On 29 Mar, 23:38, Boltar wrote:

The unions using safety as a convenient cover story for their real
beef about working hours and pay? Say it aint so!

B2003

It ain't so.

On Mar 30, 1:07*pm, " wrote:
On 29 Mar, 23:38, Boltar wrote:

The unions using safety as a convenient cover story for their real
beef about working hours and pay? Say it aint so!

B2003

It ain't so.

I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty well
with the safey of systems anyway.

On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:
I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty well
with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003

On 30 Mar, 19:11, Boltar wrote:
On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:

I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty well
with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003

That includes people who work on oil rigs and deep sea divers?

wrote:
On 30 Mar, 19:11, Boltar wrote:
On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:

I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty
well with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003

That includes people who work on oil rigs and deep sea divers?

Robin, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us about the reasons for this strike,
because the safety connection is not at all clear IMHO. In particular, why
does closing a ticket office cause a safety problem? I thought that
staffing of all stations had been guaranteed.

LU say that "these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with safety, and not
a single job is at risk."

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On 30 Mar, 19:11, Boltar wrote:
On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:

I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty
well with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003

That includes people who work on oil rigs and deep sea divers?

Robin, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us about the reasons for this
strike, because the safety connection is not at all clear IMHO. In
particular, why does closing a ticket office cause a safety problem? I
thought that staffing of all stations had been guaranteed.


I suspect the people with jobs in the obsolescent ticket offices feel safer
in them than outside dealing directly with the public...

Paul

On 30 Mar, 21:53, "Richard J." wrote:
wrote:
On 30 Mar, 19:11, Boltar wrote:
On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:

I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty
well with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003

That includes people who work on oil rigs and deep sea divers?

Robin, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us about the reasons for this strike,
because the safety connection is not at all clear IMHO. *In particular, why
does closing a ticket office cause a safety problem? *I thought that
staffing of all stations had been guaranteed.

LU say that "these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with safety, and not
a single job is at risk."

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Inte...?NodeID=103691

On Mar 31, 1:44 pm, " wrote:
http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Inte...?NodeID=103691

If they're so worried about agency staff I hope they never have to go
an NHS hospital. A large proportion of the medical staff are
generally agency staff, particularly the nurses. Funnily enough the
unions there didn't consider it a safety issue though as we all know
the tube unions live in their own little fantasy world where any
working practices not devised during the Bolshevic Revolution are
frowned upon.
Isn't that right comrades?

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:
I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty well
with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003


I,m not sure what you mean? Do you mean that because the wages on London
Underground are good, the employers wont cut costs??

On 30 Mar, 20:35, "Sargeant Rutter" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

...

On 30 Mar, 14:14, MIG wrote:
I bet that decent pay and working hours of staff correlate pretty well
with the safey of systems anyway.

Well given the rather generous pay scales at LUL it must be pretty
damn safe, so what are they whinging about?

B2003

I,m not sure what you mean? Do you mean that because the wages on London
Underground are good, the employers wont cut costs??

Doesn't anyone on here read a thread in full? I was replying to the
guy who tried to correlate wages with safety.

B2003