RMT bullies tube users into another pay rise.......

[teuchter]

LU assessed the situation, and determined that they didn't want to replace the entire workforce, so they paid up.

Simple, really.

But where is that bullying?

They can't replace the entire workforce - it's not a realistic option.

Just like if someone points a gun at my head and asks for my wallet, I don't really have the option of saying no, do I?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Firstly, I'm not entirely anti trade union. I can see they have an important function in sticking up for the interests of those who can't do so by themselves. But I do feel that they have a tendency to abuse the power that they inevitably have. Just like some private companies do. My view is that they have been overly greedy in the case of the tube negotiations, and in fact it's this kind of thing that makes some people anti-union.

Secondly I don't know why you feel I don't understand what a trade union is or does. It's a pretty simple concept and I think I've just about got my head around it, thanks.

Because you keep saying things like this, which completely misses the fact that trade unions are a collectivism of the workers.

Why have they been "greedy" asking for a pay rise, at less than inflation, in order to acknowledge changes in their working practices?

 

[Blagsta]

I'm still wondering how threatening to strike is like terrorism, yet the power to sack someone isn't.

 

[Guineveretoo]

They can't replace the entire workforce - it's not a realistic option.

Just like if someone points a gun at my head and asks for my wallet, I don't really have the option of saying no, do I?

So, do you acknowledge and understand that the role of the trade union is to conduct negotiations on behalf of the whole workforce, rather than, to use your analogy, having several thousand people pointing guns at the heads of the employer?

Trade unions are not just about people who are unable to speak up for themselves. In fact, they are those very people. They are given strength through collective action, and management get an easier life because they only have to negotiate with one set of people, and not several thousand, all of whom may have different demands, and some may be more successful than others at negotiating a pay rise, or just be mates with the managers, so get more money.

I really don't get why you are using emotive words like "greedy", and "bullying", and you haven't given any examples of why you think it is "greed" to negotiate a pay rise, nor how that makes the tube drivers into "bullies".

 

[teuchter]

You only ever seem to aim your ire at the workers. If you do have a problem with it, why not post about it?

Mainly because there's not really a shortage of posts aiming their ire at evil capitalists, etc etc, is there?

IIRC, you said that you didn't actually know anything about it, but if management agreed he was worth paying millions to, then he probably was...or words to that effect. Feel free to correct me if I've misremembered.

The relevant comments are here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=192728&page=3&highlight=east+london+line

My point stands that it's not relevant to the main discussion about whether or not the tube drivers are being overpaid.

And my writing this post now means you are successfully diverting us away from that discussion .....

 

[teuchter]

Because you keep saying things like this, which completely misses the fact that trade unions are a collectivism of the workers.

Things like what?

Of course a trade union is a collectivisation of the workers.

Why have they been "greedy" asking for a pay rise, at less than inflation, in order to acknowledge changes in their working practices?

The pay deal secures them a rise above inflation every year over three years. Not a huge rise, I will grant you. It is more the position they have negotiated themselves to so far that I have a problem with. And the fact that despite the fact that they've negotiated themselves into a very good position, they seem to keep asking for more and more, and being awkward about any kind of change (in this case a pretty minor one) that might actually make London a better place to live for everyone.

 

[teuchter]

I'm still wondering how threatening to strike is like terrorism, yet the power to sack someone isn't.

By striking, the tube drivers remove Londoners' ability to carry out their daily business. The only recourse is to give in to their demands.

If you are threatened with the sack, you have several options - either you comply with your employer's demands, or you walk, and find an employer (amongst many) whose demands are acceptable to you. So you have more than one choice.

I know that in practice, it's not always as simple as that. Which is why we have all sorts of employment rights, the benefit system, and so forth.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Things like what?

Of course a trade union is a collectivisation of the workers.



The pay deal secures them a rise above inflation every year over three years. Not a huge rise, I will grant you. It is more the position they have negotiated themselves to so far that I have a problem with. And the fact that despite the fact that they've negotiated themselves into a very good position, they seem to keep asking for more and more, and being awkward about any kind of change (in this case a pretty minor one) that might actually make London a better place to live for everyone.

