Tube strike is off

[TheAnimus]

Typical media manipulation of Bob Crow's comments in that LBC show.

Basically the broadcaster is still stuck in 20th century work conditions. Time to modernise working conditions for all. Bring on the 21 hour working week with full pay.

So what are the manipulations?

Has he not pushed for more holiday for retained staff?

Compare the outcome to the manifesto RMT put forth before the strike. I'll help.

First paragraph makes no sense. Both Oyster and Bankcard are loaded with money, and topped up regularly. Well that isn't changed by a ticket office, a ticket office doesn't say "nah, go on, have this one on me". In fact reducing costs would mean that you might not need so much money. You don't have to regularly top up your oyster you can have 1 year at least, it can also be set to do so automatically. If the gates don't deduct the correct amount, the ticket office staff tell you to call the phone number or go online. This hasn't changed.

Second paragraph. I don't understand delays are helped by staff, the lack of them on the station, driving the train make no difference to me. The emergency response procedures I think are something which has to be better discussed. But they haven't done anything on about this.

Third, disabled? Erm not sure how that helps, either the station has the access or it doesn't, if you are say blind you have to give advance notice anyway. If you are poor? Yes all these ticket office staff help the poor people, buy, erm having them pay their above median wage, 35 hour week and massive holiday. That's helping the poor, in as much as pissing on them would.

Fourth paragraph, that makes no sense at all.

If we ever listened to people like this, we'd be stuck without the looms, the Luddite movement, like evolution deniers just boggle my mind with their willfill ignorance of history, mathematic theory, and reliable physics.

[peterb]

Thank you, although it doesn't specify how many of those are grannies

However, it is still irrelevant to this thread as smartphone ownership is not a mandatory requirement for tube travel.

[opel80uk]

Being called a Luddite bothers me as much as I imagine it bothers Bob Crow being called out by a keyboard warrior on a forum. The issue here appears to be not so much this actual strike, but rather the right to strike. Until a law is passed vanning it, The Animus had better get those letters sent off to his MP! (Lucky him/her!)

[wasabi]

Thank you, although it doesn't specify how many of those are grannies

However, it is still irrelevant to this thread as smartphone ownership is not a mandatory requirement for tube travel.

Given relative life expectancy of males vs females, quite a high percentage I'd suspect.

Sure, smartphones aren't a mandatory requirement of tube travel, but surely neither is a manned ticket office.

Waiting for this to all kick off with driverless trains too. Surely one of the main lessons of the rail disasters of the past 20 years has been removing human error through ATP? Why not remove the weakest point from the loop entirely?

[peterb]

Given relative life expectancy of males vs females, quite a high percentage I'd suspect.

Well, a female could be a granny at 34 (or earlier)

, smartphones aren't a mandatory requirement of tube travel, but surely neither is a manned ticket office.

True, and as I said earlier, bringing staff out of the ticket office at peak times enables them to be proactive rather than reactive. small mainline stations are unmanned at times already, without problems. Without looking at statistics, my gut feeling is that most travellers already have tickets, either Oyster cards (I have one, and I don't live in London) or as part of a mainline rail ticket. Oyster fares are cheaper too.

for this to all kick off with driverless trains too. Surely one of the main lessons of the rail disasters of the past 20 years has been removing human error through ATP? Why not remove the weakest point from the loop entirely?

Agreed. Of course the safety spectre will be raised, as it was when the DLR was first designed - but that has functioned quite happily. Automated/driverless trains should increase network capacity as 'intelligent' trains can communicate and operate with smaller distances between them, although I suspect the limiting factor is the time taken to load/unload passengers and the braking accelerating times. At peak times train frequency is quite high on the inner lines.

[TheAnimus]

Being called a Luddite bothers me as much as I imagine it bothers Bob Crow being called out by a keyboard warrior on a forum. The issue here appears to be not so much this actual strike, but rather the right to strike. Until a law is passed vanning it, The Animus had better get those letters sent off to his MP! (Lucky him/her!)

So you think the Luddite movement was a good one? Do you think right now the poorest in UK society would have been better off if they had succeeded?

It isn't name calling, you appear to be a Luddite with your views. That is no different than someone who has racist views been labelled a racist. Those views define the label.

The idea of opposing an efficiency improvement, because of the fact it removes someone's job, is a very short term view point, it prevents any increase in efficiency, which means consumers of the product can not benefit from been able to consume it more for less.

[opel80uk]

So you think the Luddite movement was a good one? Do you think right now the poorest in UK society would have been better off if they had succeeded?

Not particularly. But then again, I fail to see how what I said would predispose me to being called a Luddite. I had said earlier in the thread that these closures had been agreed and initally implemented with Ken Livingstone and the Union back in 08, so I appreciate it is going to happen and, it's fair to assume so does the RMT. What I objected to was peoples jobs being used to score political points, and find it completely acceptable that the Union would kick back, using all legal means open to them.

It isn't name calling, you appear to be a Luddite with your views. That is no different than someone who has racist views been labelled a racist. Those views define the label.

