"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul Scott wrote:
Also, if the strike has been called until 1830 tonight, why aren't all
the
stations reopened at 1830?

I understant that people whose shift started between 20060108T1830
and 20060109T1830 were expected not to do their shift, while people
whose shift started outside that time were expected to turn up and
work the whole shift.

In other words, if your shift started yesterday at 1800, you were
expected to turn up and work all of it, while if it started today
at 1800, you were expected to work none of it.

However, I neither work for LuL nor am a member of the RMT, so I
could be talking rubbish.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

I see - thanks

Paul

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:37:48 GMT, "d" wrote:


"Chris!" wrote in message
groups.com...

Poldie wrote:

Is there any reason why the staff don't work as usual while striking
but just refuse to take money for tickets?

Because then there would be no point in striking during NYE or England
football matches


Of course there would be - the company takes a massive dive because it's
running a full service, and not getting any money for it. Them striking on
NYE demonstrates my point exactly.


There were no fares charged for much of New Year's Eve night so it is
irrelevant in that specific example. The reason for the dates is that
they were both expected to inflict maximum reputational damage on LUL
thus forcing management to the table. There were news articles about
the NYE dispute on Hong Kong and Asian television channels for goodness
sake. The strike threat therefore got a worldwide audience. Today's
strike date was cynically chosen to coincide with the expected full
scale return to work post Christmas. Hence also why it was timed to
wreck both peak periods. There is no subtlety here.

The RMT's strategy has always been to get public sympathy and concern on
their side - hence the "safety" argument this time round and the attempt
to move the goal posts to "safety" to widen the dispute. My personal
view is that the public are fed up with the antics of the tube unions.
The unions are on the verge of squandering the positive view that most
of the public have of transport workers post 7/7. That would be an
immensely silly thing to do.


The unions have beef with management, yet they take it out on the public.
The public are then expected to kick up a stink and get management acting in
the way the unions want. Why don't they cut out the middle man and stick it
to the management straight away? It seems absolutely ridiculous for unions
to penalise the public for the management's decisions.


Unions have always withdrawn their labour - it is, after all, the
resource they claim to represent. Therefore they are not very good at
learning new tricks. "All out brothers!"


I'm a left-leaning individual, and even I can see those asshats at london
underground (Mr Crow I'm looking at you, you fat pie-eating redneck) are
looking out for themselves with no consideration for the public (which, for
a public transport company, is not a great idea).


Do you seriously expect any consideration of the public by the RMT?
They only represent their members.
THey only represent SOME of their members, they're not interested in
drivers unless it's to use them as a lever to get what they want.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:32:28 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

The RMT's strategy has always been to get public sympathy and concern on
their side

If it is, they've got very strange tactics to fulfil it.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:37:48 GMT, "d" wrote:

"Chris!" wrote in message
groups.com...

Poldie wrote:
Is there any reason why the staff don't work as usual while striking
but just refuse to take money for tickets?

Because then there would be no point in striking during NYE or England
football matches


Of course there would be - the company takes a massive dive because it's
running a full service, and not getting any money for it. Them striking
on
NYE demonstrates my point exactly.

There were no fares charged for much of New Year's Eve night so it is
irrelevant in that specific example. The reason for the dates is that
they were both expected to inflict maximum reputational damage on LUL
thus forcing management to the table. There were news articles about
the NYE dispute on Hong Kong and Asian television channels for goodness
sake. The strike threat therefore got a worldwide audience. Today's
strike date was cynically chosen to coincide with the expected full
scale return to work post Christmas. Hence also why it was timed to
wreck both peak periods. There is no subtlety here.

That was kind of my point - they're using the public's outrage at their
transport being taken away as a way to hurt the management. Why should we
be the pawns? That's not exactly the spirit of the union, is it? If they
just let people on the tube with or without tickets, then the management
would be hurt and the public wouldn't be. I know about the free travel on
NYE, and that's why it's clear they don't give a **** about the public.


The RMT's strategy has always been to get public sympathy and concern on
their side - hence the "safety" argument this time round and the attempt
to move the goal posts to "safety" to widen the dispute. My personal
view is that the public are fed up with the antics of the tube unions.
The unions are on the verge of squandering the positive view that most
of the public have of transport workers post 7/7. That would be an
immensely silly thing to do.

I think all of london is getting ****ed off with the "safety" claim. Every
single time the unions claimed LU operated with an unsafe staff level,
no-one's died. Heck, more people seem to die when they ARE at work.

The unions have beef with management, yet they take it out on the public.
The public are then expected to kick up a stink and get management acting
in
the way the unions want. Why don't they cut out the middle man and stick
it
to the management straight away? It seems absolutely ridiculous for
unions
to penalise the public for the management's decisions.

Unions have always withdrawn their labour - it is, after all, the
resource they claim to represent. Therefore they are not very good at
learning new tricks. "All out brothers!"

They should look at what they do in Dublin when the bus drivers have beef
with managers. Withdrawing labour only works when the workers are actually
manufacturing or processing. As these clowns are providing a public
service, withdrawing labour takes on a whole new effect - that of ****ing
off the people.

I'm a left-leaning individual, and even I can see those asshats at london
underground (Mr Crow I'm looking at you, you fat pie-eating redneck) are
looking out for themselves with no consideration for the public (which,
for
a public transport company, is not a great idea).

Do you seriously expect any consideration of the public by the RMT?
They only represent their members.

Clearly. And not very well at that.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!