# No tubes on NYE.......



## EastEnder (Dec 22, 2005)

> BBC London's transport correspondent Andrew Winstanley said the strikes would severely disrupt services.
> 
> The New Year's Eve stoppage will mean an end to the tradition of the Tube running all night on 31 December.
> 
> Transport for London had already announced the continuous running with the Tube being free from 2345 GMT on New Year's Eve until 0430 GMT on New Year's Day.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4550830.stm

Looks like I'll be sticking with the party up the road then.....


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 22, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4550830.stm
> 
> Looks like I'll be sticking with the party up the road then.....


yup... midday on nye to midday jan 1st


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2005)

I'm sure they'll call it off when they get what they want.


----------



## rennie (Dec 22, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm sure they'll call it off when they get what they want.




will they tho? it's a week away!


----------



## knopf (Dec 22, 2005)

Let's all hope they get what they want then.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 22, 2005)

www.takeabus.com?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 22, 2005)

Ha ha ha, 

I won't be here so who cares. Tubes fucking suck anyway.

So what do they want now? 30K for pushing a stop ang button not enough for them.


----------



## belboid (Dec 22, 2005)

Better hope they win eh?

Or realise that it's a big fucking city and that without them you'd be fucked for getting about, so perhaps they fully deserve decent pay and conditions, especially when dealing with pissed up wankers on NYE/D!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha,
> 
> I won't be here so who cares. Tubes fucking suck anyway.
> 
> So what do they want now? 30K for pushing a stop ang button not enough for them.


 What do they want? Amongst other things better safety conditions for drivers, tube staff _and passengers_ as it goes.


----------



## rennie (Dec 22, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> Better hope they win eh?
> 
> Or realise that it's a big fucking city and that without them you'd be fucked for getting about, so perhaps they fully deserve decent pay and conditions, especially when dealing with pissed up wankers on NYE/D!




definitely.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 22, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> Better hope they win eh?
> 
> Or realise that it's a big fucking city and that without them you'd be fucked for getting about, so perhaps they fully deserve decent pay and conditions, especially when dealing with pissed up wankers on NYE/D!


afaik, this isn't about pay and confitions as such - it relates to the distribution of staffing across stations which has had to be re -jigged since they got the 35hr shorter week.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 22, 2005)

Maybe they could just draft in the robots who drive the DLR trains to work that night...


----------



## Miscellaneous (Dec 22, 2005)

its about redundancies of staff- which LU have neither said nor denied.


----------



## knopf (Dec 22, 2005)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> afaik, this isn't about pay and confitions as such - it relates to the distribution of staffing across stations which has had to be re -jigged since they got the 35hr shorter week.



From the link: -




			
				bbc said:
			
		

> The RMT fears plans by London Underground, including closing ticket offices, could lead to job losses and compromise safety.


----------



## belboid (Dec 22, 2005)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> afaik, this isn't about pay and confitions as such - it relates to the distribution of staffing across stations which has had to be re -jigged since they got the 35hr shorter week.


wel, that _is_ about conditions then - les staff, opther staff have to work more.

(okay, its slightly indirect, but point still stands)


----------



## zenie (Dec 22, 2005)

Still have buses though I presume???


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

Yes, it's about cutting front-line staff in a move that will affect safety for everyone (if you're a greedy fuck look at the last one and how it might affect you):

CUTS IN station staff numbers planned by London Underground will leave stations dangerously understaffed and ticket offices closed as passengers face a £3 minimum ‘walk-on’ cash fare, the Tube’s biggest union warns commuters today.

But as cash fares are set to rise to a minimum £3 for a single stop to force uptake of the deeply unpopular OysterCard system, RMT points out that LUL wants to close eleven booking offices altogether and slash opening times of the rest by up to 70 per cent.

Platform staff at terminus stations, who not only ensure safe detraining but who are also invaluable in spotting unattended items, are also to be massively reduced or removed altogether

“Most other operational grades in central London will also be affected, with supervisory and booking office positions hardest hit. If these cuts go ahead and you are unlucky enough to find yourself without a ticket you’ll have little chance of getting one and could face a £6 for a return journey of two stops.
here


----------



## knopf (Dec 22, 2005)

Link not working, butchers. 

Good post, though.


----------



## belboid (Dec 22, 2005)

working link - http://www.rmt.org.uk/C2B/PressOffice/display.asp?ID=1789&Type=2

£3 a stop??!!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

Sorted now.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 22, 2005)

personally i think that clsoing ticket offices will be a bad thing - i think the implication is that already understaffed stations will have the ticket office open for even less time - meaning that there is no-one around to keep an eye on the station, no support for drivers in an emergency and no human contacts for the emergency services in the area.


----------



## knopf (Dec 22, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Sorted now.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 22, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> personally i think that clsoing ticket offices will be a bad thing - i think the implication is that already understaffed stations will have the ticket office open for even less time - meaning that there is no-one around to keep an eye on the station, no support for drivers in an emergency and no human contacts for the emergency services in the area.



Absolutely. Apparently it's all connected with the Oyster card - now you can update it without needing to bother a live human being, they don't need as many staff. They've been talking about it for ages - since at least the summer. TfL are claiming that staff will be redeployed but I think that's probably bollocks.


----------



## spanglechick (Dec 22, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> personally i think that clsoing ticket offices will be a bad thing - i think the implication is that already understaffed stations will have the ticket office open for even less time - meaning that there is no-one around to keep an eye on the station, no support for drivers in an emergency and no human contacts for the emergency services in the area.


exactly - twil be like the overland.  unstaffed stations = free pass for muggers / rapists...


----------



## jayeola (Dec 22, 2005)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha,
> 
> I won't be here so who cares. Tubes fucking suck anyway.
> 
> So what do they want now? 30K for pushing a stop ang button not enough for them.


Ah, but it's the *stress* of having to push it on, then off and wait for it... on again. Also they have to deal with people asking them "directions" and that must be tiresome.


----------



## belboid (Dec 22, 2005)

jayeola said:
			
		

> Ah, but it's the *stress* of having to push it on, then off and wait for it... on again. Also they have to deal with people asking them "directions" and that must be tiresome.


you try it shitferbrains.

especially some of that lovely seeing a suicide jump out in front of you.

wanker.


----------



## knopf (Dec 22, 2005)

jayeola said:
			
		

> Ah, but it's the *stress* of having to push it on, then off and wait for it... on again. Also they have to deal with people asking them "directions" and that must be tiresome.



Well they must be doing something right if they take a day off on NYE & you all shit yourselves.


----------



## Callie (Dec 22, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Apparently it's all connected with the Oyster card - now you can update it without needing to bother a live human being, they don't need as many staff. They've been talking about it for ages - since at least the summer. TfL are claiming that staff will be redeployed but I think that's probably bollocks.




Its been in the pipeline for a little bit longer than the summer!


----------



## Miscellaneous (Dec 22, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> you try it shitferbrains.
> 
> especially some of that lovely seeing a suicide jump out in front of you.
> 
> wanker.



yup, i've seen someone do it, and got back on the public transport- and? |Your point is what exactly?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> personally i think that clsoing ticket offices will be a bad thing - i think the implication is that already understaffed stations will have the ticket office open for even less time - meaning that there is no-one around to keep an eye on the station, no support for drivers in an emergency and no human contacts for the emergency services in the area.


Yes but most of the security is via cctv now anyway, staff won't see anything from inside a ticket office.


----------



## Callie (Dec 22, 2005)

I think the point being made is that the job is a little bit more than just pushing a 'go' button or whatever was said earlier.


----------



## Callie (Dec 22, 2005)

oooh and a stop button, go's not very helpful if you can't stop


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 22, 2005)

jayeola said:
			
		

> Ah, but it's the *stress* of having to push it on, then off and wait for it... on again. Also they have to deal with people asking them "directions" and that must be tiresome.



don't be a twat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes but most of the security is via cctv now anyway, staff won't see anything from inside a ticket office.


 That rather depends on _where_ it's happening doesn't it? And _what's_ happening doesn't it?. And who do you think were the first people there helping after 7/7?


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 22, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes but most of the security is via cctv now anyway, staff won't see anything from inside a ticket office.



true enough,  but i think it helps to have a person there, don't you think.  after all, one of the major problems with the overground is all the unmanned stations are a mugger's playground.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That rtaher depends on where it's happening doesn't it? And who do you think were the first people there helping after 7/7?


Yes, but 7/7 is hardly a regular occurence is it?


----------



## trashpony (Dec 22, 2005)

Won't anyone think of the tourists? They'll be standing there with their £20 note, not knowing which button to push, where they want to go or what line they're on.

Causing *us * loads of fucking grief


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes, but 7/7 is hardly a regular occurence is it?


 No, it's not - the point though was that if they're there they're then in a position to react quickly to unexpecetd events and in certain situations that may well be crucial. And, even then it doesn't affect my prior point one jot.


----------



## Callie (Dec 22, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> true enough,  but i think it helps to have a person there, don't you think.  after all, one of the major problems with the overground is all the unmanned stations are a mugger's playground.



Are there any unmanned tube stations?


----------



## trashpony (Dec 22, 2005)

Callie said:
			
		

> Are there any unmanned tube stations?



All the DLR ones are pretty much. Bit spooky


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 22, 2005)

Callie said:
			
		

> Are there any unmanned tube stations?



i know that once you get past leytonstone on the central line some of the eastbound epping branchline stations can be unmanned at times - definitely snaresbrook, buckhurst hill, debden, theyden bois, and barkingside, fairlop, chigwell on the hainault branch.  so i'd assume that the suburban ends of most lines will have similarly unmanned stations at times as well.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, it's not - the point though was that if they're there they're then in a position to react quickly to unexpecetd events and in certain situations that may well be crucial. And, even then it doesn't affect my prior point one jot.


It's just a load of if's and but's though, If security is an issue then there needs to be better planning in terms of getting emergency personnel on site quickley, not more ticket office people.


----------



## EastEnder (Dec 22, 2005)

I must be in a minority when it comes to Oyster cards - I think they're a good idea....

For regular travellers at least. Not sure how tourists are meant to cope...


----------



## belboid (Dec 22, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> It's just a load of if's and but's though, If security is an issue then there needs to be better planning in terms of getting emergency personnel on site quickley, not more ticket office people.


given the piss poor state of the underground there are emergencies somewhere on the network almost every day. there are also incidents - heart attacks frinstance - which require someone to attend rapidly.

but fuck them, they'll be the weak ones - let 'em die.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> It's just a load of if's and but's though, If security is an issue then there needs to be better planning in terms of getting emergency personnel on site quickley, not more ticket office people.


 True enough, but the simple physical presence of staff acts a detternet for a whole range of opportunistic crime - muggings, snatchings, violent attack, abuse etc - crimes qwhich affect the individual mostly


----------



## trashpony (Dec 22, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> True enough, but the simple physical presence of staff acts a detternet for a whole range of opportunistic crime - muggings, snatchings, violent attack, abuse etc - crimes qwhich affect the individual mostly



Exactly. People standing around at tube stations are vulnerable. And ticket staff do loads to prevent opportunistic attacks - I know I feel safer when they're around.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> I must be in a minority when it comes to Oyster cards - I think they're a good idea....
> 
> For regular travellers at least. Not sure how tourists are meant to cope...



I think Oyster cards are convenient too, but I think it's out of order the way they're forcing it down people's throats...    

As for tube staff striking: I've always been supportive of them and that's not about to change.  You try and dealing with the trauma of someone jumping in front of the train (amongst other things) you're driving and tell me this is an easy job!


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 22, 2005)

If i had to work down in those tunnels, I'd want a fair wage and decent back-up.  Can't say I blame them for going on strike.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2005)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha,
> 
> I won't be here so who cares. Tubes fucking suck anyway.
> 
> So what do they want now? 30K for pushing a stop ang button not enough for them.


It would be nice if we all got £30k - let's not be mean spirited because some other workers have managed to wangle a fairer wage and better working conditions and continue to struggle for more improvements - if only all union leaders were like Bob Crow. We should show them some solidarity.


----------



## laptop (Dec 22, 2005)

jayeola said:
			
		

> Ah, but it's the stress of having to push it on, then off and wait for it... on again.




To pushing button: minimum wage
To knowing *when* to push button: large amount more than that


----------



## silentNate (Dec 22, 2005)

Fuck me do I wish I'd become a taxi driver now  

I agree with the strike, unmanned tube stations would be a nightmare- can't blame them for picking NYE to strike either tbh....


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 22, 2005)

Miscellaneous said:
			
		

> yup, i've seen someone do it, and got back on the public transport- and? |Your point is what exactly?



You've driven a tube? Or just seen it as a passenger?


----------



## the B (Dec 22, 2005)

Hmm, doing NYE pisses us off as tube users - not sure it winds up the bosses (and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes).

Eg. I'd rather they gave out free weekly tickets or something... hit the bosses in those lined and heavy pockets...

Support the staff and safety but rather it was done slightly differently.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Hmm, doing NYE pisses us off as tube users - not sure it winds up the bosses (and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes).
> 
> Eg. I'd rather they gave out free weekly tickets or something... hit the bosses in those lined and heavy pockets...
> 
> Support the staff and safety but rather it was done slightly differently.


 Sorry, who apponted you spokeperson for tube users?

There's a reason they're _threatenin_ to do this now. It's because it gives them a position of maximum leverage. To not do it _now_ is to throw away one of your strongest weapons. As it seems some people need reminding every december.


----------



## poului (Dec 22, 2005)

*78yn9t0y90uuu9*

I'm not usually a fan of striking as an effective means of protest but any brief experience of the sort of moronic drunken cunts that terrorise the tube trains during bingeing hours showcases how underappreciated a lot of tube workers are these days.


It also makes a nice convenient excuse for me to not have to mission it out to some Industrial Estate in suburban London for an inevitably disappointing free party. So all good.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 22, 2005)

Tube drivers have my support - it's a shitty job that's constant maligned by the press so that the 'common sense' view is that it's just pushing a button. However, no tubes on new years will be annoying - I wish that letting customers on for free was a valid action for them to take. I know it's not as powerful a statement as not working at all, but It would have a level of magnitude more support from Londoners at large.

Does this make me a wiberal?


----------



## General Ludd (Dec 22, 2005)

> Yes, but 7/7 is hardly a regular occurence is it?


That's not much of an argument, or at least if it is an argument then it's also an argument for the emergency services not wasting huge amounts of time and expense on planning and training for such irregular ocurrences.

(And as a rural yokel I'm always fucking glad there are tube staff around to answer my inane questions)


----------



## the B (Dec 22, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Sorry, who apponted you spokeperson for tube users?
> 
> There's a reason they're _threatenin_ to do this now. It's because it gives them a position of maximum leverage. To not do it _now_ is to throw away one of your strongest weapons. As it seems some people need reminding every december.



Because tube users will all be universally happy with the news 

We don't want to the strike, I doubt the workers do and I doubt the bosses do. I just hope bosses get over their greed enough...


----------



## BarryB (Dec 22, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i know that once you get past leytonstone on the central line some of the eastbound epping branchline stations can be unmanned at times - definitely snaresbrook, buckhurst hill, debden, theyden bois, and barkingside, fairlop, chigwell on the hainault branch.  so i'd assume that the suburban ends of most lines will have similarly unmanned stations at times as well.



I thought that there was a legal requirement that a tube station could only be open if it is manned. Mind you going by the list above perhaps if there is such a legal requirement it might only apply to stations with platforms underground.


BarryB


----------



## the B (Dec 22, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Tube drivers have my support - it's a shitty job that's constant maligned by the press so that the 'common sense' view is that it's just pushing a button. However, no tubes on new years will be annoying - I wish that letting customers on for free was a valid action for them to take. I know it's not as powerful a statement as not working at all, but It would have a level of magnitude more support from Londoners at large.
> 
> Does this make me a wiberal?



I think giving all tube users free travel for a year and bankrupting the bosses would get them to talk a little more...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Because tube users will all be universally happy with the news
> 
> We don't want to the strike, I doubt the workers do and I doubt the bosses do. I just hope bosses get over their greed enough...



I was referring more to this:

"(and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes)."


----------



## Dan U (Dec 22, 2005)

i'd have thought the best day to strike would be Jan 3rd.

it'll hit business hardest, which is who TFL etc will listen to the most.

making normal peoples lives more difficult on NYE will not win them support imo.

the night buses will be carnage!


----------



## jayeola (Dec 22, 2005)

Hey, this is quite funny. My first ever abuse!
</scarpers>


----------



## Giles (Dec 22, 2005)

I also think that going on strike on NYE is going to lose the strikers a lot of public sympathy.

Why not go on strike on a Monday morning so everyone would have an excuse for not going to work? 

I would rather have an enforced day off work than haivng my partying plans disrupted.

Either day has as much impact on the employer, but doing it on NYE will piss more of the public off.

Giles..


----------



## kropotkin (Dec 22, 2005)

given that they've chosen NYE, you're just going to have to direct your annoyance at the bosses

aren't you?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

*A few points...........*

........ in no particular order.

Tube drivers are not going on strike.

As a tube driver I don't have a real problem with the twats above making fun of the work I do; I get £34k pa, free travel for myself and my partner, 8 weeks holiday a year and a bloody good pension plan. You can laugh at me all you want   

Station and revenue staff are taking action because the promised 35 hour week (which has been on the table for 8 years or more) has not materialised. A negotiated agreement has now been scuttled by the management as they planned to implement the deal but with no extra staff. Basic maths will tell you that if 6,000 station staff are all getting an extra 10 days holiday a year (60,000 days in total) _more_ staff will be needed to maintain staffing levels. LUL disclosed job losses of 200 station staff, but failed to disclose a further 470 they intended losing by sharp practices.

LUL claimed that it would be possible to reduce opening hours in central London ticket offices in the mornings because of the uptake of Oyster cards and a lack of customers. The reality is a loss of frontline station staff with a system of rosters being imposed resulting in uo to 70% of staff being forcibly displaced from their station groups to areas less convenient for them.

All "section 12" stations (those underground) are legally required to be staffed at all times when open to the public. Surface stations have no such legal requirement, but agreements between LUL and the tube unions still compel (almost) all of them to be staffed. On the Central Line the only station officially allowed to remain unstaffed is Fairlop. But I am aware that a number of stations are left unstaffed, and as a result are a safety hazard to passengers and drivers.

LUL station assistants have the hardest work of any of the LUL grades and get paid the least. It's a thankless task; stressful, potentially dangerous, unfulfilling and morale sapping. They get shit from passengers all day and when they look to managers for support, usually end up with more shit. They deserve the reduced hours thet were promised by LUL, and a big wage hike on top. The fact that they voted by a margin of 10:1 for action short of strike action and by a massive 6:1 for strike action shows just how pissed off they really are.

NYE was a date arrived at after a great deal of debate. The pros (it's one of Livingstone's red letter days) outweighed the cons (passengers will get the hump) because we need to concentrate KL's mind on sorting out the problems being caused by a bunch of gung-ho managers enthused by American ideas of individualisation in the work place. The RMT is determined to protect collectivisation as well as improve the wages and conditions of its members. NYE was, in the end, the logical choice.

Working normally but refusing to take fares instead  of striking may seem like an attractive option, but unfortunately is illegal and leaves individuals open to dismissal and even prosecution.

I hope management see sense before NYE so we can all enjoy ourselves, but if they don't, myself and my comrades will do all we can do cause as much disruption as possible. No apologies for that - it's just the way it is.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 23, 2005)

The stations I use are regularly left unstaffed - half the time I end up telling confused people who've had their Oyster refused to just go around and push the barrier. No, harder! That's it. Don't worry about the alarm, nobody cares.


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> The stations I use are regularly left unstaffed - half the time I end up telling confused people who've had their Oyster refused to just go around and push the barrier. No, harder! That's it. Don't worry about the alarm, nobody cares.



I don't doubt it FM. Many outlying stations are already short of staff; but the agreement reached during the OPO negotiations guaranteed all stations to have at least one member of staff or be closed. This is unfortunately being ignored and drivers have no way of knowing if a station is staffed or not. There was a case on the west end of the Central Line this year when a station was not only unstaffed but also unlocked overnight, so any drunken passenger stumbling in after the last train had gone could have been on the tracks until the first train in the morning - and no-one any the wiser.

An accident waiting to happen is, I believe, an appropriate cliche.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 23, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It would be nice if we all got £30k - let's not be mean spirited because some other workers have managed to wangle a fairer wage and better working conditions and continue to struggle for more improvements - if only all union leaders were like Bob Crow. We should show them some solidarity.



Spot on mate  

Support those strikers.

Anyway,as butchers said, the supposed NYE strike is a *threat* not a certainty.

I hope they squeeze the Management for a good deal.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> I also think that going on strike on NYE is going to lose the strikers a lot of public sympathy.
> 
> Why not go on strike on a Monday morning so everyone would have an excuse for not going to work?
> 
> ...



Only the public who think going to party on NYE is the singularly most important thing in the world. Any one ever told you that you were somewhat self centred?


----------



## rednblack (Dec 23, 2005)

i support the strikers 100% and hope they get what they want - i just felt i should say that given some of the selfish bollocks posted on here

good luck to 'em


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I was referring more to this:
> 
> "(and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes)."



I'd say most people would say negotiation is a multi-party thing.....


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> given that they've chosen NYE, you're just going to have to direct your annoyance at the bosses
> 
> aren't you?



But the bosses didn't choose NYE. People will sympathise with the strikers who otherwise face losing their jobs but there are other ways to f off your bosses, make us delighted and take action (give us free travel and lots of it is one idea).


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Working normally but refusing to take fares instead  of striking may seem like an attractive option, but unfortunately is illegal and leaves individuals open to dismissal and even prosecution.



Leaving ticket barriers open for extended periods of time?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Leaving ticket barriers open for extended periods of time?



gross misconduct


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> gross misconduct



Giving out the incorrect change repeatedly so that there is a full refund?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Giving out the incorrect change repeatedly so that there is a full refund?



 

Do you have _any_ concept about taking strike action and working class solidarity?

Pissing about giving the wrong change isn't going to lose KL any sleep. 5 or 6 thousand station staff staying away from work, or better still joining picket lines, will do the trick.


----------



## rednblack (Dec 23, 2005)

striking is the only way - and at a time to cause maximum inconvieniance and disruption as well

people are worrying about getting to some silly pissup for part time drinkers while others are taking action to improve their working conditions


----------



## TeeJay (Dec 23, 2005)

Striking on New Year's Eve / New Year's Day will cause far less disruption to the wider economy and business and will have a far bigger impact on people who are just going out for a good time - probably a lot of younger and poorer people - as well as the people who work in pubs and clubs. IMO wealthier people will be a) off on holidays on a beach b) at their country cottage c) at their suburban home d) driving around in taxis and e) would be far more inconvenienced if the strike was on a weekday morning when they actually do take the tube to go to the office.


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 23, 2005)

Well, boo fucking hoo. Perhaps they should just try _walking _ to the local pub instead. It's not compulsory to go out on New Year's Eve anyway.

Anyway, if they are that poor they won't be going out at all, will they?


----------



## laptop (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Leaving ticket barriers open for extended periods of time?



