| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783
Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 4 May 2011 03:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Paul wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Other than a chance to stomp their feet and have a little tantrum shouting "its not fair" like a 5 year old, what exactly is that buffoon expecting to achieve other than dragging tube drivers reputation even lower than the sub basement level its already at? The chances of LU re-hiring these idiots is zero. B2003 |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On May 4, 11:49*am, wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011 03:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Paul wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Other than a chance to stomp their feet and have a little tantrum shouting "its not fair" like a 5 year old, what exactly is that buffoon expecting to achieve other than dragging tube drivers reputation even lower than the sub basement level its already at? The chances of LU re-hiring these idiots is zero. B2003 Well it is less than 500 days until the Olympics, so I suppose he has to keep practising. I would have thought that he would have held a strike last Friday. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 4 May 2011 04:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
Paul wrote: Well it is less than 500 days until the Olympics, so I suppose he has to keep practising. I would have thought that he would have held a strike last Friday. Not much point striking on a bank holiday - most of them would have had the day off anyway so they've nothing to gain from it. B2003 |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message
, at 03:33:34 on Wed, 4 May 2011, Paul remarked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all. I was going to get the train to London one of the strike days (then across and out the other side). This strike means I'll definitely drive, and mainline ToCs who aren't a party to the dispute will be losing more of my revenue than TfL. -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On 4 May, 14:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 03:33:34 on Wed, 4 May 2011, Paul remarked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all. I was going to get the train to London one of the strike days (then across and out the other side). This strike means I'll definitely drive, and mainline ToCs who aren't a party to the dispute will be losing more of my revenue than TfL. -- Roland Perry Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message
, at 07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George remarked: Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement. The BBC story linked to earlier says: Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his train's safety systems and drove the train with complete disregard for established procedures". -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On May 4, 3:11*pm, George wrote:
On 4 May, 14:48, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 03:33:34 on Wed, 4 May 2011, Paul remarked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all. I was going to get the train to London one of the strike days (then across and out the other side). This strike means I'll definitely drive, and mainline ToCs who aren't a party to the dispute will be losing more of my revenue than TfL. -- Roland Perry Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - According to the article:- The RMT said almost two-thirds of its members voted in favour of industrial action over claims Eamon Lynch and Arwyn Thomas were sacked because of their trade union activities. Both men have taken a case of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal. LU said it was "absolute nonsense" to suggest the men were dismissed because of their union activities. It added that Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his train's safety systems and drove the train with complete disregard for established procedures". LU managing director Mike Brown said: "Just 29% of the 1,300 drivers balloted voted for this strike. If only 29% of the drivers ballotted voted for the strike, then that means that only about 750 (or about 58%) of those ballotted actually bothered to vote in the first place. Sounds as though the strike has not got universal support anyway. Plus if most drivers belong to ASLEF and work normally, then the strike won't have that much impact. Who would want or could afford to lose several days pay over this issue? The other thing to point out is that these cases are going to an Industrial Tribunal. Surely Comrade Crow would be better waiting for the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding his next move? Or has he been advised that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning and is getting desperate? |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
"Paul" wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I [thought] Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all. Strikorama: 16 to 17 May: 2101 BST - 1159 BST 18 to 19 May: 1200 BST - 1159 BST 20 May: 1200 BST - 2100 BST 13 to 14 June: 2101 BST - 1159 BST 15 to 16 June: 1200 BST - 1159 BST 17 June: 1200 BST - 2100 BST (best viewed as fixed width text - well, perhaps best not viewed at all!) So, two rounds of strikes, each starting on a Monday, each 'round' having an impact across five consecutive (working) days, with the striking hours pattern being the same for both 'rounds'. From a 'regular-hours' commuter's point of view the Monday strike should have the least impact, though I'm not sure when services might start winding down. Of course, if the strikes go ahead then LU would do their best to offer what services they can - past experience suggests that this can be rather variable (essentially dependent on how many staff turn up, and so it can change as shifts change). Seems like a bit of a declaration of war on the RMT's part, it must be said. Is that clattering and groaning the sound of umpteen bicycles being retrieved from sheds and basements? |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message
