Tube Strike -- 9th-11th

sunama · 11 Jun 2009 at 16:21

-Ad- said:
I work in the sector anyway and have a totally different career and path to follow. I still stand by the fact that being a tube driver is good work if you can get it. Exciting? No, but after speaking to a number of drivers they don't think it is as bad as certain people make out

Myself, I would never complain as to why other professions get paid £X. The way I see it - if I'm envious of the amount of money being earned by a particular profession, then I can either join them or shut up. I would never complain about a certain person earning a certain amount.

Stev · 11 Jun 2009 at 16:25

PikeyPriest said:
Thanks for pointing that out! I was wondering where these ethanol containing beverages were coming from! How is it any different to armed response police/pilots...etc who reguarly take these tests? It's not rocket science. You pee in a damn cup! You don't drink too heavily, take medications which stop you from functioning to do your job (which you should be looking out for if you work with heavy machinery or anything remotely dangerous) and not taking any recreational drugs. It's not exactly a skill.

Neurofen plus is a banned substance on LUL sites, as is most cough medicines and also some inhalers and allergy tablets, its actually very hard to keep clear of banned substances if you have a cold.

Jeff Lynne · 11 Jun 2009 at 17:28

Dolph said:
I agree, I would like to see liability for strikes requiring compensation for those external to the issue who incur costs. I'd be quite happy for a court to evaluate the evidence and determine liability between the employer and union based on the reasonableness of their demands/changes.

Sue TFL, it's their trains that aren't running.

rypt · 11 Jun 2009 at 17:29

Stev said:
Neurofen plus is a banned substance on LUL sites, as is most cough medicines and also some inhalers and allergy tablets, its actually very hard to keep clear of banned substances if you have a cold.

How likely are you to get ****ed on Neurofen?

growse · 11 Jun 2009 at 17:33

Jeff Lynne said:
Sue TFL, it's their trains that aren't running.

I think we should put blame where blame lies.

No more idiotic unions = no more strikes = no more ****ed of hard-working Londoners.

PikeyPriest · 11 Jun 2009 at 17:54

Stev said:
Neurofen plus is a banned substance on LUL sites, as is most cough medicines and also some inhalers and allergy tablets, its actually very hard to keep clear of banned substances if you have a cold.

Possibly because they don't want people taking anything containing codeine (which plus has, but other types of neurofen don't). Codeine won't help with a cold either though. Not sure what inhalers would be banned, but allergy tablets are again likely to be those that can make you drowsy. Though as you can't test for a load of these things it would be interesting to see how they could enforce this

eXor · 11 Jun 2009 at 17:54

sunama said:
London certainly NEEDS the tube. Without it, London almost comes to a standstill.

I was in London yesterday. Took the 0515 hrs coach, got there on time. Didn't fancy going on an unfamiliar tube during rush hour and the buses were pretty full. So, decided to trek from Victoria coach station to Oxford Street... and back. :eek:

The 1330 hrs coach back was delayed by 10 minutes, "due to the strikes". It was a bit slow getting out of London, but not to bad.

Is it just me or are those coach seats really bad? No lumbar support. I think I'll try a train, next time.

After that marathon, I was in bed by 1930 hrs... and stayed there for the next 14 hours.

Dolph · 11 Jun 2009 at 18:19

I didn't say who should be held liable, I said liability should be determined by the courts based on a full assessment of both sides demands...

its not me being biased here...

Hen_Dawg · 11 Jun 2009 at 18:42

Hen_Dawg said:
This really sucks, I'm travelling up from below Guildford to take a friend to Wembley for England-Andorra for his birthday. Getting back to Waterloo for the last train could prove very hard meaning we're stranded up there!

I know this strike will be worse for some of you needing to get to work but still, argh!

There are other ways to bring about discussion on pay and conditions than punish millions of people.

Well we made it to Wembley for the footy thanks to the Jubilee line running, what a blessing it was. Return journey was bit worse as they terminated the service half way to Waterloo so we had to get on the following one. But still, so glad they managed to keep that running.

Still fuming mad at how they could do this sort of disruption and economic damage :mad:

Rich_L · 11 Jun 2009 at 18:44

Dolph said:
I didn't say who should be held liable, I said liability should be determined by the courts based on a full assessment of both sides demands...

its not me being biased here...

Surely an easier way would be for both sides to submit to a binding arbitration on the agreement in the first place, if you're going down the legal route

Ekim · 11 Jun 2009 at 18:59

Wouldn't it better rather than striking and making it a nightmare for your average Londoner just open up the gates so that everyone travels for free. It would hit their bosses harder as everyone would be traveling for free?

muon · 11 Jun 2009 at 19:03

Dolph said:
I didn't say who should be held liable, I said liability should be determined by the courts based on a full assessment of both sides demands...

its not me being biased here...

We should be able to sue TFL in reality. Then they would either give in (unfortunate, but if a few percent wage rise is less than the millions in damage caused by the closure, it may be a better option). In addition, they might have contingency plans where they would start replacing striking workers.

