So how do we find out about this, bugger all on the TfL site. That Ken
really is a smart cookie. Called for Metronet to go bankrupt, got what
he wanted and what is the first thing that the cretins in the union
do.
I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved, or what Ken wished
upon them.

Kevin

On Aug 31, 11:49 am, Kev wrote:
So how do we find out about this, bugger all on the TfL site. That Ken
really is a smart cookie. Called for Metronet to go bankrupt, got what
he wanted and what is the first thing that the cretins in the union
do.
I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved, or what Ken wished
upon them.

Kevin

You never know before the day.
However I doubt that any service will operate on Metronet lines. If
the trains can be prepped for service there will be no-one (apart from
Managers, and thats i they turn up) to get trains into and out of
depots, (except Neasden as that is LUL). If a Signal Failure or
Defective Train occurs what then?

Also, it does has the capability to affect all lines, if there is no-
one in the Fault Report Centre, or they become over-whelmed

Dont expect TfL (Kens 2nd Press Office) to say anything useless,
except blame everything other than Ken

"chunky munky" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 31, 11:49 am, Kev wrote:
So how do we find out about this, bugger all on the TfL site. That Ken
really is a smart cookie. Called for Metronet to go bankrupt, got what
he wanted and what is the first thing that the cretins in the union
do.
I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved, or what Ken wished
upon them.

Kevin

You never know before the day.
However I doubt that any service will operate on Metronet lines. If
the trains can be prepped for service there will be no-one (apart from
Managers, and thats i they turn up) to get trains into and out of
depots, (except Neasden as that is LUL). If a Signal Failure or
Defective Train occurs what then?

Also, it does has the capability to affect all lines, if there is no-
one in the Fault Report Centre, or they become over-whelmed

Dont expect TfL (Kens 2nd Press Office) to say anything useless,
except blame everything other than Ken


BBC are reporting strike may be called off...

"A joint statement from the unions on Thursday said they "welcomed the
commitment he (Ken Livingstone) gave to seek to secure the guarantees on
jobs, forced transfers and pensions that they are seeking from failed Tube
privateer Metronet".

However, they said they wanted the same guarantees from Metronet and the
administrator before calling the strikes off.

Mr Livingstone said: "TfL has been given assurances by the administrator
which meet all of the trade unions' concerns."

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6971816.stm

Paul S

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...

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.

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 31 Aug, 15:23, 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...

I would tend to disagree with you there.
At least one union (the Transport Salaried Staffs Association) has not
called it's members out on strike for decades, as there has been no
need.

The fact that they have voted in favour of a strike shows how
aggrieved they are by the whole Metronet fiasco, which includes
mismanagement of their business and then calling in the
administrators, thus leaving a £50M defecit in the Pension Fund which
they are no longer repsonsible for paying and despite having given up,
whilst remaining intent on getting rid of 691 jobs completely and
transferring a large number of the remaining staff to Bombardier who
were one of the first partners in the consortium to write off their
investment and throw in the towel.