, Paul writes The other thing to point out is that these cases are going to an Industrial Tribunal. Surely Comrade Crow would be better waiting for the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding his next move? Or has he been advised that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning and is getting desperate? The Employment Tribunal has already given the two employees concerned "interim relief", which is why they are still on full salary. This is normally only given where the tribunal chairman thinks that their case is likely to be successful when it comes to the full hearing. I haven't followed the full details, but I'm sure that there are faults on both sides. The root cause seems to be the dreadful industrial relations that have been such a feature of London Underground over the years. -- Paul Terry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
"Paul Terry" wrote: In message , Paul writes The other thing to point out is that these cases are going to an Industrial Tribunal. Surely Comrade Crow would be better waiting for the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding his next move? Or has he been advised that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning and is getting desperate? The Employment Tribunal has already given the two employees concerned "interim relief", which is why they are still on full salary. This is normally only given where the tribunal chairman thinks that their case is likely to be successful when it comes to the full hearing. Prophetic words, in one of the two cases at least - one of the drivers has won their case at the employment tribunal (it looks like the verdict was given earlier today)... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...e-talks-driver Excerpt: ---quote--- Tube union chiefs have demanded a meeting with London Underground in an effort to avert strike action after one of two drivers at the centre of an employment row won his claim of unfair dismissal. Eamonn Lynch, a Bakerloo line driver sacked for breaking safety rules, took his case to an employment tribunal, claiming his dismissal was based on his trade union activities. London Underground said on Friday that a meeting with the Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could not be held before the tribunal released its ruling on whether Lynch should be reinstated, expected on 3 June. [...continues...] ---/quote--- The result in the second case against Arwyn Thomas "is expected later this month". I haven't followed the full details, but I'm sure that there are faults on both sides. The root cause seems to be the dreadful industrial relations that have been such a feature of London Underground over the years. I'm sure the somewhat toxic nature of industrial relations serves to put good people off from working on the Underground to some extent. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George remarked: Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement. The BBC story linked to earlier says: Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his train's safety systems and drove the train with complete disregard for established procedures". -- Roland Perry Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't then it should be. Kevin |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On May 6, 11:16*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George remarked: Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement. The BBC story linked to earlier says: * * * *Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his * * * *colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his * * * *train's safety systems and drove the train with complete * * * *disregard for established procedures". -- Roland Perry Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't then it should be. Kevin Now we're getting down to the real reasons for the strike. if the tribunal ruling isn't expected until 3rd June, the strikes scheduled for May are an attempt to browbeat LUL into to taking him back. Sometimes in Industrial Tribunal cases the ruling is that the company didn't follow the correct procedure in processing the dismissal, but that the underlying reasons for the dismissal were fair. They often say that Mr X was Y% to blame for his own dismissal, and it sounds like the meeting on 3rd June will determine the value of Y. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , at 23:16:39 on
Fri, 6 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked: Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement. The BBC story linked to earlier says: Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his train's safety systems and drove the train with complete disregard for established procedures". Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't then it should be. "Transport for London said it would study the outcome of the employment tribunal judgment and consider its next steps." -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On May 7, 6:23*am, Paul wrote: [snip] Now we're getting down to the real reasons for the strike. if the tribunal ruling isn't expected until 3rd June, the strikes scheduled for May are an attempt to browbeat LUL into to taking him back. Sometimes in Industrial Tribunal cases the ruling is that the company didn't follow the correct procedure in processing the dismissal, but that the underlying reasons for the dismissal were fair. They often say that Mr X was Y% to blame for his own dismissal, and it sounds like the meeting on 3rd June will determine the value of Y. See my post of May 6 at 16:27 on this thread [1] - the employment tribunal ruled on one of the two cases yesterday (i.e. rather earlier than that 3 June date), and found in favour of the sacked driver. ----- [1] http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...65ca03932eef2d |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message
