Tube Strike imminent
 

6.30pm on Sunday, April 6 to 6.30pm on Wednesday, April 9

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

Tube Strike imminent
 

On 29 Mar, 04:27, "John Rowland"
wrote:

6.30pm on Sunday, April 6 to 6.30pm on Wednesday, April 9

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

More from the BBC at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7318064.stm

It won't happen I bet.

The RMT and the TSSA unions say it's about safety concerns with
regards to new working practices. TfL says it isn't, and seems to
imply that the union's supposed safety concerns are something of a
trojan horse.

At first glance it does appear to be a case of more sabre rattling
from the unions. Are LU's plans really "an unacceptable attack on
safety standards"? Anyone who's in the loop care to add some informed
comments to the discussion?

Tube Strike imminent
 

On 29 Mar, 12:29, Mizter T wrote:
On 29 Mar, 04:27, "John Rowland"

wrote:
6.30pm on Sunday, April 6 to 6.30pm on Wednesday, April 9

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

Another month another strrike threat.. Well I never.

The RMT and the TSSA unions say it's about safety concerns with
regards to new working practices. TfL says it isn't, and seems to
imply that the union's supposed safety concerns are something of a
trojan horse.

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

B2003

Tube Strike imminent
 

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.

Tube Strike imminent
 

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.

Tube Strike imminent
 

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

Tube Strike imminent
 

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?

Tube Strike imminent
 

"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??

Tube Strike imminent
 

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

Tube Strike imminent
 

On Mar 30, 8:50*pm, Boltar wrote:
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

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.