Some tube strikes, just for a change.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You said:
I asked:
You asked:
I clarified:
You then asked:
I suggested you look up the meaning of "similar"; it would seem you didn't because you then said:
Given that we are talking about the "mini-market not far from where you live", I necessarily don't know what the exact responsibilities of the employees therein are. In any case it is not relevant. When I say "similar positions" I mean just that: positions with similar responsibilities to those of the ones in your mini-market. I'm not sure what you find difficult about that. But to clarify:
Example (a):
If an empoyee's responsibilities at your mini market are:
Serving customers at the till, restacking shelves, organising the stockroom, ordering supplies.
Then a similar position's responsibilities would be:
Serving customers at the till, restacking shelves, organising the stockroom, ordering supplies.
Example (b):
If an empoyee's responsibilities at your mini market are:
Cleaning the floor, replacing lightbulbs, delivering pizzas, writing the accounts, being available for television interviews.
Then a similar position's responsibilities would be:
Cleaning the floor, replacing lightbulbs, delivering pizzas, writing the accounts, being available for television interviews.
Can you see a pattern?
Now would you like to try answering the original question?
I asked:
You asked:
I clarified:
You then asked:
I suggested you look up the meaning of "similar"; it would seem you didn't because you then said:
Given that we are talking about the "mini-market not far from where you live", I necessarily don't know what the exact responsibilities of the employees therein are. In any case it is not relevant. When I say "similar positions" I mean just that: positions with similar responsibilities to those of the ones in your mini-market. I'm not sure what you find difficult about that. But to clarify:
Example (a):
If an empoyee's responsibilities at your mini market are:
Serving customers at the till, restacking shelves, organising the stockroom, ordering supplies.
Then a similar position's responsibilities would be:
Serving customers at the till, restacking shelves, organising the stockroom, ordering supplies.
Example (b):
If an empoyee's responsibilities at your mini market are:
Cleaning the floor, replacing lightbulbs, delivering pizzas, writing the accounts, being available for television interviews.
Then a similar position's responsibilities would be:
Cleaning the floor, replacing lightbulbs, delivering pizzas, writing the accounts, being available for television interviews.
Can you see a pattern?
Now would you like to try answering the original question?
Rant? Moi? 
A lot of people live on salaries of less than 30K in London obviously.
But a 30K salary isn't THAT brilliant if you live somewhere expensive like London.
It's not a million miles from my equivilent salary and yes, I have a fairly high disposable income. Go to the pub, holidays abroad, can eat out reguarly etc.
But that's becasue I have no children, don't need to run a car and am happy enough with my one room in a fairly cheap flatshare. For my colleagues who need a car to get to work, need a house and have a family to support it is a different story entirely.
A lot of people live on salaries of less than 30K in London obviously.
But a 30K salary isn't THAT brilliant if you live somewhere expensive like London.
It's not a million miles from my equivilent salary and yes, I have a fairly high disposable income. Go to the pub, holidays abroad, can eat out reguarly etc.
But that's becasue I have no children, don't need to run a car and am happy enough with my one room in a fairly cheap flatshare. For my colleagues who need a car to get to work, need a house and have a family to support it is a different story entirely.
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
The responsibilities of a mini-market employee are not comparable to those of a tube train driver, in my humble opinion.
Give me a link to your original 'question', dear; and, I'll judge whether or not you actually asked a question, or simply threw a few random words at me.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You don't say.
I never said they were.
For the third time, my question:
(With relevance to your mini-market employees. The issue being whether their membership of a union allows them the same power as does a tube worker's membership of a union. Please read the whole thread again if you've lost the train of discussion.)
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Time will tell, sweety.
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Yeh, how selfish of trade unionists to want to protect the safety of their members and the travelling public. How selfless of management to want to protect the interests of their companies (for this read profits) at the expense of their workforce and the travelling public.
What is the "going market rate" ?
Surely what the market decides, supply and demand.
And if tube drivers don't get the price they want and thus don't bring their goods to the market, then they are simply playing by the market rules?
The pay level at which they bring their goods ie labour to the market thus IS the market rate.
What is interesting is the argument that has been raised time and time again by the people who spent X years in further and higher education and can't get a job / pay rise or is in a lower paying job than striking transport workers. The EXACT same argument came up on a thread I was on about a strike on the Berlin Underground recently.
On the one hand people moan about promotion or pay based on length of service, "Spanish practices" etc etc. But at the same time there is a sense of entitlement to higher pay based simply on the fact that they have studied.
What has happened over the last 20-30 odd year or so is a massive expansion of further and higher education in western industrialised societies.
But after the time and expense involved there aren't any guarantees of a mega paying job and career that were held out to us.
What the system needed / needs is a well educated workforce.
Some people might wear a shirt and tie and pretend we are all middle class now but you are still a worker, working for a wage.
And people who (probably justifiably) feel they haven't got what they deserve or worked for are easily pushed (particuarly when atomised) to argue against those who do more obviously proletarian work when they try and defend their pay and conditions.
Divide and rule innit.
Surely what the market decides, supply and demand.
And if tube drivers don't get the price they want and thus don't bring their goods to the market, then they are simply playing by the market rules?
The pay level at which they bring their goods ie labour to the market thus IS the market rate.
What is interesting is the argument that has been raised time and time again by the people who spent X years in further and higher education and can't get a job / pay rise or is in a lower paying job than striking transport workers. The EXACT same argument came up on a thread I was on about a strike on the Berlin Underground recently.
On the one hand people moan about promotion or pay based on length of service, "Spanish practices" etc etc. But at the same time there is a sense of entitlement to higher pay based simply on the fact that they have studied.
What has happened over the last 20-30 odd year or so is a massive expansion of further and higher education in western industrialised societies.
But after the time and expense involved there aren't any guarantees of a mega paying job and career that were held out to us.
What the system needed / needs is a well educated workforce.
Some people might wear a shirt and tie and pretend we are all middle class now but you are still a worker, working for a wage.
And people who (probably justifiably) feel they haven't got what they deserve or worked for are easily pushed (particuarly when atomised) to argue against those who do more obviously proletarian work when they try and defend their pay and conditions.
Divide and rule innit.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
What I would need to make my mind up about the strike is to see what LUL are intending to do with the cost savings of what they are proposing. The safety argument isn't very convincing at the moment, but if they are bringing in these measures just to sit on more money, then it's probably fair enough.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Time will tell what?
That you can't be bothered trying to answer my question after making such a big fuss about it?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What is the "going market rate" ?
Surely what the market decides, supply and demand.
And if tube drivers don't get the price they want and thus don't bring their goods to the market, then they are simply playing by the market rules?
The pay level at which they bring their goods ie labour to the market thus IS the market rate.
Yes, you could say it's the market rate, albeit one that has been distorted by the unions' actions in the same way that any market can be distorted by cartels, loss leaders or whatever else.
And the unions can only take that action because the law/state supports them in doing so. It's not an action that would be likely to suceed in a truly free market, of course. (Not that I'm saying a truly free market would necessarily be a good thing by the way.)
Although I kind of know what you're saying, I don't think you can apply this to everyone who raises questions about the actions of the RMT or others.
I certainly don't consider that I am "entitled" to higher pay just because I have studied. I studied what I did because I reckoned it would allow me to do the work that I wanted to do. I did so in the full knowledge that if it was just a higher wage packet I was after, I would have been better off doing something else, possibly not involving higher education at all. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that applies to.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What exactly do you mean by "sit on" more money?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So: on Friday they announced they were going to strike again, just before the Mayoral elections, and now it's off again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3785383.ece
Isn't this getting a bit silly now?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3785383.ece
Isn't this getting a bit silly now?
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
No, not really. They're doing it to wind you up, mook.
It's getting extremely silly. The management teams at TfL and LUL are so obdurate and short sighted they refuse to consider any reasonable requests from their employees unless it's accompanied by a strike threat. Dinosaurs the lot of them.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What was this latest strike/not strike about? Was it about the same issues as before, or something else?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It seems ridiculous that it is necessary to threaten a strike simply to have something confirmed in writing.
Who knows whether it's KL, TfL, the unions, or the lot of them to blame. There doesn't seem to be any way for an outsider to judge who it is that's being unreasonable.
Who knows whether it's KL, TfL, the unions, or the lot of them to blame. There doesn't seem to be any way for an outsider to judge who it is that's being unreasonable.
You're right, it does seem ridiculous; however, past experience shows that if it isn't in writing it isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. The RMT had been asking for written confirmation for a few weeks; old cynics that we are, we assumed KL may have been waiting 'til after the mayoral election before telling us to fuck off. Hence the announcement of strike dates before polling day 
It's a mucky job but someone has to do it.
It's a mucky job but someone has to do it.
There was no need for TFL to force the RMT into announcing strike dates only for them to back off and do the right thing anyway. The management play these games; by either taking the union right up to strike action so they announce dates that appear in the newspapers or forcing them into a one day stoppage in order to give the workers bad press from the ever-obliging London media. If the RMT are forced into balloting members then strike dates are inevitably announced.
And then -*magically*- the situation is resolved! In the newspapers.
There's people needing political mileage and they gain more brownie points 'resolving' the issue publicly than if it all happened behind close doors.
Does that make any sense?
The only thing that was being asked for - and this action wasn't the same one as stated in the OP - is that new employees are given the same rights as old employees. Unless people have less needs in life than they used to or the tube is suddenly easier to maintain, then the demands aren't too much to ask. And that's without taking current property prices into consideration.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This contradicts what Oxpecker says above though - that the latest threatened strikes were about Ken Livingstone confirming in writing something he promised verbally. Which is it?
In any case, I don't agree that it's a given that new employees necessarily should be given the same rights as old employees. There's nothing to say that the old rights were "correct" - I'm sure you wouldn't accept this logic if the demand were for an improvement in rights.
There are all sorts of reasons why it might be appropriate to reduce the attractiveness of the terms offered to new candidates. For example, if applications for those positions were currently oversubscribed.
There's no contradictions. Oxpecker was right and I wasn't disagreeing with him. If I sold you a house would you be happy for it to be done word of mouth and hand me the cash or would you want the title deeds to be surrendered as part of the agreement?
It hasn't got anything to do with whether you happen to think it's 'right' or not though has it? It's whether the people who actually do the work think it's right or not. They don't owe Londoners a favour by maintaining a system that transports thousands of them safely around the capital every week. It's how they earn their living. And when the profiteers roll in and start taking the piss to favour themselves at the expense of the work force then they can legally withdraw their labour to express their grievance.
And why would I in any way disagree with an improvement in rights? What is this 'logic' of which you speak?
The dispute was based upon conditions for new employees (post 2004). It is to the credit of the RMT members that joined the company prior to that date that they were willing to withdraw their labour in support of their new colleagues.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, I would want written confirmation of anything promised verbally to me.
Oxpecker said it was about employees of Metronet's passes/pension rights. I took that to mean existing employees. Are you saying the strike threat was about that issue, but relating to new employees? If so then yes, there is no contradiction and I now understand.
I had understood that the original strikes (last year) in relationship to the Metronet collapse were to do with the terms of existing employees, and I had assumed that this was a continuation of that same dispute.
I think it's reasonable for me to take an interest in the matter given that London Underground is a publicly funded company.
Are the "profiteers" (whoever they are exactly) or the workers taking the piss? No-one can ever know because details of the disputes are never published. All we can go by is (obviously biased) snatches of incomplete information from each side.
I just mean that you seemed to suggest that just because a certain set of conditions were the norm, that means that they are necessarily still appropriate. It would be possible to apply the same approach either to a reduction or increase in the attractiveness of those conditions.
Now I'm a bit confused. When you say "new" employees you don't mean employees who are yet to join, but existing employees. Anyway it doesn't matter. If they were promised something before, then I agree it's fair enough to ask for that promise to be honoured and confirmed. Whether the promise should have been made in the first place is a different matter, of course.
Ok, I'm not going to quote individual pieces I'll try and explain in one fell swoop. By 'new' employees it is meant post 2003/4 when the part privatisation thing properly kicked in. The employees in question are metronet workers (now in administration) that are about to go back under the control of TFL.
When metronet took the reigns of that part of the underground (the trains and stations remained under public ownership) they moved the goal posts in terms of some conditions for new employees in order to 'cut costs' (increase profit margins).
Since the privateers have now creamed the system, gone bust, and crawled back to their still healthy umbrella companies, the RMT wanted the negative side of their legacy to be, erm, abolished?
There's no need for apartheid in the workplace. Nobody is suggesting that these tube workers are hard done by. But the share-holders screwed the company into the ground. If they'd have been building cars then it would have gone the same way as rover. Fortunately to the workers, London needs a continued transport system.
All that is being asked is that the workers continue to have the same benefits as before greed was brought into the equation and new (post 2003/4) workers can enjoy those benefits too.
Hope that answers all queries. Nice to see you're still up though!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Ok, I'm not going to quote individual pieces I'll try and explain in one fell swoop. By 'new' employees it is meant post 2003/4 when the part privatisation thing properly kicked in. The employees in question are metronet workers (now in administration) that are about to go back under the control of TFL.
When metronet took the reigns of that part of the underground (the trains and stations remained under public ownership) they moved the goal posts in terms of some conditions for new employees in order to 'cut costs' (increase profit margins).
Since the privateers have now creamed the system, gone bust, and crawled back to their still healthy umbrella companies, the RMT wanted the negative side of their legacy to be, erm, abolished?
There's no need for apartheid in the workplace. Nobody is suggesting that these tube workers are hard done by. But the share-holders screwed the company into the ground. If they'd have been building cars then it would have gone the same way as rover. Fortunately to the workers, London needs a continued transport system.
All that is being asked is that the workers continue to have the same benefits as before greed was brought into the equation and new (post 2003/4) workers can enjoy those benefits too.
Hope that answers all queries. Nice to see you're still up though!
Yes, that's fairly clear now, thanks.
As a matter of interest - why didn't the unions challenge these changes back in 2003/4 when they were first implemented?
That's something I wonder myself. Why didn't they challenge the PPP in the first place? I'm sure they did. I guess they tried but they're playing against high-level politics that knows what's best for them.
I'll try and find that out actually.
But presently, the RMT have the trump card being that the the PPP project failed and the timing is right with the elections for the mayorship coming up and Ken wanting things to run smoothly I guess.
scifisam
deleted
You know, if it weren't for posts like these and others I've seen on here, I'd be staunchly against the strikes, relatively high tube drivers' pay (try to persuade me their pay is not relatively high, and you'll lose me, so please don't), I'd be all for saying: 'tube drivers are paid more than junior doctors, nurses, teachers, etc!'
Which is kinda true. The driver of a tube train is paid a lot more than, say, a nurse with 8 years' experience and a degree.
But that's not the fault of the tube driver. They're just fighting for a decent wage, and I expect the tube drivers would be running out in their droves to support the nurses who can't strike, so that said nurses could get a decent wage, if such strikes were allowed.
Why can't the tube drivers strike on the nurses's behalf? The nurses just are not going to do it, for various reasons, and we'll all suffer for it.
Honest question. Why can't the tube drivers strike on the nurses's behalf?
It happened recently, I'm sure; can we change it back?