, at 01:04:47 on Sat, 7 May 2011, Mizter T remarked: Sometimes in Industrial Tribunal cases the ruling is that the company didn't follow the correct procedure in processing the dismissal, but that the underlying reasons for the dismissal were fair. They often say that Mr X was Y% to blame for his own dismissal, and it sounds like the meeting on 3rd June will determine the value of Y. See my post of May 6 at 16:27 on this thread [1] - the employment tribunal ruled on one of the two cases yesterday (i.e. rather earlier than that 3 June date), and found in favour of the sacked driver. The Guardian says: "Eamonn Lynch, a Bakerloo line driver sacked for breaking safety rules, took his case to an employment tribunal, claiming his dismissal was based on his trade union activities." The paper goes on to report the employers saying: "Whilst the tribunal has made a finding of unfair dismissal, it has also found that on 9 August 2010 Mr Lynch breached an established and significant safety rule and was in part culpable or blameworthy for his actions." -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
The fill tribunal report is available on the RMT website:
http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2182 important - click on the attachment at the bottom of the web page to get the full report. What's listed on the web page is what the RMT have cherry-picked for their own benefit from the main report. Details of the incident that started the discipline procedures off is are given on page 9 paragraph 34 "Incident on 9th August 2010" Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a safety device (the tripcock) cut out without a second person in the cab. The tripcock is part of the safety system that stops the train if it goes past a red signal. A driver must ALWAYS have a second person in the cab if the Tripcock is defective. If the defect occurs between stations, then (as there are no Guards these days) the train is driven to the next station at extreme caution speed where a second person then gets in the cab. A second person MUST be in the cab, even if it means the train sits in the platform until somebody is sent to the station. The driver cannot be told by anybody, including the Controller, to do anything different and should ignore any instructions to do so (if given). All drivers know this. What the driver did was a serious breach of rules, although I can't say whether the driver should be dismissed for that or not. The RMT, as always, have conveniently played down this aspect of the case. However, it would appear that LU did themselves no favours in the way that they conducted their disciplinary procedures and acted unfairly in what they did and it would seem that the driver was dismissed by LU for the wrong reasons (if he should have been dismissed at all). Roger *From:* "Zen83237" *Date:* Fri, 6 May 2011 23:16:39 +0100 "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George remarked: Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement. The BBC story linked to earlier says: Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his train's safety systems and drove the train with complete disregard for established procedures". -- Roland Perry Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't then it should be. Kevin |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On May 4, 4:41*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
"Paul" wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783 Well I [thought] Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time. Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all. Strikorama: *16 to 17 May: 2101 BST - 1159 BST *18 to 19 May: 1200 BST - 1159 BST * * * *20 May: 1200 BST - 2100 BST 13 to 14 June: 2101 BST - 1159 BST 15 to 16 June: 1200 BST - 1159 BST * * * 17 June: 1200 BST - 2100 BST (best viewed as fixed width text - well, perhaps best not viewed at all!) So, two rounds of strikes, each starting on a Monday, each 'round' having an impact across five consecutive (working) days, with the striking hours pattern being the same for both 'rounds'. From a 'regular-hours' commuter's point of view the Monday strike should have the least impact, though I'm not sure when services might start winding down. Of course, if the strikes go ahead then LU would do their best to offer what services they can - past experience suggests that this can be rather variable (essentially dependent on how many staff turn up, and so it can change as shifts change). Seems like a bit of a declaration of war on the RMT's part, it must be said. Is that clattering and groaning the sound of umpteen bicycles being retrieved from sheds and basements? According to the BBC, they have been suspended http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13347697 On a related topic, it is interesting to see that the unions have agreed an Olympic related pay deal with Network Rail http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13343578 No doubt the RMT will try and agree a similiar deal with LUL, with the implicit threat of strikes if no deal is reached. |
Quote:
I don't think they're striking just to have a day off. And, no, these guys get their bank holidays added to their leave so they can take them when they want. |
Quote:
I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have very minor impacts, if any. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , at 19:27:14 on