That's interesting, as I seem to recall you reacting rather aggresively in a previous thread when your 'views' led to some accusing you of being pro-eugenics. I suppose my views 'define the label', but yours were previously just misinterpreted, intentionally or otherwise. Easily done.

The idea of opposing an efficiency improvement, because of the fact it removes someone's job, is a very short term view point, it prevents any increase in efficiency, which means consumers of the product can not benefit from been able to consume it more for less.

That would be true if it was opposed solely because it is removing someone's job, but that is rarely the case. Given that, and that there are usually other factors at play also, makes it far more complex then your, typically, black-white issue.

[santa claus]

Good thread.

What a pitiful Sunday Politics interview Andrew Neil conducted today with Bob Crow. Neil's smug interview technique was easily parried by Mr Crow and if one thing came across loud and clear it's that a strong Union is vital.

Well done Andrew. You have invigorated a cause you tried to discredit. Someone give the man a lollipop to suck .

[opel80uk]

Good thread.

What a pitiful Sunday Politics interview Andrew Neil conducted today with Bob Crow. Neil's smug interview technique was easily parried by Mr Crow and if one thing came across loud and clear it's that a strong Union is vital.

Well done Andrew. You have invigorated a cause you tried to discredit. Someone give the man a lollipop to suck .

The bringing up of the holiday photo was a particular low point, Sunday tabloid stuff from the BBC. And you would have thought that Andrew Neil would be the last to have a pop at dodgy photo's!

[santa claus]

The bringing up of the holiday photo was a particular low point, Sunday tabloid stuff from the BBC. And you would have thought that Andrew Neil would be the last to have a pop at dodgy photo's!

I can't believe they did that. It's expected of the papers but repeating it on the beeb was laughable. The interview was a gift to the RMT.

[opel80uk]

I can't believe they did that. It's expected of the papers but repeating it on the beeb was laughable. The interview was a gift to the RMT.

I would imagine, given his experience, O’Neil would have quite a say in the editorial process of that show, so not that much of a surprise IMO, given his track record. The sad thing is, it gave what should have been a serious debate a somewhat glib feel to it.

Moreover, if I were Bob Crow sitting there and the presenter uses a photo of me on holiday as his opening salvo, I would be delighted; it would betray to me a distinct lack of substance to the rest of their argument and I thought that Crow, whilst never going to be the most eloquent of speakers, handled O’Neil’s questions fairly easily.

Lastly, and I feel it a pity that Crow didn’t expand on his point a bit more, is that driverless trains will not ensure that London keeps running during strikes. DLR train attendants also belong to the RMT (not all, obviously) and have previously been on strike. So unless you are removing all staff from all trains (unlike DLR), and having a 100% automated train, the continued use of DLR as an example of why LU can do away with staff is a misleading.

[santa claus]

I would imagine, given his experience, O’Neil would have quite a say in the editorial process of that show, so not that much of a surprise IMO, given his track record. The sad thing is, it gave what should have been a serious debate a somewhat glib feel to it.

Indeed. Incidentally, Andrew O'Neill is a stand up comedian whereas Andrew Neil is a...erm...stand up comedian

[opel80uk]

Indeed. Incidentally, Andrew O'Neill is a stand up comedian whereas Andrew Neil is a...erm...stand up comedian

Well spotted! I think I'll leave that Freudian slip un-edited!

[TheAnimus]

Not particularly. But then again, I fail to see how what I said would predispose me to being called a Luddite. I had said earlier in the thread that these closures had been agreed and initally implemented with Ken Livingstone and the Union back in 08, so I appreciate it is going to happen and, it's fair to assume so does the RMT. What I objected to was peoples jobs being used to score political points, and find it completely acceptable that the Union would kick back, using all legal means open to them.

How are the jobs been used to score points? The plans are quite different to the ones before, the idea of closing the offices also was using paper tickets still, not just oyster. My understanding is this project is more about ensuring oyster can be purchased via machine (currently not every station has this, most only top-up) with the staff out in front, if any.

That's interesting, as I seem to recall you reacting rather aggresively in a previous thread when your 'views' led to some accusing you of being pro-eugenics. I suppose my views 'define the label', but yours were previously just misinterpreted, intentionally or otherwise. Easily done.

I consider the attitude of fighting the mechanisation the luddite movement. It is about saying not one job lost to efficiency improvements. I dislike this because I think the poorest person in the UK 100 years ago, has much better life today. This is mostly due to improvements in efficiency, the fact our consumables, require less human time.

The Luddite movement where about stopping any mechanisation that resulted in any loss of jobs. Whilst admirable in a simple sense, it is demonstrably bad in the long term. In fact I can not think of any example where automation that has resulted in job losses has been negative long term. The issue should be managing that adjustment.

Despite the minor violence that happened on both sides, the Luddite movement has no negative connotations the way eugenics does. I believe this to be the difference. If I said I'm Pro Eugenics, people don't really understand what that would mean, it could mean anything from gassing minorities, to providing incentives for birth control use. As such it really isn't a useful term, it's marred, a dirty word if you will.

I also think Luddite sounds romantic to say. Cellar Door.

That would be true if it was opposed solely because it is removing someone's job, but that is rarely the case. Given that, and that there are usually other factors at play also, makes it far more complex then your, typically, black-white issue.

But what is the downside? I see this only as a good thing, my local tube station could be well served by two more oyster top-up machines. I can't see any downside. The redundancies aren't happening overnight, most (TFL claim all!) voluntary.

[TheAnimus]

Good thread.

What a pitiful Sunday Politics interview Andrew Neil conducted today with Bob Crow. Neil's smug interview technique was easily parried by Mr Crow and if one thing came across loud and clear it's that a strong Union is vital.

Well done Andrew. You have invigorated a cause you tried to discredit. Someone give the man a lollipop to suck .

I don't think Crow came off at all well during the interview.

The holiday think is a pertinent because of the justification RMT gave for the strike. If I say I am going to have my union strike, I'm the head of that union, I should be around for negotiations. The man is paid a top 1% wage, if the strike has to happen on that date, he can scrap his holiday. You would expect any leader to do the same. The reason for this is, he should be there to help negotiations. He can not do that on holiday.

That is, if you believe the strike is a last resort.

If you believe it to be a petulant show of strength, then not being around for any chance to prevent it is a perfectly acceptable course of action.

Crow also tries to suggest that a cost impact determines value. This isn't true. This is a failure of GCSE Business level of economics.

[opel80uk]

How are the jobs been used to score points?

Because Johnson said he would keep the offices open to win votes, when he knew they were not sustainable. If Red Ken couldn’t keep them open, well you do the maths.

The plans are quite different to the ones before, the idea of closing the offices also was using paper tickets still, not just oyster. My understanding is this project is more about ensuring oyster can be purchased via machine (currently not every station has this, most only top-up) with the staff out in front, if any.

Nonsense, the plans are almost identical. The fact you seem to have focused on a relatively small detail about paper and/or Oyster as an example of how the plans differ shows how similar they are quite succinctly.

I consider the attitude of fighting the mechanisation the luddite movement. It is about saying not one job lost to efficiency improvements. I dislike this because I think the poorest person in the UK 100 years ago, has much better life today. This is mostly due to improvements in efficiency, the fact our consumables, require less human time.

The Luddite movement where about stopping any mechanisation that resulted in any loss of jobs. Whilst admirable in a simple sense, it is demonstrably bad in the long term. In fact I can not think of any example where automation that has resulted in job losses has been negative long term. The issue should be managing that adjustment.

And can you directly quote what I have said in this thread that you have interpreted to mean that I was ‘fighting the mechanisation’ and to thus be called a Luddite?

Despite the minor violence that happened on both sides, the Luddite movement has no negative connotations the way eugenics does. I believe this to be the difference. If I said I'm Pro Eugenics, people don't really understand what that would mean, it could mean anything from gassing minorities, to providing incentives for birth control use. As such it really isn't a useful term, it's marred, a dirty word if you will.

Well a tenant of the Pro-Eugenics crowd, as you touch on, was/is the ability to determine, based of differing factors, who was entitled to reproduce offspring, and to remove that ability if deemed appropriate. I think your comments on a previous thread would fit in with that tenant. ‘The views define the label’. Your words, not mine and I’ve known people who, for some bizarre reason, dislike people from the Indian subcontinent, but like white and black people; should they not be called racist because they don’t dislike everyone that is different to them? Of course not.

It may well be a dirty or marred word, but if it’s accurate, then it’s accurate. I doubt ‘Luddite’ was said in a complimentary manner, but if the views I express predispose me to that name fitting, then so be it, it would strike me as strange to reject the name because I or others perceive it as negative. The fact that some may think I am against technology advancement, and others may think I go round smashing up power looms is a relatively minor point. Either way, it bothers me not a lot. By the way, William Beveridge, who was effectively the architect for the Welfare State, was a member of the Eugenics Society, so you are in esteemed company with some of your views.

But what is the downside? I see this only as a good thing, my local tube station could be well served by two more oyster top-up machines. I can't see any downside. The redundancies aren't happening overnight, most (TFL claim all!) voluntary.

Well my comment was more a general reference in response to your, equally general assertion. I was merely stating that hardly any efficiency improvements (anywhere) are opposed solely because it may remove someone’s job, and that there are always other issue at play.

On this specific issue, I myself don’t see any reason why staff can’t be brought out of the offices and onto the ‘shop floor’ if you like, but then again I don’t work on LU and wouldn’t know the stress points, challenges and possible areas of concern that staff who are there every day are aware of. I don’t believe that the Union and members are only concerned about job losses, and if I believe that, it follows that I would listen to what they have to say regarding, for example, safety issues. Given that the Union are aware that most (no one believes it will be all) redundancies will be voluntary, it adds even more gravitas IMO to those concerns.