In the time of Red Ken's "fare's fair" thingy (look it up) there was a day when staff spontaneously developed ticket dyslexia. So you could go anywhere for 10p (it was that long ago!)

Then they changed the by-laws. And, as I recall it, threw a legal opinion at the union that it'd get the bollox sued off it if it as much as breathed a misslelpt mention of dyslexia.


----------



## Giles (Dec 23, 2005)

Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.

You shit on me, I shall shit on you.

Giles..


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..



Oh, hark at the hard-man. Threatening women, too. 

Prick.


----------



## rednblack (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..



   

you pathetic wretch - a threat? ooh some middle class posh twunt called giles threatening a tube worker


----------



## Dan U (Dec 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Striking on New Year's Eve / New Year's Day will cause far less disruption to the wider economy and business and will have a far bigger impact on people who are just going out for a good time - probably a lot of younger and poorer people - as well as the people who work in pubs and clubs. IMO wealthier people will be a) off on holidays on a beach b) at their country cottage c) at their suburban home d) driving around in taxis and e) would be far more inconvenienced if the strike was on a weekday morning when they actually do take the tube to go to the office.



fully agreed with you on this.

I support the tube staff 100% but I think there choice of dates is piss poor and is going to disenfranchise the wrong people - it also gives certain elements of the press a chance to write headlines about Unions wrecking Christmas, etc etc etc.

Jan 3rd would be my suggestion.


----------



## rednblack (Dec 23, 2005)

giles nasty and dim


----------



## rednblack (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..



     

quoted again for amusement

lol


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.


Are you threatening violence Giles?


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Are you threatening violence Giles?



Looks like it to me. Maybe Giles & some of the chaps from the rugby club are going to give the oiks what for.


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..


oh the idea of Giles trying to 'shit on' a tube worker - I can picture him trying to run down the platform with his trousers round his ankles.

Hilarious!


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

He's gone very quiet, hasn't he? Ah well. Men who use or threaten violence against women are always cowards IME.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> I'd say most people would say negotiation is a multi-party thing.....


 True, but how on earth does that banality then allow to confidently state:

"and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes."


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..




fucking scum you are.  the lowest of the low.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> True, but how on earth does that banality then allow to confidently state:
> 
> "and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes."



Well, I'd suggest blaming the greater and wider processes that lead to the dichotomy there is... since bosses get no benefit out of there being no money ringing through the tills, workers aren't getting their wage and users aren't getting a service.

Bosses are solely cash motivated and yes, a strike sure puts them in the shitter in that sense and it's funny how all the really user popular ways or keeping the cash from those bosses (free tickets, open ticket gates - presume all similar mechanisms like fiddling change mechanisms in machines/leaving printed tickets ready for use outside would also be out of the question) are so condemnable but the relatively unpopular (and yes, a strike is relatively unpopular) industrial action is left as the only option...


----------



## Giles (Dec 23, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> fucking scum you are.  the lowest of the low.



So, these people can fucking annoy thousands of people, spoiling their plans for a night out, and that's OK, because its an "industrial dispute" and we all have to just sit there and take it.

But if I even suggest that annoying people may have consequences, I am beyond the pale?

Well, I can't agree. 

If you enrage people, you may have to deal with the consequences of their rage.

Merry Christmas!

Giles..


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

Rage? 

You utter prat.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> blah blah



No, you've done it again. All that waffle above fails to let us know how you can so definitvely say:

"and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes."

which was the question put to you. In fact, it doesn't even begin to address it (or much else frankly). Just admit that you made an appalling overgeneralisation.


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> annoying people may have consequences, I am beyond the pale?



If you are suggesting that when a woman does something to annoy you, you will find her on her way home from work and "shit" on her, then yes. 

If that's what you're into, there's a club in Camberwell I could recommend. 

Edit: Sorry, you wouldn't be able to get there, would you? Because of the tube strike.


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> So, these people can fucking annoy thousands of people, spoiling their plans for a night out, and that's OK, because its an "industrial dispute" and we all have to just sit there and take it.
> 
> But if I even suggest that annoying people may have consequences, I am beyond the pale?
> 
> ...


well, that ovbviously goes for you too - so you can't object if someone 'shits on' you, as you elegantly put it.

Poor poor Giles, nasty tube workers might make his night out cost an extra tenner.

Not that he's a selfish imbecilic shite or anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

He's an _posh_ imbecilic nasty shit with a string of houses (sorry _properties_) as well - i wonder how he treats his tenants?


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

Has there EVER been a strike where the anti-worker right and the hand-wringing liberals didn't claim "oh it is such a inconvenience for those effected" either becasue they hate / find distasteful workers organising?

(Though I do remember as a child once that Irish customs offiers were on strike and joyous scenes of people bringing in a LOT of fags and booze   )


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Well if they spoil my NYE plans, I might just find one of them some day soon on his/her way home from work and spoil their day.
> 
> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..



A woman I know was assaulted after the last strike by some bastard who was enraged by her temerity in inconveniencing him. Off work for many weeks as a result. It wasn't you was it, big man? I mean, the cheek of the woman! Trying to get better conditions for herself and her colleagues when people  like you want to enjoy yourselves. She got what she deserved - didn't she?


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, you've done it again. All that waffle above fails to let us know how you can so definitvely say:
> 
> "and tube users for the most part don't blame management for the strikes."
> 
> which was the question put to you. In fact, it doesn't even begin to address it (or much else frankly). Just admit that you made an appalling overgeneralisation.



How about we go do a survey across the tube users to see how many would blame management for the strikes then compared to the workers or the economic system that leads us to disputes in the first place (in any industry or setting).

And compare the situation in London to that of New York...


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> He's an _posh_ imbecilic nasty shit with a string of houses (sorry _properties_) as well - i wonder how he treats his tenants?


can't be that posh - or it'd by Gyles.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2005)

innit, butch.

alright giles, here's a thing.

1.  no-one's night is ruined.  you can easily get buses.  it's not like trains always run at night, so really it doesn't make it much more difficult to get home than any other weekend.

2.  the sort of person who gets angry with workers for striking is a twat.  if you want to take it out on anyone, go and track down the management trying to undermine the striker's job security and public safety and give them a wallop.  the logic of attacking strikers is completely and utterly deficient in every manner.


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Has there EVER been a strike where the anti-worker right and the hand-wringing liberals didn't claim "oh it is such a inconvenience for thos effected" ?



Where's the poll?


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Has there EVER been a strike where the anti-worker right and the hand-wringing liberals didn't claim "oh it is such a inconvenience for those effected" either becasue they hate / find distasteful workers organising?



I can imagine quite a few strike situations which would be a serious inconvenience to normal users (electricity, gas and water).

There is an anti-worker brigade who naturally jump far too quickly... but denying that there is any inconvenience to people who are broadly, external to the conflict to be resolved, seems dishonest...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> How about we go do a survey across the tube users to see how many would blame management for the strikes then compared to the workers or the economic system that leads us to disputes in the first place (in any industry or setting).
> 
> And compare the situation in London to that of New York...



Yeah go on then. _Then_ you'd be in a position to make the definitive claim that you did earlier on. _But not before_. Get it?


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yeah go on then. _Then_ you'd be in a position to make the definitive claim that you did earlier on. _But not before_. Get it?



Fair enough. (pedantry in action!)


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

> I can imagine quite a few strike situations which would be a serious inconvenience to normal users (electricity, gas and water).



And healthcare.


----------



## fanta (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> You shit on me, I shall shit on you.
> 
> Giles..



I didn't know  you were into _that_ Giles?

What about golden showers?

I bet you like people pissing in your mouth too?


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

fanta said:
			
		

> I didn't know  you were into _that_ Giles?



At least he's prepared to switch. Surprisingly egalitarian.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 23, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> the sort of person who gets angry with workers for striking is a twat.  if you want to take it out on anyone, go and track down the management trying to undermine the striker's job security and public safety and give them a wallop.  the logic of attacking strikers is completely and utterly deficient in every manner.



Spot on ....


Sorry Giles, but you're clearly a cretin


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 23, 2005)

ALL strikes are overwhelmimgly the fault of management ....


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> ALL strikes are overwhelmimgly the fault of management ....



So workers never have any sense of greed?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> So workers never have any sense of greed?



Individual workers may do, certainly. But you wouldn't get the sort of strike vote we've seen here if the workers didn't have a very strong sense that their grievance is a just one.


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> So workers never have any sense of greed?



But wouldn't these hypothetical greedy workers tend to think, "I'm fucked if I'm going to lose a day's pay by striking over staffing levels & passenger safety"? Which IIRC is pretty much the opposite of what's going on here.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

"Greed" as a reason for strikes tries to make it a personalised issue rather than admitting the poitics of it. "Bad" men and women workers inconveniencing the public perhaps in the first instance but more fundamentally a threat to the bosses system.

Is it "greed" that make a tube driver on (say) £30K a year strike while other workers are on less?

No more so than the tube management and privateers who get MUCH higher pay deals for MUCH less socially valuble work while those other workers are on less.


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> "Greed" as a reason for strikes tries to make it a personalised issue; "bad" men and women workers inconveniencing the public perhaps in the first instance but more fundamentally a threat to the bosses system.
> 
> Is it "greed" that make a tube driver on (say) £30K a year strike while other workers are on less?
> 
> No more so than the tube management and privateers who get MUCH higher pay deals for MUCH less socially valuble work while those other workers are on less.



Spot on.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

In a perfect world, where Santa clause and fairies actually exist and justice is a word that actually carries some clout, Giles and the rest of the miserable, anti-union 'Don't spoil my fun' brigade are all aboard the 124mph derailment express as it hurtles through all the health and safety regulations implemented to protect rail workers AND passengers and directly into the next King's cross style spectacular.

The latest RMT action isn't just about something as unimportant as workers rights or pay conditions. Giles would do himself a great service by reminding himself of such.


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> In a perfect world, where Santa clause and fairies actually exist and justice is a word that actually carries some clout, Giles and the rest of the miserable, anti-union 'Don't spoil my fun' brigade are all aboard the 124mph derailment express as it hurtles through all the health and safety regulations implemented to protect rail workers AND passengers and directly into the next King's cross style spectacular.
> 
> The latest RMT action isn't just about something as unimportant as workers rights or pay conditions. Giles would do himself a great service by reminding himself as such.



Cracking first post, scarecrow. Welcome to the boards.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

knopf said:
			
		

> Cracking first post, scarecrow. Welcome to the boards.



Thankyou. I actually joined ages ago but didn't post much. Could probably do with a bit of a name change aswell.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

If transport strikes are "bad" when they effect leisure travel and they are "bad" when they effect people commuting?

2 in the afternoon? You can bet your oyster the anti worker and liberals would be crying that would be bad for grannies out shopping.

3 in the morning when there's usually no service anyway?
That would be bad for the hard working tax paying Joe Public mouse who relies on the trains to create a draught to blow his dinner off the platform down to his house! Bloody unions!


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Clearly it's NYE and the tube workers who pulled the shortest straw have as much of a desire to party as the people attending the dives that Giles frequents...

...erm...

Just like last year! 

Wasn't there an eleventh hour reprieve last year though?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Clearly it's NYE and the tube workers who pulled the shortest straw have as much of a desire to party as the people attending the dives that Giles frequents...
> 
> ...erm...
> 
> ...



There was. And bizarrely it was the exact same dispute which was called off when the employers promised to enter into "meaningful negotiations" and they've been acting like duplicitous bastards ever since


----------



## TeeJay (Dec 23, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> Well, boo fucking hoo. Perhaps they should just try _walking _ to the local pub instead. It's not compulsory to go out on New Year's Eve anyway.
> 
> Anyway, if they are that poor they won't be going out at all, will they?


Well if you are going to take the boo-fucking-hoo line, what about boo-fucking-hoo to the people going on strike? After all if you couldn't give a fuck about other people, why give a fuck about the strikers?


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

It's clear bosses are greed driven... but I don't see how Unions are intrinsically different in trying to secure the best possible conditions and pay for their members.

Granted, Unions do much more than that, but it certainly seems to be a function of them.

As a technical question: which workers are unable to strike? I know the cops can't but are there others?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> So, these people can fucking annoy thousands of people, spoiling their plans for a night out, and that's OK, because its an "industrial dispute" and we all have to just sit there and take it.
> 
> But if I even suggest that annoying people may have consequences, I am beyond the pale?
> 
> ...


or, translated;

"fuck the workers
fuck thdeir families
fuck their need for a decent settlement
in fact - fuck everybody else
what about MEEEE!!!!"
giles, you're an arsehole  
"


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well if you are going to take the boo-fucking-hoo line, what about boo-fucking-hoo to the people going on strike? After all if you couldn't give a fuck about other people, why give a fuck about the strikers?



You do generally though don't you teejay? I think we all remember your rage at the firefighters.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> It's clear bosses are greed driven... but I don't see how Unions are intrinsically different in trying to secure the best possible conditions and pay for their members.
> 
> Granted, Unions do much more than that, but it certainly seems to be a function of them.


sorry, but no. The hammering the workers have taken over the past 25 years (approx) means that 'trying to secure the best deal' often means trying to secure a just-about-bearable deal for their members.
big difference betwen them and 6-figure salary directors


----------



## TeeJay (Dec 23, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> ...it's not like trains always run at night, so really it doesn't make it much more difficult to get home than any other weekend...


Isn't the strike from mid-day on the 31st to mid-day on the 1st?


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> It's clear bosses are greed driven... but I don't see how Unions are intrinsically different in trying to secure the best possible conditions and pay for their members


so trying to secure the best possible conditions and pay for their members is 'greedy' is it?  I call it just.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

Purely chance that I wasn't at Kings Cross that time that day.
Some friends thought I was missing for a while.

Thank God the RMT members take the responsibility of safety more seriously than the bloody management.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> There was. And bizarrely it was the exact same dispute which was called off when the employers promised to enter into "meaningful negotiations" and they've been acting like duplicitous bastards ever since



I thought last year was about pay and this year was more about reducing station staff and watering down the fire regulations brought in after King's cross?


----------



## TeeJay (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You do generally though don't you teejay? I think we all remember your rage at the firefighters.


Rage? You've got that wrong.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> so trying to secure the best possible conditions and pay for their members is 'greedy' is it?  I call it just.



At what point is it just and at what point would it be greed? 

Though, sure, agree with Jezza that since 1979ish, it's been very very rough.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> sorry, but no. The hammering the workers have taken over the past 25 years (approx) means that 'trying to secure the best deal' often means trying to secure a just-about-bearable deal for their members.
> big difference betwen them and 6-figure salary directors



Indeed. ASFAIK these MASSIVE pay deals that the unions are securing for tube workers are usually centred around the rate of inflation. Interestingly, a great deal less than the inflation-busting hikes that council tax seems to be enjoying over the last couple of years.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> At what point is it just and at what point would it be greed?
> 
> Though, sure, agree with Jezza that since 1979ish, it's been very very rough.


 _Never_, because by definition the bosses are the ones _making money_ off the workers.

What an odd (and cliched) question and approach to the question. As if there's some level playing field or something.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

Your'e right screcrow, there does seems to be different rates of inflation, especially whenit comes to pay deals.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> _Never_, because by definition the bosses are the ones _making money_ off the workers.



But say there's a massively failing industry (like US airlines) and there is quite literally going to be bankruptcy where everyone loses their job unless there is a significant cut in some expenditure (in that case, pension benefits) - what do you do?



> What an odd (and cliched) question and approach to the question. As if there's some level playing field or something.



Odd and cliched at the same time?


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> At what point is it just and at what point would it be greed?



Getting a rise in-line with inflation is just. Getting a £3m bonus when nothing is running on time and there's an increase in derailments is greed.

The fine line that seperates the two is dramatically closer to the former than the latter.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Getting a rise in-line with inflation is just. Getting a £3m bonus when nothing is running on time and there's an increase in derailments is greed.
> 
> The fine line that seperates the two is dramatically closer to the former than the latter.



Sure. But I'd be surprised if there was (almost or absolutely) never an above inflation pay increase.

(though I don't know how surprised... maybe just dismayed)


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> unless there is a significant cut in some expenditure (in that case, pension benefits) - what do you do?




If I get a loan off my employer but then suddenly decide I can't afford to pay it back, can I just get out of it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> But say there's a massively failing industry (like US airlines) and there is quite literally going to be bankruptcy where everyone loses their job unless there is a significant cut in some expenditure (in that case, pension benefits) - what do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> Odd and cliched at the same time?



Oh god, here go again. What do i do? I support whatever action the workers decide to take to deal with the situation. It's called solidarity and is far better than finger wagging above it all.

Yes, some odd or untrue conceptions have become commonplace and cliched - for example the bodies in the street nonsense from the so called 'winter of discontent'.

I wonder how many posts before someone asks about racist picket lines. Just for a change on threads like this.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Thank God the RMT members take the responsibility of safety more seriously than the bloody management.


actually, well reminded. this strike is NOT about pay, so even a tory interpretation couldn't say this is about 'greed' (i.e. getting a decent deal).
it's ALL about safety


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> actually, well reminded. this strike is NOT about pay, so even a tory interpretation couldn't say this is about 'greed' (i.e. getting a decent deal).


 They could try their best though (see above).


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yes, some odd or untrue conceptions have become commonplace and cliched - for example the bodies in the street nonsense from the so called 'winter of discontent'.



But I'm not going on about that... at all...



> I wonder how mnay posts before someone asks about racist picket lines. Just for a change on threads like this.



I still don't get why my approach was both odd and cliched.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> But say there's a massively failing industry (like US airlines) and there is quite literally going to be bankruptcy where everyone loses their job unless there is a significant cut in some expenditure (in that case, pension benefits) - what do you do?




well, it seems to me that it would have to depend on the industry.  if the industry was essential to the running of the national infastructure and cannot be run successfully by a private profit-making company then it should be nationalised.  it may end up being run at a loss, but at least then the proft can be said to be that the infastructure is maintained - profit should not be counted in pure financial terms.  if on the otherhand it is a purely spurious business and it's loss would not effect the area outside of the human costs of joblessness etc. then the onus should be on downsizing first - lowering management salaries and bonuses, stripping back unneccessary expenditure (which pensions are not for lower paid workers), or transfering the business into a more profitable area.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 23, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> it's ALL about safety



Let's remind ourselves again what happens when safety for railway passengers and staff comes WAY after profits for the bosses:


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> They could try their best though (see above).


I kinda pulled that particular punch, out of a sense of charity....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> But I'm not going on about that... at all...
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't get why my approach was both odd and cliched.



_Odd_ because it deflected discussion of a strike taking place on safety grounds into one of unions possible greed and _cliched_ because this is a common trick of the media/the state and the bosses - one that you're parroting for some unknown reason.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Sure. But I'd be surprised if there was (almost or absolutely) never an above inflation pay increase



It's the same rigmorol played out every year in almost every industry. The unions will will fight for a pay rise on behalf of the workers. That's why it's usually centred around inflation because it's a point the unions can argue that management can't disagree with. It's a fact of life. 

When you hear the biased squeals from the likes of the evening standard that workers have been awarded 5% when inflation is at 3.5% it's usually because the management have played their usual trick of giving with one hand and taking with the other. This comes in the form of things like reduced rest periods, a change in shift patterns or the abolition of travelling expenses. Of course, the standard never explains that side of the story as it doesn't suit it's corporate agenda.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> well, it seems to me that it would have to depend on the industry.  if the industry was essential to the running of the national infastructure and cannot be run successfully by a private profit-making company then it should be nationalised.  it may end up being run at a loss, but at least then the proft can be said to be that the infastructure is maintained - profit should not be counted in pure financial terms.  if on the otherhand it is a purely spurious business and it's loss would not effect the area outside of the human costs of joblessness etc. then the onus should be on downsizing first - lowering management salaries and bonuses, stripping back unneccessary expenditure (which pensions are not for lower paid workers), or transfering the business into a more profitable area.



Going into US airlines a little deeper... there is a massive excess supply in the industry (lots of empty seats, low demand persisting after Sep 11th for a while) and high costs (fuel is very expensive).

I'm not sure air travel is something that needs to be nationalised... any plane from anywhere carries people around just as well as any other (especially since all the planes in the world are pretty much made by two companies).

These are businesses that are unable to wage anyone sufficiently (management or otherwise) and just about barely cover the cost of racked up debt interest and running costs of flying planes (maintainence, fuel).

It seems like that the maintaining of the current pension pot (among other positions taken by the Union) is driving some already very ill-fated companies into faster decline when everyone (bosses included unless they perform some underhand fraud, which they will) are just left shirtless (these companies are unable to pay back debts should they go under and sell off everything they have since no one wants to really buy planes which if they fly, will still only be something in the order of 50% full).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

Shut up about US Airlines please - start a thread about that and 'unions greed' if you want.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> It's the same rigmorol played out every year in almost every industry. The unions will will fight for a pay rise on behalf of the workers. That's why it's usually centred around inflation because it's a point the unions can argue that management can't disagree with. It's a fact of life.
> 
> When you hear the biased squeals from the likes of the evening standard that workers have been awarded 5% when inflation is at 3.5% it's usually because the management have played their usual trick of giving with one hand and taking with the other. This comes in the form of things like reduced rest periods, a change in shift patterns or the abolition of travelling expenses. Of course, the standard never explains that side of the story as it doesn't suit it's corporate agenda.



Fair enough. What's the opinion of situation like Ford when he doubled wages for workers (which was way way above inflation), improved working conditions etc. (all in a drive to encourage workers to value their jobs, stay on for longer, work harder etc.)

Equally, how about robots eventually replacing many of those jobs...


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Shut up about US Airlines please - start a thread about that and 'unions greed' if you want.



I'm taking the Union situation a little more generally than your 'I'm so high and mighty, I insist everything be very specific' allows for.

Oh noes


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Let's remind ourselves again what happens when safety for railway passengers and staff comes WAY after profits for the bosses:



I once attended a 'corporate induction' (because I had to) and we got to the section called _delivering to our customers_.

The guy taking the presentation then went on to say we had five customers in all and went on to name them one by one.

Number one (I kid you not) was..... the shareholders, at which point I burst out laughing and interjected with "In no particular order?". Unsurprisingly, he confirmed the relevance of my quip when number five was... joe public.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> I'm taking the Union situation a little more generally than your 'I'm so high and mighty, I insist everything be very specific' allows for.
> 
> Oh noes


 Well do that on another thread - you're practically talking to yourself as it is.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Equally, how about robots eventually replacing many of those jobs...



Do you know the famous quote about that? When Ford suggested replacing workers with robots he was told it would be unworkable.

Why?

He was reminded that robots wouldn't buy his cars.


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> I thought last year was about pay and this year was more about reducing station staff and watering down the fire regulations brought in after King's cross?



Sorry just noticed this.

Last year was about the wage deal which _included_ the 35 hour week. This year it has transpired that the 35 hour week will be imposed with _fewer staff_ and will result in safety problems caused by reduced staffing levels and worse conditions. So slightly different, but definitely linked.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Do you know the famous quote about that? When Ford suggested replacing workers with robots he was told it would be unworkable.
> 
> Why?
> 
> He was reminded that robots wouldn't buy his cars.



