chunky munky wrote:

There has been nothing put out to tell LUL staff to refuse to cross
picket lines.


The TSSA's guidance has the following to say (and I suspect other unions
are similar):

quote

In accordance with contractual requirements TSSA members are advised
that they should make every endeavour to report for duty as normal.

Where transport difficulties prevent members from getting to work they
should report their particular situation to their employer with the
minimum of delay. Where necessary members should use whatever means of
public transport are available.

At work, TSSA members are strongly advised to carry out their normal
duties and they should not volunteer to work extended hours arising
directly out of or in consequence of the dispute. Members are advised
not to agree to undertake any duties that could not be regarded as part
of their job description and/or have not in the past been undertaken by
them in their current post.

Members should not at any time during the dispute act in breach of their
Contracts of Employment and should carry out their normal duties in line
with that stated above.

The above paragraph does not apply to regular *rostered* overtime and
applies only to *additional* duties occasioned by the dispute.

snip

We would reiterate that our members should only work their usual roster,
including any regular rostered overtime, and should not volunteer to
work any additional hours arising out of the dispute.

TSSA may not lawfully encourage members to take part in secondary
industrial action. Members may, however, choose as a matter of
individual conscience, not to cross another union’s picket line.

Members who so choose should be aware that such action is likely to put
them in breach of contract, and may result in their employer taking
disciplinary action against them (including dismissal).

TSSA will provide advice, support and representation to any member
facing disciplinary action in such circumstances.

/quote

Cheers,

Barry

Crap! And of course the strike is planned exactly on two days of my
vacation where I needed to use Tube the most, including visits to
several job interviews.

James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?


Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...


Well, the weather's not been that great this summer

On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:

So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...


Who wouldn't try protect their interests following the collapse of a
failed system?

The difference is that the mates of the Government who were expecting
vast amounts of money to be channeled to them indefinitely through PPP
are protecting their interests in less public ways than by going on
strike (not like they do any work anyway) but you can bet that they
are protecting their interests, probably to the detriment of the
workers' interests if they could get away with it.

If the threat of strike action will protect the interests of people
actually doing the work and who were definitely not the architects of
the system, then that's a Good Thing, particularly if sense is seen
soon enough for the strike to be averted.

All media referance to the strike was "pulled" on Friday on the
Mayor's order. Apparantly TSSA and UNITE (ex-TGWU) have reached an
agreement, no prizes for guessing that the RMT are those holding out
(though maybe isn't this always going to be the case as they tend to
represent the "poor bloody infantry"" which tend to come out worse
from any dispute?).

LU are expecting to wind down services from 1500-1700 Monday on the
BCV and SLL lines and not restore until Friday AM. If this *really*
occurs, it will be the most serious disruption since 1982 by my
reckoning, as though there have been strikes affecting more lines
since, these have been single days.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:54:04 -0700, MIG
wrote:

On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:

So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...


Who wouldn't try protect their interests following the collapse of a
failed system?

It seems that what the RMT want is the administrators to give a
guarantee over jobs after the end of the administration. This is
legally dubious.

MIG wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:

So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont
believe Ken Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...


Who wouldn't try protect their interests following the collapse of a
failed system?

There's nothing wrong with protecting your interests, we all do it in
one form or another

The difference is that the mates of the Government who were expecting
vast amounts of money to be channeled to them indefinitely through PPP
are protecting their interests in less public ways than by going on
strike (not like they do any work anyway) but you can bet that they
are protecting their interests, probably to the detriment of the
workers' interests if they could get away with it.

I actually agree with that. As it tends to be a common occurance.

If the threat of strike action will protect the interests of people
actually doing the work and who were definitely not the architects of
the system, then that's a Good Thing, particularly if sense is seen
soon enough for the strike to be averted.

I hope any strike is averted though, as ****ing off the public doesn't win
sympathy for any cause, legitimate or not!

On 1 Sep, 00:54, MIG wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, James Farrar wrote:

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"
So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...

Who wouldn't try protect their interests following the collapse of a
failed system?

Err, they've been promised no redundancies until Metronet goes out of
administration. That's a hell of a lot better than anyone working in
the real world could expect.

The difference is that the mates of the Government who were expecting
vast amounts of money to be channeled to them indefinitely through PPP
are protecting their interests in less public ways than by going on
strike (not like they do any work anyway) but you can bet that they
are protecting their interests, probably to the detriment of the
workers' interests if they could get away with it.

Sorry, what the hell are you talking about? Metronet's shareholders
have written off their interest, so who are these "mates of the
Government" and how are they "protecting their interest"?

[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

If the threat of strike action will protect the interests of people
actually doing the work and who were definitely not the architects of
the system, then that's a Good Thing, particularly if sense is seen
soon enough for the strike to be averted.

********: when a company fails, its employees are just as responsible
as its management. Sack the lot of them and rehire on the minimum
wage; if they don't like that there are plenty of people in Poland and
South Asia who'd like their jobs...

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

On 1 Sep, 08:19, John B wrote:
On 1 Sep, 00:54, MIG wrote:

On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, James Farrar wrote:

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:06:54 +0100, "Paul Scott"
So basically they are threatening a strike becasuse they dont believe Ken
Livingstone?

Basically, they're threatening a strike because they haven't had one
for a while...

Who wouldn't try protect their interests following the collapse of a
failed system?

Err, they've been promised no redundancies until Metronet goes out of
administration. That's a hell of a lot better than anyone working in
the real world could expect.

The difference is that the mates of the Government who were expecting
vast amounts of money to be channeled to them indefinitely through PPP
are protecting their interests in less public ways than by going on
strike (not like they do any work anyway) but you can bet that they
are protecting their interests, probably to the detriment of the
workers' interests if they could get away with it.

Sorry, what the hell are you talking about? Metronet's shareholders
have written off their interest, so who are these "mates of the
Government" and how are they "protecting their interest"?

[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

If the threat of strike action will protect the interests of people
actually doing the work and who were definitely not the architects of
the system, then that's a Good Thing, particularly if sense is seen
soon enough for the strike to be averted.

********: when a company fails, its employees are just as responsible
as its management. Sack the lot of them and rehire on the minimum
wage; if they don't like that there are plenty of people in Poland and
South Asia who'd like their jobs...

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

Nonsense. What a spiteful comment.
Metronet failed because of management decisions and the awful PPF
scheme.
The workers at the bottom of the ladder haven't done anything wrong.

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:19:23 -0700, John B wrote:



[and assuming you're referring to consultants and investment bankers,
they work a damn sight harder than anyone employed by LUL...]

Now I know all I need to know about you.