Tube strike is off

[opel80uk]

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.

I can see why you would think like that, mainly because you seem to have an inaccurate idea of how Unions work. Firstly, it’s the members who are able to have their Union go on strike, not the leader as he or she will get 1 vote like everyone else. Secondly, that’s not how the RMT, as with some other unions, (and indeed some Governments) negotiate. Some Unions have negotiation teams separate to their leadership and, after given the scope for which they are able to manoeuvre in (where red lines are decided upon) by the Unions leadership (not just the leader), negotiate with the relevant parties within that remit. Bob Crow himself is not part of the RMT negotiating team, cannot ‘help negotiations’, and as such, there is no need for him to be there. That’s like expecting the Prime Minister to be part of every negotiation his or her Ministers have in Government – It simply doesn’t work like that.

Aside from that, I would imagine that if he did need to contact his negotiating team direct, he would have been able to. He was on a Beach in Brazil, not in outer space. I find it ironic that on one hand you seem to be exalting technological advances in the workplace, but for some reason Bob Crow needs to be in the same room/city/country as the negotiations, and can’t possibly help using phone/email/Skype from abroad.

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.

Petulant show of strength or last resort, it worked didn’t it?

[TheAnimus]

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.

Well he did keep them open, for 7 years? Is that just political point scoring? Even if it is, it was funded, it was done.

This isn't as if they are open one week, closed the next. It was promised they would be open, and they have been for that term. I disagreed with that at the time, but compared to Ken, Boris transport policies made so much sense (bendy buses). I wasn't even glad to see the pledge go, I'd completely forgotten at the time of the last election.

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.

Err, they aren't really. We've got more infopoints on the station. My local station did not have one single point two years ago, it now has two. This is a big change, as not having a mobile phone (or say battery) needing help is now very, very easy.

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?

The fact you aren't in favour of closing the offices.

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.

The issue is, when you take something that is a tiny subset, and imply a vast superset of idealogy. Luddite as a term or a movement is really quite tightly defined.

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.

Which is why I find it a useless term it is simply too vague.

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.

I'm massively in favour of any efficency gains, even if it results in the loss of jobs. Hell I've lost valuable work because I put myself out of a job.

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.

You know what settled the desire to not have a strike last week?

More holiday.

Nothing about job losses, nothing about solidarity. Just more holiday, for the considerably more than median paid workers. The staff in the ticket office earn more than the BTP. Insane. Given one of TFLs direct biggest costs is staffing (including pension liabilities) this has an effect on the poorest who need to commute.

[GeorgeStorm]

Not really wanting to get involved here, but I've seen wages mentioned a couple of times, all pointing towards them getting paid better than you might expect, I was wondering a) where people are getting their figures from, and b) why on earth would they be getting paid that much?

I personally wouldn't consider the strike to be the same as the police/fire department having a strike, but I can see where TheAnimus is coming from. I haven't read much about it, but overall I like the idea of less people behind the counter and them either just on the station, or even potentially nowhere (if that means a reduction in costs).
The only staff I would probably talk to at a station would be those outside of ticket offices on the platform in case I needed help in finding the right platform or whatever. Also the aspect of machines being better than people in a lot of ways I can already see by the number of non English speakers who are already forced to use the machines since the people in the office can't help them.

[opel80uk]

Well he did keep them open, for 7 years? Is that just political point scoring? Even if it is, it was funded, it was done.

Well, what would be interesting to know then, if it is not political point scoring, is what has changed in the last 4 years since Johnson last said he would be keeping them open.

……but compared to Ken, Boris transport policies made so much sense (bendy buses).

That is, frankly, laughable. We have had far more strikes, that stupid cable car, the bicycles and, lastly, the floating airport. That you think his transport policies made so much sense astounds me.

Err, they aren't really. We've got more infopoints on the station. My local station did not have one single point two years ago, it now has two. This is a big change…….

What you and I think is a big change differs quite a bit it would appear.

The fact you aren't in favour of closing the offices.

Where did I say I wasn’t in favour of that? Clue: I didn’t. Here’s what I did say:

‘I would completely agree, If LU’s proposals were simply what you suggested, i.e. move staff out of ticket offices and onto platforms. But they are not.’

&

‘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………..’


What I did say was that it was perfectly acceptable IMO for the Union Members to go on a legally held strike if they were unhappy with what was being proposed.

The issue is, when you take something that is a tiny subset, and imply a vast superset of idealogy. Luddite as a term or a movement is really quite tightly defined.

Eugenics is actually quite tightly defined as well, it’s the methods used that are varied. I don’t see any conflict in saying that someone who believes certain sections of the population should, for whatever reasons they may have, have reproduction rights removed, are Pro-Eugenics and think it entirely consistent.

I'm massively in favour of any efficency gains, even if it results in the loss of jobs.

Yes, I would have guessed that. I happen to think that there are other factors to consider aside from the efficiency gains.

You know what settled the desire to not have a strike last week?

More holiday.

Nothing about job losses, nothing about solidarity. Just more holiday, for the considerably more than median paid workers. The staff in the ticket office earn more than the BTP. Insane. Given one of TFLs direct biggest costs is staffing (including pension liabilities) this has an effect on the poorest who need to commute.

I heard Bob Crow say direct to Andrew (O’)Neil that he wanted to get LU round the table again. So no, it wasn’t just about Holiday. But if you tell yourself something for long enough, I guess it becomes true.

[TheAnimus]

Not really wanting to get involved here, but I've seen wages mentioned a couple of times, all pointing towards them getting paid better than you might expect, I was wondering a) where people are getting their figures from, and b) why on earth would they be getting paid that much?

If you look at the video I posted Crow clearly crows about the salaries, working hours (35 per week) and holiday allowances they have.

This is the point, the RMT issued a statement claiming what the strikes where for. They instead achived none of those goals. But got an extra weeks holiday for some staff.

This is why they are grossly over paid. They run a massively state subsidised monopoly. It is said they do not allow non union members to get jobs, this is certainly backed up by the lack of other union representation (or none) on many lines and job types. An exception is the Northern Line drivers for instance, tend not to be RMT.

This is why I don't think they should be allowed to strike. The only value they provide, is because of massive government spending on infrastructure. There is no skill in what they do, nothing that can't be learned very quickly and easily.

They simply don't deserve to earn more than police, teachers, and other state employees. However, given we've invested in todays money hundreads of billions of pounds in the network, we can't replace it, there is no choice. They have a complete monopoly on this mass transport.

[TheAnimus]

Well, what would be interesting to know then, if it is not political point scoring, is what has changed in the last 4 years since Johnson last said he would be keeping them open.

I'll try and explain this again, using the example of my local station.

Each platform has an information and emergency point. Like a friendly speaker phone, but weather proof with a big button for information and emergency.

Each platform is now step-free.

We have more than one machine for tickets and oyster. You can also buy an oyster from a vending machine.

There is a modern tanoy system on the platform.

The vast, vast majority of commuters now have phones which provide them with current travel information. Those that lack such devices, can use the information point.

That is, frankly, laughable. We have had far more strikes, that stupid cable car, the bicycles and, lastly, the floating airport. That you think his transport policies made so much sense astounds me.

Wait what? The bicycles are a bad thing? Are you nuts? That's the best thing that's happened to transport in London in years.

What you and I think is a big change differs quite a bit it would appear.

Which is what I don't understand, you appear to have no actual criteria for what could have improved. What could it be other than the things I mentioned above?

Yes, I would have guessed that. I happen to think that there are other factors to consider aside from the efficiency gains.

Such as? A bunch of often twice median wage earning people, who lack any skills, who have their above average wealth through monopolistic supply principles.... My heart bleeds for them.

I heard Bob Crow say direct to Andrew (O’)Neil that he wanted to get LU round the table again. So no, it wasn’t just about Holiday. But if you tell yourself something for long enough, I guess it becomes true.

The irony is you accuse me of telling myself something for it to become truth.

More holiday. Strike Cancelled.

That is what happened. You can claim my interpretation is off, how so?

[herulach]

Well, what would be interesting to know then, if it is not political point scoring, is what has changed in the last 4 years since Johnson last said he would be keeping them open.

We've already gone past the references to hitler point in arguments on the internet 101 so I'm reluctant to get involved, but just to weigh in on that specific point. Ofcom data shows Internet usage/smartphone penetration has increased from 16% of adults in 2009, to 51% of adults in 2013 (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin.../cmr/cmr09.pdf http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...013_UK_CMR.pdf) Contactless card issuance has gone from a subset of barclaycard customers to basically all major clearers. I can't find statistics on comparative oyster card usage, but this data (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ter_card_usage) seems to suggest a 50% ish increase in oyster usage between 2009 & 2011, its not unreasonable to assume that has continued.

So basically, a lot has changed in the last 4 years, and even more has changed in the last 7.

As far as whether he needed to be physically present at the meeting or not, its spectacularly bad PR to not be at least in the country. Were the situation reversed and boris was off sunning himself you can easily see the rmt would be the first to point it out.

[opel80uk]

I'll try and explain this again, using the example of my local station.

Each platform has an information and emergency point. Like a friendly speaker phone, but weather proof with a big button for information and emergency.

Each platform is now step-free.

We have more than one machine for tickets and oyster. You can also buy an oyster from a vending machine.

There is a modern tanoy system on the platform.

The vast, vast majority of commuters now have phones which provide them with current travel information. Those that lack such devices, can use the information point.

You’ve just described my old local train station which had all of that back in 2004.

Wait what? The bicycles are a bad thing? Are you nuts? That's the best thing that's happened to transport in London in years.

You’ll like this, given as to how you are obsessed with ‘value’ & ‘worth’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Barclays.html

Which is what I don't understand, you appear to have no actual criteria for what could have improved. What could it be other than the things I mentioned above?

Not a lot. That’s why it was disingenuous of Johnson to insist he would keep them open in 2010

Such as? A bunch of often twice median wage earning people, who lack any skills, who have their above average wealth through monopolistic supply principles.... My heart bleeds for them.

Well, what the paying public want, for a start. What level of service they may want. Whether they want there to be manned ticket offices availiable, because they subsidise it as well, you’re not the only tax payer out there.

The irony is you accuse me of telling myself something for it to become truth.

More holiday. Strike Cancelled.

That is what happened. You can claim my interpretation is off, how so?

Because more holiday was not the only thing agreed. LU agreed to suspend the compulsory redundancy notice served to staff, for example.

[TheAnimus]

You’ve just described my old local train station which had all of that back in 2004.

Good for yours, mine, like many, did not.

Many still lack step free, but I believe the rollout of the new systems is complete. This finished in 2011 iirc.

You’ll like this, given as to how you are obsessed with ‘value’ & ‘worth’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Barclays.html

And? We subsidise our London travel via general taxation. They aggressively expanded and pushed the scheme for that year due to the Olympics as well.

IIRC at the time those figures came out at it worked out that each journey was under charged by about 50p, but they have since doubled the price two £2 for PAYG.

Not a lot. That’s why it was disingenuous of Johnson to insist he would keep them open in 2010

This is why I find it funny. He didn't insist he would keep them open. You say I'm splitting hairs, when I say it's wrong. He promised for the term, that he would keep them open, the office responded to that question, they kept them open.

As I (and others) have pointed out, things have changed, I think that the only mistake has been in deciding how to go about these changes. I think they should have been more gradually applied to the different routes when possible.

Well, what the paying public want, for a start. What level of service they may want. Whether they want there to be manned ticket offices availiable, because they subsidise it as well, you’re not the only tax payer out there.

Which is the point. Where is the public asking for this? The publics reaction to the strike wasn't exactly sympathetic from those who normally use it.

Because more holiday was not the only thing agreed. LU agreed to suspend the compulsory redundancy notice served to staff, for example.

Which they had already agreed too.

[GeorgeStorm]

If you look at the video I posted Crow clearly crows about the salaries, working hours (35 per week) and holiday allowances they have.

This is the point, the RMT issued a statement claiming what the strikes where for. They instead achived none of those goals. But got an extra weeks holiday for some staff.

This is why they are grossly over paid. They run a massively state subsidised monopoly. It is said they do not allow non union members to get jobs, this is certainly backed up by the lack of other union representation (or none) on many lines and job types. An exception is the Northern Line drivers for instance, tend not to be RMT.

This is why I don't think they should be allowed to strike. The only value they provide, is because of massive government spending on infrastructure. There is no skill in what they do, nothing that can't be learned very quickly and easily.

They simply don't deserve to earn more than police, teachers, and other state employees. However, given we've invested in todays money hundreads of billions of pounds in the network, we can't replace it, there is no choice. They have a complete monopoly on this mass transport.

I haven't seen the video, I'll try to watch it at some point.

If they get paid a decent wage for the hours they earn (which they certainly seem to), why don't they just start firing people if they're going to start demanding more so they can get new guys in? (this is coming from someone who is only just starting to earn and has no understand of how jobs and contracts work, so don't be too mad at my stupidity )

[opel80uk]

Good for yours, mine, like many, did not.

And that’s why, if mine had it in 2004, getting others to that standard, in 2010 (or whenever), is a small detail IMO.

And? We subsidise our London travel via general taxation. They aggressively expanded and pushed the scheme for that year due to the Olympics as well.

IIRC at the time those figures came out at it worked out that each journey was under charged by about 50p, but they have since doubled the price two £2 for PAYG.

Right, so a scheme which makes money in other cities, but costs taxpayers in London is good value? By the way, you do know it was Livingston that announced the plan first, don’t you?

This is why I find it funny. He didn't insist he would keep them open. You say I'm splitting hairs, when I say it's wrong. He promised for the term, that he would keep them open, the office responded to that question, they kept them open.

He never, as far as I can find, stated that keeping them open would be for ‘the term’. I’m old fashioned; I think if someone says something, then they should honour it. If he was saying that it was just for that term, then he should state it. If it was for just one term, and then it would be reviewed again, then he should say that. When he said in 2010‘No ticket offices will be closed, alright? They’re not going to be closed. The answer to the number of ticket office closures is: nil.’, to me that sounds categorical, with no time frame in mind to me. I accept though, you have a certain looser interpretation of that, as is your right.

As I (and others) have pointed out, things have changed, I think that the only mistake has been in deciding how to go about these changes. I think they should have been more gradually applied to the different routes when possible.

Well they couldn’t have changed that much, as Livingstone had started to do done exactly what you seem to proscribe. Probably because, although he knew that these changes were necessary, he wanted to cause the least disruption to passengers and knew that making sweeping changes at the same time across the network would antagonise the Union. Common sense I would have thought.

Which is the point. Where is the public asking for this? The publics reaction to the strike wasn't exactly sympathetic from those who normally use it.

It wasn’t sympathetic, but it was notably muted in comparison to previous strikes (i.e ones where the main issue was pay etc). And if the public support the closure of the offices, LU should evidence it.

Which they had already agreed too.

Indeed, but now they have gone further and agreed to review all the closures, and suspend the voluntary redundancies also, which was not initially offered. So it’s not just ‘more holidays’ as you seem to believe.

But that’s really by-the-by. You don’t seem to have any idea as to how negotiations work, or what a Unions role is. The RMT’s primary role is to get the best conditions possible for its members, full stop. If the negotiating team conceded LU’s plan to close the ticket offices were going to go ahead, then they would need something to take back to its members to compensate for the changes. That’s what negotiating is and, as the RMT are fully aware, you cannot always get what you want.


Seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, you appear to have an issue with anybody who receives a wage funded directly, or subsidised, by the taxpayer ever going on strike. If that is the case, until a law is passed banning it (although completely unenforceable, unless you ban Unions), you will have to just suck it up and get on with it. Anyway, I can’t see why it affects you so much; surely you can just jump on one of Boris Bikes during a strike, seeing as they are so wonderful.

[GeorgeStorm]

But that’s really by-the-by. You don’t seem to have any idea as to how negotiations work, or what a Unions role is. The RMT’s primary role is to get the best conditions possible for its members, full stop. If the negotiating team conceded LU’s plan to close the ticket offices were going to go ahead, then they would need something to take back to its members to compensate for the changes. That’s what negotiating is and, as the RMT are fully aware, you cannot always get what you want.

In my opinion, it's not that TheAnimus doesn't understand how negotiations work, or what a union is for, merely that he doesn't like what it/its leader is doing.
You can understand something/the purpose of something whilst also disagreeing with it.

Edit:
Oh wow just watched the video, 6 weeks leave, 40k average, 35 hour weeks.....

I would have thought they were poorly paid, overworked etc but that sounds like a pretty good deal for work which doesn't seem to require many qualifications etc.

[opel80uk]

We've already gone past the references to hitler point in arguments on the internet 101 so I'm reluctant to get involved, but just to weigh in on that specific point. Ofcom data shows Internet usage/smartphone penetration has increased from 16% of adults in 2009, to 51% of adults in 2013 (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin.../cmr/cmr09.pdf http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...013_UK_CMR.pdf) Contactless card issuance has gone from a subset of barclaycard customers to basically all major clearers. I can't find statistics on comparative oyster card usage, but this data (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ter_card_usage) seems to suggest a 50% ish increase in oyster usage between 2009 & 2011, its not unreasonable to assume that has continued.

So basically, a lot has changed in the last 4 years, and even more has changed in the last 7.

That statistics are interesting reading. But I would point out that, as far as I can see, Oyster use on the tube did not suggest anywhere near a 50% increase, and remained fairly static over the dates provided. And according to those figures, 20% still weren’t using Oyster. Given that it was introduced in 2003, and offered cheaper fares, that 20% would still reject it is equally interesting.

As far as whether he needed to be physically present at the meeting or not, its spectacularly bad PR to not be at least in the country. Were the situation reversed and boris was off sunning himself you can easily see the rmt would be the first to point it out.

I doubt Crow is bothered about his PR image to be honest. The media and wider public already have this pantomime villain perception of him and, given he takes no part in negotiations, coming back would just have been a stunt. Good on him for not bowing to that kind of nonsense.

[TooNice]

The only staff I would probably talk to at a station would be those outside of ticket offices on the platform in case I needed help in finding the right platform or whatever. Also the aspect of machines being better than people in a lot of ways I can already see by the number of non English speakers who are already forced to use the machines since the people in the office can't help them.

On the other hand, plenty more tourist do have sufficient grasp of English. For the purpose of buying tickets, I do think that machines are adequate provided that they allow language switching.

But here in Tokyo, pretty much every station have a staff counter next to the gate. Their purpose isn't to sell tickets however, but to assist in matters related to your travel by train. They will show you how to use the machine to buy tickets if necessary. They will tell you which platform you need to be. They will tell you which trains (including changes) you need to take to get to your destination. They can tell you which exit to take to get to a particular place (to an extent). The only time they deal with money is for fare adjustments if for some reason it can't be done by the machine: in Japan if you buy a ticket for, say £1, but end up getting out at a station where it would've costed you £1.50, you just top up the difference, usually using the automated machine, but as I found out, the machine may not be able to deal with it some of the time. Some, but not all stations have ticket office which is more for trains, but there is much overlap between over and underground, buy a commuter pass, or reserve a seat - all of which can be done by machines too (I guess those are more like the ticket counters in London). In essence though, they have a pretty active job and no chance to fall asleep. Somehow, the system works pretty well too, I've never seen them deal with hoards of people waiting in a long line, but I've also never seen them so little they'd find the time to doze off.

In essence, given a wider scope of responsibilities, and emphasis on providing service (information), station staff can be helpful to have in my opinion. Regular commuters will of course have no need for them, but the fact remains that the London underground is being used by many who aren't local too.