No it doesn't!

 

[Guineveretoo]

By striking, the tube drivers remove Londoners' ability to carry out their daily business. The only recourse is to give in to their demands.

If you are threatened with the sack, you have several options - either you comply with your employer's demands, or you walk, and find an employer (amongst many) whose demands are acceptable to you. So you have more than one choice.

I know that in practice, it's not always as simple as that. Which is why we have all sorts of employment rights, the benefit system, and so forth.

Ah, so you are not against trade unions, so long as they don't use the only power they do have, to take legal industrial action, but cave in to all the demands of the employer?

 

[magneze]

@teuchter
If the tube drivers were just striking because they felt like it then you might have some kind of case. But their working hours are being made worse - only the most feeble minded wouldn't ask for pay adjustment.

 

[teuchter]

So, do you acknowledge and understand that the role of the trade union is to conduct negotiations on behalf of the whole workforce, rather than, to use your analogy, having several thousand people pointing guns at the heads of the employer?

Yes, I acknowledge and understand that this is their role. But in certain situations, such as the tube pay deal situations, I feel that this role is abused, and, effectively, they are pointing a gun at the head of the employer. By conducting negotiations collectively they are removing any competition from the employment market. It's a kind of monopoly. Like I've said, if it's a private company they are restrained to some extent from pushing things too far by the fact that if they do, the company will simply go bust. But in the case of London undergound, they know that they can keep on pushing because LU can't be allowed to go bust ... just keep on swallowing up more and more public money.

I really don't get why you are using emotive words like "greedy", and "bullying", and you haven't given any examples of why you think it is "greed" to negotiate a pay rise, nor how that makes the tube drivers into "bullies".

Simply because I feel that the RMT, with regard to tube drivers' pay, have abused their power. And bullying I see as abuse of power, greed as demanding significantly more than the free market would provide and more than most people doing comparable jobs get.

I don't have a problem per se with unions negotiating on their members' behalf. It is this specific situation that I am objecting to.

 

[Oxpecker]

Just a few points:

Tube drivers were not threatening to strike over wages. We accepted the 4% as a reasonable offer almost a year ago (this wage rise was due on April 1st 2006.)

Compensation for later running was also virtually agreed - not more money but an extra 3 days off in lieu in year 2 of a 3 year wage deal.

The dispute was over the insistence that we work later hours at weekends without resolving health and safety issues, and without LUL providing adequate means of getting (often vulnerable) staff home at 2 in the morning.

Tube drivers used to be the best paid drivers in the country, since the privatisation of the mainline we have now slipped down to 11th or 14th (according to which figures you believe.) So the private sector is actually paying drivers more than the public sector, please note teuchter.

LUL embarked on a policy of directly recruiting drivers from adverts in general magazines; each driver took close on a year to train and 90% had left within a couple of years of signing up. It isn't that great a job.

I believe nurses and firefighters should get paid as much if not more than me, and I would happily go on strike to secure this by bullying the government - unfortunately legislation forbids this secondary action. So those workers in the caring professions who have been at the mercy of considerate employers end up getting shafted, and I suspect people like teuchter are complicit in that appalling situation.

 

[teuchter]

Just a few points:

Tube drivers were not threatening to strike over wages. We accepted the 4% as a reasonable offer almost a year ago (this wage rise was due on April 1st 2006.)

Compensation for later running was also virtually agreed - not more money but an extra 3 days off in lieu in year 2 of a 3 year wage deal.

The dispute was over the insistence that we work later hours at weekends without resolving health and safety issues, and without LUL providing adequate means of getting (often vulnerable) staff home at 2 in the morning.

What exactly were the health and safety issues, and is getting home at 2 in the morning significantly more difficult than getting home at 1 in the morning? I do ask out of genuine interest to understand your point of view, by the way.

The thing is that many of us do get a bit suspicious when unions start talking about "health and safety issues" or whatever, because there is always the feeling that this is being used as a more media-friendly cover to what the argument is really over, which is pay or hours. Of course I may be misled in my suspicions here, which is why I would be interested to hear some more detail.

