138 replies to this topic

[Doghandler2009]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of striking, this is the decision I expected from the court because this is exactly what happened when they tried to cancel the strike on last Boxing Day.
I don't know why London Underground decided to throw money at barristers thinking that circumstances had changed since last year.
I'm usually very pro-union and pro-public sector but I suspect this has more to do with tube drivers wanting to enjoy Christmas Day without having to worry about being random breath-tested the next day.
London Underground has a policy that all operational staff (station staff and revenue inspectors as well as tube drivers) can be randomly drink /drug tested and they must blow ZERO.
Even airline pilots can have a quick drop of the hard stuff but not train staff.
Many mainline train companies don't work Boxing Day and I think the tube should shut down on Boxing Day too so that people can get used to it and make alternate arrangements.
Christmas is different from other public holidays and I don't think it would hurt to close the transport system down for 2 days to allow people to spend time with their families instead.
I don't think anybody outside the emergency services should be made to work at Christmas.

No ones forcing them its part of the job there are lots of people working apart from the Emergency services, Security, Shop workers, Recovery drivers to name a few,

They will be running at reduced capacity so i would suspect that not all of them will be working and at the end of the day its the job they signed on to do if they dont like it find alternative employment

For £50,000 a year id hapily work every bank holiday

[Londonbased]

92% voted for industrial action?

Or 92% of those who voted (often around 40% of the workforce) said yes to strike?

Yes but there is an unspoken understanding that you support your union.
I've worked for London Underground for ten years (I'm not a tube driver) and I've been balloted on strike action in the past.
There have been times when I've voted 'NO' but have supported the union by refusing to work when the majority of those voted said 'YES' to strike action.

There is a lot of apathy within union memberships on voting for anything (such as elections of union officials as well as strikes)
But they will still walk out in support of the union even if they voted against a strike or did not bother voting at all.

Striking is not compulsory and some workers will still attend.

For £50,000 a year id hapily work every bank holiday

This figure of £50,000 per year is often quoted (or rather mis-quoted).
Like many people I'd love to be receiving that much.
There are managers within London Underground who do earn £50,000 (and much more than that) and they NEVER strike.

No ones forcing them its part of the job there are lots of people working apart from the Emergency services, Security, Shop workers, Recovery drivers to name a few,

I probably used the wrong word and should have said nobody should be EXPECTED to work over Christmas and Boxing Day.
It's a time for families.
Close all the shops and secure all the buildings so shop staff and security staff aren't required.
Leave the car at home so Recovery drivers aren't needed.

Then these people like everyone else can stay home with the family over Christmas.
It's only for 2 days and is different from any other bank holiday.

[David]

There is a lot of apathy within union memberships on voting for anything (such as elections of union officials as well as strikes)
But they will still walk out in support of the union even if they voted against a strike or did not bother voting at all.

There is a lot of apathy when it comes to any voting, and that includes general elections. I stand by my assertion: if people want to have their view heard, then they must vote one way or another. If they don't vote then either they don't care, or they must put up and shut up at the result. If a result is decided by a majority on only 10% of the voters, then the other 90% have no right to carp about the result because it was in their hands to get off their rears and vote. Given that the Union vote was postal, all they needed to to was to pass the nearest pillar box.

Striking is not compulsory and some workers will still attend.

It's not compulsory, no. Some of my colleagues (known and unknown) went to work when we were all out in the public sector November strike. That said, if you are part of a Union, you are 'expected' to support your colleagues, and not without good reason. However - thankfully - the days of those awful pickets and scenes of intimidation do seem to be gone. I can't think of Orgreave and the miners' strike and other disputes of the 70s without a shudder going through me even now. I had no issue withy my colleagues working that day; arguably though, if the Union win their demands, should those who work during the strike benefit from them? *shrugs*

In all all of that though, if a handful of tube drivers and/or a handful of trackside staff turn up, would they be able to run any sort of service anyway?

There is a lot of apathy within union memberships on voting for anything (such as elections of union officials as well as strikes)
This figure of £50,000 per year is often quoted (or rather mis-quoted).
Like many people I'd love to be receiving that much.

So true. When sticking the boot in with public sector workers, the figures were all about senior management, cosy deals, those with the body since leaving school etc. For the vast majority, including me, it's not a gold-plated pension. Better, perhaps, but not gold-plated. I do not earn vast sums - nowhere near the national average as it goes. Yet that's all we ever saw and see. Public sector workers on huge salaries retiring on £50,000 a year for turning up to work for a couple of years then retiring. No. Some will, I grant you and concede, as your point above suggests. However, the reality is very different.

