www.waspies.net wrote:
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)

2 years actually. He was appointed to the board on 1 June 2002 and
resigned on 25 June 2004 after a row with Livingstone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3838961.stm
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Thanks for the info and link, Richard: that picture of Crow just about
proves my point!

Marc.

Richard J. wrote:
www.waspies.net wrote:

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)


2 years actually. He was appointed to the board on 1 June 2002 and
resigned on 25 June 2004 after a row with Livingstone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3838961.stm

I stand (well sit) corrected

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.

It seems the strike failed miserably, proving that those people who
didn't turn up are possibly not needed at all. Maybe LUL should
consider getting rid of them to save a few quid?!

I wonder if the union members that supported this action have
considered the long term damage for their careers? Bob Crow doesn't
exactly care; on a nice salary, taking leave when the strike is on (I'm
guessing, I don't actually know where he was - but I bet it was a nice
hotel/beach or whatever) and probably set up for life. If he was
sacked, he'd get a nice golden handshake anyway.

I can only see that most workers were sensible and totally unsupportive
of the pathetic strike. When we travelled in to London on Saturday
(31st), the train company was warning people that there were no tubes.
In that sense, the strike did 'work' as a lot of people would have
stayed away.

We didn't need the tube at Kings Cross, but found it working fine and
used it to Liverpool Street. Maybe the deep level station was closed,
but it didn't seem that anything was going on at all. I felt like
thanking the staff that had turned up, but wondered if they knew the
strike was on either!!

Jonathan

"DaveyWavey" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.


My post on The Transport Forum sums it and I hope explains why
this is just as important for the public as it is for the station staff.
I reproduce it he

"Great Stuff a lively discussion so let's clarify a few things.


The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central

London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.

LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated

with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts

would go but no job losses.



To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward

the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being

taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you

cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off

with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and

bank holidays).



I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I

could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a

back door way of reducing staff.



The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly

500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that

the present level of staff was required how can this be right we

now have the terrorist threat as well?



Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design

and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC

is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.



We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

Actually, given that drivers and signalling staff were not involved
(despite the RMT's best, or worst, intentions), over 50 stations were
closed at one point on New Year's Day, including quite a few adjacent
ones, so to describe it as failing miserably is not quite right.

Clearly, with the 'success' of Oyster (i.e. bully people into taking it
up through skewed fare increases), LU is looking for a 'BR' type
scenario with ticket offices at many stations staffed only M-F
mornings. Mike Brown says we can't have staff in offices selling just
one or two tickets an hour. What stations is he talking about? North
Weald? Blake Hall?

Putting staff back on the gateline and platform sounds good, except
those very same staff perobably started off there and took promotion to
ticket seller to get away from that environment and all the hassle it
involves. Yeah, maybe they should be grateful they've still got a job
but they're not going to be very happy about it (viz. the strike). Then
there's the repeal of the Section 12 legislation and the likely affect
that too will have on jobs.

Why doesn't LU publish the 'before' and 'after' staffing ratios for the
station groups at the heart of this dispute? (Or someone who reads this
with inside info.). Then if the RMT are telling lies, it will then be
plain to see.

Are LU offering voluntary redundancy? Surely if the package was
generous enough, we could eliminate unnecessary ticket office staff
without a strike?

If the same tickets can be bought from a newsagent or machine as from a
ticket office, what is the point of a ticket office?

Richard Adamfi wrote:
If the same tickets can be bought from a newsagent or machine as from a
ticket office, what is the point of a ticket office?

Exactly. If you make a ticket machine good enough, that it can handle
all forms of payment, make it clear what tickets are on offer (and also
display the options in numerous languages) then ticket staff are,
fairly, redundant. When I go abroad, the machines are usually easy to
use, although - to be fair - the ticket staff are usually excellent and
their knowledge of our language puts some of us to shame.

Oyster cards are excellent, although I accept that technically they're
regarded as proprietary, and as such there are a lot of issues/concerns
with the TOCs about their use. We may well see a switch to a different
card in the future, although I guess the Oyster name will remain.
Whether we needed to have people forced into getting an Oyster is
another story, as I'm surprised anyone who has used one would go back
to using cash - and as more people get them, surely word gets around
('what you're still using cash?').

Jonathan

Richard Adamfi wrote:
If the same tickets can be bought from a newsagent or machine as from a
ticket office, what is the point of a ticket office?

Many newsagents add a service charge for any credit or debit card
transaction on oyster only, however large the transaction, (eg Londis)

Ok, Dom1234, heres my response / questions... hope you can help...


RedAspect wrote:
My post on The Transport Forum sums it and I hope explains why
this is just as important for the public as it is for the station staff.
I reproduce it he

"Great Stuff a lively discussion so let's clarify a few things.


The strike is about jobs and safety. The level of staff at central

London stations was set in law as a result of the Kings Cross fire.

LU wants to scrap that legislation known as section 12.

Section 12 of what? Can you provide a link to it? All recent
legislation is on http://www.hmso.gov.uk


The 35-hour week that was first promised in 1997 was negotiated

with LU last year and it was agreed that 200 ticket seller posts

would go but no job losses.

OK


To try and do this without employing more staff, LU put forward

the 35/37.5 hour week. The excess 2.5 hours per week being

taken as extra leave. The figures don't add up of course, you

cannot run the tube with the same amount of staff when they off

with a total of 52 days leave (including normal annual leave and

bank holidays).

How do the figures not add up? Why can't you run the tube with less
staff hours, particularly now there is apparently much less work to be
done in ticket offices. I thought the main pont of Oyster was to
reduce the number of paper tickets bought and hence reduce the burden
on staff.

I was one who voted against the deal because a few others and I

could see the flaws. Customer driven rostering as LU calls it, is a

back door way of reducing staff.

How? Have they reduced the number of staff at all. Is there a single
job loss, or demotion to a lower grade with lower pay?

The new rosters prove us right, and LU is seeking to cut nearly

500 jobs despite Mike Brown's denials. If the KC fire proved that

the present level of staff was required how can this be right we

now have the terrorist threat as well?

They are seeking to cut 500 staff. Do you mean sack 500 staff? What
evidence do you base this on, the only evidence you give in that
paragraph is that Mike Brown has denied it.

How is *increasing* the number of staff on platforms *less* safe? I
would have thought it more safe/

Actually because of the smoking ban, improvements in station design

and station operation (read staff and staff procedures) a fire like KC

is unlikely. But who knows when terrorists will visit again.

Indeed. But whats the use in having extra staff in ticket offices?
Surely if there is a fire underground and they are at surface level,
the HSE wouldn't allow them to enter the station?

We must win this dispute. Unfortunately the only way workers can
win these things is by withdrawing their labour. Inconvenience to
customers is regrettable but necessary."

I completely disagree with the way you are trying to make the strike
about 'safety' when you provide no evidence of how moving the staff
around is going to make the stations less safe.

The only safety issues I can see are the incidents highlighted in Bob
Crow's letter to HMRI. But if HMRI are already starting to investigate
I fail to see what a strike will do to help. Let the independant HMRI
enquiry decide, don't appoint yourselves judge, jury and executioner.

Happy trolling Mr Dom1234/RedAspect
--
C