Good quote


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well if you are going to take the boo-fucking-hoo line, what about boo-fucking-hoo to the people going on strike? After all if you couldn't give a fuck about other people, why give a fuck about the strikers?



Um - slight difference in that one lot are people striking on the issue of _safety _ and the others are people _going out to have a good time_. It won't kill them to go somewhere local or - heaven forbid - _not to go out at all_, will it?


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Do you know the famous quote about that? When Ford suggested replacing workers with robots he was told it would be unworkable.
> 
> Why?
> 
> He was reminded that robots wouldn't buy his cars.



 nice quote, but whoever gave him that advice was clearly wrong seeing as most cars are now built by robots (admittedly operated by humans, but a lot less than before). To be honest, the logic behind the quote is totally screwed; did he expect only Ford workers to buy Ford cars?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2005)

Yes he did as it goes.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Good quote



Besides... Robots require a high initial capital outlay, round-the-clock maintenance and aren't as versatile and flexible as ten-a-penny unskilled workers.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> nice quote, but whoever gave him that advice was clearly wrong seeing as most cars are now built by robots (admittedly operated by humans, but a lot less than before). To be honest, the logic behind the quote is totally screwed; did he expect only Ford workers to buy Ford cars?



The logic isn't screwed if you think globally rather then locally. If the workers of the world were all made redundant in favour of machines, there wouldn't be a customer base left to supply the mass-produced goods to, would they?

Robots don't buy TVs, cars, toys or go out for a pint, do they?

Where would all the taxes come from?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Sure. But I'd be surprised if there was (almost or absolutely) never an above inflation pay increase.


i can tell you one group of workers that ALWAYS get an above-average increase. usually comfortably so; those we call 'management'.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Besides... Robots require a high initial capital outlay, round-the-clock maintenance and aren't as versatile and flexible as ten-a-penny unskilled workers.



Well, robots work around the clock, don't take holiday, get ill (need maintainence) in the same people do, don't skive off work, will work in less pleasent conditions etc.

But they are pretty flexible... robotics has come quite a long way because of the demand for innovation in all sorts of industries from cars to ships and even medicine a bit...


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> Um - slight difference in that one lot are people striking on the issue of _safety _ and the others are people _going out to have a good time_. It won't kill them to go somewhere local or - heaven forbid - _not to go out at all_, will it?



I'd still much rather they made me late for work than fucked up my NYE. I can appreciate that they're probably striking for a good reason (i say 'probably' 'cos I don't know enough about it, no-one seems to have explained it clearly, and I won't automatically support people just because of who they are), so it could well be the management's fault that the staff feel they have to strike, but the *timing* of the strike is solely decided by the union, & yeah, call me shallow, but I find it annoying. 

It's easy to say "go out locally", but loads of folk in London have friends who live on the other side of town, may not know anyone locally, may already have made plans to go somewhere else, believing they can get home easily... Clearly it's not the end of the world not being able to, no terrible impact on anyone, but does come across a bit killjoy-ish screwing that up, when any other day would surely make the point just as well.

If it was made clear that safety was being severely compromised & that striking on NYE was the *only* way to stop this happening, I'd be all for it, but I see no convincing reason why a strike on any other day wouldn't be just as adequate.

If the police cancelled Notting Hill Carnival next year on the basis of safety, I wonder if everyone would be as sanguine about it. After all, it's only a silly party; it wouldn't kill everyone to stay at home & not go out having a good time with soundsystems & all, would it? (& before anyone jumps on me, I'd be fucking outraged if they did)


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> i can tell you one group of workers that ALWAYS get an above-average increase. usually comfortably so; those we call 'management'.



I take objection with your use of the word 'workers' in that sentence.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> The logic isn't screwed if you think globally rather then locally. If the workers of the world were all made redundant in favour of machines, there wouldn't be a customer base left to supply the mass-produced goods to, would they?



No one needs to work and we all get things we want? 



> Robots don't buy TVs, cars, toys or go out for a pint, do they?



And the robots don't really need anything in return! 



> Where would all the taxes come from?



The robots... they'll do everything


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> The logic isn't screwed if you think globally rather then locally. If the workers of the world were all made redundant in favour of machines, there wouldn't be a customer base left to supply the mass-produced goods to, would they?
> 
> Robots don't buy TVs, cars, toys or go out for a pint, do they?
> 
> Where would all the taxes come from?



But this has happened, in many industries, for centuries now. Is still happening all the time. 

Robots make cars. Car factories employ a fraction of the people they used to. So do farms, thanks to tractors & other machines. 

Robots/machines just mean that some industries become less labour-intensive, but humans are generally ingenious enough to come up with new stuff to do, hence why we don't have monstrous unemployment in this country despite most traditional occupations (farming, brewing etc.) being done by a fraction of the number of people who used to do it. I'm pretty confident (or at least hopeful) that this will continue to be the case.


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> No one needs to work and we all get things we want?



 bring on Ian M Banks' "Culture"... can't get there quick enough imo.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Well, robots work around the clock, don't take holiday, get ill (need maintainence) in the same people do, don't skive off work, will work in less pleasent conditions etc.



But the cost to run them can't be manipulated. New ideas can't be tried and tested with them at the drop of a hat without expensive new software that takes considerable time to develop. And also, they will never find the quickest and easiest way to do a job like the human mind can, because there's nothing for the robot to gain and they don't have the creative intelligent capacity to be able to process that kind of information.

They also don't work in teams beyond what they have been programmed to do.


----------



## knopf (Dec 23, 2005)

From tube strike on New Year's Eve to robots in 7 pages. Man, I love these forums.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> But this has happened, in many industries, for centuries now. Is still happening all the time.
> 
> Robots make cars. Car factories employ a fraction of the people they used to. So do farms, thanks to tractors & other machines.
> 
> Robots/machines just mean that some industries become less labour-intensive, but humans are generally ingenious enough to come up with new stuff to do, hence why we don't have monstrous unemployment in this country despite most traditional occupations (farming, brewing etc.) being done by a fraction of the number of people who used to do it. I'm pretty confident (or at least hopeful) that this will continue to be the case.



I'm all in favour of technology aiding us in making our lives less labour intensive. I'm merely pointing out that it would be both impossible and unworkable for workers to be entirely eradicated by the use of robots. 

The other important thing to remember when suggesting it would be all good and fun for it to happen is that nomatter how the wealth of this country has increased with the advent of such technologies, it isn't benefitting the unemployed/unemployable one iota in terms of pulling them out of the poverty trap.


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> I'm all in favour of technology aiding us in making our lives less labour intensive. I'm merely pointing out that it would be both impossible and unworkable for workers to be entirely eradicated by the use of robots.
> 
> The other important thing to remember when suggesting it would be all good and fun for it to happen is that nomatter how the wealth of this country has increased with the advent of such technologies, it isn't benefitting the unemployed/unemployable one iota in terms of pulling them out of the poverty trap.



Well, yeah, but it ain't gonna help them *not* adopting these technologies either, as far as I can see. That's a whole other issue, relating to redistribution of wealth, education, & the way society's structured... which is perhaps very loosely related to robots, but not very!

Edit: & yeah, I agree, can't see any time in the forseeable future where workers could be entirely got rid of & replaced by robots, but could see a situation where several hundred could be replaced by a few robots & a couple of robot supervisors.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> But the cost to run them can't be manipulated. New ideas can't be tried and tested with them at the drop of a hat without expensive new software that takes considerable time to develop. And also, they will never find the quickest and easiest way to do a job like the human mind can, because there's nothing for the robot to gain and they don't have the creative intelligent capacity to be able to process that kind of information.
> 
> They also don't work in teams beyond what they have been programmed to do.



Robots aren't there to do creative work...


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Robots aren't there to do creative work...



... yet!


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> but could see a situation where several hundred could be replaced by a few robots & a couple of robot supervisors.



To suggest that robots need 'supervising' means that they will have reached a point of intelligence where they may slack or complain about things like rights. At which point it would make financial sense to replace them with humans, if there's actually any left that aren't either over-qualified for that kind of work or so institutionalised to the illiterate scrapheap that they're beyond training for such menial work.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> I'm all in favour of technology aiding us in making our lives less labour intensive. I'm merely pointing out that it would be both impossible and unworkable for workers to be entirely eradicated by the use of robots.



People are creative... we'll find things to do (other than live a life of great luxury while the robots make things that allow us to do this)

Possibly, maintain the robots or develop new and better ones. Of course, we could develop robots to look after robots (and this is a closing chain) and maybe robots that will improve and develop new ones.

We don't have to do jack but let the robots do what we want...

...better hope they don't get conscious and start killling us then!



> The other important thing to remember when suggesting it would be all good and fun for it to happen is that nomatter how the wealth of this country has increased with the advent of such technologies, it isn't benefitting the unemployed/unemployable one iota in terms of pulling them out of the poverty trap.



Sadly, but it might mean increasingly, there are less people who are in dire absolute poverty (no water, food, shelter).

Distribution isn't something robots will fix (unless we start making killer robots that take out the rich - or something)


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> To suggest that robots need 'supervising' means that they will have reached a point of intelligence where they may slack or complain about things like rights. At which point it would make financial sense to replace them with humans, if there's actually any left that aren't either over-qualified for that kind of work or so institutionalised to the illiterate scrapheap that they're beyond training for such menial work.



You supervise a robot in case it breaks - or an error starts causing it to make a systemic error on the product etc.

Not so much, watching the robot to make sure it _will_ work.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Robots aren't there to do creative work...



Workers (eg - human ones - the ones doing the job) will always find better and faster solutions to the job at hand than management or robots because it benefits them to do so. Fact of life.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2005)

do the supervisors get pension rights and a fair pay?


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> do the supervisors get pension rights and a fair pay?



That depends on the whim of their robot masters.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Workers (eg - human ones - the ones doing the job) will always find better and faster solutions to the job at hand than management or robots because it benefits them to do so. Fact of life.



Somehow, I don't think so... or I'm just a lazy git that will happily sit back and let the robots do the stuff I want them to do.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> That depends on the whim of their robot masters.



strike breaking, robot style


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> You supervise a robot in case it breaks - or an error starts causing it to make a systemic error on the product etc.
> 
> Not so much, watching the robot to make sure it _will_ work.



So the supervising robot recognises a malfunction and goes to investigate. After a quick diagnosis it is revealed that two of the resistors reducing the voltage to the drive belt have blown. The supervising robot contacts the robots in the stores to ask for replacements. They're out of stock. A quick call to the manufacters reveals that replacements will arrive in two weeks.

Obviously these hypothetical robots of ours will be programmed with 'initiative' software as to how to get the plant back into production until the new parts arrive?


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> So the supervising robot recognises a malfunction and goes to investigate. After a quick diagnosis it is revealed that two of the resistors reducing the voltage to the drive belt have blown. The supervising robot contacts the robots in the stores to ask for replacements. They're out of stock. A quick call to the manufacters reveals that replacements will arrive in two weeks.
> 
> Obviously these hypothetical robots of ours will be programmed with 'initiative' software as to how to get the plant back into production until the new parts arrive?



<tries not to get sucked into this robot discussion... oh well>
err.. surely it'd be pretty easy just to wifi up every robot/facility.. you could have a regular supplier maybe, but if that one failed, put out a general search on some internet-equivalent, where goods are offered... find the optimal supplier that could deliver the part at the best cost/delivery time combo (relative to the cost of having your plant out of action, all calculated automatically), arrange purchase & delivery of that part. Doesn't sound too tricky, that!

I'm sure there are some problems current methods of computing couldn't solve, but people *are* working on a number of different problem solving methods, some of which could come good in the decades to come.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> <tries not to get sucked into this robot discussion... oh well>
> err.. surely it'd be pretty easy just to wifi up every robot/facility.. you could have a regular supplier maybe, but if that one failed, put out a general search on some internet-equivalent, where goods are offered... find the optimal supplier that could deliver the part at the best cost/delivery time combo (relative to the cost of having your plant out of action, all calculated automatically), arrange purchase & delivery of that part. Doesn't sound too tricky, that!



To stock several of every single part to cover every eventuality of malfunction with every robot would pose both a financial and storage nightmare for any company. They simply wouldn't be willing to have that kind of money sitting there dead to cover every possible eventuality. 

It would also be financially unviable to replace and reprogram the robots each year But (now think Bill Gates), the development side of the robot industry would have to keep creating upgrades and making models obsolete in order to survive.

Totally unworkable. All of it. End of.


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> To stock several of every single part to cover every eventuality of malfunction with every robot would pose both a financial and storage nightmare for any company. They simply wouldn't be willing to have that kind of money sitting there dead to cover every possible eventuality.
> 
> It would also be financially unviable to replace and reprogram the robots each year But (now think Bill Gates), the development side of the robot industry would have to keep creating upgrades and making models obsolete in order to survive.
> 
> Totally unworkable. All of it. End of.



Hahah, if you say so, but I wasn't thinking about one company having all the stuff... robots could buy stuff from other companies etc. etc. run the whole world while we sit on our arses, paint pictures, make music, go hang gliding, whatever. I'm up for it!


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> Hahah, if you say so, but I wasn't thinking about one company having all the stuff... robots could buy stuff from other companies etc. etc. run the whole world while we sit on our arses, paint pictures, make music, go hang gliding, whatever. I'm up for it!



Well I'm pleased we're slowly now pulling back from that major derail. 

The point that I made earlier which relates to what you've just said is that despite all the amazing labour-saving technological advances we've achieved throughout the last few decades, domestic chores aside, it hasn't resulted in greater wealth and freedoms for the many. It may have made some foodstuffs more affordable to a lot of people but as a whole, life hasn't become easier, it's become harder. When jobs are lost to technology the money isn't redirected to the impoverished.

So, have we as a specie actually benefitted at all?


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Well I'm pleased we're slowly now pulling back from that major derail.
> 
> The point that I made earlier which relates to what you've just said is that despite all the amazing labour-saving technological advances we've achieved throughout the last few decades, domestic chores aside, it hasn't resulted in greater wealth and freedoms for the many. It may have made some foodstuffs more affordable to a lot of people but as a whole, life hasn't become easier, it's become harder. When jobs are lost to technology the money isn't redirected to the impoverished.
> 
> So, have we as a specie actually benefitted at all?



So what is the union going to do about robots that are better workers than humans?

Suppose you could strike but then the robots fulfill the role of scabs...

I don't think life is harder now that we have robobts and technology kicking around. Although, humans do seem to find a way to make life hard for themselves... I'd say living is now is mor comfortable and easier for many then it was say 1000 years back.

The fruits of technology (and robots) not going to everyone isn't the 'fault' of the technology...


Back to all the robot gubbins beforehand - if a robot breaks, you just take it off the line until you can get it fixed. Presuming the fact that robots break means robots are unworkable is like suggesting people get sick and old so we shouldn't rely on people to do work... and we don't come with replaceable parts and they definitely aren't wasily available. We have a massive healthcare system to take care of us.

I bet robots would have it the same way. A robot NHS.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Robots ARE better workers than humans when it comes to not-too-fiddly repetetive production-line work. But when someone's job description covers a wide range of duties that includes interacting with many to attain a pool of knowlege to solve problems - as many jobs entail - It's an impossibility that any technology could possibly be created to acheive those kind of skills, especially as every possible kind of problem is unique to circumstance.

So you're stuck with unions, thankfully


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Well I'm pleased we're slowly now pulling back from that major derail.
> 
> The point that I made earlier which relates to what you've just said is that despite all the amazing labour-saving technological advances we've achieved throughout the last few decades, domestic chores aside, it hasn't resulted in greater wealth and freedoms for the many. It may have made some foodstuffs more affordable to a lot of people but as a whole, life hasn't become easier, it's become harder. When jobs are lost to technology the money isn't redirected to the impoverished.
> 
> So, have we as a specie actually benefitted at all?



Hm.. I'm really not convinced life has become harder. Could be rose-tinted spectacles at work there. In terms of anything that can be measured on an absolute scale; lifespan, availability of food, ability to get hold of luxury items (wireless telephones? Unthinkable 40 years ago... now owned by just about everyone, regardless of income), likelihood of being killed whilst doing your job etc. etc. etc., I'm fairly confident things have got better over the last 5 or 6 decades. If you're arguing that life has maybe got less satisfying, you may be right... I'm not sure.

The thing is, when you say "When jobs are lost to technology the money isn't redirected to the impoverished.", do you think the impoverished would be better off if we didn't introduce more technology? My feeling is that if an industry didn't, it would become uncompetitive & fail in the global market, which as far as I can tell would provide no benefit to anyone involved, so you're presenting an illusion of choice where I don't think there is much of one. 

Issues of education, distribution of wealth, and the structure of our culture as a whole etc. are the root of all that poverty problem, not robots or the lack therof, imo.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

I just replied to a post that has now vanished, I should have quoted   

Technology, eh?


----------



## grosun (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Robots ARE better workers than humans when it comes to not-too-fiddly repetetive production-line work. But when someone's job description covers a wide range of duties that includes interacting with many to attain a pool of knowlege to solve problems - as many jobs entail - It's an impossibility that any technology could possibly be created to acheive those kind of skills, especially as every possible kind of problem is unique to circumstance.
> 
> So you're stuck with unions, thankfully



Nothing is an impossibility, unless you can prove it. Just because we're not able to make very flexible problem-solving machines with current technology, doesn't mean that in 50 or 100 years it won't be possible.

A while ago, people were confidently predicting that it wasn't possible for a heavier-than-air craft to fly. More recently, many of the sci-fi super-futuristic scenarios for the year 2000 were actually well behind what the reality turned out to be, particularly where computers were concerned (1960s ideas of vast clunky machines you still had to feed ticker tape anyone?)


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> Hm.. I'm really not convinced life has become harder. Could be rose-tinted spectacles at work there.



If somebody is made unemployed and remains so because technology has rendered them redundant life hasn't become easier for them has it?

When workload is reduced because of technology the bosses don't suddenly announce major pay rises or let everyone go home early as a result do they?

No. They still want seven hours work for seven hours pay.

The reason why I'm saying life has got harder (for the majority) is that the workers never benefit from labour saving devices. There's plenty of other work for them to be getting on with. But as a whole, as a planet, the leaps in technology in the information age is further widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> Nothing is an impossibility, unless you can prove it.



Agreed, it was a bad choice of word to say impossible. But imagine the cost of such a machine, a machine that can diagnose and rectify every possible problem, with every eventuality in any possible circumstance. Not to mention the support-team required to run such a device. 

Who would go to such lengths when people can already do all those things?

Remember that we're talking robots replacing humans from a financial point of view and not that such technology is beyond the capabilities of invention.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Robots ARE better workers than humans when it comes to not-too-fiddly repetetive production-line work. But when someone's job description covers a wide range of duties that includes interacting with many to attain a pool of knowlege to solve problems - as many jobs entail - It's an impossibility that any technology could possibly be created to acheive those kind of skills, especially as every possible kind of problem is unique to circumstance.
> 
> So you're stuck with unions, thankfully



Well, to that, I say that many people have doubted the ability of technology.

And it has done so many amazing things


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Agreed, it was a bad choice of word to say impossible. But imagine the cost of such a machine, a machine that can diagnose and rectify every possible problem, with every eventuality in any possible circumstance. Not to mention the support-team required to run such a device.
> 
> Who would go to such lengths when people can already do all those things?
> 
> Remember that we're talking robots replacing humans from a financial point of view and not that such technology is beyond the capabilities of invention.



Costs of new technologies fall over time.

A 2.5GHz computer in the 1980s was only possible if you probably linked up every computer in the world to parallel process.

Can probably pick one up from ASDA for about £500 these days.

Robots have innate advantages over humans - they can work longer, without rest, don't get tired and are very predictable (don't make random mistakes).

I can see robots being better than people at most things 'problem solving' like.


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> If somebody is made unemployed and remains so because technology has rendered them redundant life hasn't become easier for them has it?



Quite. But there are other jobs (unless we're talking about robots replacing all jobs - in which case - no one works so no problem  )

If one person loses their job but the cost of textiles falls in half for millions and we now have the ability to produce three times as much in the same amount of time, well...



> When workload is reduced because of technology the bosses don't suddenly announce major pay rises or let everyone go home early as a result do they?
> 
> No. They still want seven hours work for seven hours pay.



You say that, but, pay is actually very well linked and correlated to productivity... although, in a closed environment, increased productivity has a link to there being less jobs...



> The reason why I'm saying life has got harder (for the majority) is that the workers never benefit from labour saving devices. There's plenty of other work for them to be getting on with. But as a whole, as a planet, the leaps in technology in the information age is further widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots.



1 million years ago - almost everyone faces starvation/thirst should you have a bad year (because the nearby plants don't grow from foraging or the rain doesn't fall for months on end). Now - much better! In terms of the gap of have and have-nots... well, it is the haves who own most of those productive labour saving devices...

It isn't the fault of those labour saving devices. More a result of the way politics and systems of power are set up...


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Costs of new technologies fall over time.
> 
> A 2.5GHz computer in the 1980s was only possible if you probably linked up every computer in the world to parallel process.
> 
> Can probably pick one up from ASDA for about £500 these days.



The cost of computers hasn't fallen because technology has got better. The cost has fallen because there's an increased demand. I don't imagine many households in the near future suddenly turning themselves into manufacturing plants so these hypothetical super-robots will remain in the realms of films like superman 3, I'm pleased to say.




			
				the B said:
			
		

> Robots have innate advantages over humans - they can work longer, without rest, don't get tired and are very predictable (don't make random mistakes).
> 
> I can see robots being better than people at most things 'problem solving' like.



I've already stated that robots are perfectly apt at repetetive work. I know the processors out there are capable of making millions of calculations a second. But we're talking robots here. We don't have the technology to say right, here's an entirely new problem, solve it; the way that a human can. The processor power may be there. But even if you did have the time to program every eventuality in every different circumstance into it's software, the mechanical technology isn't available in order for it to do the simplest of tasks. 

Christ, they haven't even got the things walking perfectly on two legs yet.


----------



## laptop (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Robots ... don't get tired and are very predictable (don't make random mistakes).



I'm deducing here that you've never debugged a sizeable computer program?

Robots are *software*. 

Software does random shit all the time. Even stuff like the Airbus software with three allegedly separate systems running in parallel and voting scares me - largely because of the numer of ways in which pilots discover in flight that the systems are not as independent as they're supposed to be.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Robots are *software*.



And mechanical hardware.

Which only increases the need for maintenance and chances of malfunction.


----------



## liberty (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm alright on the nite with buses


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> The cost of computers hasn't fallen because technology has got better.



Yes they have. Manufacturing technology on microchips and circuitboards as well as efficiency increases in design have meant much lower costs. Especially when you have robots doing the work 




> I've already stated that robots are perfectly apt at repetetive work. I know the processors out there are capable of making millions of calculations a second. But we're talking robots here. We don't have the technology to say right, here's an entirely new problem, solve it; the way that a human can. The processor power may be there. But even if you did have the time to program every eventuality in every different circumstance into it's software, the mechanical technology isn't available in order for it to do the simplest of tasks.