Incidentally. Quite aside from the private pensions mis-sellings of the 80s, private pensions were very much encouraged by the-then Tory government. Then, it seems, one Gordon Brown esq, predecessors and successors all, then changed tax rules and tax breaks and incentives to private pensions, so it's not so much that public sector pensions are better, it's that successive governments have made private pensions worse and less attractive to employers and employees.

[Sailor]

Close all the shops and secure all the buildings so shop staff and security staff aren't required.
Leave the car at home so Recovery drivers aren't needed.

Then these people like everyone else can stay home with the family over Christmas.
It's only for 2 days and is different from any other bank holiday.

That is a very naive thing to say.

How about people who work at:

- Electricity boards
- Gas suppliers
- Water suppliers
- TV stations

They are not part of the emergency services but if they didn't turn up for work on Christmas day, millions of people would be affected.

Those buildings are still going to have to be protected. So, they'll, need security. Oh, how about if they are hungry? Catering staff are required as well now. What about Internet? We can't be without it can we? Or our mobile phones. We certainly need staff to ensure smooth running of both. Plus, I have to go and visit my grandmother but I need petrol. Where would I get some?

Plus, recovery men are still required for the emergency services cars at the vey least...

To think that the whole country should shut down for two days is wishful but an impossible dream.

Lastly, what you have to realise is that some people hate the whole idea of Christmas for differrent reasons and would rather work through it...

Edited by Sailor, 25 December 2011 - 11:35 AM.

[UK_Bod]

I probably used the wrong word and should have said nobody should be EXPECTED to work over Christmas and Boxing Day.
It's a time for families.
Close all the shops and secure all the buildings so shop staff and security staff aren't required.
Leave the car at home so Recovery drivers aren't needed.

Then these people like everyone else can stay home with the family over Christmas.
It's only for 2 days and is different from any other bank holiday.

And what about those who say work in a care home? They aren't registered nurses, are on low pay, work 24 hours a day, yet the old people need looking after. Unless we should let them take care of themselves for the day? You are naive.

Edited by UK_Bod, 29 December 2011 - 02:07 PM.

[MacGregor]

I probably used the wrong word and should have said nobody should be EXPECTED to work over Christmas and Boxing Day.
It's a time for families.
Close all the shops and secure all the buildings so shop staff and security staff aren't required.
Leave the car at home so Recovery drivers aren't needed.

Then these people like everyone else can stay home with the family over Christmas.
It's only for 2 days and is different from any other bank holiday.

What if I don't want to celebrate Christmas? I've been robbed of a day when I could work because some people assume we all celebrate Christmas like they do.

[bradjames]

All points very valid. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But there are differences between opinion and fact.

As someone inside the LU Company, I understand the frustration felt by everyone... the services are not on time, ticket prices are too high, and the trains are always busy.

But everyone has good days, and everyone has bad days. At the end of the day, everyone is human, and people who work for LU are just the same. There are long standing agreements between unions and management, and they want to be ripped up and re-arranged for the Olympics. Now, I know that almost every Londoner will be making sacrifices throughout the Olympic months. But when management sit down with the unions to negotiate, it’s just that, A NEGOTIATION. When details of the deal slip into the public real, they almost always get blown out of proportion.

Train Drivers get paid a decent basic wage - they are not allowed to do overtime.

Automating the trains will do one thing for sure - it will supply the Evening Standard with headlines when staff have to walk passengers down the tunnel, and it takes twice as long to get everyone out! I agree; driving a train is easier than driving a car. However, it's twice as fatiguing, and walking passengers down a tunnel after 7hrs driving (or dealing with any situation that requires rules and regulations) is what they are trained to do (and 9/10, they do it very well)

I invite anyone who believes driving is a doddle to sit and watch the "Circle Line DVD" for 8 hours a day, 5 days (0445 - 1245 and 1645-0100) Toilet break after 4hrs 15mins, no iPod, music, reading. Pitch black in front of the TV. No falling asleep. If you need a wee, you'll get interviewed. Oh, and you can't be more that 18seconds late.

I wholeheartedly agree that police, fire and medical services should all receive better appreciation when it comes to their pay packets. Blaming people for earning a reasonable amount of money for the job they do its pointless. LBC today was ranting about drivers earning 42k; when the presenter takes home in excess of 120k.

The police and the transport providers will have to work lovingly during the Olympics.

I expect no sympathy (which is good because I doubt I'd get any) I go to work with a smile, and I travel home tired like the rest of us workers. But I know that I wouldn't comment on something I don’t fully understand (Bankers, Fire Brigade etc) Generalising a LOT of hard working staff, I’m sure as police you understand bad, untrue press stories. What you choose to believe is (of course) your own choice. But don't blame me for wanting to put food on my table and get the bes out of life.

[Londonbased]

What if I don't want to celebrate Christmas?

Then you have a choice whether to work it or not. Others should be given that choice.

They're already paid to go to work. Why should they be paid more just because the Olympics are on???

Because TfL management wants staff to tear up existing agreements during the Olympic period.

Are other people working in London all getting extra just because of the olympics?

Yes.

I don't think it's right that they get paid a bribe just to do their job.

The additional payment is not 'just to do their job'
It is to compensate for London Underground management wanting to break existing agreements with the unions during the Olympic period.
Many forum users still haven't grasped that.

You see what should happen (in an ideal world) is if they take unauthorised time off during the games they should be sacked. If it's made crystal clear to them that that's what will happen if they walk out - that their lively hoods will be taken away from them - then they wouldn't risk it.

And what happens if tube staff have children who are taken ill during the Olympics???
Nobody can stop you taking unauthorised time off work. They just don't have to pay you for the absense.

Because LU goes on strike every two seconds

How often do they go on strike?
You'll be telling me they are on 50 grand a year next!

Edited by Londonbased, 06 February 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[bradjames]

Bas The Elf, on 14 December 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

92% voted for industrial action?

Or 92% of those who voted (often around 40% of the workforce) said yes to strike?

Whilst we're on the subject of voting, how many people voted for our current government? I'm sure they're in power with the minority of the votes.
..... Just saying

Edited by bradjames, 07 February 2012 - 05:40 AM.

[Inspector Corner]

I tend to agree with Bob Crowes comment. The facts are that if you are a TU member,your terms and conditions will be better than non TU members.

When it comes to negotiating T&Cs,might is right..simples.

If you do not stand firm then management will exploit you. That is their job. To extract the maximum value out of the workforce. It generates savings and profits for the business and makes the manager look more effective.

Hands up who wants to be a tube driver and a member of such a strong union ?

[Giraffe]

Yes.




The additional payment is not 'just to do their job'
It is to compensate for London Underground management wanting to break existing agreements with the unions during the Olympic period.
Many forum users still haven't grasped that.



And what happens if tube staff have children who are taken ill during the Olympics???
Nobody can stop you taking unauthorised time off work. They just don't have to pay you for the absense.



How often do they go on strike?
You'll be telling me they are on 50 grand a year next!

Firstly not everyone in London is earning more during the Olympics - most of us will be on the same salary thank you very much.

As for the families comment, if I had a family then I wouldn't be so reckless as to gamble my family's future by skiving of work.

[Londonbased]

Firstly not everyone in London is earning more during the Olympics - most of us will be on the same salary thank you very much.

You do have a habit of only patially focusing on a comment without responding to it in its entirety.
For clarification, I was responding to Bas's question "Are OTHER PEOPLE" getting extra (which some are)
I never said EVERYBODY was getting extra.
I am aware that workers will be on the same salary but their bosses will be raking it in over the Olympics.
My advice to workers not getting extra is JOIN A UNION.

As for the families comment, if I had a family then I wouldn't be so reckless as to gamble my family's future by skiving of work.

Hopefully if you ever do have a family, you will one day realise just how callous that comment is.
Children will not be planning their illnesses over the Olympic period.

Workers also have elderly parents who need attention at short notice.

If a child falls ill then that takes precedent over any job and parents don't give a damn whether they get paid or not.
I hope some parents won't feel pressurised into being at work without being accused of being reckless or skivers.

[Giraffe]

Bas asked 'Are other people working in London all getting extra just because of the olympics?' To which you replied 'Yes'. My point is that there are plenty of others who don't need to be bribed to come into work. Most people are willing to be flexible at times of need - that courtesy doesn't seem to be afforded by tube drivers sadly.

On your other bit, I'm not talking about people getting ill - sick leave is for when you're sick and I have no issue with people taking time off in those circumstances. This thread is about paying tube drivers extra just to turn up for work - that money would be better invested in lowering fares. Are you suggesting that drivers should just call in sick as a means off getting some time off?

Lose the tone as well please.

[Londonbased]

<Bas asked 'Are other people working in London all getting extra just because of the olympics?' To which you replied 'Yes'. My point is that there are plenty of others who don't need to be bribed to come into work. Most people are willing to be flexible at times of need - that courtesy doesn't seem to be afforded by tube drivers sadly. On your other bit, I'm not talking about people getting ill - sick leave is for when you're sick and I have no issue with people taking time off in those circumstances. This thread is about paying tube drivers extra just to turn up for work - that money would be better invested in lowering fares. Are you suggesting that drivers should just call in sick as a means off getting some time off? Lose the tone as well please.

