In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Don't forget it two to tango, people don't go on strike for the fun of
it. Whatever the reason published in the media, it's usually the
culmination of a series of events. BTW, it's not always the drivers who
are on or threatening strike, that's simply the slant that the idle
tabloid journalists put on it.

Is it the public's fault that the two parties involved in a strike are
involved in the strike?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Don't forget it two to tango, people don't go on strike for the fun of
it. Whatever the reason published in the media, it's usually the
culmination of a series of events. BTW, it's not always the drivers who
are on or threatening strike, that's simply the slant that the idle
tabloid journalists put on it.

Is it the public's fault that the two parties involved in a strike are
involved in the strike?

Which has what to do with the topic under discussion exactly?

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Don't forget it two to tango, people don't go on strike for the fun of
it. Whatever the reason published in the media, it's usually the
culmination of a series of events. BTW, it's not always the drivers who
are on or threatening strike, that's simply the slant that the idle
tabloid journalists put on it.

Is it the public's fault that the two parties involved in a strike are
involved in the strike?

Which has what to do with the topic under discussion exactly?


You mentioned it takes "two to tango", yet neither party is the public
(which it seemed you were attempting to partly blame for the action). It's
not our fault management and staff get annoyed, yet we suffer. And to top
it all off, when we complain, people pipe up with the "wah waah you don't
understand waah waah" lines. It's tiresome, and doesn't seem to end the
strikes.

If the tube staff really didn't want to strike, then they'd open the tube to
the public for free instead of striking. The public get their service, the
management takes a dive, and the public has a reason to be grateful for this
industrial action, instead of bitter (and late for work).

I'm saying, if the london underground wants people to stop being so angry
towards the staff, then the staff should start respecting the customers.
There's so much behaviour on public transport in London that ****es off
travellers, it's no wonder the public is growing more and more peeved with
the whole situation.

just sayin'

"d" wrote in message
k...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Don't forget it two to tango, people don't go on strike for the fun of
it. Whatever the reason published in the media, it's usually the
culmination of a series of events. BTW, it's not always the drivers who
are on or threatening strike, that's simply the slant that the idle
tabloid journalists put on it.

Is it the public's fault that the two parties involved in a strike are
involved in the strike?

Which has what to do with the topic under discussion exactly?


You mentioned it takes "two to tango", yet neither party is the public
(which it seemed you were attempting to partly blame for the action).
It's not our fault management and staff get annoyed, yet we suffer. And
to top it all off, when we complain, people pipe up with the "wah waah you
don't understand waah waah" lines. It's tiresome, and doesn't seem to end
the strikes.

If the tube staff really didn't want to strike, then they'd open the tube
to the public for free instead of striking. The public get their service,
the management takes a dive, and the public has a reason to be grateful
for this industrial action, instead of bitter (and late for work).

I'm saying, if the london underground wants people to stop being so angry
towards the staff, then the staff should start respecting the customers.
There's so much behaviour on public transport in London that ****es off
travellers, it's no wonder the public is growing more and more peeved with
the whole situation.

just sayin'

I heard.

Dunno about you but I've travelled most of the country and generally find
that if I want to find an unpleasent person then I've got to be unpleasent
first. Same applies on the underground.

In article ,
d wrote:
If the tube staff really didn't want to strike, then they'd open the tube to
the public for free instead of striking. The public get their service, the
management takes a dive, and the public has a reason to be grateful for this
industrial action, instead of bitter (and late for work).

There are reasonably large chunks of LuL who can't open the tube
to the public for free, because they don't control the gates. An
example would be the drivers.

Now, one could argue that the Station Assistants should show
solidarity with their commrades on the train (or in the signal
cabin). Remind me - who made such seconday actions illegal?

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver