http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm

Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay
settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat
pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer.

B2003

On Jan 29, 4:47�pm, wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm

Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay
settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat
pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer.

B2003

'Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union
(RMT), said: "Any attempt to impose compulsory redundancies among our
members or to undermine their terms and conditions will be met with a
ballot for industrial action." '

Good on you Bob, that will just add a few more to the list of
redundancies!

Marc.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:47:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm

Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay
settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat
pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer.

Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without
some tasks just not getting done any more.
--
Peter Lawrence

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:20:10 GMT, "Peter Lawrence"
wrote:

Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without
some tasks just not getting done any more.

Do companies and other organisations not realise that by jumping on
the redundancies bandwagon (aka burying bad news) they make the
recession all the worse?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Jan 29, 10:37*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:20:10 GMT, "Peter Lawrence"

wrote:
Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without
some tasks just not getting done any more.

Do companies and other organisations not realise that by jumping on
the redundancies bandwagon (aka burying bad news) they make the
recession all the worse?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

The other week someone plummy was proposing pay cuts on the news.
It's the "workers" who stop spending when announcements like that are
made, and stopping spending means ... as you say, recession.

Trouble is that asking an economist why there's no money is like
asking an electrician why there's no coal. This is really a
pyschological and social phenomenon.

"Peter Lawrence" wrote in news:49822ae5.6325519
@europe.news.astraweb.com:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:47:43 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7858610.stm

Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay
settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat
pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer.

Its the passengers will suffer - they can't cut that many jobs without
some tasks just not getting done any more.

You are Bob Crow, AICMFP.

Chickens coming home to roost after all those unreasonable pay
settlements. Unfortunately it looks like the people who got those fat
pay rises arn't the ones who're going to suffer.

I wonder if the nasty little fascists will rejoice in others' redundancy so
much when they lose their own jobs.
But I suppose they don't work anyway ...

I don't work for TfL, because despite the 'unreasonable pay seettlements',
the pay is pretty bloody low - and TfL staff have to actually work, not sit
around looking at porn all day.

But I travel by TfL - and I don't rejoice that they are being targetted -
not least because travelling will get worse.
--
Andrew

"When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule,
Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman

If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week-
long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs,
would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they
save by these probably needless redundancies? I would support Bob Crow
and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I
believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation,
that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at
the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic
climate.

Neill

On 30 Jan, 11:03, Neill wrote:
If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week-
long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs,
would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they
save by these probably needless redundancies? I would support Bob Crow
and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I
believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation,
that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at
the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic
climate.

Neill

Apparently the BBC is suffering because "the growth of households will
slow". They budgeted, not based on the current number of license fee
payers, but on the projected number based on the housebuilding boom.

If TFL budgeted on overly optimistic future expectations, such as fare
increases (which seem politically more unlikely in a deflationary
economy), and increase in passenger numbers (when they're actually
going to be decreasing), the will have a big budget shortfall for the
next few years. Had they budgeted on this years figures, and next
years agreed price rise, without assuming anything in the future, they
should have been ok.

The long distance TOCs will be hit by buisness travel. Last minute
£200+ open-return jaunts to Manchester are going to be rarer.

Neill wrote:
If the unions called a week-long strike, even tying it in with a week-
long nation rail strike to protest against franchises cutting jobs,
would that cost the companies concerned more in lost revenue than they
save by these probably needless redundancies?

That would be the mandatory redundancies which the article specifically says
will be avoided?

I would support Bob Crow
and his union cronies for once if they took strike action, as I
believe they represent the workers of a public service organisation,
that should be run as such, not as a company that employs people at
the behest of shareholders, consultants and the whimsy of the economic
climate.

Yeah, comrade! Can I point out the glaring contradiction between the words
"Bob Crow and his union represent the workers" and "public service
organisation"? While obviously a compromise must be struck between the
interests of Undergound employees and the interests of the public, they are
heading in opposite directions, and to invoke the word "public" when
discussing Bob Crow's actions, which have always been contrary to the
interest of the public, is utterly dishonest.

People in the private sector are losing jobs all over. If this latest move
helps to keep business rates down and prevents businesses going to the wall,
it will be a good thing for Londoners as a whole.