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."

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.


-----
[1] http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....on/browse_frm/
thread/4fc15fddb3dc00b9/

On Feb 7, 1:33 am, "Mizter T" wrote:
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."

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.


It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:33 am, "Mizter T" wrote:





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."

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.

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away

True though if they were really low paid they wouldnt be able to
afford the tube and would bus it.

Wasnt the time difference changed from one hour to half? So we're
talking about one day a week staff finishing half an hour later and
starting later the next day. For which they would be given three days
extra holiday?

How is that not a good deal for them?

On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:
It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.

The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond.

The number of potential passengers for that late night service was so
much higher than the ones for the morning service.
I think I'd actually rather have the morning service too. I don't know
about you guys, but I usually end up going out until late and coming
back in the morning.

kytelly wrote:

Wasnt the time difference changed from one hour to half? So we're
talking about one day a week staff finishing half an hour later and
starting later the next day. For which they would be given three days
extra holiday?

How is that not a good deal for them?

Because as I pointed out when Livingstone said later service "will" happen,
the staff have him over a barrel and they're using it to their maximum
advantage. These extra 3 days holiday will mean more staff have to be hired,
which will mean either the fares go up or the rates go up, neither of which
were declared during the consultation, making the public's approval
meaningless. What a balls-up.

Why can they run all night on Thur/Fri/Sat in Berlin despite having
the same twin-track running tunnels as in London (and opposed to New
York's 4-tracking in places?).

I thought it was the British Transport *Officers* Guild. Seems LUL
didn't even know who they were talking too. Btw it was it bit
misleading for LU to say TSSA and BTOG had accepted the deal leaving
ASLEF and RMT out in the cold, thus implying 50% of the workforce were
in agreement. Does anyone actually know a member of BTOG? Isn't it
just the Chairman and his dog? Plus TSSA would never dare stand up to
TfL management, or at least haven't done in living memory. Also the
later running affects all members of LU's operating staff yet only
drivers were offered the extra days off. If the latter are the only
people involved, as LU seems to suggest, they why have the rest of
LU's staff been denied a pay rise since April 2005!?

On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:





On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.

The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond


I took part in the consultation. The questions were on the lines of
"if they ran later, would you be likely to use them?". "how often
would you be likely to use them?" etc.

The fact that I would use them and would probably use them more often
than early morning services was not actually asking my opinion about
whether I thought the late night services were more important than
retaining the early morning ones.

I would use them if they were there, but I don't particularly mind
using a bus if I stay out later: I'm only going to bed after all. I
do mind if there's no early service on the less frequent occasions
when I really need it for something urgent.

There was opportunity to express general comments and concerns (which
I did), but any objective figures were to do with whether or not one
would use the services if they were there. You cannot possibly deduce
whether people were in favour of the change.