Andrew Heenan wrote on 23 May 2009 17:36:51 ...
For your education it's very difficult to find out the true facts
behind any industrial dispute. The press, as with everything else,
tell the 'facts' the public want to hear.

No, they tell the facts that are available to them. If the RMT did a
better job of explaining what really happened, instead of going on
strike ostensibly because LU haven't fitted a safety feature to
42-year-old trains that are about to be replaced, then we would have a
better chance of understanding the "true facts". But then the RMT
aren't really interested in us.

Wrong on several counts.

For example, when a similiar incident happened on the Piccadilly about 20
years ago, every train was modified to ensure it didn't happen again; no
fuss, no bother, no strike. Just fixed.

20 years ago, the 73 stock was 16 years old. How long did it take to
fit CSDE to all 80-odd trains?
It would only be relevant to the present issue if it could be designed
and fitted much earlier than the introduction of the new Victoria stock,
which I doubt is practicable.

Also, history shows that where unions are concerned, they simply do not get
a fair hearing. In most strikes, all we get to hear is the management side,
and a pontificating journalist who usually takes the management side.

So where is the RMT press release that explains their position in a
credible way? I haven't seen it yet on their own website, so how do you
expect the media to give them a "fair hearing"?

[snip]
In this case, it isn't political correctness, it's safety. But who cares
when there's a chance to attack the unions, eh?

I care very much about safety, which is why I'm very concerned that, as
far as I can tell, the safety procedures weren't followed after the
driver made his mistake. If the union thinks his sacking was unfair, why
haven't they taken LU to an industrial tribunal? Instead they choose to
attack the passengers, so don't blame me if I appear to be attacking them.

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