It is not a "bribe". The money being offered is compensation for altering existing terms and conditions over the Olympic period.
So far the tube drivers have not accepted it and wish to keep to the agreement. The tube drivers are not the ones trying to break the agreement.
London Underground has offered the money and the tube drivers have turned it down.
Yet all the criticism has been directed at the "bribees" not the "bribers"
If you prefer to view it as a bribe then save some criticism for the tube bosses who are offering the "bribe" rather than those being leaned on to accept it.
I would prefer it if London Underground was to accept that there aren't enough drivers to cope and make the common sense decision to hire more rather than expect existing staff to cope with a heavier workload.
It would be a good thing if police authorities were to do a similar thing and hire more constables instead of expecting forces to cope with the current numbers they have.
Many people who work for London Underground can tell you that "flexibility" within the company is a one way street and "computer says no" is the standard response to staff requests for flexibility.
If tube drivers (or anybody else) agree to a temporary change then it won't be too long before tube bosses say, "Do you know what? Lets make them work longer hours every weekend and bank holiday".
There is nothing more permanent than a "temporary" arrangement.
Of course I am not suggesting that drivers should just call in sick as a means of getting time off. You are.
You quite clearly implied in your post that anybody who takes unauthorised time off during the Olympics is not genuine and should be viewed with suspicion as being "reckless" or "skivers".
Those are the words you used without any evidence to back up the reasons for absence may not be genuine.
I also disagree that any "tone" can be interpreted or misinterpreted in the written word.

Edited by Londonbased, 11 February 2012 - 08:05 PM.

[MetPaul]

It is not a "bribe". The money being offered is compensation for altering existing terms and conditions over the Olympic period.
So far the tube drivers have not accepted it and wish to keep to the agreement. The tube drivers are not the ones trying to break the agreement.
London Underground has offered the money and the tube drivers have turned it down.
Yet all the criticism has been directed at the "bribees" not the "bribers"
If you prefer to view it as a bribe then save some criticism for the tube bosses who are offering the "bribe" rather than those being leaned on to accept it.
I would prefer it if London Underground was to accept that there aren't enough drivers to cope and make the common sense decision to hire more rather than expect existing staff to cope with a heavier workload.
It would be a good thing if police authorities were to do a similar thing and hire more constables instead of expecting forces to cope with the current numbers they have.
Many people who work for London Underground can tell you that "flexibility" within the company is a one way street and "computer says no" is the standard response to staff requests for flexibility.
If tube drivers (or anybody else) agree to a temporary change then it won't be too long before tube bosses say, "Do you know what? Lets make them work longer hours every weekend and bank holiday".
There is nothing more permanent than a "temporary" arrangement.
Of course I am not suggesting that drivers should just call in sick as a means of getting time off. You are.
You quite clearly implied in your post that anybody who takes unauthorised time off during the Olympics is not genuine and should be viewed with suspicion as being "reckless" or "skivers".
Those are the words you used without any evidence to back up the reasons for absence may not be genuine.
I also disagree that any "tone" can be interpreted or misinterpreted in the written word.

LB, I've got to say, you're pretty much spot on throughout this topic

In short, neither the RMT or it's members are actually asking for more money/a bonus/a bribe for working through the Olympic period. But the company has asked it's staff to temporarily perform working practices that are outside of their contracts/framework agreements.
The staff do not see this as a problem, however they simply want to be compensated for these altered arrangements, which will ultimately impact on their personal life. If the company does not offer what the staff feel is a fair settlement, then staff will be happy to just work to their existing contractual obligations. This, however, will not fit in with the extended operating hours/extra trains etc that the company proposes. I don't believe the RMT has threatened to strike over this issue. But if the company forces their plans on the staff, I suspect that will be a different story. Hence the continued negotiations. But I'm sure all will be well in the end
Ye canny blame Mr Crow for getting the best for his members folks.

Edit: To correct post-midnight spelling error!

Edited by MetPaul, 12 February 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[Truncheon]

I am so sick of reading comments that are based on little more than what is read in the Evening Standard/Daily Mail etc...

Newspapers don't always print both sides of the argument as it makes for dull reading and isn't as eye catching.

As has been said, this isn't a bribe to come in, this is a change to people's own terms and conditions. I don't work for TfL, but I understand that the crux of the issue is to do with forced overtime.

The press would have had you beleive that the Boxing Day tube strike was over getting three days off. It wasn't it was to do with (once again) forced overtime. The union and tube drivers never wanted three days off. The reference to three days off was an off the cuff comment about how could TfL ensure enough drivers volunteered. The trade unions position was just for Boxing day to be worked by volunteers.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Don't pass judgement without knowing the facts.
Don't bemoan the terms and conditions that others have thought for. Everyone should be aiming to improve their own terms.

[Londonbased]

Now the Evening Standard says Tube Drivers could be getting a £6000 bonus.
Please don't let me think anybody on this forum believes this rubbish!
(i.e. It's NOT true folks)

[Police Constable 1]

Now the Evening Standard says Tube Drivers could be getting a £6000 bonus.
Please don't let me think anybody on this forum believes this rubbish!
(i.e. It's NOT true folks)

You sure? I wouldnt be surprised, they seem to be holding TFL to ransom

[Londonbased]

You sure? I wouldnt be surprised, they seem to be holding TFL to ransom

Yes I'm sure.
Even Howard Collins the Chief Operating Officer of London Underground doesn't acknowledge the figure quoted.
"Tube Drivers NOT to get six grand bonus" isn't such a good headline though is it?

[Killicksparker]

As has been said, this isn't a bribe to come in, this is a change to people's own terms and conditions. I don't work for TfL, but I understand that the crux of the issue is to do with forced overtime.

The press would have had you beleive that the Boxing Day tube strike was over getting three days off. It wasn't it was to do with (once again) forced overtime. The union and tube drivers never wanted three days off. The reference to three days off was an off the cuff comment about how could TfL ensure enough drivers volunteered. The trade unions position was just for Boxing day to be worked by volunteers.

We had similar at our work (enforced overtime, short notice shift changes, cut in shift allowance etc) - They just changed the terms and conditions and told us that if we did not sign the new contracts we would have deemed ourselves as 'resigned', so would not be entitled to any redundancy

No one stood up for us....but there again maybe that is because we are not in a position to hold anyone to ransom

[Giraffe]

Now the Evening Standard says Tube Drivers could be getting a £6000 bonus.
Please don't let me think anybody on this forum believes this rubbish!
(i.e. It's NOT true folks)

Was it an April Fools joke?

[Londonbased]

No one stood up for us....

And nobody is standing up for TfL staff.
You need to stand up and stick up for yourselves like they will if their terms and conditions are changed contrary to the current agreements.

Edited by Londonbased, 04 April 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Kellym82]

Now the Evening Standard says Tube Drivers could be getting a £6000 bonus.
Please don't let me think anybody on this forum believes this rubbish!
(i.e. It's NOT true folks)

If you are pointing out something like that, it is best to include the full facts.

They didn't imply that it was a straight £6,000 bonus, but added up the maximum possible ammount any one tube driver could make, including the incentive payment, payment for anti-social hour shifts, overtime etc. and worked out that the absolute maximum a tube driver could (in theory) make, would be £6,000.

The likihood this would ever happen is slim to none. It's the media using their facts to stir up opinion, that's all.

Personally I am still rather perplexed as to why a bonus is expected if drivers are going to get overtime and anti-social hours payments. If these areas are covered then I don't feel a bonus should be given as they are being financially compensated for the inconvenience already.

[Truncheon]

The Underground drivers don't want the Olympic bonus, and didn't ask for an Olympic bonus.

TfL want to change their terms and conditions - some of them permanently - in return for what they call an Olympic bonus.

It is in TfL's interest to keep floating the idea that Underground drivers are demanding a huge bonus, but the reality is something quite different.

[Kellym82]

The Underground drivers don't want the Olympic bonus, and didn't ask for an Olympic bonus.

TfL want to change their terms and conditions - some of them permanently - in return for what they call an Olympic bonus.

It is in TfL's interest to keep floating the idea that Underground drivers are demanding a huge bonus, but the reality is something quite different.

Then they need to ask Bob Crow to change his tune - he has only mentioned on the side that T&Cs are changing and has implied they are only changing because a bonus was demanded, and the crux of the issue (the way he seems to portray it) is that drivers want money for the inconvenience they will be caused by the games.

Bob Crow's motivations are predominantly political, and he has always wanted to make life hard for the coalition government. There is no doubt in my mind that if Labour were in power at present, there would be fewer strikes by the transport unions purely because of the relationship he has with them, and the influence he has over them.

Edited by Kellym82, 04 April 2012 - 03:16 PM.