Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by EastEnder, Dec 22, 2005.
and maybe threatened with jail?
Shut up you cock.
No I don't. I regard it as diabolical liberty.
I'll ignore the playground insult.
You want strikes made illegal then?
Pray tell then what you think the tube workers should do in the current situation.
I don't agree with strikes. I'm not interested in what the tube workers want this time, they should get on with the jobs they are paid to do.
I am. Purely a fluke that I wasn't down there:
I don't agree with the sky being blue. Workers have withdrawn their labour since the beginning of class society 1000s of years ago.
You don't know how much I take that as a compliment coming from you, do you?
Good for you (I mean that by the way).
I'm sure there are issues that the workers are genuinely conerned about, but it seems to me as if a strike is called every couple of months, at great inconvenience and extra expense to the general public. I am not siding with the "bosses", I'm on the side of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives without unwillingly becoming embroiled in the latest industrial dispute. The public transport network in London provides an essential service for hundreds of thousands of people, and I think strikes should be avoided at all costs.
Talking rubbish, again. There aren't strikes "called every couple of months" as you have it. There has been only one day of London wide strike action taken since February 2003. Which kind of suggests that the RMT try to avoid strikes as far as possible, because believe it or not we don't like losing money or being inconvenienced any more than you do.
This particular dispute is of crucial importance to staff and passengers alike which is why there was such a huge vote in favour of action.
But there aren't strikes "every couple of months" are there?
Do you think the RMT workers will strike just for the fun of it, to piss people off?
There is little other option for them: LUL has stalled a whole year long on this issue and is seemingly still intransigent, wanting to implement the new rosters despite talks about whether they should be implemented.
Edit: Oh dear, Oxpecker slipped one in quicker than I could!
right so fithey should be avioded at all costs why is it down to the workers to tow the party line when conditions fail to meet required safey standards?
surely it's up to the people running the tube not to place the workers in the difficult position of having to withdraw their labour in the first place...
I think you are right in prinicpal it is the ordinary person who suffers the brunt of the problems however i think you are rather blaming the wrong side and placing the cart before the horse...
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, you cannot say the reaction is the cause of the distemper, with out acknowledging that the action precipitated it....
STFC I suggest you listen to Oxpecker because he knows what he's talking about.
I'm sure he does, and I know I'm not going to win an argument about striking on a predominantly left-wing board, but the fact remains that I am opposed to strike action and I suspect that many Londoners have little or no sympathy with the striking workers.
Oxpecker says in his earlier post "This particular dispute is of crucial importance to staff and passengers alike which is why there was such a huge vote in favour of action.". I have no reason to doubt what he says, but if it is that important why not ask the passengers what they think? Has the tube suddenly become unsafe? If so Joe Public should be made aware.
I am a passenger and I, like most of us who have bothered to inform themselves, support the strike.
What's your excuse?
There were 1,327 votes for strike action.
That seems like a fairly small percentage (aren't there about 20,000 LU employees?).
Why aren't the other unions striking too?
(sorry if this has been covered previously)
So you are in favour of passengers having a democratic input to the way public transport is run? Cool.
So we'll be able to block inflation busting fare increases, station closures, staff cuts at stations at night etc etc that are all being done in the name of profit?
You think Arriva, Stagecoach, LUL and all the rest of the operators and their politican mates are going to go along with that?
In principle I support the strike - but not on NYE. It seems ridiculous to me that they chose a time of celebration and partying to strike. It also seems dangerous when you think of all the young partyers left in various states of wastedness out in the cold.
Why don't they strike on January 3rd when businesses are going back to work? Surely that would make more of an impact.
I think this tactic fucking sucks.
Have you read all the rationale behind it? Or have you just come for a whinge?
could you provide some evidence for this being a left wing board?
The reasons for choosing NYE have already been explained at length a few pages back.
No one is going to be dangerously left out in the cold. Buses are still running for starters.
Looks like the pros as listed on the thread are that striking on NYE will seriously piss Ken Livingstone off? Sorry perhaps I should read more...
<edited because I'm too annoyed to be rational>
Just as well
In a nutshell yes.
Scab Ken has trasnport at his centrepiece.
Having the tube running on NYE is the cherry on the icing on his cake.
Ideal time then for the RMT to put him and management under preassure not to put safety at risk.
I'm tight but I'll make a bet with you now, fiver to the Urban server:
If and when the tube workers strike on a weekday, there's going to be the same bleaters and whiners and anti worker conservatives on here complaining about it.
Of course there'll be people complaining if there's a weekday strike! But I think hitting London's businesses rather than people is a lot fairer.
And in spite of the bus service I do think it's a dangerous tactic in terms of not getting people home on a particularly freezing night when they are all particularly wasted. Meanwhile Ken Livingstone and the rest of the comfortable middle aged world will be safely tucked up in bed.
Anyway this is obviously a very emotive issue for posters so I'll leave it.
Hopefully they'll get it all sorted before tomorrow and this shit will be averted.
You see, this is the sort of "scab/tory opinion" bollocks which means that stuff like this never gets a decent airing on u75, for every Arik there's probably five other posters who can't be bothered with this sort of crap....
I don't do personal spats sweetie so I'm not going to have a go at individuals and I don't think I've called you a scab or a tory.
But the last time there was a weekday strike on the tube, the arguments from the anti-strike lobby were EXACTLY the same.
Honestly, I've said it before on one of the threads but it is worth repeating:
If the tube workers struck at 1 in the afternoon there's be bleaters and moaners and anti worker conservatives saying suburban mum's couldn't get to the shops.
If the tube workers struck at 3 in the morning there's be bleaters and moaners and anti worker conservatives saying that the mice in the tunnels were starving as the trains weren't blowing dropped sandwich crusts off the platforms.
If they haven't got the courage to say what they think, fuck 'em. Who gives a toss?
It's not a precursor to a spat darling, just an observation and it may make it easier to write off all dissenting opinion the way you do, but it's not right.
I've no problem with dissenting opinion, Jesus, most of us here dissent with "the mainstream" in one way or another. It is the same ill-infomred bollocks that people are spoon fed by the media and sociaty regarding strikes that they seem compelled to regurgitate.
I think supporting strikes is one of the last taboos for "wadicals" generally.
Separate names with a comma.