So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone
realised that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety
grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public
what they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an
impression that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to
support this absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face
by scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting
at dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike.
Fairly absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is
not much evidence that there actually were any) would have been a
direct result of the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article,
authored by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

In this article, they claim the following reasons for strike:

- Some Transport for London staff apparently earn quite a decent wage.

- The Queen didn't award an MBE to every single RMT member working at
King's Cross.

Hardly conclusive justification for a strike, is it? And it doesn't
really line up that well with the spin that the RMT leadership are
desperately trying to create about why these strikes are occurring.

Ultimately, Bob Crow and his cronies are letting the decent hardworking
RMT membership down with this charade of misrepresentation. But he's
not fooling anyone.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:58 -0800, DaveyWavey wrote:

So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone realised
that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public what
they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an impression
that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to support this
absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face by
scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting at
dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike. Fairly
absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is not much
evidence that there actually were any) would have been a direct result of
the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article, authored
by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

I only got past the headline

"Safety concerns were central to tube strike"

to be greeted in the first paragraph

"staff in the RMT union walked out on New Year’s Eve to defend the deal
we’d won for a shorter working week."

Is it worth reading on?

steve wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:58 -0800, DaveyWavey wrote:

So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone realised
that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public what
they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an impression
that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to support this
absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face by
scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting at
dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike. Fairly
absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is not much
evidence that there actually were any) would have been a direct result of
the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article, authored
by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

I only got past the headline

"Safety concerns were central to tube strike"

to be greeted in the first paragraph

"staff in the RMT union walked out on New Year's Eve to defend the deal
we'd won for a shorter working week."

Is it worth reading on?

Depends. It's worth it for amusement value, to see how laughably
incoherent (and contradictory) the arguments for the strike seem to be.

But don't read it if you're looking for any sensible justification for
the strikes.

DaveyWavey wrote:
steve wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:58 -0800, DaveyWavey wrote:


So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone realised
that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public what
they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an impression
that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to support this
absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face by
scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting at
dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike. Fairly
absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is not much
evidence that there actually were any) would have been a direct result of
the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article, authored
by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

I only got past the headline

"Safety concerns were central to tube strike"

to be greeted in the first paragraph

"staff in the RMT union walked out on New Year's Eve to defend the deal
we'd won for a shorter working week."

Is it worth reading on?


Depends. It's worth it for amusement value, to see how laughably
incoherent (and contradictory) the arguments for the strike seem to be.

But don't read it if you're looking for any sensible justification for
the strikes.

Do you think Chairman Bob has misread his Communist worker 2006 sport
wall planner and thinks the World Cup is on now

www.waspies.net wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:
steve wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:58 -0800, DaveyWavey wrote:


So here's a question - does anyone (strikers included) know why the RMT
are holding these strikes? It seems that even the strikers themselves
can't get their story straight.

From reading the various reports (i.e. statements from the RMT
leadership, London Underground, and news reports), it seems to me that
events have unfolded as follows...

First the RMT leadership claimed that the strike was over the shorter
working week deal. Of course, this didn't last long when everyone realised
that the RMT agreed this deal ages ago.

Then the RMT leadership did a complete u-turn, claiming that the strike
was never about this deal, mumbling something about "sneaky job-cuts"
instead. They couldn't really explain what job cuts they were referring
to, and London Underground confirmed that there were no such cuts.

So, of course, the RMT leadership then fell back into some vague and
undefined statement about safety, despite London Underground's
confirmations that the new rosters had been validated on safety grounds.

Because their grounds for striking were so blatantly incoherent, they
refused to even enter discussions. This pretty much told the public what
they needed to know about the RMT leadership's motivations, an impression
that was underlined by the refusal of many RMT members to support this
absurd action on New Year's Eve.

Following the RMT leadership's failure to co-erce their membership into
this unjustified strike, they are now determined to try and save face by
scheduling a further strike. This time, they seem to be protesting at
dubious "safety issues" caused by the failed New Year's Eve strike. Fairly
absurd really, given that any such safety issues (and there is not much
evidence that there actually were any) would have been a direct result of
the strike action in the first place.

To further underline the lack of coherence behind the reasons for these
strikes, I should draw your attention to the following article, authored
by RMT strike supporters:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=8040

I only got past the headline

"Safety concerns were central to tube strike"

to be greeted in the first paragraph

"staff in the RMT union walked out on New Year's Eve to defend the deal
we'd won for a shorter working week."

Is it worth reading on?


Depends. It's worth it for amusement value, to see how laughably
incoherent (and contradictory) the arguments for the strike seem to be.

But don't read it if you're looking for any sensible justification for
the strikes.

Do you think Chairman Bob has misread his Communist worker 2006 sport
wall planner and thinks the World Cup is on now

At last, a plausible reason for the strikes.

Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the
T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the
union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry,
for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start
with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at
all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age!

Marc.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the
T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the
union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry,
for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start
with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at
all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age!

Marc.

Not according to this http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/abt_members.asp

wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the
T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the
union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry,
for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start
with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at
all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age!

Marc.

From the BBC's site 'Key players in the union movement' re Bob Crow:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4197262.stm

A former communist, he professes admiration for Arthur Scargill and for
Chairman Mao, and he began his own climb up the ranks of the RMT in 1983,
succeeding the late Jimmy Knapp as boss in 2002.
He has said:

"I'm not one of those union officials who continually say they regret the
inconvenience caused by industrial action.

You cannot have a dispute without inconvenience to the travelling public."

Sums him up quite well really..

Paul

wrote:
Isn't Bob Crowe, as one of Livingstone's cronies, a member of the
T.F.L. Board? If that is so, how can he possibly negotiate on the
union's behalf in any event? Conflict of interest and duty? Oh, sorry,
for him to understand that concept presupposes he has a brain to start
with. In fact, is there any evidence to suggest Crowe has a brain at
all? And they say prehistoric dinosaurs died out with the Ice Age!

Marc.

He quit the TFL board after a massive 8 week stint, (lightweight)

Oh, right, "how to win friends and influence people" - another of those
concepts the brainfree zone failed to understand!

Marc.