On 30 Mar, 21:15, MIG wrote:
Which was meant to imply that striking for one need not be a cover for
the other, since safety of passengers (and staff) and good pay and
conditions for staff are likely to correlate well.

Which I don't happen to believe is true. The tube was pretty damn safe
long before the drivers managed to screw a middle management wage out
of LUL.

B2003

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).

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

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).

Or because NHS administrators are incompetent at long-term planning, or
simply have funny ideas about the flexibility being worth paying extra
for, or because there's a shortage of nurses willing to take up permanent
contracts, or any one of a number of reasons.

Agency nurses must cost more than employed nurses of the same calibre,
otherwise how would the agency make its money?

Assuming that the decision is the correct one made on the basis of a
rational examination of the data seems highly counterfactual. When have
you ever seen a large organisation that works that way? Even major
corporations and financial institutions, who you'd expect to be experts at
this, seem to make strategic decisions based on little more than fashion
and short-termism.

tom

--
Ten years of radio astronomy have taught humanity more about the creation
and organization of the universe than thousands of years of religion
and philosophy. -- P. C. W. Davis

On 29 Mar, 05:27, "John Rowland"
wrote:
6.30pm on Sunday, April 6 to 6.30pm on Wednesday, April 9

http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...nXnuNCJqho_ekw

They've been suspended.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7327964.stm