Tube drivers used to be the best paid drivers in the country, since the privatisation of the mainline we have now slipped down to 11th or 14th (according to which figures you believe.) So the private sector is actually paying drivers more than the public sector, please note teuchter.

Again I would be interested to see those figures in detail if you could point me in the right direction. Your point about the public/private sector is noted but I'm not sure if it's all that relevant as the mainline railways are still a public service that the country relies on, so most of my arguments about negotiations with LU would apply to the mainline rail companies too. Those companies are also subsidised by public money.

LUL embarked on a policy of directly recruiting drivers from adverts in general magazines; each driver took close on a year to train and 90% had left within a couple of years of signing up. It isn't that great a job.

Would be interested to see the source and context of this claim.

I believe nurses and firefighters should get paid as much if not more than me, and I would happily go on strike to secure this by bullying the government - unfortunately legislation forbids this secondary action. So those workers in the caring professions who have been at the mercy of considerate employers end up getting shafted, and I suspect people like teuchter are complicit in that appalling situation.

I'm not sure how "people like me" are complicit in this. I am fully in support of better funding for the NHS. I would like to see some of the money going to overpaid tube drivers going to fund better health care in London instead.

 

[Oxpecker]

What exactly were the health and safety issues, and is getting home at 2 in the morning significantly more difficult than getting home at 1 in the morning? I do ask out of genuine interest to understand your point of view, by the way.

LUL provide a "taxi" service for members of staff starting before and finishing after the scheduled tube services. Although operated by cabs it's a timetabled "bus" service from station to station along the length of the lines. Currently the system allows for interchange points at certain stations. We wanted to amend the times to allow for later running, LUL were unwilling to do this. It would have meant staff members, many of whom are female, either having to walk long distances or wait for long periods in unsafe areas. LUL suggested we use bikes or buses instead. I've been on a night bus in my uniform full of drunks - trust me it isn't a pleasant experience, and I'm an old geezer.


Again I would be interested to see those figures in detail if you could point me in the right direction. Your point about the public/private sector is noted but I'm not sure if it's all that relevant as the mainline railways are still a public service that the country relies on, so most of my arguments about negotiations with LU would apply to the mainline rail companies too. Those companies are also subsidised by public money.

If I can dig them out I will, though they may not be on-line. They were certainly not disputed by LUL during negotiations.


Would be interested to see the source and context of this claim.

Again, if I can find the figures I'll let you know. I understand your scepticism, the figures were extraordinary; suffice to say that LUL no longer recruit drivers from outside. They recruit station assistants (cheaper and quicker to train) who, once they have some railway experience and are used to the environment and the shift work, are given the opportunity to become drivers.


I'm not sure how "people like me" are complicit in this. I am fully in support of better funding for the NHS. I would like to see some of the money going to overpaid tube drivers going to fund better health care in London instead.

I say you're likely to be complicit in the system because I'm damned sure if the nurses suddenly abandoned their custom of not striking in pursuit of a living wage you'd be the first to condemn them for "bullying tactics". Not that I know you or owt, but you strike me as the sort of person who opposes unfair practices only as long as you are not inconvenienced in any way by doing so.

ox

 

[magneze]

By conducting negotiations collectively they are removing any competition from the employment market.

What a bizarre statement. What is the realistic alternative?

 

[teuchter]

Oxpecker, thank you for your reply and if you are able to provide further information I will be interested to look at it.

I'm sure you will understand that much of what I have said is to some extent in the role of devil's advocate and I am genuinely interested to hear the other side of the argument and adjust my opinions accordingly.

It seems difficult to find definitive information regarding what the pay deals actually involve which makes it difficult to argue beyond the level of general principles. Is there any kind of record kept of the negotiations between the unions and LUL?

 

[teuchter]

originally Posted by teuchter
By conducting negotiations collectively they are removing any competition from the employment market.

What a bizarre statement. What is the realistic alternative?

I don't see why it is bizzare.