Well, in terms of software programming, you can get a computer to 'learn' through heuristic programs... it's the cutting edge and  stuff.



> Christ, they haven't even got the things walking perfectly on two legs yet.



Got 'em running and going up and down stairs already these days 





			
				laptop said:
			
		

> I'm deducing here that you've never debugged a sizeable computer program?



Nope!



> Robots are *software*.
> 
> Software does random shit all the time. Even stuff like the Airbus software with three allegedly separate systems running in parallel and voting scares me - largely because of the numer of ways in which pilots discover in flight that the systems are not as independent as they're supposed to be.



True, hence 'supervised robots' - but robots don't suddenly decide - actually, this job is shit. I want to live on a beach in Australia. Screw this job and then burn the factory down.

(for example)


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> And mechanical hardware.
> 
> Which only increases the need for maintenance and chances of malfunction.



Get robots to fix each other - and then with spare time when not fixing, to do some work... it's not a complicated puzzle (I reckon a robot could solve it - in time )


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Get robots to fix each other - and then with spare time when not fixing, to do some work... it's not a complicated puzzle (I reckon a robot could solve it - in time )



Well, considering it takes maintenance engineers long enough to diagnose faults and track down the parts to rectify problems I fail to see how these amazing robots that furnish your imagination will improve the process.

I assume that you're aqctually tired with this conversation and are just winding me up now, yes? 

If not, It's actually quite difficult to continue with this discussion because you clearly lack any kind of knowlege about fault diagnosis and repair of equipment to back up your fanciful claims. Computer may give you a rapid answer to generic problems, yes. But order parts and carry out the work? What if the equipment is 200ft in the air? Do these robots come with jet packs too or will they have a ladder climbing chip installed? Will they be aware of the health and safety implications of working at heights? Or will they have self-ejaculating parachute belts, just in case?


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 23, 2005)

grosun said:
			
		

> It's easy to say "go out locally", but loads of folk in London have friends who live on the other side of town, may not know anyone locally, may already have made plans to go somewhere else, believing they can get home easily... Clearly it's not the end of the world not being able to, no terrible impact on anyone, but does come across a bit killjoy-ish screwing that up, when any other day would surely make the point just as well.



Well, I'm sorry but I really don't have any sympathy. My friends (and all the decent pubs) are on the other side of Bristol, if I want to go out NYE I have to fork out a fortune on a taxi. So I don't bother.

You could always try a bus or a taxi, as loads of other non-Londoners have to do.

Or see them another time. Jesus Christ, it's not compulsory, is it?


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm in agreement with Geri. Last year I was dead against going out on NYE on the basis that it's the most expensive, over-hyped let-down of the year. Without fail. At three in the morning I finally gave in to decadence and decided to see if I could catch a couple of beers at a pub less than half a mile away. My better half complained about the walk in the cold so I called a cab. We got to the pub and they'd just closed (they wanted to celebrate too) so I decided to return home instead of traipsing the streets of London looking for an open boozer.

The cost of this ten minute blip in my evening?

Twentyfive quid for ten minutes work for the greedy fuck.

Fortunately I just had twenty on me 

NYE. Everyone pretending to have fun and everyone else on the make.


----------



## laptop (Dec 23, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> robots don't suddenly decide - actually, this job is shit. I want to live on a beach in Australia. Screw this job and then burn the factory down.



But that behaviour is the only way we'll *know* when we have artificial intelligence


----------



## shandy (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Everyone pretending to have fun and everyone else on the make.



"Amateur night"


----------



## the B (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> I assume that you're aqctually tired with this conversation and are just winding me up now, yes?



Erm.. 



> If not, It's actually quite difficult to continue with this discussion because you clearly lack any kind of knowlege about fault diagnosis and repair of equipment to back up your fanciful claims. Computer may give you a rapid answer to generic problems, yes. But order parts and carry out the work? What if the equipment is 200ft in the air? Do these robots come with jet packs too or will they have a ladder climbing chip installed? Will they be aware of the health and safety implications of working at heights? Or will they have self-ejaculating parachute belts, just in case?



Oh yes, they'll all have those


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

I was falling for it for fucking ages aswell 

erm -


----------



## JTG (Dec 23, 2005)

I've said elsewhere - I'm in London for the night and it'd be far more convenient if they went on strike on the 3rd when I'm in Bristol nursing a comedown.

But if they have decided this night is the best, fine, I support them. I shall take buses, taxis, I shall walk. I'd rather that and have the security of knowing next time I visit I am in the hands of people who give a shit about my safety than have them roll over and leave me at the mercy of management's cuts.

Good for them.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

The 3rd would be ideal for me as it's a work day 

The thing that will stick in a lot of people's throats is that between 10:30 and 04:00 the service was going to be free thanks to the nasty corporate pigs at nat west. Perhaps nat west predicted a strike, made hay while the sun shone and got some nice publicity without forking out a penny 

I bet Branson is foaming at the mouth!


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 23, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> NYE. Everyone pretending to have fun and everyone else on the make.



I agree with pretty much everything else you've said on this thread (particularly about the unions/strike, my understanding of robotology is a good deal weaker!) but I don't agree with you that NYE is *all* bad ....

There can be good parties, there can be good pubs, there can be ways of avoiding ripoffs. Just a matter of keeping your ear to the ground and planning properly ... 

MY NYE will be within walking distance, or a short bus ride ....


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 23, 2005)

Well I'm damned whatever I do. I stopped planning for it years ago as I found it never lived up to any kind of hype. I'm sure you're fairly aquainted with the results of an unplanned NYE! I try and find a reasonable boozer or a mate's party and hope for the best. Or sit indoors and watch it all on the telly and have a bloody good dinner the next day. Hangover and comedown free!


----------



## rennie (Dec 24, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Or sit indoors and watch it all on the telly and have a bloody good dinner the next day. Hangover and comedown free!



I did that last year n felt amazing on the 1st. went n had lunch in the pub n thoroughly enjoyed a quiet day.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 24, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> Well, I'm sorry but I really don't have any sympathy. My friends (and all the decent pubs) are on the other side of Bristol, if I want to go out NYE I have to fork out a fortune on a taxi. So I don't bother.



Yes, but there are people in the world who like to venture more than 500 yards from their front door on special occasions.

I support the striking Tube workers but I since this is the third year in a row they've threatened a New Year's Eve strike I think it's about time they tried striking on some other day instead - why not do it when everyone else is at work, give them a chance to stay away from work in sympathy...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2005)

And they've not _actually_ walked out on any of those occassions though have they? It's like farm workers being told not to strike at harvest time. And anyway, when they've strruck ona workday we've had the same whingers giving it the big moan.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 24, 2005)

I don't remember the last time they actually walked out but I'm fairly sure I took the opportunity to have a long lie-in.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2005)

As i would too, but the moaners were out in force and they would be _whenever_ they struck and whether it was over a public safety issue or a wages dispute. (I think there was a short walkout earlier this year - not sure though)


----------



## Isambard (Dec 24, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> I'm in agreement with Geri. Last year I was dead against going out on NYE on the basis that it's the most expensive, over-hyped let-down of the year. Without fail.




Got to plan it haven't you. 

Pumping party at my local with £2 pints, chill out cocktail zone with £ 2.50 caiparinhias and the like. 200 yards the other way there's the regular spontaneous street party, bring a bottle of supermarket fizzy innnit.

NYE is one of the cheapest nights out of the year!   

<raises glass to striking tube workers>


----------



## BarryB (Dec 24, 2005)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I don't remember the last time they actually walked out but I'm fairly sure I took the opportunity to have a long lie-in.



IIRC last time was for a 24 hour strike June 29/July 30 2004. I think it was on this occasion that Livingstone made his infamous call for tube workers to scab on an official strike.

BarryB


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 24, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Well I'm damned whatever I do. I stopped planning for it years ago as I found it never lived up to any kind of hype. I'm sure you're fairly aquainted with the results of an unplanned NYE! I try and find a reasonable boozer or a mate's party and hope for the best. Or sit indoors and watch it all on the telly and have a bloody good dinner the next day. Hangover and comedown free!



No worries, have a nice NYE whatever you do and welcome to the forums, yer sound 

If you change your mind and feel like a bit more excitement though, head for Camberwell on NYE -- look at Unsound to Take Over the Red Star thread ...on Music Forum ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And they've not _actually_ walked out on any of those occassions though have they? It's like farm workers being told not to strike at harvest time. *And anyway, when they've strruck on a workday we've had the same whingers giving it the big moan.*



Some twats just ENJOY blaming the unions/strikers ... instant sign of  a tosser in my book ...


----------



## the B (Dec 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And they've not _actually_ walked out on any of those occassions though have they? It's like farm workers being told not to strike at harvest time. And anyway, when they've strruck ona workday we've had the same whingers giving it the big moan.



I'm almost always very pleased when they strike on a work day 

Always had a nice full day off from education/work...


----------



## General Ludd (Dec 24, 2005)

'Red' Ken has condemned the RMT for "trying to ruin New Year's Eve for thousands of Londoners". Fucking cunt. Whilst his not dying in the next week won't ruin my New Year's Eve, his death would certainly make it. 

(Although unlike the last strike he hasn't called on anyone to scab yet)


----------



## trashpony (Dec 24, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> (Although unlike the last strike he hasn't called on anyone to scab yet)



Yet being the operative word - give him time ...


----------



## EastEnder (Dec 24, 2005)

Personally, I'm not overly impressed with the way the RMT have handled this. Admittedly, I have no knowledge whatsoever concerning the issues, beyond what I've read in the press. It just seems a bit underhand to announce a strike on NYE when there's hardly any intervening time to sort things out. If the strike had been announced a few weeks back, giving plenty of time for proper dialogue between the RMT & LUL, and it had still ended in deadlock, then fairy nuff. But the way it's gone down does feel a bit too much like blackmail to me. I know the LUL management will try to get away with whatever they can, but I'd have more respect for the RMT's position if they'd handled this in such a way that there was a more reasonable amount of time to negotiate - rather than just saying "agree with us right now cos we're off on holiday tomorrow"....

As far as getting round on NYE goes, with a bit of thought it should still be ok. For everyone who's off work on NYE, there's ample time to take buses, overground trains, etc. Just meet up at a pub earlier on somewhere near wherever your intended nighttime fun is to be had.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2005)

@ the lot of you.

a little bit of exercise never hurt anyone.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 24, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not overly impressed with the way the RMT have handled this. Admittedly, I have no knowledge whatsoever concerning the issues, beyond what I've read in the press. It just seems a bit underhand to announce a strike on NYE when there's hardly any intervening time to sort things out. If the strike had been announced a few weeks back, giving plenty of time for proper dialogue between the RMT & LUL, and it had still ended in deadlock, then fairy nuff. But the way it's gone down does feel a bit too much like blackmail to me. I know the LUL management will try to get away with whatever they can, but I'd have more respect for the RMT's position if they'd handled this in such a way that there was a more reasonable amount of time to negotiate - rather than just saying "agree with us right now cos we're off on holiday tomorrow"....



I don't know the entire facts, but from what I do know and what oxpecker said, this dispute _has_ been going on for weeks and may even be the same dispute as the threatened action last NYE. Management are notoriously bad for fannying people about as opposed to bringing viable solutions to the negotiating table.


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 25, 2005)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Yes, but there are people in the world who like to venture more than 500 yards from their front door on special occasions.



Then get a bus, or taxi - like those us who don't live in London have to do every year. If it's such a special occasion, I'm sure they won't mind forking out.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 25, 2005)

You've come into the London forum just to tell us that people in other cities don't have underground systems so we've no cause to complain about anything? Are you for real?


----------



## Dan U (Dec 25, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> As far as getting round on NYE goes, with a bit of thought it should still be ok. For everyone who's off work on NYE, there's ample time to take buses, overground trains, etc. Just meet up at a pub earlier on somewhere near wherever your intended nighttime fun is to be had.



my intended fun is at the end of several mobile answerphones whose secrets wont reveal themselves until late.

chances are they'll be the other side of london to each other...   

normally the nightbus or a cab would be fine... but with no tube....


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 25, 2005)

Well this is the third year running that there's been the threat of industrial action on NYE. If ANYONE complains about this same shit next year - It's not as if they haven't had plenty of warning and shouldn't be expecting it. The same should apply for this year too, really.


----------



## Giles (Dec 25, 2005)

I know we can all "get some exercise" and plan around this, but I would have far more sympathy if they did it on a wet Tuesday in January. 

No need to shit on the mass of ordinary people at the one time of year that cabs etc are all charging shedloads, and when a lot of people make more than the usual effort to meet old friends, go somewhere special, all sorts of stuff that involves travelling across London.

In spite of my (sorry, I was in a very cunty mood) comments earlier, I am not entirely unsymapthetic to the issues involved. 

I just think that picking this particular day to do this in unnecessary. What's wrong with Tuesday 3rd? 

It would have the same impact on the management, but wouldn't cause as much general hassle to everyone else, who have no choice and no influence on this AT ALL.

Hope you are all having a good Christmas. I am.

Giles..


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 26, 2005)

giles, has it occurred to you that TfL management are only too aware of how any date - in fact, ANY strike action by ANY workers, anywhere, but espesh transport workers - causes SOME degree of inconvenience or disruption to someone, somewhere, and that they are exploiting this to push through a (I quote) 'cunty deal', whilst trying to play the innocent? 
I suggest you point the finger elsewhere, and here is a really, *really* good place to start; they wear suits rather more elegant and expensive than the tube staffs' bri-nylon number, and they share the keys to the Executive Offices, TFL Headquarers, Langham Place, Victoria


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> giles, has it occurred to you that TfL management are only too aware of how any date - in fact, ANY strike action by ANY workers, anywhere, but espesh transport workers - causes SOME degree of inconvenience or disruption to someone, somewhere, and that they are exploiting this to push through a (I quote) 'cunty deal', whilst trying to play the innocent?
> I suggest you point the finger elsewhere, and here is a really, *really* good place to start; they wear suits rather more elegant and expensive than the tube staffs' bri-nylon number, and they share the keys to the Executive Offices, TFL Headquarers, Langham Place, Victoria


No, pick any other day, esp. a normal working day and the bosses will get pissed off, on nye the only people that will be affected are ordainary people out having a good time - they could have choosen a better date.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> No, pick any other day, esp. a normal working day and the bosses will get pissed off, on nye the only people that will be affected are ordainary people out having a good time - they could have choosen a better date.



Cobblers!  You pick a strike day based on maximum disruption.  Striking on NYE will involve massive disruption. Although some public opinion will be "ooh those nasty union strikers" there will also be a massive pressure on TFL to sort a deal to avoid industrial action on such an 'important' night.

Yeah, yeah, let's strike on january 5th - like anybody gives a fuck.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> No, pick any other day, esp. a normal working day and the bosses will get pissed off, on nye the only people that will be affected are ordainary people out having a good time - they could have choosen a better date.



No, you're fucking wrong.

A strike date has to be AGREED otherwise it's an 'illegal strike'. I'm sure this unpopulist move works out far better for the management than the workers in terms of propaganda (which is evidently so judging by some of the ill-judged comments here).


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Cobblers!  You pick a strike day based on maximum disruption.



But to _who_.

Us as users of the system or the bosses?



> Striking on NYE will involve massive disruption. Although some public opinion will be "ooh those nasty union strikers" there will also be a massive pressure on TFL to sort a deal to avoid industrial action on such an 'important' night.



Actually, the pressure is much more why the Union tried to do NYE (again - the one day where we actually get free tube transport during the late night and find it most useful) rather than a day we would prefer and one that would cost the bosses more money (a normal working day).


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> No, you're fucking wrong.
> 
> A strike date has to be AGREED otherwise it's an 'illegal strike'. I'm sure this unpopulist move works out far better for the management than the workers in terms of propaganda (which is evidently so judging by some of the ill-judged comments here).



But note how people are bugged by NYE compared to rather supportive (on the whole it seems) of Jan 8th...


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> But note how people are bugged by NYE compared to rather supportive (on the whole it seems) of Jan 8th...



A strike, like a protest, has to be agreed otherwise it's illegal. So don't just say that the workers stuck the tail on the donkey and came up with NYE. A bit naive I reckon. go figure.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> No, you're fucking wrong.
> 
> A strike date has to be AGREED otherwise it's an 'illegal strike'. I'm sure this unpopulist move works out far better for the management than the workers in terms of propaganda (which is evidently so judging by some of the ill-judged comments here).


And who put forward the date in the first place?. The management?


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> A strike, like a protest, has to be agreed otherwise it's illegal. So don't just say that the workers stuck the tail on the donkey and came up with NYE. A bit naive I reckon. go figure.



Quite. So the Union at some point agreed NYE was ok.

I expect management to be twats. I expect better from the Unions.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Cobblers!  You pick a strike day based on maximum disruption.  Striking on NYE will involve massive disruption. Although some public opinion will be "ooh those nasty union strikers" there will also be a massive pressure on TFL to sort a deal to avoid industrial action on such an 'important' night.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, let's strike on january 5th - like anybody gives a fuck.


 If they strike on jan 5th then big business will start calling up their chums in government - that's your pressure. Tfl and the government will be quite happy to let them go ahead with the strike on Nye, imo it will only reinforce the "ooh those nasty union strikers" thoughts in the publics mind.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> And who put forward the date in the first place?. The management?



Well you don't know that they didn't do you? When unions were less agreeable with the system they would down tools and walk off site the minute any dispute came to light. This method did massive damage to the unions and handed a big fucking boon to Thatcher when she decided to rewrite all the laws regarding unions, abolishing secondary strikes and making strikes illegal if not planned and agreed with the authorities. 

So you tell me. Why was it such a good idea and ACCEPTED by management and the police to strike on NYE?


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> So you tell me. Why was it such a good idea and ACCEPTED by management and the police to strike on NYE?




Because management won't lose as much money.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Quite. So the Union at some point agreed NYE was ok.
> 
> I expect management to be twats. I expect better from the Unions.



Why should the very people fighting for YOUR health and safety on the tube also fight for YOUR right to travel on a party night AND forfeit their wages into the bargain? Especially as you don't seem to be backing them with much vigour?


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Because management won't lose as much money.



Because it hands them a propaganda bonus with the help of the evening standard and selfish miserableists such as yourself.

And Tube services get fined for lack of services. Ticket sales don't come into it. They're the same fines for NYE as they are for friday 13th.


----------



## laptop (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> So you tell me. Why was it such a good idea and ACCEPTED by management and the police to strike on NYE?



...and because since 01/01/2000 (at least) the police have, I suspect, been living in fear of what might kick off with a lot of people in town on NYE. 

Imagine if Maggie popped her clogs about lunchtime on 31/12/2005


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> If they strike on jan 5th then big business will start calling up their chums in government - that's your pressure. Tfl and the government will be quite happy to let them go ahead with the strike on Nye, imo it will only reinforce the "ooh those nasty union strikers" thoughts in the publics mind.



I think it's more about putting pressure on Livingstone and TFL not to have the embarrassment of no tubes running on NYE.

Big business would be affected by a quiet NYE. So what. Do you think if they strike on Jan 5th that the stock exchange will be shut down for the day?  And then some Mr. Big makes a phone call to TFL to make them end the strike?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Well you don't know that they didn't do you? When unions were less agreeable with the system they would down tools and walk off site the minute any dispute came to light. This method did massive damage to the unions and handed a big fucking boon to Thatcher when she decided to rewrite all the laws regarding unions, abolishing secondary strikes and making strikes illegal if not planned and agreed with the authorities.
> 
> So you tell me. Why was it such a good idea and ACCEPTED by management and the police to strike on NYE?


Well, was it put to the vote of rmt members to strike on that date or not?. And how are the management not going to ACCEPT a strike?.


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Why should the very people fighting for YOUR health and safety on the tube also fight for YOUR right to travel on a party night AND forfeit their wages into the bargain? Especially as you don't seem to be backing them with much vigour?



Because I like many others see there being a decision made and not the one we wanted (ie. why not another day?) without a particularly good reason.




			
				scarecrow said:
			
		

> Ticket sales don't come into it.



Right, they just vanish into the mouth of the money monster then.



> Imagine if Maggie popped her clogs about lunchtime on 31/12/2005



I'd make a dash for the last tube into traf sq (along with at least half of London - hopefully).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> I think it's more about putting pressure on Livingstone and TFL not to have the embarrassment of no tubes running on NYE.
> 
> Big business would be affected by a quiet NYE. So what. Do you think if they strike on Jan 5th that the stock exchange will be shut down for the day?  And then some Mr. Big makes a phone call to TFL to make them end the strike?


Yes, if they striked on a working day then companies would lose money and put pressure on Livingstone and TFL for a resolution, more pressure than joe public will.


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> I think it's more about putting pressure on Livingstone and TFL not to have the embarrassment of no tubes running on NYE.



But it hasn't - has it?

The Union can't take the action of picking that day and expect all the blame for it being that day to lie with the management.



> Big business would be affected by a quiet NYE. So what.



Big business is more effected when half their workforce can't be bothered to turn up/are late.



> Do you think if they strike on Jan 5th that the stock exchange will be shut down for the day?



In New York, it cut volumes on the markets by around 20% versus previous years.



> And then some Mr. Big makes a phone call to TFL to make them end the strike?



Granted, that bit is a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

I'd leave it the RMT on this one - it's not like they're not experienced. NYE will be their choice - maximum political embarrassment.


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> I'd leave it the RMT on this one - it's not like they're not experienced. NYE will be their choice - maximum political embarrassment.



Agree to disagree moment I think...


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes, if they striked on a working day then companies would lose money and put pressure on Livingstone and TFL for a resolution, more pressure than joe public will.



Aye, cos ken doesn't care about public opinion does he?  Or does he?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Aye, cos ken doesn't care about public opinion does he?  Or does he?


Do you think he would have spoken out against this one if it was against public opinion?. Seriously?.


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Well, was it put to the vote of rmt members to strike on that date or not?. And how are the management not going to ACCEPT a strike?.



Strike action goes to the ballot. Dates don't.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Agree to disagree moment I think...



do you think the RMT randomly chose NYE?


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Do you think he would have spoken out against this one if it was against public opinion?. Seriously?.



He will bear some responsibility if there are no tubes on NYE and his opponents will make political capital out of it.  Local elections next year for starters...


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Right, they just vanish into the mouth of the money monster then.



Why are you talking about ticket sales when it's widely known that the nat west bank were divying up for tube costs for a good majority of NYE/NYD?

Don't keep interrupting the debate if you can't  retain the established facts of the thread.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Strike action goes to the ballot. Dates don't.


So who chose the date then?. And shouldn't the workers get a say in when they're going to strike?


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> So who chose the date then?. And shouldn't the workers get a say in when they're going to strike?



all the workers voted by text message after the lottery on saturday to strike on NYE


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> So who chose the date then?. And shouldn't the workers get a say in when they're going to strike?



Workers don't get a say in dates when it comes to actions. It's decided between management and the union. Strike action is *unpopular* with workers because they don't get paid for the strike action and it usually comes with a few weeks overtime ban. The press usually fails to report this.