Tue, 10 May 2011, Steve Gardiner remarked: Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact because the train gets stopped anyway. Not if the safety device which does that stopping has been disabled. I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have very minor impacts, if any. And some may cause big impacts (eg with the train in front). -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 19:27:14 on Tue, 10 May 2011, Steve Gardiner remarked: Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact because the train gets stopped anyway. Not if the safety device which does that stopping has been disabled. I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have very minor impacts, if any. And some may cause big impacts (eg with the train in front). -- Roland Perry Compare the RMT's actions with this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741 Kevin |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:53:50 +0100
"Zen83237" wrote: Compare the RMT's actions with this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741 I hate using cliches but you really couldn't make that one up. What sort of utter idiots are they hiring for railway management positions? B2003 |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , at 12:53:50 on
Wed, 11 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked: Compare the RMT's actions with this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741 Are you alluding to the apparent lack of union support for this chap? What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken, which would not have infringed the rules. -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:17:36 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:53:50 on Wed, 11 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked: Compare the RMT's actions with this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741 Are you alluding to the apparent lack of union support for this chap? What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken, which would not have infringed the rules. Whatever the situation, sacking a man for carrying out what he presumably thought was an action to prevent a possible incident is just vindictive. It smacks of management using their powers simply because they can. B2003 |
Quote:
Yes there are big potential risks on the railway, but this may not have been one of them. It's unlikely that the driver can do anything that will lead to an actual collision as far as I know. But again - I do not know the facts around this particular case, so, unlie others, will not jump to any conclusions. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
|
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:48:31 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: Whatever the situation, sacking a man for carrying out what he presumably thought was an action to prevent a possible incident is just vindictive. It smacks of management using their powers simply because they can. Don't be silly. If someone breaks the rules like this, you can't let them off because they thought breaking the rule was OK. That's anarchy, especially in a safety-critical industry like railways. And what if a train had come and derailed while he was finding other ways to solve the problem? Sometimes rules need to be broken if they get in the way. Perhaps you think those idiot plods not diving into a pond the other year to save someone because it was against the rules was a good idea given that the victim drowned? B2003 |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:20:17 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: People like you are everything thats wrong with britain today. Absolutely. If kids want to work as chimney sweeps rather than go to school, who are we to stop them? Straw man. Or should that be child? Any rule that states that no one no matter what shall do anything on the railway without prior permission even if doing so could prevent a derailment is a rule that needs to be re-thought. Do you think 50 years ago a station master would have waited for health and safety clearance before he removed an obstruction from the line? B2003 |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:20:17 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: People like you are everything thats wrong with britain today. Absolutely. If kids want to work as chimney sweeps rather than go to school, who are we to stop them? Straw man. Or should that be child? Any rule that states that no one no matter what shall do anything on the railway without prior permission even if doing so could prevent a derailment is a rule that needs to be re-thought. Do you think 50 years ago a station master would have waited for health and safety clearance before he removed an obstruction from the line? Perhaps if this chap really was a 'station master' he would have been allowed that discretion. But he won't have been a station master, whatever the reports actually say. Paul |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In article , wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:48:31 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: Whatever the situation, sacking a man for carrying out what he presumably thought was an action to prevent a possible incident is just vindictive. It smacks of management using their powers simply because they can. Don't be silly. If someone breaks the rules like this, you can't let them off because they thought breaking the rule was OK. That's anarchy, especially in a safety-critical industry like railways. And what if a train had come and derailed while he was finding other ways to solve the problem? Sometimes rules need to be broken if they get in the way. Wellingborough, 1898. A porter's trolley fell off the platform onto the track. Instead of running to the signalbox to stop trains, two railway employees tried to shift it. They failed, the express was derailed, and five people and two staff were killed. Sometimes, Boltar, there are reasons for rules and procedures ... Nick -- Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010) "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , at 14:33:45 on Wed, 11 May
