|
Later running tube plan suspended
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/ |
Later running tube plan suspended
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. |
Later running tube plan suspended
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? |
Later running tube plan suspended
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 |
Later running tube plan suspended
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. |
Later running tube plan suspended
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. |
Later running tube plan suspended
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. |
Later running tube plan suspended
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?). |
Later running tube plan suspended
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!? |
Later running tube plan suspended
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. |
Later running tube plan suspended
|
Later running tube plan suspended
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this PDF: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...0documents.pdf And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday mornings?" Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for no good reason. |
Later running tube plan suspended
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote: 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this PDF: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...ater/pdf/Consu... And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday mornings?" Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for no good reason. I don't remember that precise question in what I completed; sorry if I missed it. Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts. I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc. |
Later running tube plan suspended
MIG wrote:
I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override the crucial needs of the minority. I've heard this sort of thing before but it's hard for me to understand. People work late hours as well as early. TfL has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc. That is not a zero-sum game in the same way. It is possible for TfL to make all of their buses accessible. It's not possible for them to, say, make all of the tube stations accessible, and there's been no move to close the ones that aren't. -- Michael Hoffman |
Later running tube plan suspended
On 7 Feb, 16:35, "MIG" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote: On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote: 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this PDF: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...ater/pdf/Consu... And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday mornings?" Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for no good reason. I don't remember that precise question in what I completed; sorry if I missed it. Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts. I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc. Not to stretch this out too far, but this is still not a fair critque consultation. The short leaflet said "We are proposing to start trains one hour later and finish them one hour later: first trains would arrive at Central London stations at around 7am on Saturdays and 8:30am on Sundays; last trains would depart from the West End on Friday and Saturday nights at around 1:30am." - again, this is far from ambiguous, and is on the page before the questions start. Just in case one couldn't be bothered to read that, question 3A then said "Do you ever travel before 7:00 am on Saturday or 8:30 am on Sunday?", re- enforcing the fact, along with the previously quoted question 4A, that this wasn't an extension of hours, merely a re-allocation. And before you get into what looks like an anti-PC diatribe it's worth realising that the reason the original proposal (runs an hour later on Friday and Sat nights, starts an hour later Sat and Sun morning) was rejected, despite a majority being in favour, was *because it would disadvantage a minority*. The proposal was then changed so that Sunday hours would be unaltered, and the tube would run half an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, while starting an hour later on Sat morning. Two thirds of those disadvantaged by the original scheme would now not be disadvantaged by the revised scheme - TfL attempted to minimise the impact on an even smaller minority while providing a service requested by the majority. I take issue with your accessibility point - partly because low-floor buses benefit everyone who board buses, partly because in the long-run we would be forced by law to change to low floor vehicles anyway but mostly because there's a large difference between not being able to use public transport at all (before low-floor buses a person using a wheelchair would have little chance with the tube and no chance with buses) and havign to switch from tube to buses (which will be the case for those disadvantage by the hour-later start on Saturday mornings. To further complicate things, I'm almost certain London Buses have, in the past, conducted willingness-to-pay surveys with low-floor buses one of the features that people were asked to pair off with others to determine the customer benefit of bus alterations. Tom |
Later running tube plan suspended
I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc. I never understand why it is always assumed that low paid people don't also need to travel home late at the weekend - bar staff, restaurant staff, thatre/cinema staff etc. I don't think it's as simple as leisure usage (Sat Night) vs worker usage (Sun Morning), which it is often portrayed as being. |
Later running tube plan suspended
lots of stuff cut