To clarify:

NatWest is to sponsor free travel for all on the London Underground this New Year’s Eve. London’s premier New Year's Eve celebration will continue into the early hours of 2006 with revellers safe in the knowledge that NatWest and the London tube network will get them home. 

source


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

"Workers don't get a say in dates when it comes to actions. It's decided between management and the union. "


No. the union decides when to take it - they have to give seven days notice.  Which is fuckin outrageous.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Workers don't get a say in dates when it comes to actions. It's decided between management and the union. Strike action is *unpopular* with workers because they don't get paid for the strike action and it usually comes with a few weeks overtime ban. The press usually fails to report this.


Why does the media report that it was the union that called a strike on that date then?

eg, bbc "A union has called a 24-hour strike on the Tube network for New Year's Eve." bbc


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> all the workers voted by text message after the lottery on saturday to strike on NYE


Did they have a syndicate going?


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

Please answer: Why should the Union strike on NYE.

I am going to presume the Union get a say in the date. Answers on a postcard please.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 26, 2005)

scarecrow said:
			
		

> Strike action is *unpopular* with workers


oh, for fucksakes! . As a matter of curiosity, do you REALLY have THAT much contempt for workers? so as to believe that they are dumb, unthinking automatons - deprived of your superior thought processes, evidently - that they will tamely follow union 'bosses' out of the door?   paying no thought to the personal cost or potential benefit to them?

this may come as a huge surprise to you, but transport workers - in fact, *all* TU members - are every bit as capable as weighing up the pros and cons, as the next man? And equally capable of realising that their commitment - and no-one else's - which makes the difference between strike action and NO strike action? And that this is ULTIMATELY therefore THEIR strike, with the decision - both in votes, and movement of feet - taken by THEM?

have you ever MET a TU member? 

jesus...


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Did they have a syndicate going?



Syndicalists?

Can we knock this one on the head now?

the pertinent facts being:

1. the RMT members have voted overwhelmingly in their secret ballot (posted to their home addresses so no horrid bullies from the RMT can influence the vote) to take strike action on this issue and have mandated the RMT elected officials to organise this on their behalf.

2. The RMT elected officials have deliberately chosen NYE and have notified management according to the requirements of the Tory trade union laws. Presumably they have a decent track record of choosing suitable dates for strike action, otherwise I'm sure the members wouldn't continue to vote so overwhelmingly to support strike action.

3. The NYE strike will inconvenience some punters, but Ken Livingstone will look like a cock for allowing a situation to develop whereby the tubes are not running on NYE.

4. Maximum pressure therefore applied to Ken as mayor and overseer of TFL to resolve dispute.

5. Job done.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Please answer: Why should the Union strike on NYE.
> 
> I am going to presume the Union get a say in the date. Answers on a postcard please.


how about an online answer - the people who voted five to one for the strike?


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Please answer: Why should the Union strike on NYE.
> 
> I am going to presume the Union get a say in the date. Answers on a postcard please.




are you a bit thick? 

When's the best time to strike?  When it will make the headlines or some other time?


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> oh, for fucksakes! . As a matter of curiosity, do you REALLY have THAT much contempt for workers? so as to believe that they are dumb, unthinking automatons - deprived of your superior thought processes, evidently - that they will tamely follow union 'bosses' out of the door?   paying no thought to the personal cost or potential benefit to them?
> 
> this may come as a huge surprise to you, but transport workers - in fact, *all* TU members - are every bit as capable as weighing up the pros and cons, as the next man? And equally capable of realising that their commitment - and no-one else's - which makes the difference between strike action and NO strike action? And that this is ULTIMATELY therefore THEIR strike, with the decision - both in votes, and movement of feet - taken by THEM?
> 
> ...



It doesn't come as a huge surprise to me because I AM a trade union member who works for THE LONDON UNDERGROUND! And I know what we are balloted for and dates aren't included.

Tell me, is this an aslif, rmt or amicus strike mister conjecture?

So now that I've blown all your assumptions to smitherines, are you going to tell me what makes YOU seem to know what the fuck you're talking about?


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> 3. The NYE strike will inconvenience some punters, but Ken Livingstone will look like a cock for allowing a situation to develop whereby the tubes are not running on NYE.



Or maybe the RMT will look a little unreasonable to pick NYE as opposed to a standard working day - a day when being on strike would mean no ticket sales and less money to the bosses.

There will be no added political pressure to Ken. The RMT pick the date as far as I know and that isn't a good date in the opinion of some users who would normally otherwise be perfectly happy.


Jezza - that doesn't explain why NYE in particular. I know why they are on strike and it's great that they are looking out for us. But why choose that night.


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> are you a bit thick?
> 
> When's the best time to strike?  When it will make the headlines or some other time?





Answer the question...

It is clear a tube strike always makes the headlines.

And I think it would be better to strike on a normal day because:


1) You cost the bosses their ticket revenue

2) We as users would get to miss some of our normal working day as opposed to miss out on some time on a special occassion


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Answer the question...
> 
> It is clear a tube strike always makes the headlines.
> 
> ...




Good job there are loads of people like you who consider NYE a special occassion. That's where the pressure will be brought to bear on our Ken.

And do you think Nat West are going to pony up the dough for NYE if there's no tubes running?  'This strike was brought to you by Nat West plc, the non-scabbing bank.'


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Syndicalists?


I meant a lottery syndicate.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I meant a lottery syndicate.



Really?


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 26, 2005)

Jezza seems to have gone a bit quiet.

I'm sure he's going to explain in full detail what trade unions he's been a member of.


----------



## the B (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Good job there are loads of people like you who consider NYE a special occassion. That's where the pressure will be brought to bear on our Ken.



Ken doesn't pick the date.

It's between management (cunts) and the Union (acting a bit out of order to pick that date)


I still want to know why NYE.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> 3. The NYE strike will inconvenience some punters, but Ken Livingstone will look like a cock for allowing a situation to develop whereby the tubes are not running on NYE.
> 
> 4. Maximum pressure therefore applied to Ken as mayor and overseer of TFL to resolve dispute.


3. It won't put pressure on tfl or livingstone because they can spin the "rmt mad strikers" and people will be more inclined to believe them because they are striking at a time when big business won't be affected, just ordainary punters.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Ken doesn't pick the date.
> 
> It's between management (cunts) and the Union (acting a bit out of order to pick that date)
> 
> ...



Just so i know I'm not wasting my time typing here:

Which body are the union in dispute with?

Who is ultimately responsible for that body?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Really?


Yes, It was a joke.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> 3. It won't put pressure on tfl or livingstone because they can spin the "rmt mad strikers" and people will be more inclined to believe them because they are striking at a time when big business won't be affected, just ordainary punters.



No.  The reality is that even if you are dealing with "mad strikers" it is also always seen as a failure by the other parties involved, and political capital can be made out of it , and therefore pressure is applied.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes, It was a joke.



done me good and proper


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> No.  The reality is that even if you are dealing with "mad strikers" it is also always seen as a failure by the other parties involved, and political capital can be made out of it.


political capital can also be made the other way, and imo the climate in this country is not all that friendly to unions and strikes, esp ones that don't affect big business.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> political capital can also be made the other way, and imo the climate in this country is not all that friendly to unions and strikes, esp ones that don't affect big business.


 Not with political illiteretes attacking unions for striking at a time of maximum possible impact and making the most of their potential power anyway...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 26, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Not with political illiteretes attacking unions for striking at a time of maximum possible impact and making the most of their potential power anyway...


Did you mean illiterates?

I am questioning the impact they are going to have, Is that ok with you?


----------



## TeeJay (Dec 26, 2005)

--edit--


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 26, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Did you mean illiterates?
> 
> I am questioning the impact they are going to have, Is that ok with you?




Yes, i do mean that and yes, that's ok with me. It's incredibly naive and is based on a series of misunderstandings og how unions operate and what the objectives of this current _threat_ are. 

Firstly, this is not about the RMT versus big business, it's about the RMT versus TFL and Livingstone. It's a red herring in this dispute to argue that the RMT should strike at a time that mostly affects big business - _that's not what this strike is about_ - so damging them is neither here nor here in terms of objectives, which leads onto the second misunderstanding - this 'threat' will do two things, it will make the public aware of the proposed plans in the most immediate and direct way (seeing as TFL have been trying to cover them up for the last year) and secondly, it will make TFL and Livingstone look like idiots who cannot even be trusted to provide adequate trransport for one of the biggest nights of the year - that's a direct political attack on the TFL and Livingstone which will place pressue on him and them to meet the unions demands asap. A strike on any other day would also do this, but would chuck away the _extra_ benefits that threatening to carry it out specifically on NYE would bring. 

This is commonly called maximising your position, it means using those small advantages you have to achieve max damage. This is how unions work, it's how they _have to work_. It shows utter naivity to argue that they should throw this away just so some selfish individualists are in abtter position to put their needs above those of the larger tube using community.


----------



## shandy (Dec 26, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Not with political illiteretes attacking unions for striking at a time of maximum possible impact and making the most of their potential power anyway...



No, they should take action some other time. It may not have the same impact but the posters 'the B' and 'sleaterkinney' from the Urban75 message board will be more supportive. And that will obviously weigh heavily in terms of whether the union will achieve a favourable outcome.


----------



## laptop (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> I still want to know why NYE.



The way you've been going on on this thread, I'm sure that pissing you off would count as a win for the union officials who picked the date, if they were bothered to find out. 

As I understand it:


RMT members won a shorter workign week
Of course the union was hoping that shorter hours -> more members
Management retaliated for the win by threatening to cut staffing levels instead
This is indeed a safety issue
But the legality of calling a strike over a safety issue is open to question
Members voted on the principle of strike action
Elected officials decided to impement this vote as staggered action - for propaganda purposes, not an all-out strike until management crumbles or the city does
*Many - possibly the majority - of the people for whom unstaffed stations are a safety issue don't go into town on NYE* - in fact some would be relieved to find fewer young people who can look after themselves wandering about


----------



## Thora_v1 (Dec 26, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Because I like many others see there being a decision made and not the one we wanted (ie. why not another day?) without a particularly good reason.


The B - seriously, can't believe you're making this argument     

It's obvious why this is a good day for a strike - impact.  If it cuts into your NY's boozing then who gives a fuck


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Firstly, this is not about the RMT versus big business, it's about the RMT versus TFL and Livingstone. It's a red herring in this dispute to argue that the RMT should strike at a time that mostly affects big business - _that's not what this strike is about_ - so damging them is neither here nor here in terms of objectives, which leads onto the second misunderstanding - this 'threat' will do two things, it will make the public aware of the proposed plans in the most immediate and direct way (seeing as TFL have been trying to cover them up for the last year) and secondly, it will make TFL and Livingstone look like idiots who cannot even be trusted to provide adequate trransport for one of the biggest nights of the year - that's a direct political attack on the TFL and Livingstone which will place pressue on him and them to meet the unions demands asap. A strike on any other day would also do this, but would chuck away the _extra_ benefits that threatening to carry it out specifically on NYE would bring.


I am aware that this strike is RMT versus TFL and Livingstone but I am questioning how much pressure will be brought on them by the general public versus how much pressure will be brought on them by business if they strike on a working day. I also think it leaves them open to spin, i.e. they're setting out to ruin people's new year.

It won't affect me personally - I'll still go out and have a good time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> No, they should take action some other time. It may not have the same impact but the posters 'the B' and 'sleaterkinney' from the Urban75 message board will be more supportive. And that will obviously weigh heavily in terms of whether the union will achieve a favourable outcome.


Does the union not care about public support?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I am aware that this strike is RMT versus TFL and Livingstone but I am questioning how much pressure will be brought on them by the general public versus how much pressure will be brought on them by business if they strike on a working day. I also think it leaves them open to spin, i.e. they're setting out to ruin people's new year.
> 
> It won't affect me personally - I'll still go out and have a good time.


 But why on earth do you imagine that it must be one or the other! They can strike (or threaten to) on NYE _ and then again_ on a work day (as they are indeed promising to do). They're perfectly capable of _doing both_ for gods sake!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But why on earth do you imagine that it must be one or the other! They can strike (or threaten to) on NYE _ and then again_ on a work day (as they are indeed promising to do). They're perfectly capable of _doing both_ for gods sake!


They are, but for the reasons I stated, why strike on NYE at all?. Why not strike on two working days?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 27, 2005)

Have I entered some parallel universe where trade unions get together with management _and the police_ (!) to decide when to go on strike? It certainly seems like it from some of the comments above.

The choice of NYE is solely that of the EC of the RMT; they listen to lay officials from the region, but ultimately they decide.

NYE is the best date for strike action in order to put most pressure on Livingstone and O'Toole. The all-night running on NYE has been flagged up as one of the most important benefits KL gives to Londoners. He's as mad as hell and will do all he can to break the strike. LUL is already calling for scab labour to come in to work on NYE, so don't be surprised to see lots of managers in band, spanking new uniforms standing round looking like pricks outside stations.

This isn't just about a shorter working week for station staff; LUL are looking for ways of attacking the organising ability of the RMT. Wages and conditions on the Underground are better than average because we are one of the most highly unionised workforces left in the country. KL would dearly love to see an end to that.

Look beyond your narrow self interest. It's one night of partying versus a massive attack on the conditions of thousand of workers on the underground.

After the attacks on 7/7 Bob Crow predicted that the people the ES described as heroes would be villains again as soon as we asked for more money / shorter hours. How right he was.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> They are, but for the reasons I stated, why strike on NYE at all?. Why not strike on two working days?



To take advantage of the special situation that NYE presents, namely the oppourtunity to so something that will make Livingstone and TFL look like the rank incompetents that they are in order to put some direct pressure on the pair of them to give in to the unions demands in order and to save them from further embarassment and political damage (local elections coming up soon) - it's a perfect propoganda making opportunity and one that rarely appears. As has been pointed out in about 50 posts above.

 (You're effectively changing your argument here then, you're no longer argung that a NYE strike will be ineffective, but that they just shouldn't strike on that day _as a matter of principle_ - which is it to be?)


----------



## Thora_v1 (Dec 27, 2005)

*



			
				Oxpecker said:
			
		


			Look beyond your narrow self interest. It's one night of partying versus a massive attack on the conditions of thousand of workers on the underground.
		
Click to expand...

*It's sad that this needs repeating.


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 27, 2005)

Another reason to pick NYE - managers on duty that night get a big cash bonus. Station assistants and supervisors rostered to work get the flat rate.

Or they would if any of them came in


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> To take advantage of the special situation that NYE presents, namely the oppourtunity to so something that will make Livingstone and TFL look like the rank incompetents that they are in order to put some direct pressure on the pair of them to give in to the unions demands in order and to save them from further embarassment and political damage (local elections coming up soon) - it's a perfect propoganda making opportunity and one that rarely appears. As has been pointed out in about 50 posts above.
> 
> (You're effectively changing your argument here then, you're no longer argung that a NYE strike will be ineffective, but that they just shouldn't strike on that day _as a matter of principle_ - which is it to be?)


Where did I say it was about a _principle_?. I haven't changed my argument at all - I am still saying it would be more effective on a working day because it will be too easy to spin this as "mad strikers" instead of "incompetent ken".


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Where did I say it was about a _principle_?. I haven't changed my argument at all - I am still saying it would be more effective on a working day because it will be too easy to spin this as "mad strikers" instead of "incompetent ken".



No, it would be "mad strikers" whichever day you choose.  NYE will be maximum "incompetent ken".  NYE it is then!


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

NYE is unique because the users want to use it then more than another your regular working day.

If I'm not able to use it that day, I'm going to ask 'who picked NYE instead of some other day'.

And it happens to be the RMT.

I know why they are doing a strike and it sounds like a very good reason to do it.

But why specifically NYE? It doesn't maximise the value of the strike. I don't think bosses are any more incompetent because of the date. I already think they are incompetent!

It does maximise how much you can rub up would-be tube users who really want to use it then.

I don't mind giving up use of the tube for some other day when all it means is, I can take time off work with a legit excuse.


----------



## EastEnder (Dec 27, 2005)

Dude, I've met you. I use the tube every working day, as do 3 million other people. I regard myself as a pragmatic soul - in the sense that if this is justified on legitimate grounds (safety, working conditions, fairness to employees ,etc), then I'm 100% in support. I'm also entirely prepared to concede that I know squat all about the specifics. With the greatest of respect, I'd like you to answer a few questions:

1) Is the timing of this action coincidental, or was it engineered to be evocative (i.e. NYE, piss off all the revelers or else, kind of thing]
ing).

2) Has it been a long standing issue that could have been addressed before such a pivotal requirement use of the tube.

3) Do you personally think this is the best way of engendering the greatest level of support for the causes faced by LUL staff from the public at large




			
				Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Have I entered some parallel universe where trade unions get together with management _and the police_ (!) to decide when to go on strike? It certainly seems like it from some of the comments above.
> 
> The choice of NYE is solely that of the EC of the RMT; they listen to lay officials from the region, but ultimately they decide.
> 
> ...


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> NYE is unique because the users want to use it then more than another your regular working day.
> 
> If I'm not able to use it that day, I'm going to ask 'who picked NYE instead of some other day'.
> 
> ...



'doing a strike'    

This has all been covered above.  

Your post seems to reveal more about your views rather than those of the mythical "public" - "If I'm not able to" and  "I'm going to ask"

Where are you coming from politically?  Are you a Tory?

Sounds like you are looking for an excuse to blame the union.

In any event, nae luck! Either TFL and Ken fold and the RMT win now or otherwise the good folk of the RMT exercise their right to withdraw their labour on NYE, and on as many days afterwards as it takes to get what they want.  And good luck to them!


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> NYE is unique because the users want to use it then more than another your regular working day.
> 
> But why specifically NYE?



you answered your own question there, brainiac.


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> you answered your own question there, brainiac.



So the strike is there to piss off users? 

You don't gain anything by pissing off the users. The Union is there to deal with the bosses - you don't piss of the bosses anymore by doing it on that day. They give a shit about money - not users - and they aren't doing to loss anymore money on NYE than some other day.

In fact, they stand to lose more on some other day.


And calling me a Tory is fucking silly.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

You've missed the point again, but not to worry.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of a union?


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> You've missed the point again, but not to worry.
> 
> Are you now or have you ever been a member of a union?



The NUS. I'm 20 and the only jobs I've had have been brief temp type stuff.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Just so i know I'm not wasting my time typing here:
> 
> Which body are the union in dispute with?
> 
> Who is ultimately responsible for that body?





Worth another attempt to break on through...


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

come on the B, have a go at it!


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> So the strike is there to piss off users?
> 
> You don't gain anything by pissing off the users. The Union is there to deal with the bosses - you don't piss of the bosses anymore by doing it on that day. They give a shit about money - not users - and they aren't doing to loss anymore money on NYE than some other day.
> 
> ...



And a tube worker writes: 

"NYE is the best date for strike action in order to put most pressure on Livingstone and O'Toole. The all-night running on NYE has been flagged up as one of the most important benefits KL gives to Londoners. He's as mad as hell and will do all he can to break the strike."

Please elaborate, the B, if we've all got this wrong.


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> come on the B, have a go at it!



Wtf...

Will you finally answer some questions before launching some pointless ones.

...

Why pick NYE?

What possible gains are there from pissing off some people who would otherwise be 100% supporting?

The dispute is with the bosses. Why piss of the users and *minimise* how much you piss off the bosses who care for money. The bosses will lose less by a strike on NYE compared to a working day.

The bosses did not force the strike to be on NYE. The Union picks it. Why that day for the 'many-th' time of asking. There is no maximising of 'disruption'. More journeys are made on a normal day - they just happen to he journeys we don't really like that much compared to ones we do like.

A strike is there to piss of the bosses. Not the users.


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> "NYE is the best date for strike action in order to put most pressure on Livingstone and O'Toole. The all-night running on NYE has been flagged up as one of the most important benefits KL gives to Londoners. He's as mad as hell and will do all he can to break the strike."



Because people really elected Ken on the basis of NYE tube running


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> The NUS



Apologies, I didn't realise you'd been through such industrial tumult and the wringer so..


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Because people really elected Ken on the basis of NYE tube running



if the tubes don't run he looks like a dick. And there are council elections in 2006. As it stands, the Association of London Govt (amalgamation of London boroughs) have broadly welcomed the recent ODPM consultation on giving him more powers (planning, waste, housing).  

If the London boroughs turn anti-ken then it's going to go less smoothly for him. And there's a lot at stake for the ego-maniac.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Because people really elected Ken on the basis of NYE tube running



blah de blah lecture from NUS loyal


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

the B, you know fuck-all about the realities of how unions work and you betray a deep-seated liberal/tory bias. Get bent.


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> if the tubes don't run he looks like a dick. And there are council elections in 2006. As it stands, the Association of London Govt (amalgamation of London boroughs) have broadly welcomed the recent ODPM consultation on giving him more powers (planning, waste, housing).
> 
> If the London boroughs turn anti-ken then it's going to go less smoothly for him. And there's a lot at stake for the ego-maniac.



Because a tube strike that happens to be NYE compared to any other day is really going to cause him to lose an election 

I don't see the selection of NYE as being anything to with Ken and a whole lot more to do with a Union choosing to pick that date.

I don't have a clue who you are but you know fuck all about me.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 27, 2005)

Not without possibility that Conservatives would run an anti RMT campaign in the local elections in London and they could certainly rely on the Substandard etc. Stronger Conservatives in the 32 Boroughs could make it harder for Ken to expand his powers. 

But that's looking a bit into the future and hair splitting on the main issue:

The tube workers and their union the RMT are going to get slagged WHENEVER they strike, whether it is to defend their terms and consitions or as in this case on SAFETY.

It is a VERY simple question, whose side are you on?

A) Tube workers who provide London with a socially important service.

B) Tube management, Labour politicians and the Substandard & Co who want that socially important service not run for the benefit of Londoners, commuters and visitors but for profit.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Where did I say it was about a _principle_?. I haven't changed my argument at all - I am still saying it would be more effective on a working day because it will be too easy to spin this as "mad strikers" instead of "incompetent ken".



You started off by saying that a tube strike on NYE would be ineffective and strike on working day would be better, i pointed out to you that on the contrary it would have all the benfits of striking on a workday plus _extra_ benefits most obvioulsy the potential to directly damage TFL and Livingstone into the bargain (something that they hate at the best of times) which has been a proven method of getting your demands met in past struggles. 

Further to this i also pointed out that there were also already plans in the pipeline to strike on working days _as well_. You came back with 'but why should they strike on NYE' - which looks to me very much like you're saying that they just shouldn't strike on NYE on a matter of principle as you no longer have the eneffectiveness argument to fall back on - the union is taking your recommended course of action already.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> A strike is there to piss of the bosses. Not the users.



Your utter cluelessness when faced with industrial action encapsulated in one short sentence. 

And can people stop bleating 'but why on NYE?' - that has been asnwered over and over above, here it is for one last time:

"NYE is the best date for strike action in order to put most pressure on Livingstone and O'Toole. The all-night running on NYE has been flagged up as one of the most important benefits KL gives to Londoners. He's as mad as hell and will do all he can to break the strike."


----------



## scarecrow (Dec 27, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Have I entered some parallel universe where trade unions get together with management _and the police_ (!) to decide when to go on strike? It certainly seems like it from some of the comments above.



