Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Gigabit, Aug 10, 2018.
I believe it’s a bad thing cutting staff yes.
I think Dolph previously expressed, quite succinctly, the ridiculousness of a world view that maintains that reducing the amount of people employed to do a particular job (or even a totally unnecessary one) is universally a bad thing....
There's even a term in the English language for people that hold such views....
Overall your interpretation of the situation is incorrect. You are correct in saying to make a person redundant the role has to end but just because a certain role comes to an end doesn't mean you are required to make someone redundant. Most employee's are contracted under general terms and conditions rather than to a specific job, as over time the job tends to change or you could be promoted etc. That means the vast majority of employees can be re-deployed internally without consultation to undertake a different role as long as the fundamental terms and conditions remain the same (pay, hours, location etc.), in reality for most employee's failure to accept an alternative role when offered you effectively tender your resignation.
There is also a clear argument that the role isn't even coming to an end, the name is changing and some responsibility is being removed but the general duties and terms and conditions remain the same. It is effectively the same role.
Sigh, this was all over the news constantly for weeks on end. At no point has the RMT said people are losing their jobs. They are not 'getting rid of staff'.
This article sums up the issue well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38287571
There are lots of ways to save money and still keeping the same level of staff. For instance the new on board train supervisors require less training. The money is saved because you don't have to spend money on trainers or people to cover the guards to undertake the training.
Its about cuttings costs, not that doesn't have to mean 'jobs'. Southern themselves say they have more staff now on the trains than ever before and they can actually support their customers rather than having to mess around with opening and closing the doors at every station.
No one is being made redundant so the tax payer isn't having to support people being put on welfare. Likewise these are essentially tax payer funded jobs, so any savings made can be spent elsewhere like on the NHS.
At the end of the day trade unions are a good thing especially when the power they hold is used appropriately. They tend to do a good job at representing their staff and the RMT in particular has done an excellent job in securing very favourable terms and conditions for a job which requires some training but overall is not that difficult.
But on this occasion they have totally missed the mark and is nothing more than a power play for the future. There is absolutely no justified reason for this industrial action on the grounds of safety and DOO has been deemed safe by multiple objective bodies in the UK and abroad. None of their members jobs are 'at risk' and they are continuing on the same terms and conditions. They actually have more time now be available to support their customers who need it, like people with disabilities which this strike is meant to protect. The RMT have eroded a huge amount of their credibility over this issue and the majority of the public are no longer behind them, they are better off dropping it. The next time they need to exert their muscle it will be far less effective and it could mean a very important issue is not resolved in the right way.
What a ridiculous response. I didn’t realise I had to spell out exactly what I meant.
Of course cutting staff isn’t universally a bad thing. What an absurd thing to say.
Its not at all ridiculous.....
I'll refer you to my previous post.. .
I have highlighted the key word 'inherently' ... your reply to the this was
So you did not at all make it clear that you were not referring to any attempt to cut jobs..... In fact your post implied quite the opposite.
In the context of this conversation, I believed I was clear what I meant but regardless, I'm glad we're now on the same page.
We should make the trains out of cardboard then they will be cheaper to build and more environmentally friendly.
Or, if you want a suggestion that would actually work, then we should just nationalise it and fix most of the problems (just because it's the most common suggestion doesn't change the fact it's the best one).
I noticed this story today, and the video on the page.
This is embarrassing. Nobody is investing in our trains/rail network.
We need more train tracks and more trains.
I thought these public/private partnerships were being hailed as a great idea
Private companies only want to generate profits for themselves/shareholders.
They very rarely give a ****.
But competition, it's the maguffin for all sorts of neoliberal wet dreams.
Putting aside the obvious failings of Northern and Theames Link, the above three comments fail to realise that train operators operate the trains they are contracted to run. These contracts are set by the public sector.
The investment train companies have to do is wholly controlled by the contracts put in place by the public sector. That includes the number of trains, capacity of said trains.
The capacity of the network is under the control of Network Rail, a public owned enterprise, aka the public sector again.
To sum it up, general overcrowding is in the complete control of the public sector. Even if you bought back the train operating companies back in house the above scenes will still be common as most cancellations are outside the control of the train company. As is a lack of capacity assuming they are upholding their side of the contract.
HS2 is an example of the reaction when you try to invest in the railways...