The alternative is the situation that applies to those of us who work in non-unionised trades or professions. Pay levels are set by a competitive market - employers are encouraged to keep pay at a good enough level to attract people to the jobs they want done. If the pay isn't good enough, the workforce drifts elsewhere.

 

[marty21]

fair play to the union for getting a good deal for their members

i'd say they earn their money...

 

[The Sick Anchor]

Well, it seems like we are finally going to get our "late-night" (well, 1am) weekend tubes.

But only at the cost of yet another pay rise. This time 4%.

I'm not sure if I'm a bit annoyed about Ken giving in to them. Maybe he didn't really have much choice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6405509.stm

fuck off

 

[Isambard]

I suspect Teuchter might be trying to piss up a rope here.

 

[Blagsta]

Mainly because there's not really a shortage of posts aiming their ire at evil capitalists, etc etc, is there?



The relevant comments are here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=192728&page=3&highlight=east+london+line

My point stands that it's not relevant to the main discussion about whether or not the tube drivers are being overpaid.

And my writing this post now means you are successfully diverting us away from that discussion .....

I'm wondering why you think its not relevant? Given the money comes out of the public purse?

 

[teuchter]

I'm wondering why you think its not relevant? Given the money comes out of the public purse?

All I'm saying is that two wrongs don't make a right.

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that Bob Kiley is/was overpaid.

Does it therefore logically follow that all other employees of TFL should be overpaid?

Or, to reverse the argument, if Bob Kiley was underpaid, would you therefore accept that it would be fine to underpay all tube drivers?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

By conducting negotiations collectively they are removing any competition from the employment market.

What's so good about the market?

Even a dedicated free market economist would have to admit that in the case of the London Underground there is a monopsony purchaser of labour. In which case you get a distorted labour market and not the 'efficient' one that some believe the market should provide. That's pretty basic economics really.

 

[Maggot]

4% - Greedy - LOL!

 

[teuchter]

What's so good about the market?

Even a dedicated free market economist would have to admit that in the case of the London Underground there is a monopsony purchaser of labour. In which case you get a distorted labour market and not the 'efficient' one that some believe the market should provide. That's pretty basic economics really.

Agreed that there is no-one "competing" with LU by offering exactly the same job. However, prospective tube employees do have the option of working as bus drivers, overground rail drivers, or any other job with a similar skill level for that matter.

 

[teuchter]

4% - Greedy - LOL!

It's not a huge amount.

But my objection is in the context of (my opinion) that they are already overpaid and have been obstructive in the face of a proposal (later running tubes) that would make life better for most Londoners.

 

[Isambard]

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that Bob Kiley is/was overpaid.

Does it therefore logically follow that all other employees of TFL should be overpaid?

You are looking to find a logical correlaton that doesn't exist.
Bob Kiley is overpaid. Tube drivers aren't.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Agreed that there is no-one "competing" with LU by offering exactly the same job. However, prospective tube employees do have the option of working as bus drivers, overground rail drivers, or any other job with a similar skill level for that matter.

Who's talking about prospective employees?

This isn't a case where the market could feasibly produce a fair (or 'efficient' outcome) so I'll ask you again - what's so good about the market in this case?

 

[The Sick Anchor]

It's not a huge amount.

But my objection is in the context of (my opinion) that they are already overpaid and have been obstructive in the face of a proposal (later running tubes) that would make life better for most Londoners.

why would it make life better for most londoners?

and if this would do as you said, then surely the people who would go about 'making life better for most londoners' should be adequately & appropriately compensated for doing so and adequate protection for them put in place to deal with the types of people who will be using the tubes past midnight anyway

i don't see why you just expect people to make life better for you but moan at the prospect of them being compensated for doing so

 

[teuchter]

Who's talking about prospective employees?

This isn't a case where the market could feasibly produce a fair (or 'efficient' outcome) so I'll ask you again - what's so good about the market in this case?

I reckon the market would result in a lower wage for tube drivers. Hence lower wage bill for LU. Hence more money to be spent elsewhere.

What do you reckon the market would produce and what would be so bad about it?