Sorry   that was me. Can't even remember what I was addressing but was a bit drunk and over excited. I was trying to say that these things are organised in advance to give notice in order to be legal, like demos, rather than some secret syndicate of old bill and union officials sitting in a darkened room planning when the best day to strike so they can all have a bloody good knees up together.


----------



## Velouria (Dec 27, 2005)

I feel so sorry for you poor Londonders who are merely losing one of your modes of public transport 

After having to walk 2 and a half miles into town on Christmas day because there is no public transport whatsoever in Dundee apart from a hopelessly overdemanded taxi service (same on New Years Day  ) ... you lucky buggers  You moan abt public transport but unless you come to the provinces you don't really know what a shitty public transport system is.

Oh, and no such thing as nightbuses either 

edit: mind you I didn't realise you didn't have buses on xmas day either. But at least you have them on New Years Day...


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 27, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Dude, I've met you. I use the tube every working day, as do 3 million other people. I regard myself as a pragmatic soul - in the sense that if this is justified on legitimate grounds (safety, working conditions, fairness to employees ,etc), then I'm 100% in support. I'm also entirely prepared to concede that I know squat all about the specifics. With the greatest of respect, I'd like you to answer a few questions:
> 
> 1) Is the timing of this action coincidental, or was it engineered to be evocative (i.e. NYE, piss off all the revelers or else, kind of thing]
> ing).
> ...



1, No it's not coincidental, nor is it designed to "piss off" revellers. When planning a strike we look at a number of things - legal constraints, maximising impact, maximisng levels of support from members, minimising opposition from the public, minimising managements ability to bring in scab labour etc. All these things are important but in the end NYE seemed the best choice for *effective* action. Massive publicity, hopefully not all bad. Managers won't want to be standing on stations - fewer scabs.   

2, After talks lasting over 12 months it became clear that LUL were not negotiating with any level of honesty or integrity. Crow wrote to LUL along with all members affected on December 1st announcing the intention to ballot for strike action. With the legal constraints on strike action the date cannot have been insignificant, even to the dunderheads in charge of LUL atm.

3, Unfortunately I believe that whatever date we pick the public will be pissed off. NYE pisses off a number of party people, a number of workers (mostly) in the entertainment industry and of the course the entertainment industry itself. Any other working day would piss off a larger number of workers and industrialists and would result in major losses for the city. A great many activists and elected officials (not full time bureaucrats) with a lot of experience in industrial action decided NYE was the best option. Personally I believe that NYE is the most effective day to get KL to econsider and that all trade unionists, socialists, anarchists and anyone concerned about safety on the underground and the rights of working people should do all they can to make the strike a success.

It's time to get off the fence, folks. Whose side are you on?


----------



## Random (Dec 27, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> It's time to get off the fence, folks. Whose side are you on?



Go on, start a poll  
(public)


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> It's time to get off the fence, folks. Whose side are you on?



Whichever date the RMT chooses (and we've had ample justification for NYE on this thread) it all boils down to this basic question.

I'm with the RMT, whichever date they choose.

Oh aye, and don't forget that he/she who sits on the fence gets splinters up their arse.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You started off by saying that a tube strike on NYE would be ineffective and strike on working day would be better, i pointed out to you that on the contrary it would have all the benfits of striking on a workday plus _extra_ benefits most obvioulsy the potential to directly damage TFL and Livingstone into the bargain (something that they hate at the best of times) which has been a proven method of getting your demands met in past struggles.


And I pointed out it has _none_ of the benefits of striking on a working day, because, well, it isn't one. Plus there is the danger of it being spun the opposite way. 



			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Further to this i also pointed out that there were also already plans in the pipeline to strike on working days _as well_. You came back with 'but why should they strike on NYE' - which looks to me very much like you're saying that they just shouldn't strike on NYE on a matter of principle as you no longer have the eneffectiveness argument to fall back on - the union is taking your recommended course of action already.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 27, 2005)

I don't get why people don't understand why NYE isn't a great day for a strike - it will cause major disruption and inconvenience - lots of businesses will lose money - no point in striking if you haven't a strong bargaining point, is there? The more people that are inconvenienced and the more money that they stand to lose, the more likely the strikers will get what they want. 
So, go for it RMT, I say.


----------



## laptop (Dec 27, 2005)

Should the comedy option on any poll be "oooh, I'd support the strike _in principle_, like, so long as it doesn't inconvenience the most important person in the universe"?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't get why people don't understand why NYE isn't a great day for a strike - it will cause major disruption and inconvenience - lots of businesses will lose money -


I don't think it will, people will just go out locally or stick to cabs and buses, the traffic on the tube during nye is nothing like it is on rush hour(imo, I might be wrong).  



			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> no point in striking if you haven't a strong bargaining point, is there? The more people that are inconvenienced and the more money that they stand to lose, the more likely the strikers will get what they want.
> So, go for it RMT, I say.


Yeah, I agree, just questioning the wisdom of this date, not the strike in general.


----------



## JTG (Dec 27, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Should the comedy option on any poll be "oooh, I'd support the strike _in principle_, like, so long as it doesn't inconvenience the most important person in the universe"?


----------



## EastEnder (Dec 27, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> It's time to get off the fence, folks. Whose side are you on?


Well I'm hardly likely to be the side of LUL.....

These things will always be difficult, that's life. Still, I can't help thinking that keeping Joe Public on side is very important to further the RMT's cause.

If the strike were on a working day, business suffers, people can't get to work, lots of commotion - _but_ the average working man/woman on the street won't actually be that narked off. So I'm 3 hours late for work? I'm not exactly going to be heart broken....

But NYE? I _know_ that's the best in terms of publicity, but given the choice between not being able to get to work and not being able to get to a party.................

I'm probably just being selfish (almost certainly), but I do think that the more support the tube workers get from _all_ the public (not just the one's who are enlightened enough to appreciate the issues) is a very important thing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 27, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> If the strike were on a working day, business suffers, people can't get to work, lots of commotion - _but_ the average working man/woman on the street won't actually be that narked off. So I'm 3 hours late for work? I'm not exactly going to be heart broken....


Well precisely - people are happy to stay at home on a work day, so the impact of a strike is somewhat lessened cos no-one's pissed off. The idea is to nark people off, surely?


----------



## Isambard (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> the traffic on the tube during nye is nothing like it is on rush hour(imo, I might be wrong)...... just questioning the wisdom of this date, not the strike in general.



You are quite possibly right on traffic levels on the tube on NYE.
But "Red" Ken has made it a personal thing to have the tube running on NYE so it is a very good date.

As mentioned above, he's already moving towards his scabbing position.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Well precisely - people are happy to stay at home on a work day, so the impact of a strike is somewhat lessened cos no-one's pissed off. The idea is to nark people off, surely?


That presumes that people will get pissed off at livingstone/tfl, and it presumes that livingstone/tfl will care if they do.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 27, 2005)

But that applies to any strike, whathever the day doesn't it.

Oh and Scab Ken's narked all right!


----------



## the B (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> "NYE is the best date for strike action in order to put most pressure on Livingstone and O'Toole. The all-night running on NYE has been flagged up as one of the most important benefits KL gives to Londoners. He's as mad as hell and will do all he can to break the strike."



But - it doesn't.

KL does not run an election campaign based on "giving" the tube on NYE and it certainly isn't that single issue.

It's not like KL is some kind of emperor who sits on a throne wondering to give us the tube or deciding he can't be arsed from day to day. The people who make the tube happen on NYE are the workers quite evidently!




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Well precisely - people are happy to stay at home on a work day, so the impact of a strike is somewhat lessened cos no-one's pissed off. The idea is to nark people off, surely?



Nark your bosses or nark the public who could support you and further your cause?


----------



## Isambard (Dec 27, 2005)

The B: transport is Ken Livingstone's over-riding biggest issue and tubes on NYE is the cherry on the icing on his cake. 

This could backfire very messily over him which is why is hopping mad, the lizardy bastard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2005)




----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 27, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Nark your bosses or nark the public who could support you and further your cause?


Well the idea is that KL/TFL have more reasons to care about pissing off the public than than RMT do, so KL/TFL do something about it to avoid a load of aggro on NYE


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2005)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Well the idea is that KL/TFL have more reasons to care about pissing off the public than than RMT do, so KL/TFL do something about it to avoid a load of aggro on NYE



I understand that, and I still think that  it's _possible_ (from what little I know at the moment) that Ken/TfL will end up pressured into conceding a settlement. The value of the threat proven, if they do.

But Oxpecker was saying earlier that TfL managers (with Ken's backing?) were planning to go for a strikebreaking stategy, using managers as scabs, and attempting to persuade in a few other scabs, etc.

Which of those is it to be I wonder ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> It's time to get off the fence, folks. Whose side are you on?



Entirely on the RMT's .... and on the side of tube safety generally, which they're speaking up and acting for.

I do think pro union people in this htread have been a LITTLE harsh on sleaterkinney though -- I don't agree with most of his arguments, but he's posting up reasonable questions, isn't speaking up for Management, and he's arguing purely on grounds to with strategy and tactics.

It may be that he has a clearer idea, unfortunately,  of how the non unionised, non politicised, Substandard-propoganda-subjected public _might_ react, than do us more uncompromising types.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2005)

But!! No Standard on a Saturday 

It would be great if a last minute settlement was reached late Friday or on Saturday, after the press deadline for the Stabdard, thus making all their formulaicly preductable 'party-ruining selfish militants' headlines on Friday (when their sales will be low anyway -- lots of people still not at work this week) look ridiculous in retrospect ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> But!! No Standard on a Saturday
> 
> It would be great if a last minute settlement was reached late Friday or on Saturday, after the press deadline for the Stabdard, thus making all their formulaicly preductable 'party-ruining selfish militants' headlines on Friday (when their sales will be low anyway -- lots of people still not at work this week) look ridiculous in retrospect ...


on the other hand, it would be very handy if there were a ton (or tonne) of their adverts letting people know whether or not the strike were on.

you don't have to buy the fucking standard to get value out of it, you know!


----------



## BarryB (Dec 27, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I understand that, and I still think that  it's _possible_ (from what little I know at the moment) that Ken/TfL will end up pressured into conceding a settlement. The value of the threat proven, if they do.
> 
> But Oxpecker was saying earlier that TfL managers (with Ken's backing?) were planning to go for a strikebreaking stategy, using managers as scabs, and attempting to persuade in a few other scabs, etc.
> 
> Which of those is it to be I wonder ...



It could be the scab option. Perhaps Oxpecker will correct me if im wrong but IIRC previous strikes involving station staff havent been that solid. So it wouldent take all that many people to keep most of the stations open. Especially so if management were to decide to extend the free travel period from 11.45pm to 5am (or whatever it is) to all 24 hours of the strike. That way they wouldent have to man the ticket barriers. Sure they would lose some revenue but they will have proved that in this instance at least they could keep much of the service going.

BarryB


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2005)

BarryB said:
			
		

> It could be the scab option. Perhaps Oxpecker will correct me if im wrong but IIRC previous strikes involving station staff havent been that solid. So it wouldent take all that many people to keep most of the stations open. Especially so if management were to decide to extend the free travel period from 11.45pm to 5am (or whatever it is) to all 24 hours of the strike. That way they wouldent have to man the ticket barriers. Sure they would lose some revenue but they will have proved that in this instance at least they could keep much of the service going.
> 
> BarryB


i don't know how kindly natwest would take to that, as they're footing the bill for the free travel.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you don't have to buy the fucking standard to get value out of it, you know!



I buy it   and as often pick up an abandoned copy  mostly for keeping an eye on what the enemy are propogandising ... and for general aversion-therapy ....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> And I pointed out it has _none_ of the benefits of striking on a working day, because, well, it isn't one. Plus there is the danger of it being spun the opposite way.



All the people who would be working that night and the next day will still have  trouble getting to and back from work - the same as if the strike was on a weekday - maybe not in the same numbers, but as i pointed out a few times above, hassling big business is not what this strike is about, it's not one of the objectives, so it's not of any real substantial relevance to this particular strike.

 What you've failed to adress so far is the _extra_ benefit that striking on NYE will bring (see many above posts). There are specific reasons for threatening to strike on this of all days. I'm really amazed that you cannot see this. The unions are also taking your advice and planning to strike on a workday. Why on earth shouldn't they take the slim advtantages they're offered when they appear and threaten to strike on both sorts of day? Why not? 

If you're concerned about the effectiveness of any action, as you claim to be, then surely you should be supporting a strike on NYE _and_ on workday, not insisting  that they must only do one or the other.

As for spin, well it's going to be spun whenever the strike is or whatever the issue anyway isn't it?


----------



## EastEnder (Dec 27, 2005)

Strike issues aside, I'm just dead chuffed that a thread I started has over 350 replies!!!! 

I'm easily pleased


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

> What you've failed to adress so far is the extra benefit that striking on NYE will bring (see many above posts). There are specific reasons for threatening to strike on this of all days. I'm really amazed that you cannot see this. The unions are also taking your advice and planning to strike on a workday. Why on earth shouldn't they take the slim advtantages they're offered when they appear and threaten to strike on both sorts of day? Why not?


I can see the points you are making but I don't think it will have any impact on livingstone or tfl...






			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> As for spin, well it's going to be spun whenever the strike is or whatever the issue anyway isn't it?


And people will be more inclined to believe it when they've had their big night out ruined rather than a workday, I'm amazed that you can't see this...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I can see the points you are making but I don't think it will have any impact on livingstone or tfl...And people will be more inclined to believe it when they've had their big night out ruined rather than a workday, I'm amazed that you can't see this...


 It's not the gen public that _make_ the decisions though is it? It's Livingstone and TFL and this is why this is aimed directly at them. It's not public support that wins strikes (though it undoubtdly can be helpful to a solid strike) - it's the committment of the strikers to each other and their collectively agreed decisions and the leverage that they can get and use over the bosses - which is precisely why NYE has been chosen. To take one of those opportunities when it presents itself. The public support issue is _yet another_ red herring.

Anyone that has followed Livingstone's political career over the lat few decades knows that there's nothing he dislikes worse than being made to look stupid in public - and the threat of this strike (or the strike actually happening) will make him appear very daft indeed, as incapable of providing an adequate transport system at the busiest time of the year, and what's more it will put even more pressure on him from central govt to get things sorted out before the local elections come up any damage is done to the London labour party.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> It's not the gen public that _make_ the decisions though is it? It's Livingstone and TFL and this is why this is aimed directly at them. It's not public support that wins strikes (though it undoubtdly can be helpful to a solid strike) - it's the committment of the strikers to each other and their collectively agreed decisions and the leverage that they can get and use over the bosses - which is precisely why NYE has been chosen. To take one of those opportunities when it presents itself. The public support issue is _yet another_ red herring.
> 
> Anyone that has followed Livingstone's political career over the lat few decades knows that there's nothing he dislikes worse than being made to look stupid in public - and the threat of this strike (or the strike actually happening) will make him appear very daft indeed, as incapable of providing an adequate transport system at the busiest time of the year, and what's more it will put even more pressure on him from central govt to get things sorted out before the local elections come up any damage is done to the London labour party.


The two paragraphs are contradicting each other, you are saying the strike doesn't need public support, then you go on to say that Livingstone will be pressured with local elections coming up - by the public, so therefore you need their support for this strike, otherwise they will go over to livingstones side?


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> The two paragraphs are contradicting each other, you are saying the strike doesn't need public support, then you go on to say that Livingstone will be pressured with local elections coming up - by the public, so therefore you need their support for this strike, otherwise they will go over to livingstones side?



oh dear.

If there's no tubes on NYE, Labour in the forthcoming local elections are likely to get pressure from the Tories/Lib Dems on the basis that the Labour mayor couldn't make the tubes run on NYE. This might strike a chord with liberal types like 'the B' and yourself.  Hence, Ken might face a more Tory/Lib-Dem dominated set of London local authorities, which will reign him in somewhat and might jeapordise his gaining the new powers which he so desperately craves.

This is an important consideration for him in the run up to NYE - what with the potential political fall-out down the line. It will put pressure on him and TFL to settle with the RMT.

My sincerest apolgies for repeating the points made by many sensible people in this thread previously.


----------



## BarryB (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> oh dear.
> 
> If there's no tubes on NYE, Labour in the forthcoming local elections are likely to get pressure from the Tories/Lib Dems on the basis that the Labour mayor couldn't make the tubes run on NYE. This might strike a chord with liberal types like 'the B' and yourself.  Hence, Ken might face a more Tory/Lib-Dem dominated set of London local authorities, which will reign him in somewhat and might jeapordise his gaining the new powers which he so desperately craves.
> 
> ...



If its just a one day strike it wont be an issue at the local elections. If it turns into a series of one day strikes it will be a bit more of an issue. But still marginal.

BarryB


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> The two paragraphs are contradicting each other, you are saying the strike doesn't need public support, then you go on to say that Livingstone will be pressured with local elections coming up - by the public, so therefore you need their support for this strike, otherwise they will go over to livingstones side?



No, i'm saying that public support will not _win_ this (or almost any other strike). What _will_ win the strike will Livingstone and TFL being put in a situation where their flaws are very publically exposed for all to see, where their inability to handle even the most basic of issues is laid open to general view and where the rightness of the unions arguments and their action in support of them will be clear to all. 

This is where a NYE strike will hit him and will hit him harder each day the dispute continues and risks serious escalation, esp, as others have mentioned, he has placed transport at the centre of his policies. That puts him an a very delicate position and one where he will be looking to sort the dispute out at the earliest availible opportunity - which puts the union in the driving seat for now - another reason for taking advantage of NYE option.

The local elections will be _added_ pressure on top of that, but not the main determinant of his action - and that will not be public pressure anyway, but pressure coming down from central government and other institutions to sort the mess out asap before he and labour get saddled with a reputation for being incompetent on transport issues.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> oh dear.


Are you _trying_ to be patronising?, bless



			
				shandy said:
			
		

> If there's no tubes on NYE, Labour in the forthcoming local elections are likely to get pressure from the Tories/Lib Dems on the basis that the Labour mayor couldn't make the tubes run on NYE. This might strike a chord with liberal types like 'the B' and yourself.  Hence, Ken might face a more Tory/Lib-Dem dominated set of London local authorities, which will reign him in somewhat and might jeapordise his gaining the new powers which he so desperately craves.


Ken could also play the "mad strikers" card, getting sympathy and votes from the public if the public didn't support the strike. imo, it will take the tube shutting down for a hell of a lot longer to have any effect at all on the elections.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> No, i'm saying that public support will not _win_ this (or almost any other strike). What _will_ win the strike will Livingstone and TFL being put in a situation where their flaws are very publically exposed for all to see, where their inability to handle even the most basic of issues is laid open to general view and where the rightness of the unions arguments and their action in support of them will be clear to all.
> 
> This is where a NYE strike will hit him and will hit him harder each day the dispute continues and risks serious escalation, esp, as others have mentioned, he has placed transport at the centre of his policies. That puts him an a very delicate position and one where he will be looking to sort the dispute out at the earliest availible opportunity - which puts the union in the driving seat for now - another reason for taking advantage of NYE option.


I can see your point now, it is a strong position for the union, but one that could lose them support - it is always important to keep public opinion onside as there will be less support should anti-strike legislation come up in the london assembly.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> should anti-strike legislation come up in the london assembly.




Not within their powers. Fuck all to do with them.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Are you _trying_ to be patronising?, bless




I'm getting bored as fuck with your stupit postings on this subject.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> I'm getting bored as fuck with your stupit postings on this subject.


It's stupi*d*

You can fuck off if you want.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> It's stupi*d*
> 
> You can fuck off if you want.



it's 'stupit' where I come from.

How long has it taken for you to get the point?  Think on.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> it's 'stupit' where I come from.


I have no doubt it's stupit were you come from.   


> How long has it taken for you to get the point? Think on.


At least I'm capable of getting it, to take in a criticism seems to be far beyond a few posters on this thread.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I have no doubt it's stupit were you come from.
> At least I'm capable of getting it, to take in a criticism seems to be far beyond a few posters on this thread.



Get bent and come back when you have a clue what you're talking about.

Love, xx

Shandy


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Get bent and come back when you have a clue what you're talking about.


Oh fuck, are you the person who says it's ok to post on threads?


Thought not.   



> Love, xx
> 
> Shandy


I know ya do, but your b.o. turns me right off.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Oh fuck, are you the person who says it's ok to post on threads?



Yes i am, starting in the new year.  I will not let anybody post their stupit opinions on threads about tube strikes if they don't have a scooby about the way such things work. 

If you're not sure about something then asking questions for information is fine, obviously. I'm all for education and a supportive environment to help towards the eradication of stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2005)

Cut sleater a little bit of slack man, as I said I don't agree with his general drift, but if you think HE is badly anti-strike, you should check the 'opinions' of those who know far, far less than he does, and who are far, far less willing and able than him to take in new information ....


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

Nah, fair play to the 'kinney. 'Long and winding road' and so on. We all seem to be supporting the NYE strike now, so all is well in the world.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Yes i am, starting in the new year.  I will not let anybody post their stupit opinions on threads about tube strikes if they don't have a scooby about the way such things work.
> 
> If you're not sure about something then asking questions for information is fine, obviously. I'm all for education and a supportive environment to help towards the eradication of stupidity and ignorance.


Hate to break it to ya mate, but if I have an opinion, I'll post it up, and I don't need your permission to do so - you know where you can stick it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Nah, fair play to the 'kinney. 'Long and winding road' and so on. We all seem to be supporting the NYE strike now, so all is well in the world.


Next time try it without the 'chat,


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Hate to break it to ya mate, but if I have an opinion, I'll post it up, and I don't need your permission to do so - you know where you can stick it.



If it's one of your scab opinions then please keep it to yourself. Have some dignity, please.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> If it's one of your scab opinions then please keep it to yourself. Have some dignity, please.


I'm a scab now?. Where have I suggested that workers should break the strike?.

Post it up, cause that's not an allegation I take lightly.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> If it's one of your scab opinions then please keep it to yourself. Have some dignity, please.



He's not a scab!  Less polarising please.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I'm a scab now?. Where have I suggested that workers should break the strike?.
> 
> Post it up, cause that's not an allegation I take lightly.




You're all over the shop about the date and the mythical 'public opinion' on the matter.

Are you a trade unionist? Without revealing yourself of course,  please post up your experience of union matters so I know I'm not debating with joe grimaldi or paul and barry chuckle.  'The B' at least had the decency to say he was a member of the NUS.

You've ignored numerous posts about why NYE is the best day to hold the first strike.

Are you party to some knowledge the rest of us don't know about?

Otherwise, are you just a liberal/tory who doesn't really like strikes?

Have you ever found yourself at a picket line and what did you do?  Did you cross-over and scab or did you respect the picket line?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 27, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> You're all over the shop about the date and the mythical 'public opinion' on the matter.
> 
> Are you a trade unionist? Without revealing yourself of course,  please post up your experience of union matters so I know I'm not debating with joe grimaldi or paul and barry chuckle.  'The B' at least had the decency to say he was a member of the NUS.
> 
> ...


