"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Mayor has suspended the plan to run the Underground service half
an hour later on friday and saturday nights because, he states, of
problems getting in agreed with with two of the unions, ASLEF and the
RMT. Two other unions, the TSSA and the far smaller British Transport
Operators' Guild, have agreed to the proposals.

The press release from the Mayor's statement is he
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10750

A response from ASLEF is he
http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/104004/

Ken says "ASLEF negotiators have rejected the offer we have made,
including the three days' extra holiday, without putting it to their
members."

ASLEF retort "The problem is not London's tube drivers. It is London
Underground Limited's negotiators. They don't seem to know what
negotiation means."

Why does there need to be a negotiation?
Why is "this is our offer do you want to accept it"
not a reasonable approach.


My initial response is probably that shared by many Londoners - that
the unions are being awkward despite having been offered a good deal
and are stalling progress on this popular initiative. That said when
these spats occur things aren't necessarily as simple as they seem,
though having just read a previous thread ("Tube Strike?" thread,
started January 9 [1]) it does seem like the late running plan isn't a
fig leaf for other grievances, but is in fact the primary sticking
point. One issue seems to be whether LU would pay for drivers to get a
taxi home after late shifts.

Why should this be an issue (other than because the unions
can make it one).

If you're the driver of the last late train of the day, how does
it matter if it finishes at midnight and 30, or 1 in the morning.
either way you are stuck.

tim

wrote:
Station and other staff had already agreed to later working with
their 2005 pay award. Nothing was added for drivers at that time
hence the retention of the existing framework agreements for them.
The 3 days leave is now an attempt to resolve this. The issue I
personally have is LUL trying to force through changes to long
discussed and established agreements on the back of the 2006 pay
agreement. These matters should have been discussed separately IMO.

I think trying to separate pay and conditions in this way is a bit
artificial. Any company's pay award will be dependent on the state of
the business, and will need to reflect what the business expects of its
staff in the coming year. This is especially true if, as I understand
it, no actual increase in working hours is involved.

Absolutely! And why should the rest of us have our pay award
delayed by management trying to get an agreement for drivers?

Or delayed by the unions ignoring (or not being prepared to find out)
the views of most of their members? It takes two sides to make an
agreement, or fail to do so.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Or delayed by the unions ignoring (or not being prepared to find out)
the views of most of their members? It takes two sides to make an
agreement, or fail to do so.

Well it's management who have insisted on linking the later running
(which is, as already stated, only an issue affecting drivers now), to
agreeing the 2006 pay award for EVERYONE. The RMT is now balloting
its members for industrial action on the 2006 pay award (or lack
of.....) so you should get a good idea of the views of RMT members
from the ballot result.

wrote:
Or delayed by the unions ignoring (or not being prepared to find
out) the views of most of their members? It takes two sides to
make an agreement, or fail to do so.

Well it's management who have insisted on linking the later running
(which is, as already stated, only an issue affecting drivers now),
to agreeing the 2006 pay award for EVERYONE. The RMT is now
balloting its members for industrial action on the 2006 pay award
(or lack of.....) so you should get a good idea of the views of RMT
members from the ballot result.

I hope that most RMT members will actually make their views known via
the ballot. Many previous ballots have been ignored by most of the
membership.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Feb 7, 6:25 pm, "Tom Page" wrote:
havign to switch from tube to buses (which will be the case
for those disadvantage by the hour-later start on Saturday mornings.

And the Incerased cost -- a trip to work for me costs £4 rtn on tube
on a saturday, or a Z1-6 ODTC to go by bus/train/tube, or bus/bus/bus/
bus

On a Suday theres no bus service near my tube station (or house), so
it'd be the car