I see the point you're trying to make. It is similar to the argument all formerly public owned, now privately owned, companies make, and I have sympathy with it. But if that is the case then why aren't the private companies shouting from the roof about the problem to the government, or at least making a public case to the government, because after all it is their reputation that is suffering when these problems happen.
But sadly they don't and instead just push the ticket price higher and higher and don't seem that bothered to change the status-quo, so in the end it just looks like they are passing the buck. If private companies were genuinely concerned about the problem it would be them that are pushing the issue with the government. But so far apart from the general line that "we can't do anything" they don't do anything.
I think people should consider all taking 1 day off work at the same time. I'm sure the dent in the company profits would make these private companies more active in trying to change things.
Commuter fares are regulated.... by the public sector (as are anytime tickets around major cities). The Secretary of State could stop the price rises if they want to but they would need to fund the difference somehow.
Why would the private company openly criticise the government or DfT? It's not in their interests to, any 'beef' could well mean they are not awarded the contract next time out and they don't just run extra services out of the goodness of their hearts, Network Rail/DfT (the public bit) wouldn't let them anyway. What is in their interests is to keep quiet and get on with the job until they need to bid for the contract again. Generally speaking the train companies do the job they are contracted to do.
It may shock you to believe I actually don't support pseudo 'privatisation' of the trains but for logical reasons rather than sensationalist headlines. I certainly don't agree with foreign governments setting up companies to run our trains and returning the profits back home, that goes against the principle 'privatisation'. I don't believe the private sector does a better job, some of the train companies are publicly owned just not by us.
We would get the best of both worlds if trains put into a public enterprise and:
Taken out of the hands of the politicians
Given the autonomy to make their own decisions
Given the freedom to invest as a private company would
Continued to receive the same level of government support
Re-invested 'profits' back into the railway and not delivered to shareholders.
People will say 'but British rail', well all the above is basically having the status quo as it is now but all the train companies are publicly owned rather than 'private', perhaps thin a few of them out where it makes sense. It would be even better if we could bring together local links to mimic TFL across the country where it makes sense.
*Cough* Legitimate concerns *Cough* Decades of underfunding *Cough* Northern powerhouse total sham, based in London, no surprise there *Cough*
The North gets way more spending than the South West, probably because your votes are more easily bought than ours
The problem with British rail, as with most of our nationalised industries, was that they were run on a political, not commercial basis. Its why comparing British rail to deutsch bahn is like comparing cheese to ball bearings.
get on with hs2 would be a good start but double the track nos and capacity
plan ahead to allow overheight trains to run think double decker cargo containers and get as much freight on the rails as possible.removes a lot of traffic from overcongested roads alleviating another problem at the same time.
the problem is evrything in this country on a large scale ala hs2 takes 20-25 years.
streamline this sort of process and have it 5 years start to finish. have proper interconnectivity and heavy automation for the freight side at least. imagine being able to have a train marshalled automatically containers scanned sorted and loaded onto a forward train to a final freight yard with a truck covering the last 20-50 miles. 7/8 major yards around the country and we would be sorted. and if it was ran right we could make it profitable and productive.
take the point of say Royal mail or Amazon. load a 40 foot container up by say 10pm at night full of orders and stick it on the back of a wagon run it an hour to your nearest yard or ideally you would have the big players having their RDCs and warehouses within 10 minutes of these places or even within them for easy access so say you have your container roll off your loading bay automatically into the sorting yard. scanned fired onto a train heading north south east or west within an hour or 2. 2 hours after that its at the local yard and either automatically moved over to your on site warehouse or RDC or on the back of a wagon and driven to your depot within another hour. yes it might decimate the haulage industry and cost a good few billion but freight could mainly be moved at night and those same lines used for proper passenger connectivity during the say. yes it would cost an absolute fortune but surely would pay for itself in no time at all.
maybe we can ask Jeff Bezos to look down the back of his couch and fund it?
I wasn't aware that Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, the Midlands, Yorkshire and Newcastle are in London now ^^
Indeed, it's almost as if running a private company and running a public service at competing goals /shock sadly there's no way the government could have seen that before bringing in the privatisation farce (sarcasm).
One of the biggest issues facing the railways ATM is that most politicians want to find a way to fix the problems, but without nationalising, which is an effort in futility as privatisation IS the main problem with the railways.
Separate names with a comma.