No, you called me a scab, post up the evidence or shut the fuck up.


----------



## shandy (Dec 27, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> No, you called me a scab, post up the evidence or shut the fuck up.



Not a trade-unionist then? Figures.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 28, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Not a trade-unionist then? Figures.


C'mon, back up your claims, you're starting to look more than a bit pathetic, but you must be used to it by now, post up where I advocated scabbing.... I don't really want to bother the mods with something as trivial as yourself, but it's an allegation I take seriously.


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

Sleaterkinney, if you're not a scab then my apologies to you.

But have a read back of the thread and think on.  NYE is obviously a super night for a strike on the tube. 

Best of luck to the RMT!


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

just out of interest tho, which union(s) are you a member of?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 28, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Sorry i didn't see this before I posted my message of peace and goodwill.  Obviously you are a union member, probably an activist. Keep on keeping on.


Whatever, I'll accept the apology but I can't be arsed arguing with you if you're just going to make stuff up. Have a happy New Year shandy.


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Whatever, I'll accept the apology but I can't be arsed arguing with you if you're just going to make stuff up. Have a happy New Year shandy.



what am i making up? that you are a union member or activist?

Apology was honestly meant but then I also think 'maybe this person isn't even a union member'. If I could be arsed I would add more, but taxi Driver is on and it's a good film


----------



## the B (Dec 28, 2005)

sleaterkinney is a decent and bright person that many on the boards have met in person. He's not a tory or a scab and he doesn't support either.


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> sleaterkinney is a decent and bright person that many on the boards have met in person. He's not a tory or a scab and he doesn't support either.



is s/him a union member?


----------



## the B (Dec 28, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> is s/him a union member?



Does it matter? 

What is membership compared to how you think and feel?

France has a lower Union participation rate than the UK but many deals between workers and bosses follow what unions do.

No membership, but very much feeling and doing the same thing.


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Does it matter?
> 
> What is membership compared to how you think and feel?
> 
> ...



So not a trade-unionist then. But i take your point. So is sleaterkinny a wildcat firebrand?  Organising walk-outs at the merest hint that the bosses are going to swap the soft bog-paper at work for that hard tracing-paper stuff from school?


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> So not a trade-unionist then. But i take your point. So is sleaterkinny a wildcat firebrand?  Organising walk-outs at the merest hint that the bosses are going to swap the soft bog-paper at work for that hard tracing-paper stuff from school?



i.e. the type of stuff that would put shim in a position, through his/her considerable experience,  to be critical of the industrial strategy of rank amateurs like the RMT in terms of when they choose to call strike action?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 28, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> sleaterkinney is a decent and bright person that many on the boards have met in person. He's not a tory or a scab and he doesn't support either.


cheers the B, I'm actually very surprised I got past a couple of critical posts before the scab/tory/liberal insults started being dealt out, it's no more than I expected unfortunately....


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> cheers the B, I'm actually very surprised I got past a couple of critical posts before the scab/tory/liberal insults started being dealt out, it's no more than I expected unfortunately....




Oh behave, just tell us about the part you played in some of your many industrial struggles.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 28, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Oh behave, just tell us about the part you played in some of your many industrial struggles.


Like I said, I can't be arsed with ya...


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

Fair enough, let's just hope the RMT sees sense and scraps the NYE strike so as not to offend the sensibilities of hardcore non-union activists such as yourself. 

Here's to January 5th when they'll do the real damage!


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Like I said, I can't be arsed with ya...



Boo-hoo.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 28, 2005)

Shandy, you're making yourself look like a twat by singling sleater out like this.

Common failing of the some on the left, singling out for insults people who _they_ unilaterally designate as 'liberals', 'scabs' or whatever, instead of concentrating on the real discussion ...

I appreciate you've withdrawn the 'scab' slur, but it was bang out of order to make it in the first place.

I support the strike and the RMT btw, but fair's fair, there are plenty of  people around  are far more  hostile to trade union actions than him!


----------



## shandy (Dec 28, 2005)




----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2005)

Cheers matey!  Have some spliff!!!


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 29, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

>




nice arse


----------



## Isambard (Dec 29, 2005)

Just a tad of celulite though, hey?

Shouldn't you be in bed though Oxpecker dreaming of way to "make Londoners' lives a misery" and "hold the capital to ransom" ?

Copyright Substandard / BBC London / Urban75 Wiberals.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 29, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Just a tad of celulite though, hey?


No scabs on it though boyo!


----------



## academia (Dec 29, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4564324.stm

_"Hopes fade for Tube strike talks  

...the union said it was not prepared to enter talks unless LU agreed to postpone the introduction of new rotas at the centre of the dispute..."_

I don't get this, isn't this what the talks are meant to be about?!


----------



## BarryB (Dec 29, 2005)

A bit of good news for a change - the Jubilee Line reopened this morning. It wasant supposed to reopen until Saturday 31st following the adding of one carriage to every train.

BarryB


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 29, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> Just a tad of celulite though, hey?




You're right actually, but at 1 in the morning after a day on the sauce I tend not to be too picky


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2005)

academia said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4564324.stm
> 
> _"Hopes fade for Tube strike talks
> 
> ...



Relevant bit :




			
				BBC story said:
			
		

> RMT's general secretary Bob Crow said: "As a gesture of goodwill we offered to suspend our strike action if the company responded by suspending the introduction of new rosters that have not been safety validated.
> 
> "It is no good LU talking about three days of talks at Acas if they have already made it clear that they will not move towards recognising our members' safety concerns - that would simply have left Londoners and our members high and dry."


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 29, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Relevant bit :



even more relevant bit:



> *new rosters that have not been safety validated. *


----------



## academia (Dec 29, 2005)

Also from the BBC story:

_They have a commitment from TfL that there will be no overall cut in station staff and they know perfectly well that no new rosters will be introduced which have not been fully validated for safety._ 

So who's lying?


----------



## miss giggles (Dec 29, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

>


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 29, 2005)

*Well...*

..I see that Tribune of the people Ken Livingstone (who uses taxis paid for by mug voters anyway) cares not a flying toss about safety issues and has attacked the union over the strike.  Reason enough (if any were needed) to support the RMT.


----------



## pk (Dec 30, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> you pathetic wretch - a threat? ooh some middle class posh twunt called giles threatening a tube worker



Better than some jumped up fuckwit coward laughing at the prospect of someones kids being dead, all from the safety of the internet, eh Rednblack?

"Wadical".

And "wevolutionary".

You're the only pathetic wretch around here, son.


----------



## rich! (Dec 30, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> I'm deducing here that you've never debugged a sizeable computer program?
> 
> Robots are *software*.



Robots are the pinnacle of *engineering*

Software is a *minor* issue.



> Software does random shit all the time. Even stuff like the Airbus software with three allegedly separate systems running in parallel and voting scares me - largely because of the numer of ways in which pilots discover in flight that the systems are not as independent as they're supposed to be.



Yet the space shuttle software group have *never* shipped buggy software, despite (or perhaps because of) never working more than 40 hours a week.

(Read Bruce Powel Douglass book, Doing Hard Time, about realtime embedded software. Skip the UML shite.)


----------



## rednblack (Dec 30, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> Are you a trade unionist? Without revealing yourself of course,  please post up your experience of union matters so I know I'm not debating with joe grimaldi or paul and barry chuckle.



paul and barry both have far better politics than sleater


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 30, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> Better than some jumped up fuckwit coward laughing at the prospect of someones kids being dead, all from the safety of the internet, eh Rednblack?
> 
> "Wadical".
> 
> ...



tut tut

Have you not read the rules, you feckless gobshite?

_"We welcome lively and robust debate and have no problem with swearing (where appropriate) but posters using these forums to re-enact infantile playground battles will be clipped around the ear by the milk monitor." _


----------



## STFC (Dec 30, 2005)

Glad I'm not in London this NYE. The strikers should be fined liked those in New York.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2005)

Maybe make them drink castor oil as well like your _squadristi_ heroes did eh?


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> The strikers should be fined liked those in New York.



What on earth for ?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> Glad I'm not in London this NYE. The strikers should be fined liked those in New York.



I'm glad you're not in London, too.

You're talking rubbish, btw, the strikers weren't fined the union was. 

Why would you want to make striking illegal? Do you not regard it as an important civil liberty?


----------



## shandy (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> Glad I'm not in London this NYE. The strikers should be fined liked those in New York.



and maybe threatened with jail?  

Shut up you cock.


----------



## STFC (Dec 30, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> I'm glad you're not in London, too.
> 
> You're talking rubbish, btw, the strikers weren't fined the union was.
> 
> Why would you want to make striking illegal? Do you not regard it as an important civil liberty?



No I don't. I regard it as diabolical liberty.


----------



## STFC (Dec 30, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> and maybe threatened with jail?



Good idea.

I'll ignore the playground insult.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> I regard it as diabolical liberty.



You want strikes made illegal then?
Pray tell then what you think the tube workers should do in the current situation.


----------



## STFC (Dec 30, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> You want strikes made illegal then?
> Pray tell then what you think the tube workers should do in the current situation.



I don't agree with strikes. I'm not interested in what the tube workers want this time, they should get on with the jobs they are paid to do.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> I'm not interested in what the tube workers want this time



I am. Purely a fluke that I wasn't down there:














			
				STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> I don't agree with strikes.



I don't agree with the sky being blue. Workers have withdrawn their labour since the beginning of class society 1000s of years ago.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 30, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> paul and barry both have far better politics than sleater


You don't know how much I take that as a compliment coming from you, do you?


----------



## STFC (Dec 30, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I am. Purely a fluke that I wasn't down there:



Good for you (I mean that by the way).

I'm sure there are issues that the workers are genuinely conerned about, but it seems to me as if a strike is called every couple of months, at great inconvenience and extra expense to the general public. I am not siding with the "bosses", I'm on the side of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives without unwillingly becoming embroiled in the latest industrial dispute. The public transport network in London provides an essential service for hundreds of thousands of people, and I think strikes should be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> Good for you (I mean that by the way).
> 
> I'm sure there are issues that the workers are genuinely conerned about, but it seems to me as if a strike is called every couple of months, at great inconvenience and extra expense to the general public. I am not siding with the "bosses", I'm on the side of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives without unwillingly becoming embroiled in the latest industrial dispute. The public transport network in London provides an essential service for hundreds of thousands of people, and I think strikes should be avoided at all costs.



Talking rubbish, again. There aren't strikes "called every couple of months" as you have it. There has been only one day of London wide strike action taken since February 2003. Which kind of suggests that the RMT try to avoid strikes as far as possible, because believe it or not we don't like losing money or being inconvenienced any more than you do.

This particular dispute is of crucial importance to staff and passengers alike which is why there was such a huge vote in favour of action.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

But there aren't strikes "every couple of months" are there?
Do you think the RMT workers will strike just for the fun of it, to piss people off? 

There is little other option for them: LUL has stalled a whole year long on this issue and is seemingly still intransigent, wanting to implement the new rosters despite talks about whether they should be implemented.


Edit: Oh dear, Oxpecker slipped one in quicker than I could!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> Good for you (I mean that by the way).
> 
> I'm sure there are issues that the workers are genuinely conerned about, but it seems to me as if a strike is called every couple of months, at great inconvenience and extra expense to the general public. I am not siding with the "bosses", I'm on the side of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives without unwillingly becoming embroiled in the latest industrial dispute. The public transport network in London provides an essential service for hundreds of thousands of people, and I think strikes should be avoided at all costs.




right so fithey should be avioded at all costs why is it down to the workers to tow the party line when conditions fail to meet required safey standards?

surely it's up to the people running the tube not to place the workers in the difficult position of having to withdraw their labour in the first place...

I think you are right in prinicpal it is the ordinary person who suffers the brunt of the problems however i think you are rather blaming the wrong side and placing the cart before the horse...

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, you cannot say the reaction is the cause of the distemper, with out acknowledging that the action precipitated it....


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC I suggest you listen to Oxpecker because he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## STFC (Dec 30, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> STFC I suggest you listen to Oxpecker because he knows what he's talking about.



I'm sure he does, and I know I'm not going to win an argument about striking on a predominantly left-wing board, but the fact remains that I am opposed to strike action and I suspect that many Londoners have little or no sympathy with the striking workers. 

Oxpecker says in his earlier post "This particular dispute is of crucial importance to staff and passengers alike which is why there was such a huge vote in favour of action.". I have no reason to doubt what he says, but if it is that important why not ask the passengers what they think? Has the tube suddenly become unsafe? If so Joe Public should be made aware.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> Oxpecker says in his earlier post "This particular dispute is of crucial importance to staff and passengers alike which is why there was such a huge vote in favour of action.". I have no reason to doubt what he says, but if it is that important why not ask the passengers what they think? Has the tube suddenly become unsafe? If so Joe Public should be made aware.



I am a passenger and I, like most of us who have bothered to inform themselves, support the strike. 

What's your excuse?


----------



## academia (Dec 30, 2005)

There were 1,327 votes for strike action.
That seems like a fairly small percentage (aren't there about 20,000 LU employees?).
Why aren't the other unions striking too?

(sorry if this has been covered previously)


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> if it is that important why not ask the passengers what they think?



So you are in favour of passengers having a democratic input to the way public transport is run? Cool.   

So we'll be able to block inflation busting fare increases, station closures, staff cuts at stations at night etc etc that are all being done in the name of profit?

You think Arriva, Stagecoach, LUL and all the rest of the operators and their politican mates are going to go along with that?


----------



## Arik (Dec 30, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I am a passenger and I, like most of us who have bothered to inform themselves, support the strike.
> 
> What's your excuse?



In principle I support the strike - but not on NYE. It seems ridiculous to me that they chose a time of celebration and partying to strike. It also seems dangerous when you think of all the young partyers left in various states of wastedness out in the cold. 

Why don't they strike on January 3rd when businesses are going back to work? Surely that would make more of an impact. 

I think this tactic fucking sucks.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2005)

Arik said:
			
		

> In principle I support the strike - but not on NYE. It seems ridiculous to me that they chose a time of celebration and partying to strike. It also seems dangerous when you think of all the young partyers left in various states of wastedness out in the cold.
> 
> Why don't they strike on January 3rd when businesses are going back to work? Surely that would make more of an impact.
> 
> I think this tactic fucking sucks.



Have you read all the rationale behind it? Or have you just come for a whinge?


----------



## rednblack (Dec 30, 2005)

STFC Loyal said:
			
		

> I'm sure he does, and I know I'm not going to win an argument about striking on a predominantly left-wing board,.



could you provide some evidence for this being a left wing board?


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

Arik said:
			
		

> In principle I support the strike - but not on NYE. ...........It also seems dangerous when you think of all the young partyers left in various states of wastedness out in the cold.



The reasons for choosing NYE have already been explained at length a few pages back.

No one is going to be dangerously left out in the cold. Buses are still running for starters.


----------



## Arik (Dec 30, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> The reasons for choosing NYE have already been explained at length a few pages back.
> 
> No one is going to be dangerously left out in the cold. Buses are still running for starters.



Looks like the pros as listed on the thread are that striking on NYE will seriously piss Ken Livingstone off? Sorry perhaps I should read more...

<edited because I'm too annoyed to be rational>


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2005)

Arik said:
			
		

> <edited because I'm too annoyed to be rational>



Just as well


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

Arik said:
			
		

> Looks like the pros as listed on the thread are that striking on NYE will seriously piss Ken Livingstone off?



In a nutshell yes.

Scab Ken has trasnport at his centrepiece.
Having the tube running on NYE is the cherry on the icing on his cake.
Ideal time then for the RMT to put him and management under preassure not to put safety at risk.

I'm tight but I'll make a bet with you now, fiver to the Urban server:

If and when the tube workers strike on a weekday, there's going to be the same bleaters and whiners and anti worker conservatives on here complaining about it.


----------



## Arik (Dec 30, 2005)

Of course there'll be people complaining if there's a weekday strike! But I think hitting London's businesses rather than people is a lot fairer.

And in spite of the bus service I do think it's a dangerous tactic in terms of not getting people home on a particularly freezing night when they are all particularly wasted. Meanwhile Ken Livingstone and the rest of the comfortable middle aged world will be safely tucked up in bed.

Anyway this is obviously a very emotive issue for posters so I'll leave it. 

Hopefully they'll get it all sorted before tomorrow and this shit will be averted.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 30, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I'm tight but I'll make a bet with you now, fiver to the Urban server:
> 
> If and when the tube workers strike on a weekday, there's going to be the same bleaters and whiners and anti worker conservatives on here complaining about it.


You see, this is the sort of "scab/tory opinion" bollocks which means that stuff like this never gets a decent airing on u75, for every Arik there's probably five other posters who can't be bothered with this sort of crap....


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

I don't do personal spats sweetie so I'm not going to have a go at individuals and I don't think I've called you a scab or a tory. 

But the last time there was a weekday strike on the tube, the arguments from the anti-strike lobby were EXACTLY the same.

Honestly, I've said it before on one of the threads but it is worth repeating:

If the tube workers struck at 1 in the afternoon there's be bleaters and moaners and anti worker conservatives saying suburban mum's couldn't get to the shops.

If the tube workers struck at 3 in the morning there's be bleaters and moaners and anti worker conservatives saying that the mice in the tunnels were starving as the trains weren't blowing dropped sandwich crusts off the platforms.


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 30, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> You see, this is the sort of "scab/tory opinion" bollocks which means that stuff like this never gets a decent airing on u75, for every Arik there's probably five other posters who can't be bothered with this sort of crap....



If they haven't got the courage to say what they think, fuck 'em. Who gives a toss?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 30, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> I don't do personal spats sweetie so I'm not going to have a go at individuals and I don't think I've called you a scab or a tory.
> 
> But the last time there was a weekday strike on the tube, the arguments from the anti-strike lobby were EXACTLY the same.


It's not a precursor to a spat darling, just an observation and it may make it easier to write off all dissenting opinion the way you do, but it's not right.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 30, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> If they haven't got the courage to say what they think, fuck 'em. Who gives a toss?


Great attitude.


----------



## Isambard (Dec 30, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> it may make it easier to write off all dissenting opinion the way you do, but it's not right.



I've no problem with dissenting opinion, Jesus, most of us here dissent with "the mainstream" in one way or another. It is the same ill-infomred bollocks that people are spoon fed by the media and sociaty regarding strikes that they seem compelled to regurgitate.

I think supporting strikes is one of the last taboos for "wadicals" generally.


----------



## LDR (Dec 30, 2005)

I've come back from lunch with my colleagues and the tube strike came up in conversation.

All of them (about 20 odd people) were against the strike and most of the nurses (I work for the NHS) said they wish they knew a tube worker so they could tell them to fuck off.   They were really very angry.

I'm not the most controversial or assertive person but I told them I supported the strike.  The reasons they  thought the strike was going ahead was that tube workers were refusing to cover each others jobs.   

I was then met with a barrage of complaints about what would happen if we (nurses) went on strike and how selfish the tube workers were.  Some of their points I did find difficult to argue with. 

The general consensus I've found (apart form Urban75) is that people think the tube workers will strike at the drop of a hat and are lazy and shouldn't be taken seriously. 

It was quite a depressing lunch with most of my colleagues thinking I'm stupid for supporting the strike.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Dec 30, 2005)

Yeah, this is the only place I've seen people support the strike..


----------



## rednblack (Dec 30, 2005)

Isambard said:
			
		

> No one is going to be dangerously left out in the cold. Buses are still running for starters.



and if they were so what? a few amateurs get culled, i can't see owt wrong with that, tube workers are not social workers

(obviously not having a pop at you comrade  just those who might try that line of argument)


----------



## Sore_Head (Dec 30, 2005)

So what does everyone think of TFL's latest statement-
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=640 

Why exactly did the RMT just not show up to even discuss the issues? That sounds to me like they've already made up their mind to have a night off.


----------



## shandy (Dec 30, 2005)

Sore_Head said:
			
		

> So what does everyone think of TFL's latest statement-
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=640
> 
> Why exactly did the RMT just not show up to even discuss the issues? That sounds to me like they've already made up their mind to have a night off.



Now that's what I call proper-ganda!


----------



## rednblack (Dec 30, 2005)

Sore_Head said:
			
		

> Why exactly did the RMT just not show up to even discuss the issues? That sounds to me like they've already made up their mind to have a night off.



good for them


----------



## shandy (Dec 30, 2005)

*shabby strokes*

worth a c&p:

London Underground can still avoid strike, says RMT

publication date: 30 December 2005

DECEMBER 30: LONDON UNDERGROUND should not squander its final chance to avoid strike action by 4,000 Tube station staff on New Year’s Eve, the system’s biggest union said today.

On the eve of its first strike over the imposition of rosters the union believes will leave stations dangerously understaffed, RMT called on LUL and the Mayor to respond positively to its compromise offer that would enable the Tube to run and talks to take place.

“Our offer to suspend strike action if Tube bosses suspend the imposition of the new rosters at the heart of this dispute remains on the table, but time is running out,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“Rather than accept our olive branch LUL yesterday repeated the myth that we are seeking to renegotiate the 35-hour week deal, and unfortunately the Mayor has joined in.

“For the record, we do not want to renegotiate the deal, but want LUL to stick to the one we actually signed.

“The rosters LUL want to impose were not a part of that deal, and the number of staff being displaced could be more than four times the 200 we were given to believe would be the case.

“The effect of these imposed rosters will be to reduce the number of station staff on duty at any one time, in many cases by more than half, and that is the crux of this dispute.

“That casts doubt on our ability to respond adequately to emergencies of all sorts, and therefore poses an unacceptable threat to safety, both for our members and for Tube users.

“Maybe the Mayor is not aware of the shabby strokes his Tube bosses have pulled since we signed that deal, but he will recall that, as a Mayoral candidate courting our support, he once pledged to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with RMT members on the picket line.

“He should reflect that our members, people who deliver a public service every day of the year, have voted by a margin of five to one to defend Tube safety, not just for themselves but for everyone who uses the network,” Bob Crow said.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 30, 2005)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> The general consensus I've found (apart form Urban75) is that people think the tube workers will strike at the drop of a hat and are lazy and shouldn't be taken seriously.



i dont think they are lazy or will strike at the drop of a hat.

however i think their choice of date is appalling, when most of the 'business' community are at their second homes or on holiday and ordinary londoners like me are left to scrap over over-crowded nightbuses and double fare taxis.

jan 3rd would have been a much better day to strike - disrupting the widest possible section of londons population - surely that will cause more impact?

i was also dissapointed to read the RMT saying it 'wasnt worth' turning up to the talks. surely its always worth talking?


----------



## pilchardman (Dec 30, 2005)

I'm not a Londoner, and I won't be in London.  But if I was, I wouldn't be catching any Scab Tubes on New Year's Eve.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2005)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> I'm not a Londoner, and I won't be in London.  But if I was, I wouldn't be catching any Scab Tubes on New Year's Eve.



The drivers aren't striking - they're in a different union. It's the station staff. And it's illegal to open underground stations without staff. 