Its the power of the private sector. I'd like to see city workers start striking.

Also something that is absurd is that, they want a pay rise AND no forced redundancies. They can't both happen.

muon · 11 Jun 2009 at 19:04

Ekim said:
Wouldn't it better rather than striking and making it a nightmare for your average Londoner just open up the gates so that everyone travels for free. It would hit their bosses harder as everyone would be traveling for free?

Well they could be fired if they did that. Since thats encouraging criminal behaviour.

Chronictank · 11 Jun 2009 at 20:32

today wasn't so bad, assumably more drivers came in to work as there was at least a part-service on most major lines

I took a train to baker-street and plodded along the rest of the way, trek through regents park made it a fair bit more pleasant if i am honest..
I thought it was a bit out of order being charged full price for the ticket though

Dolph · 11 Jun 2009 at 22:48

Rich_L said:
Surely an easier way would be for both sides to submit to a binding arbitration on the agreement in the first place, if you're going down the legal route

Binding arbitration and removal of right to strike works for me... I'm guessing that's not what you meant though.

ghost101 said:
We should be able to sue TFL in reality. Then they would either give in (unfortunate, but if a few percent wage rise is less than the millions in damage caused by the closure, it may be a better option). In addition, they might have contingency plans where they would start replacing striking workers.

Its the power of the private sector. I'd like to see city workers start striking.

Also something that is absurd is that, they want a pay rise AND no forced redundancies. They can't both happen.

The union should not be able to inflict unwarranted financial damage on TfL in that way. if there is liability, it must have the potential to apply to both sides. If the union is acting unreasonably in calling a strike, they should be liable for the damages, not TfL. Likewise if TfL are acting unreasonably, they should be liable for the damages.

As for replacing striking workers, see Jeff Lynne's attitude to see why that idea isn't workable. Unionism has a history of violence when things like that are attempted.

fullspizz · 12 Jun 2009 at 11:45

Jeff Lynne said:
Sue TFL, it's their trains that aren't running.

Class, there was a reason that the trains were not running in case you forgot.
TFL wanted the train service to run, it was the unions that didn't.
If the public could sue TFL for lack of service, then TFL should be able to sue the RMT for withdrawal of labour. was it written into their contracts that they should get a 5% pay rise this year? If not then they should be pretty happy with what they were offered. I am not getting a pay rise this year and a few of my friends are either out of work or on a short week.
I'm glad that TFL didn't back down although it caused me a few issues and a majority of the people I spoke to felt the same.
Taxi drivers were loving it though

Still, I bet the RMT members are glad, no pay for 48hrs and didn't get what they wanted anyway!

sunama · 12 Jun 2009 at 13:22

fullspizz said:
I'm glad that TFL didn't back down although it caused me a few issues and a majority of the people I spoke to felt the same.
Taxi drivers were loving it though

What makes you think that TFL won't back down?

Normally, what happens is that the RMT and TfL will meet halfway. The strike was uncalled for I think and 48hrs is too long.

Oh, and coming back today on my motorbike, the traffic was A LOT more fluid. Yesterday was horrendous where I felt I had moved forward about 100m in the space of 30 mins. Today, none of that happened.

The best method of striking would be to do 24hr strikes, once per week, until a deal is sorted. 48hrs is far too long and I dont think sends the message any louder than a 24hr strike.

A series of 24hr strikes will allow management to calculate whether or not its worth giving into the demands or not.

Jeff Lynne · 12 Jun 2009 at 13:30

We did 48 hour strikes the last time we went out, it was horrendous when we got back to work!

Dolph, whats wrong with my attitude towards replacing striking workers? You think bussing in people across picket lines is ok do you? These people are only trying to protect their livelyhoods, but at the end of the day this is the real world and if one man loses his job to his mate while he's on strike do you still expect them to be mates afterwards?

There are far too many niave people with limited experience of the workplace here.

sunama · 12 Jun 2009 at 13:49

Jeff Lynne said:
We did 48 hour strikes the last time we went out, it was horrendous when we got back to work!

In what way was it horrendous?

Dolph · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:14

Jeff Lynne said:
We did 48 hour strikes the last time we went out, it was horrendous when we got back to work!

Dolph, whats wrong with my attitude towards replacing striking workers? You think bussing in people across picket lines is ok do you? These people are only trying to protect their livelyhoods, but at the end of the day this is the real world and if one man loses his job to his mate while he's on strike do you still expect them to be mates afterwards?

It was in response to someone saying TfL should have a plan to replace striking workers and minimise the effects of a strike. I simply pointed out that some people find that unacceptable, and that indeed is has been the cause of union led violence at pickets in the past.

What is wrong with people willing to work at the terms offered? (I think we already had this discussion to be honest).

There are far too many niave people with limited experience of the workplace here.

I have plenty of experience of the workplace, that's why I know the RMT's attitude is disgusting...