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

On 31 Mar, 15:57, Boltar wrote:
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

Possibly because the agency staff (especially nurses) have recognised
qualifications to ensure they are competent to carry out the role?
Bear in mind that the example you used, agency nurses, costs the
health service an awful lot of money, that could possibly be better
used directly employing more nurses to provide cover, rather than fill
the coffers of the agencies.

On Mar 31, 4:32 pm, " wrote:
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.

Possibly because the agency staff (especially nurses) have recognised
qualifications to ensure they are competent to carry out the role?
Bear in mind that the example you used, agency nurses, costs the
health service an awful lot of money, that could possibly be better
used directly employing more nurses to provide cover, rather than fill
the coffers of the agencies.

Yes; I'm sure the NHS deliberately uses agency nurses to maximise its
spending with agencies and wind up union types, rather than doing so
because it's the most efficient way of matching supply with demand.

Blimey, I seem to be agreeing with Boltar. Time for bed...

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

On 1 Apr, 01:29, John B wrote:
On Mar 31, 4:32 pm, " wrote:

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.

Possibly because the agency staff (especially nurses) have recognised
qualifications to ensure they are competent to carry out the role?
Bear in mind that the example you used, agency nurses, costs the
health service an awful lot of money, that could possibly be better
used directly employing more nurses to provide cover, rather than fill
the coffers of the agencies.

Yes; I'm sure the NHS deliberately uses agency nurses to maximise its
spending with agencies and wind up union types, rather than doing so
because it's the most efficient way of matching supply with demand.

Maybe neither. Maybe it's because the permanent staff budget is
capped, or because the agencies make political donations (these are
just a couple more hypotheses).