Just to clarify like


----------



## pilchardman (Dec 30, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> The drivers aren't striking - they're in a different union. It's the station staff. And it's illegal to open underground stations without staff.
> 
> Just to clarify like


Thanks.  But trains _could_ run were there to be scab station staff.  IYSWIM.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2005)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Thanks.  But trains _could_ run were there to be scab station staff.  IYSWIM.



Indeed. I won't be going anywhere near the tube obviously. I'm on overground that night


----------



## pilchardman (Dec 30, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Indeed. I won't be going anywhere near the tube obviously. I'm on overground that night


Have a Guid New Year.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 30, 2005)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Have a Guid New Year.



Thank you. You too


----------



## BarryB (Dec 30, 2005)

Sore_Head said:
			
		

> Why exactly did the RMT just not show up to even discuss the issues? That sounds to me like they've already made up their mind to have a night off.



That sounds a bit simplistic. As the stations were due to remain open all night I guess that the striking station staff will be losing quite a bit of money in overtime payments. You dont do that without good reason.

BarryB


----------



## BarryB (Dec 30, 2005)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Thanks.  But trains _could_ run were there to be scab station staff.  IYSWIM.



As far as im aware tube stations that are not underground dont have to be manned so you dont need scab station staff. Stations under ground do need a member of staff to be on duty but im not sure if it must be a member of the station or management grades. Perhaps a member of the non striking TSSA working in the ticket office is sufficient to keep a station open legally?

BarryB


----------



## Random One (Dec 30, 2005)

just wondering-are the busses gonna be free after midnight?


----------



## the B (Dec 30, 2005)

Random One said:
			
		

> just wondering-are the busses gonna be free after midnight?



Yep.


----------



## miss giggles (Dec 30, 2005)

Does anyone know what time tommorow the strike starts? Is it in the evening or are they off all day?


----------



## academia (Dec 30, 2005)

shandy said:
			
		

> “The rosters LUL want to impose were not a part of that deal, and the number of staff being displaced could be more than four times the 200 we were given to believe would be the case."



Just how are these deals agreed?
It seems like neither side has any actual facts. 
"given to believe" is not a phrase I'd expect to hear in contractual negotiations.


----------



## pk (Dec 31, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> tut tut
> 
> Have you not read the rules, you feckless gobshite?
> 
> _"We welcome lively and robust debate and have no problem with swearing (where appropriate) but posters using these forums to re-enact infantile playground battles will be clipped around the ear by the milk monitor." _



Does that count when you're the only fat boring unfunny twat in the room yelling "fuck off! fuck off! fuck off!" over and over again, whilst some supposed "comedy terrorist" is supposed to be trying to entertain people?

Maybe Offline should have the same rules, you dickless whippersnapper.


----------



## fat hamster (Dec 31, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> Does that count when you're the only fat boring unfunny twat in the room yelling "fuck off! fuck off! fuck off!" over and over again, whilst some supposed "comedy terrorist" is supposed to be trying to entertain people?


Nasty, nasty, nasty pk.  Oxpecker did the decent thing and apologised profusely after that (one-off) incident.


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 31, 2005)

pk said:
			
		

> Does that count when you're the only fat boring unfunny twat in the room yelling "fuck off! fuck off! fuck off!" over and over again, whilst some supposed "comedy terrorist" is supposed to be trying to entertain people?
> 
> Maybe Offline should have the same rules, you dickless whippersnapper.



Come on pk, you can do better than that surely? How can I have been the *only * "fat boring unfunny twat" in the room when you were there witnessing the whole thing?

I don't imagine for a moment that any of your chums who run this site will tell you off, but the rules are quite clear - stop derailing threads with off-topic personal remarks relating to other threads. This is an important topic and whilst you clearly lack the intellectual rigour to engage in the debate you really shouldn't distract other people from doing so.


----------



## scott_forester (Dec 31, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> true enough,  but i think it helps to have a person there, don't you think.  after all, one of the major problems with the overground is all the unmanned stations are a mugger's playground.



My wife was assaulted in plain sight of the ticket office at Tooting Bec station a few years ago and all the ticket staff did was shout they were calling the Police.
When I complained I was told that station staff aren't expected to put themselves at risk. You have to wonder what the Unions are planning for 2012, Ken's going to get bent right over. I'm not sure which side to root for here.


----------



## Sore_Head (Dec 31, 2005)

BarryB said:
			
		

> That sounds a bit simplistic. As the stations were due to remain open all night I guess that the striking station staff will be losing quite a bit of money in overtime payments. You dont do that without good reason.
> 
> BarryB



Not as simplistic as blindly supporting any strike action, no matter who's striking or for what cause. Sure people should have the right to strike, but every situation needs to be analysed and a conclusion reached as to whether it's justified or not. As opposed to most people on here who just instantly blame the management (who are workers too) and absolve the lower grade employee of any possible wrongdoing, and enshrine union leaders as infallible upholders of socialist doctrine, rather than the greedy, capitalist swine that some of them are.

The RMT statement is so full of vagueness how can anything be determined from it?

_ the union *believes* will leave stations dangerously understaffed, RMT called on LUL and the Mayor to respond positively to its compromise offer that would enable the Tube to run and talks to take place.

“For the record, we do not want to renegotiate the deal, but want LUL to stick to the one we actually signed._ If you want the public on your side then show us the deal??

_“ the number of staff being displaced *could be* more than four times the 200 we were *given to believe* would be the case._

Right. That's clear then isn't it?...


----------



## BarryB (Dec 31, 2005)

scott_forester said:
			
		

> My wife was assaulted in plain sight of the ticket office at Tooting Bec station a few years ago and all the ticket staff did was shout they were calling the Police.
> When I complained I was told that station staff aren't expected to put themselves at risk. You have to wonder what the Unions are planning for 2012, Ken's going to get bent right over. I'm not sure which side to root for here.



I guess the ticket office staff were following British Transport Police advice not to get physically involved. Giving the danger of being knived if I was at Tooting Bec and someone was getting assaulted I doubt if I would want to get stuck in. At least the Tooting Bec staff called the police. If there was no one in the office they couldent have done so. A good case for not reducing staff. 

BarryB


----------



## BarryB (Dec 31, 2005)

Sore_Head said:
			
		

> Not as simplistic as blindly supporting any strike action, no matter who's striking or for what cause. Sure people should have the right to strike, but every situation needs to be analysed and a conclusion reached as to whether it's justified or not. As opposed to most people on here who just instantly blame the management (who are workers too) and absolve the lower grade employee of any possible wrongdoing, and enshrine union leaders as infallible upholders of socialist doctrine, rather than the greedy, capitalist swine that some of them are.
> 
> The RMT statement is so full of vagueness how can anything be determined from it?
> 
> ...



TFL say that there will be no reduction in station staff across the system. In plain English this means that there will be staff cuts at some stations. If the RMT think this is effecting safety they are right to take action.

BarryB


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 31, 2005)

Sore_Head said:
			
		

> The RMT statement is so full of vagueness how can anything be determined from it?



Part of a statement from the RMT relating to the 3 stations most seriously affected by the bombs in the summer:

_"Edgware Road, King’s Cross and Liverpool Street were stretched as it was. LUL’s plans mean that those three stations will lose 30%, 75% and 70% respectively of their front line staff."_

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 31, 2005)

BarryB said:
			
		

> TFL say that there will be no reduction in station staff across the system. In plain English this means that there will be staff cuts at some stations. If the RMT think this is effecting safety they are right to take action.
> 
> BarryB



Even if we accept their assurance that there will be no job losses (although they acknowledge elsewhere that they are losing 200 ticket office staff) the existing 5,000 staff are each getting an extra 10 days holiday a year. So over the course of the year an extra 50,000 staff-days need to be covered with no extra staff. It doesn't add up, does it?


----------



## scott_forester (Dec 31, 2005)

BarryB said:
			
		

> I guess the ticket office staff were following British Transport Police advice not to get physically involved. Giving the danger of being knived if I was at Tooting Bec and someone was getting assaulted I doubt if I would want to get stuck in. At least the Tooting Bec staff called the police. If there was no one in the office they couldent have done so. A good case for not reducing staff.
> 
> BarryB




If they aren't even going to leave the office they may as well just be CCTV staff then. Not sure I could watch a women being abused by a pissed begger.


----------



## scott_forester (Dec 31, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Even if we accept their assurance that there will be no job losses (although they acknowledge elsewhere that they are losing 200 ticket office staff) the existing 5,000 staff are each getting an extra 10 days holiday a year. So over the course of the year an extra 50,000 staff-days need to be covered with no extra staff. It doesn't add up, does it?



I wonder if the RMT raised the issue that their members extra holidays would cause safty issues when they asked for it?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 31, 2005)

scott_forester said:
			
		

> I wonder if the RMT raised the issue that their members extra holidays would cause safty issues when they asked for it?



Bizarrely enough, there was a belief that more staff would be employed to cover the shortfall. I suppose past experience should have warned us that LUL don't always act logically (or safely), but any other employer would almost certainly have the sense to realise that more staff would be needed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2005)

Nice 'undecided' question there scott.


----------



## scott_forester (Dec 31, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Nice 'undecided' question there scott.



What I struggle with here is the idea that Ken Livingstone is trying to screw over tube workers or put Londoners in danger. He's always seemed rather credible to me on the Underground. From what he says is that he wants to move ticket staff out of ticket offices because they are selling less tickets. The very fact he hasn't suggested redundancies as a result of efficiencies makes him seem even more credible.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 31, 2005)

this from TFL website for anyone who is interested in travelling tonight

ALL LINES- RMT STRIKE ON 31 DECEMBER 2005 AND 1 JANUARY 2006: Strike action on London Underground by some RMT station staff is taking place. Services are operating on all lines, however, the following stations are currently closed:BARBICAN; BOROUGH; BOUNDS GREEN; CANNON STREET; CLAPHAM NORTH; CLAPHAM SOUTH; COVENT GARDEN; EDGWARE ROAD (BAKERLOO); ELM PARK; GOODGE STREET; HAMPSTEAD; HOLLOWAY ROAD; KILBURN; KILBURN PARK;KING'S CROSS (Northern and Victoria line only); LAMBETH NORTH; MANOR HOUSE; RUSSELL SQUARE; SHEPHERDS BUSH (CENTRAL); SOUTHGATE; ST.JOHN'S WOOD; TUFNELL PARK

Message received 4:37pm 

link


----------



## JTG (Dec 31, 2005)

Of course if you want to use a service operated by scabs and management who aren't used to the hands on running of the Tube that's your look out.

Buses or nothing for me tonight.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 31, 2005)

Dan U said:
			
		

> EDGWARE ROAD (BAKERLOO); ELM PARK; GOODGE STREET; HAMPSTEAD; HOLLOWAY ROAD; KILBURN; KILBURN PARK



Glad to see the strike's rock solid in my neck of the woods


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 31, 2005)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Glad to see the strike's rock solid in my neck of the woods


staying in?


----------



## Oxpecker (Dec 31, 2005)

At the moment Bond Street is being kept open with the minimum number of staff - 7 - but two of those are unfamiliar with the station and untrained on the safety equipment. Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate are failing to answer their phones


----------



## trashpony (Dec 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> staying in?



Nope - I will be getting the Thameslink to Loughborough Junction and then catching a bus to Unsound 

*Nothing's gonna stop me now *

Go on then - join in on the chorus


----------



## JTG (Dec 31, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> At the moment Bond Street is being kept open with the minimum number of staff - 7 - but two of those are unfamiliar with the station and untrained on the safety equipment. Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate are failing to answer their phones



See that people? Don't use the Tube tonight, it isn't safe.


----------



## WasGeri (Dec 31, 2005)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Great attitude.



Thanks


----------



## shandy (Jan 1, 2006)

After solid strike, RMT re-issues peace call to avert second Tube strike

publication date: 1 January 2006

LONDON UNDERGROUND’S biggest union today paid tribute to the united and determined stand of 4,000 striking station staff and called on Tube bosses to accept RMT’s compromise offer to avert a second stoppage scheduled to begin at 18:30 on January 8.

However, the union also warned that Tube drivers and signal workers may now be balloted for action short of strike after blatant safety breaches by LUL during the New Year’s Eve strike.

The present strike, over the imposition of new rosters the union believes will leave stations dangerously understaffed, will wind down from noon today. Affected stations will re-open and services return to normal during the afternoon.

“Our members have resisted lies, aggressive intimidation and blatant bribery by Tube management and openly hostile media coverage to show their determination to defend their own and the travelling public’s safety,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“LUL have thrown huge sums of money at managers and office staff brought in to undertake our members’ duties. The company has underlined its cavalier attitude to safety not only by keeping open stations with staff insufficient to cope with an emergency, but by using managers and office staff without appropriate training.

“We will now consider balloting train drivers and signal workers for action short of strike in the light of these blatant safety breaches.

“Our members will be especially angered that the huge sums wasted by LUL on trying to undermine a strike the company could easily have avoided is money that should have been spent on maintaining safe staffing levels throughout the year.

“We take no pleasure in the fact that dozens of stations across the network are nonetheless closed as a result of LUL’s refusal to accept our compromise offer to suspend action in exchange for the suspension of the new rosters to allow talks to take place.

“The serious safety issues at the heart of this dispute remain to be resolved, and that must inevitably be by negotiation. Our compromise offer remains on the table, and we hope that LUL will now recognise our members’ genuine concerns and meet us half way,” Bob Crow said.


----------



## scott_forester (Jan 1, 2006)

shandy said:
			
		

> “Our members have resisted lies, aggressive intimidation and blatant bribery by Tube management and openly hostile media coverage to show their determination to defend their own and the travelling public’s safety,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.



Aggressive intimidation? Isn't the tube run by Ken Livingstone, are they suggesting he's putting the boot to the workers? I think the main thrust of hostility about the strike from the press is them having fun with Bob Crow for being on holiday in Egypt. 

Shame none of the negotiations for these things are made public so people have a chance to see through the spin form both sides.


----------



## shandy (Jan 1, 2006)

scott_forester said:
			
		

> Aggressive intimidation? Isn't the tube run by Ken Livingstone, are they suggesting he's putting the boot to the workers? I think the main thrust of hostility about the strike from the press is them having fun with Bob Crow for being on holiday in Egypt.
> 
> Shame none of the negotiations for these things are made public so people have a chance to see through the spin form both sides.




Yes I think they are suggesting Ken is putting the boot in.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 2, 2006)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate are failing to answer their phones



One alway though they were "above politics" if you like. But passenger and staff safety aren't. As we saw at Hatfield, at Southall, at a station near you soon.....


----------



## pk (Jan 2, 2006)

Isn't Bob Crow actually sunning himself up on the shores of the Red Sea at the moment??

Funny.

Also funny is the huge wave of support for this strike from people who don't even live in London.

I'm on the side of the staff, fuck the greedy management, but I don't think much of Bob Crow.

I'd sooner see a week long strike starting the 3rd Jan rather than the NYE tube system fall down, but then that's just me, I'd sooner see businessmen screwed over than partygoers and people who can't afford to get out much.


----------



## scott_forester (Jan 2, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I'm on the side of the staff, fuck the greedy management, but I don't think much of Bob Crow.



This is where my confusion lies I'm not sure the management are 'greedy' from what TfL are saying they were able to offer staff a a pay rise and reduced hours because they are all running a more effective railway with things like Oyster Cards etc. In normal industrial relations wouldn't the atypical management team just make lots of people redundant?

Here they seemed to want to make sure people keep their jobs, get better pay and shorter hours. The argument seems to be how to do that. However as both sides are basically politicians it's difficult to tell with the furious spinning that seems to be going on.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 2, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Also funny is the huge wave of support for this strike from people who don't even live in London.




Wondered when that fucking little argument was due to appear on here.
Really thought the anti-tube worker brigade would have floated it out earlier but anyway.

I don't live in Iraq but I've got an opinion on that.
I don't live in South Africa but I was against Apartheid

etc etc

When I am in London which is fairly often I use public transport and I want the system to be safe and well run and I put my faith more in tube workers rather than privateers to do it thanks.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 2, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Also funny is the huge wave of support for this strike from people who don't even live in London.



I live in London.


----------



## LDR (Jan 2, 2006)

Why is it the tube drivers weren't striking in support of their fellow tube workers?


----------



## rennie (Jan 2, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Why is it the tube drivers weren't striking in support of their fellow tube workers?


 

I wondered that as well. was the strike successful? I used the tube on NYE n it got me to my destination!


----------



## Oxpecker (Jan 2, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Why is it the tube drivers weren't striking in support of their fellow tube workers?



Very good question   

Essentially it would have been deemed illegal because we already have a 35 hour week so weren't included in the ballot. A small number of drivers on some lines refused to take trains through the pipe on the grounds of safety (insufficient numbers of _qualified_ staff on duty) but the instruction from RMT HQ was that drivers report for duty as usual.

If the strike goes ahead later this month I suspect (I hope   ) the organisation will be a lot better and a large number of drivers will support the action. Without wishing to be critical of our leaders, the strike on NYE was a bit shambolic.


----------



## shandy (Jan 2, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Why is it the tube drivers weren't striking in support of their fellow tube workers?



I would guess that it's because the dispute was about the rostering of station staff and not tube drivers. The (anti) trade union laws in this country only allow you to strike in very limited circumstances in furtherance of your trade dispute.  

As the drivers weren't officially directly affected it may have been possible for LU to take out an injunction against the union to stop the drivers striking, or even to get the whole thing called off. 

I'm sure Oxpecker will be able to explain it all.


Edit:  Beaten by Oxpecker's punctuality.


----------



## shandy (Jan 2, 2006)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> V A small number of drivers on some lines refused to take trains through the pipe on the grounds of safety (insufficient numbers of _qualified_ staff on duty) but the instruction from RMT HQ was that drivers report for duty as usual.




Will there be any comeback against the few drivers who refused to take trains out on H&S grounds?


----------



## LDR (Jan 2, 2006)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> If the strike goes ahead later this month I suspect (I hope   ) the organisation will be a lot better and a large number of drivers will support the action. Without wishing to be critical of our leaders, the strike on NYE was a bit shambolic.


Yeah, here's hoping the next one achieves the desired results.


----------



## BarryB (Jan 2, 2006)

scott_forester said:
			
		

> If they aren't even going to leave the office they may as well just be CCTV staff then. Not sure I could watch a women being abused by a pissed begger.



Depends on the circumstances. If you thought that the beggar might have a knive would you intervene? 

BarryB


----------



## pk (Jan 2, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Depends on the circumstances. If you thought that the beggar might have a knive would you intervene?
> 
> BarryB



I would, yeah.


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2006)

Fail to see the reevance of Bob Crow's whereabouts tbh, is he not allowed a holiday then?


----------



## scott_forester (Jan 2, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Fail to see the reevance of Bob Crow's whereabouts tbh, is he not allowed a holiday then?



I don't think it matters either, although he can't really moan about the press highlighting it.He must have known some journalists would point out to him that public services are prohibited by law to strike and Trade Unionists have been jailed there.


----------



## scott_forester (Jan 2, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Depends on the circumstances. If you thought that the beggar might have a knive would you intervene?
> 
> BarryB




One drunk vs. two, three or four blokes - you have to wonder how far he could have gone?  In the end a passer-by helped her. When I went to complain there were still drunk ticket touts at the top of the stairs and in the hall. The guys in the office basically admitted that they couldn't do anything about it. If that is the case CCTV is the same as people on the ground in that situation.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 2, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I would, yeah.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I've come back from lunch with my colleagues and the tube strike came up in conversation.
> 
> All of them (about 20 odd people) were against the strike and most of the nurses (I work for the NHS) said they wish they knew a tube worker so they could tell them to fuck off.   They were really very angry.
> 
> ...



This is the post that has depressed me most in recent pages.

LDR, like myself, supports the strike, yet finds himself outnumbered *in real life*** by opponents of it.

**as opposed to in the weird world of Urban 75, and in even leftier places like that

It's probably the way I've felt for the last 25 years at least, about being a Trade Unionist leftie. The miniscule power that I and those like me have to have any influence whatsoever on peoples' opinion, is utterly dwarfed by the power of the mainstream media to persuade people into having a deeply conservative-minded reaction to strikes ...

To be honest, I think the 'left' should pay more attention** to this reality 

**instead of constantly blaming 'liberals' and 'Guardianistas' -- the Mail and the Substandard will have far more influence over far more people on issues like strikes, than the Guardian ever will


----------



## Mr Retro (Jan 2, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Why is it the tube drivers weren't striking in support of their fellow tube workers?




Was there big overtime on offer for working NYE?


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2006)

Mr Retro: probably, but Oxpecker's already pointed out that they weren't actually allowed to.

As far as LDR's nurses are concerned, just because some workers find it very hard, morally and practically, to strike, why on earth should that mean others can't?


----------



## JTG (Jan 2, 2006)

Anyway, for my part I found it slightly irksome to use the buses on the night but also cheaper and not that much of a hassle. Hardly the 'misery' forecast by the right wing press.

Better than using potentially unsafe scab services anyway.


----------



## Sore_Head (Jan 3, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> This is the post that has depressed me most in recent pages.
> 
> LDR, like myself, supports the strike, yet finds himself outnumbered *in real life*** by opponents of it.
> 
> ...



I don't like the presumption here that just because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint (or this particular strike) that they must be simple-minded folk, brainwashed by the awesome power of the right wing media. That's just bullshit, and a naive justification for the inability to convince others of your perceived correctness. "Oh, you would believe I'm right, but you're obviously far too brain washed..." Crap.

Personally I'm in favour of strikes, but I'm afraid I don't look at things in black and white like you, and I've seen nothing (in either the right or left wing press) to convince me that this was a legitimate action. All the RMT had to say on the matter was 'well it might make things more dangerous, but we don't really know'. I'm paraphrasing, but that's about the gist of it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 3, 2006)




----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 4, 2006)

Sore_Head said:
			
		

> I don't like the presumption here that just because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint (or this particular strike) that they must be simple-minded folk, brainwashed by the awesome power of the right wing media. That's just bullshit, and a naive justification for the inability to convince others of your perceived correctness. "Oh, you would believe I'm right, but you're obviously far too brain washed..." Crap.
> 
> Personally I'm in favour of strikes, but I'm afraid I don't look at things in black and white like you, and I've seen nothing (in either the right or left wing press) to convince me that this was a legitimate action. All the RMT had to say on the matter was 'well it might make things more dangerous, but we don't really know'. I'm paraphrasing, but that's about the gist of it.



How on earth do I respond to this?

I confess to being struck a little dumb ... your post is such an utter distortion of what I meant and think, and of what LDR meant.

Your belief that an 'objective' way of describing the press is to refer to some weird spectrum known as 'the right or left wing press' to me seems bizarre, It's as if you think there are an equal number of either type, and as if you think 'the left wing press' (where? which ones? too left wing for you?) might be of equal power/influence in favour of strikes and unions, as mass circulation propaganda sheets like the Mail and Standard in propogandising against them and whipping up hostility to them.

All this tells me that your view of these things is miles apart from mine.

You also appear to write off any possibility that Mail/Standard style coverage of strikes (ie hugely negative and distorted) might influence people.

You cannot write off that possibility, nor can you accuse people who DO think it has a huge and malign influence over general/popular opinion in this country as 'patronising'.


----------