2011, d remarked: Any rule that states that no one no matter what shall do anything on the railway without prior permission even if doing so could prevent a derailment is a rule that needs to be re-thought. It's not permission that's required, but obedience to safety rules which have been put in place in an attempt to reduce risk. Few situations have only one risk. -- Roland Perry |
Quote:
If the train was in imminent danger of hitting the trolley - and I can't see a derailament occuring in this instance especially as trains usually go pretty slow through stations - then the guy really was putting his own life at risk. Once you allow one guy to do this then you know there'll be others and quickly lose control. He should have phoned up and reported the trolley - with instant communications these days, and radios in trains the driver could easily have been alerted, the train diverted or stopped and the power shut off to allow for the trolley to be removed safely. |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , at 14:20:24 on
Wed, 11 May 2011, Steve Gardiner remarked: Not if the safety device which does that stopping has been disabled. But this is impossible as one part of the device sits on the track and the other part of the device is on the underside of the train - and there are many of them so even if one is disabled the others still work. The driver does not have access to this system. Yes there are big potential risks on the railway, but this may not have been one of them. It's unlikely that the driver can do anything that will lead to an actual collision as far as I know. But again - I do not know the facts around this particular case, so, unlie others, will not jump to any conclusions. You must have missed this posting a couple of days ago: "Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a safety device (the tripcock) cut out without a second person in the cab. The tripcock is part of the safety system that stops the train if it goes past a red signal. A driver must ALWAYS have a second person in the cab if the Tripcock is defective." Full report (see para 37 onwards): http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/f...9270%20(1).pdf -- Roland Perry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
|
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , Roland Perry
writes You must have missed this posting a couple of days ago: "Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a safety device (the tripcock) cut out without a second person in the cab. The tripcock is part of the safety system that stops the train if it goes past a red signal. A driver must ALWAYS have a second person in the cab if the Tripcock is defective." Full report (see para 37 onwards): Nevertheless, the tribunal (and now TfL, by reinstating the employee) seem to have decided that this was not after all a sackable offence, especially given the precedent that another driver had done the same but with a train in public service, and he merely received a warning. -- Paul Terry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On Wed, 11 May 2011 18:37:51 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote: b) scraping up squished/fried people who think the rules can be ignored just this once, helping the driver and cleaners deal with what happened, keeping passengers clear of the mess, plus doing it all next time because a precedent has been set? How likely do you think that *actually* would be? Particularly to anyone familiar with the dangers of the railway? Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
In message , Roland Perry
writes What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken, which would not have infringed the rules. It's difficult to know what safer action could have been taken, given that he first telephoned to report the incident and ask for the 3rd-rail power to be turned off before he removed the trolley. I suppose SWT expected all services to be delayed for hours (not an unusual occurrence for their customers) until their official trolley-remover made his way to the site to complete the necessary paperwork. Knowing Lymington quite well, and the enormous respect with which this guy is held locally, I fully expect SWT to be smacked long and hard when the case comes before the forthcoming employment tribunal hearing. -- Paul Terry |
Here We Go Again - New Tube Strike Dates Revealed
On 11/05/2011 19:28, Neil Williams wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 18:37:51 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote: b) scraping up squished/fried people who think the rules can be ignored just this once, helping the driver and cleaners deal with what happened, keeping passengers clear of the mess, plus doing it all next time because a precedent has been set? How likely do you think that *actually* would be? Particularly to anyone familiar with the dangers of the railway? I've no way of calculating, but it certainly isn't something I would discount simply because it has not been considered in a mass media report of an incident Friends who do PW stuff have told me some horror stories about dedicated look-outs screwing up (to the extent they walked off the job), so who knows how non-specialists would get on? And while an individual only has to be lucky the once, the company has to be lucky every time. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:23 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk