrote:

[snip]

Is this perhaps the RMT flexing their muscles now that the universally
liked and respected MD of London Underground, Tim O'Toole, has
departed?

As it is a rerun of a previous ballot, I suspect that is unlikely. *IIRC the
original ballot was in favour of stike action.

Assuming the BBC have got the facts correct I can't see any union going for a
5 year deal in the current situation. *The other side is that a 5% pay claim
is also unrealistic. *Sounds like both sides need their heads banging
together.

These things are negotiating positions, which need to be followed by
negotiation. *When the management won't negotiate, they refer to
"demands", but how does anyone state a negotiating position that
couldn't be described by someone else as a demand?

Strikes are generally the result of a management refusal to negotiate,
rather than the expectation of a "demand" being met in full.

So I suppose another take on it could be 'Team Boris's' decision to
take a harder stance with the unions?

That would chime with many people's world view. However, TfL is under
massive financial pressures - a situation that can't really be said to
be of Boris's making - and there isn't a big pot of loot stashed away
somewhere, so perhaps LU are simply being rather more upfront about
the lack of cash at the start of the negotiations?

Though I suppose LU may well have realised that they'll have public
sentiment on their side more so than ever given the present economic
'climate' - an LU front-line job is after all pretty secure, pays
fairly well and comes with a pension.

You do make a good point about the use of the term "demands" MIG. It's
always hard to know what's really going on in these situations.