I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc. Not to stretch this out too far, but this is still not a fair critque consultation. The short leaflet said "We are proposing to start trains one hour later and finish them one hour later: first trains would arrive at Central London stations at around 7am on Saturdays and 8:30am on Sundays; last trains would depart from the West End on Friday and Saturday nights at around 1:30am." - again, this is far from ambiguous, and is on the page before the questions start. Just in case one couldn't be bothered to read that, question 3A then said "Do you ever travel before 7:00 am on Saturday or 8:30 am on Sunday?", re- enforcing the fact, along with the previously quoted question 4A, that this wasn't an extension of hours, merely a re-allocation. And before you get into what looks like an anti-PC diatribe it's worth realising that the reason the original proposal (runs an hour later on Friday and Sat nights, starts an hour later Sat and Sun morning) was rejected, despite a majority being in favour, was *because it would disadvantage a minority*. The proposal was then changed so that Sunday hours would be unaltered, and the tube would run half an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, while starting an hour later on Sat morning. Two thirds of those disadvantaged by the original scheme would now not be disadvantaged by the revised scheme - TfL attempted to minimise the impact on an even smaller minority while providing a service requested by the majority. I take issue with your accessibility point - partly because low-floor buses benefit everyone who board buses, partly because in the long-run we would be forced by law to change to low floor vehicles anyway but mostly because there's a large difference between not being able to use public transport at all (before low-floor buses a person using a wheelchair would have little chance with the tube and no chance with buses) and havign to switch from tube to buses (which will be the case for those disadvantage by the hour-later start on Saturday mornings. To further complicate things, I'm almost certain London Buses have, in the past, conducted willingness-to-pay surveys with low-floor buses one of the features that people were asked to pair off with others to determine the customer benefit of bus alterations. Tom Possibly a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't being anti PC. I think all buses and stations should be accessible and that there should be no tradeoff. I accept that I've misremembered parts of the consultation (although I still question whether the proposal should ever have been made), but there's something bugging me about TfL's inconsistent attitude to majorities and minorities. It seems that when they are required to, as with disabled access, they correctly ensure that the minority is provided for. There are strict rules about ensuring that buses must have their ramps in working order. I am not sure what the latest decision is, but there was a time when it was said that bus must be taken out of service rather than run without a working ramp. On one hand this would disadvantage a majority, who wouldn't get any bus at all, but without such a rule, operators would probably not bother to fix them in a hurry. But on other issues their attitude is totally different. I've witnessed open meetings with TfL where it's been pointed out that the introduction of cashless buses may leave tourists and occasional visitors to London standing in the rain because they didn't get their ticket in advance. The response has been that it makes bus travel easier for 80% of users, so it's just tough luck for the rest. (I've actually seen someone left in the rain at about 0200 by a night bus driver because they couldn't make the machine work.) And look at how Tourists and occasional visitors can lose out with Oyster. Either attitude can have arguments in favour of it, but I'm saying that it's inconsistent in balancing the ease of the majority and the needs of a minority. I suggest that the late Undeground proposal is more like the latter of the scenarios above, and it's interesting that it was the users who, from what you say, seem to have been more considerate of the public service aspect. |
Later running tube plan suspended
MIG wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote: On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote: 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." Which you now know was not the case. Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts. Indeed, so they would not be affected then would they. If you answered the consultation as a self-appointed spokesman for others then your comments would rightly be ignored. Consultations do not work like that. I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. Populisms - sound a bit like soundbites. The tube is a massively expensive network that should be used to it full - the minority being well catered for too. Okay you have some problem with the tube being run later, it does not affect you, you respond to consultations when it does not affect you and you reinvent history. Why? |
Later running tube plan suspended
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. Absolutely! And why should the rest of us have our pay award delayed by management trying to get an agreement for drivers? As you say station staff already have an agreement in place for later working, and for those of us in service control (yes we're a much smaller group of staff than stations or trains but you won't get much of a service without us!) our shift times won't actually be affected so there is no need for new agreements (AFAIK). |
Later running tube plan suspended
On Feb 7, 8:25 pm, stevo wrote:
MIG wrote: On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote: On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote: 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." Which you now know was not the case. Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts. Indeed, so they would not be affected then would they. If you answered the consultation as a self-appointed spokesman for others then your comments would rightly be ignored. Consultations do not work like that. I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. Populisms - sound a bit like soundbites. The tube is a massively expensive network that should be used to it full - the minority being well catered for too. Okay you have some problem with the tube being run later, it does not affect you, you respond to consultations when it does not affect you and you reinvent history. Why I said that I would probably use it a number of times if it ran late, but I don't think it's important for me to be able to do so, and I would most likely be heading home, with no specific train/plane to catch or job to get to, so slower bus alternatives would be fine (in fact, buses come into their own at night when the traffic is less). I would use if less often if it ran early, but when I do it is likely to be very important and time-constrained. Therefore, for my own personal travel, I would rather that it didn't start later on Saturday mornings, whatever the cost in terms of getting home on Friday. That's how it affects me. |
Later running tube plan suspended
"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 |
Later running tube plan suspended
|
Later running tube plan suspended
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. |
Later running tube plan suspended
|
Later running tube plan suspended
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk