Yes I agree that safety is paramount, but as we don't know exactly how Metronet is/was run we don't know whether the current staff setup is optimal for safety and performance. It may be the case that people need to be fired in some areas and hired in others, so a job promises cannot be made after administation. Surely you can understand that the TfL can't make promises before Metronet's finances and business stucture are properly analysed to see where the problem is?
Any else not feel any sympathy for the RMT/LUL staff strike?
- Thread starter Dj_Jestar
- Start date
I do agree, however, with previous changes in the railway. It's been the transition period which is poorly handled. they should guarantee nothing changes, before they've had a good look. Which will take months.
What have staff employed by LUL go to do with it? The strike is by RMT members employed by Metronet.
Acid I'm no expert I'm just seeing it from my PoV. I insist that rail is no different from a number of industries.
Of course I feel safety "may" be effected but there is no proof of this. Provide that and a lot of us will change and say "well if they are compromising safety its a different matter", me included. No one travelling on the underground or general rail services would be willing to see safety compromised.
Rail is badly managed at the moment I have no doubt of that. The transfer of the west cost main line contact from Virigin to Arriva says it all really. But you can not shut down a critical part of the UK's capital transport over this matter and over speculation on the impact of job losses.
If the infrastructure is failing that is a matter for the wach dog not your union.
IMO anyhow.
Dave,
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
The way I see it the RMT are asking for guarantees when it hasn't even been decided who is going to take over the contract and how they will run things. They have already been told that there will be no changes to employee numbers, pensions, etc. during the transitional process, but no proposal has even been put forward for who is going to take over and what the new set up will be. If they disagree with that and can prove that it will degrade safety and service, the by all means strike then, but why strike now when there is nothing that can possibly be gained.
The current RMT strike is costing the people of London time, money, stress, jobs, etc. when it can't possible achieve anything at this time. It's too long and it's at the wrong time.
I hope Bob Crow gets run over by one of the extra buses TfL have put on; I would laugh so hard.
The current RMT strike is costing the people of London time, money, stress, jobs, etc. when it can't possible achieve anything at this time. It's too long and it's at the wrong time.
I hope Bob Crow gets run over by one of the extra buses TfL have put on; I would laugh so hard.
I would agree Acidhell. Anyone know how long TfL are garanteeing the Metronet staff jobs and how long the RMT want them to be garanteed for?
It obviously seems that neither side wants to get caught out in this mess. If the TfL agree to the RMT terms then they may have to keep on staff even though they have identified the problem, costly them money. Vice versa, if RMT let TfL have their way many of the Metronet staff may lose their jobs to a TfL over reation.
Still the stike is rather long and an over reaction imho.
My 2p anyway!
It obviously seems that neither side wants to get caught out in this mess. If the TfL agree to the RMT terms then they may have to keep on staff even though they have identified the problem, costly them money. Vice versa, if RMT let TfL have their way many of the Metronet staff may lose their jobs to a TfL over reation.
Still the stike is rather long and an over reaction imho.
My 2p anyway!
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
During the transition from Metronet to the new organisation
So why not wait until there is actually something to strike about, rather than just have one to rattle the sabre?
I can guarantee if t
here are significant job losses and trains run as normall, there will be a compromise of safety.
I agree, but again thats down to goverment for the most part and top dogs wanting there bonuses.
The union often steps in well before the watch dog. The watch dog, only comes out when an accident has happen, where the union sees a potential problem and trys to solve it.
Again I respect your comments Acid. You, me, Joe blogs etc cannot comment on rail maintinance in the future IMO irrespective if whether you work in the industry or not.
The government should and will act on this. But IMO not to keep your jobs or renationalise rail. That time is over. We de-nationalised for good reason, but the management of regional contracts and this "main line" idea has failed I agree. National Rail as it is today needs an overhaul just like our dated physical rail network.
Unions should never cipple critical national infrastrture whether they are ***ed at the governement or not. If the RMT continue with this strike action the outcome will not be a positive one.
I'm following this from as I'm intersted to see what the government will do to the RMT.
If the RMT get past a 4th strike the GOVT will ban the RMT from striking.
Davem
My understanding is that they already have that guarantee, but are now demanding the same for post-administration. That is the part I have trouble with - it just can't happen.
Possibly, depending on what agreements have been made tonight as the strike has been called off.
I would sack the lot of them. Its not like its skilled labour. A few days training, if that, and you'd replace the lot of them.
Unions hold too much power thanks to the soddin labour party. Sadly I can't see another strong prime minister on the horizon to do something about it.
Unions hold too much power thanks to the soddin labour party. Sadly I can't see another strong prime minister on the horizon to do something about it.
I can assure you, it takes a lot more than 'a few days' to train and licence the various grades of signal, track and train engineers that are employed by Metronet.
But don't worry, your crappy opinion doesn't matter anyway.
and neither does yours.I can assure you, it takes a lot more than 'a few days' to train and licence the various grades of signal, track and train engineers that are employed by Metronet.
But don't worry, your crappy opinion doesn't matter anyway.
Thatcher had to break the unions 30 years ago because the labour government allowed them to get too strong. We are in the same situation now, and its getting worse and worse.
'Driving' a train is not a skilled job. I dont care what licenses you have to get to do it, its not brain surgery.
Ok, the engineers are skilled and will take time to replace. But there are always people willing to learn and work.
Last edited:
Not forgetting, of course, that I would imagine most of those striking would suddenly change their mind if they were told "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else, you're fired"...
Demanding full guarantees from administration is the height of stupidity...
Demanding full guarantees from administration is the height of stupidity...
My opinion obviously does matter, maybe not to you, but it does to the RMT.
And what has driving a train got to do with anything? Drivers weren't the ones who were striking. Besides, training to become a Train Operator takes longer than you think too. You have a very narrow minded view if you think that anyone who works on the Underground system is just given an important job without any prior training.
There are always people willing to learn and work yes, so why aren't they working for LU/Metronet/Tubelines then? There are plenty of vacancies to apply for. Maybe its because most people don't fancy working unsociable hours, down a hot, dirty tube tunnel or sitting on the front of a train underground all day.
So they fire them all, and then find they have no Underground service for months due to unavailability of staff to carry out the work.
So the internal staff should suffer because a company they were unwillingly transferred over to at the start of PPP, goes bust due to spending too much on external contractors to modernise the stations, and they're the ones who have to accept losses to their pensions and job cuts. The shareholders should be accountable for it, but they're just allowed to walk away and write off their losses. So what happens to the people who have had their pension payments stopped, or the £50m defecit in the pension fund that Metronet and its shareholders never paid into. So after administration, when Metronet is dissolved, who now pays that defecit?
Many staff never had the choice of what company they transferred over to, but now they have to take a beating and face job cuts over something out of their control.