Sheffield Forum

Disgusting strike action on London underground.

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
09-01-2017, 12:48   #21
geared
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Total Posts: 11,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by horribleblob View Post
My understanding is that it's not about ticket offices per se, but safe staffing levels. Closing ticket offices will reduce the number of staff available in an emergency, such as the 1987 Kings Cross fire. If ticket offices are closed but safe staffing levels maintained, then I don't see a problem. However, I'm not yet convinced that will be the case.
Are they even trained for emergency procedures?

The unions are using the same argument over the Southern Rail strike, but to the best of my knowledge the conductors don't receive any extra emergency response training for their job.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 12:50   #22
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by horribleblob View Post
My understanding is that it's not about ticket offices per se, but safe staffing levels. Closing ticket offices will reduce the number of staff available in an emergency, such as the 1987 Kings Cross fire. If ticket offices are closed but safe staffing levels maintained, then I don't see a problem. However, I'm not yet convinced that will be the case.
Its the safety of the general public, not the workers. How can we castigate the workers for this action?

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 11:51 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by geared View Post
Are they even trained for emergency procedures?

The unions are using the same argument over the Southern Rail strike, but to the best of my knowledge the conductors don't receive any extra emergency response training for their job.
You dont seem too sure.

Last edited by El Cid; 09-01-2017 at 13:13.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 12:58   #23
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,079
I've already said that I'm kinda on the side on TFL on this one, but the fact remains that once you start eroding rights on striking for one group you make it easier to erode rights on other groups. The government is already trying to stop doctors striking using the same laws that stop the police from striking. Funny how the police are paid the least of all the emergency services and they are the ones who can't strike...
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 12:59   #24
horribleblob
Registered User
horribleblob's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Total Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
So basically as long as the number of people employed at each station (and therefore paying union dues), and presumably the pay of those people, is not reduced, then the union will judge the stations "safe".
Basically a protection racket.
If genuine, I don't see the desire to protect the travelling public as a racket.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:03   #25
geared
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Total Posts: 11,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post

You dont seem to sure.
My point is if they claim they need to keep people on in the name of public safety, do these people actually have any extra training to perform this role?
For example are they all trained first aiders who could rush to the aid of someone in an emergency?

If not then it's not a very good argument IMO.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:03   #26
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I believe withdrawing your labour is a human right.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I can quit my job at any time, that right is not under threat.
What right are you defending?

If you're defending the right to not show up for work in order to cause widespread disruption, and to be protected from being fired, disciplined, or substituted for the days when you do so... Then that's a long way from a simple right to withdraw your labour.
If you think that's a fundamental human right then your position is preposterous.

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 12:05 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by horribleblob View Post
If genuine, I don't see the desire to protect the travelling public as a racket.
Not genuine though is it. Otherwise we'd be talking about employing a small number of people with the correct training to handle public safety rather than retaining a large number off people trained to sell tickets.
Ergo, racket.

Last edited by unbeliever; 09-01-2017 at 13:16.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:06   #27
tinfoilhat
Registered User
tinfoilhat's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Total Posts: 12,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtkate View Post
I've already said that I'm kinda on the side on TFL on this one, but the fact remains that once you start eroding rights on striking for one group you make it easier to erode rights on other groups. The government is already trying to stop doctors striking using the same laws that stop the police from striking. Funny how the police are paid the least of all the emergency services and they are the ones who can't strike...
Doctors and ticket office workers aren't really the same thing. One is highly trained and carries life and death in his or her hands at all times and one, well, doesn't but with their union power can disrupt a captital city when public opinion and let's face it, good sense dictates their job is probably numbered. i still think TfL will cave to some degree - the union is very strong. And that's what's going to "win" this not common sense, not an economic argument, not the hassle they're putting everyone else through but union power.

Now el cid makes a valid point - is it a safety issue. I don't know either but there only so much they can do in an office, that in my very limited experience they are reluctant to leave.
_______
We get the world we deserve.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:06   #28
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Its the safety of the general public, not the workers. How can we castigate the workers for this action?
Because it's a lie. See above.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:16   #29
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by geared View Post
My point is if they claim they need to keep people on in the name of public safety, do these people actually have any extra training to perform this role?
For example are they all trained first aiders who could rush to the aid of someone in an emergency?

If not then it's not a very good argument IMO.
I dont know. They are responsible for the safety of the train, they may be first aid trained; but its the safe running of the train that they are responsible for.
Just like the driver of a bus is responsible, on a train - its the train guard.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:18   #30
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I dont know. They are responsible for the safety of the train, they may be first aid trained; but its the safe running of the train that they are responsible for.
Just like the driver of a bus is responsible, on a train - its the train guard.
You're confusing the Southern strike with the tube strike.
The tube strike is not about guards as tube trains don't have any guards. It's about ticket offices.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:20   #31
El Cid
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Wakefield
Total Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post
Because it's a lie. See above.
Who do you think is responsible for the 100+ passengers boarding a train, some of them are inebriated, some are wheel chair users and some just plain old Joe public.
In my role I am responsible for up to 15 passengers, trains can have over 500 passengers.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:23   #32
Robin-H
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2015
Total Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I dont know. They are responsible for the safety of the train, they may be first aid trained; but its the safe running of the train that they are responsible for.
Just like the driver of a bus is responsible, on a train - its the train guard.
How are ticket office staff responsible for the safety on the tube train?
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:23   #33
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Who do you think is responsible for the 100+ passengers boarding a train, some of them are inebriated, some are wheel chair users and some just plain old Joe public.
In my role I am responsible for up to 15 passengers, trains can have over 500 passengers.
Again. This is irrelevant to the tube strike.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:23   #34
web1
Registered User
web1's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: in me van
Total Posts: 4,122
It's in London.
Who cares?
_______
KEEP ON KEEPING ON.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:23   #35
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin-H View Post
How are ticket office staff responsible for the safety on the tube train?
Beat me by seconds.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:41   #36
Supertramp
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Barnsley (Apparently)
Total Posts: 1,496
So they want a job that is effectively to be on hand in case of emergency.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:44   #37
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertramp View Post
So they want a job that is effectively to be on hand in case of emergency.
That's a valid job, but the people who used to work in the ticket offices would likely not be the same ones employed for such a function and anyway there would be a great many fewer of them. Also they'd probably be in a different union (if they chose to join one).

Last edited by unbeliever; 09-01-2017 at 13:48.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:45   #38
1bigbhudda
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2017
Total Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
I believe withdrawing your labour is a human right.
it certainly is and i will defend anyones right to do that.
it should also be any employers right to sack anyone who does that in the form of a strike.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 13:46   #39
unbeliever
Registered User
unbeliever's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: Sitting in front of my laptop
Total Posts: 7,150
I would suggest to the striking ticket office staff that they look into whether they can disable the ticketing machines which have replaced them using shoes.
In other words, they're a bunch of Luddites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#Etymology

---------- Post added 09-01-2017 at 12:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bigbhudda View Post
it certainly is and i will defend anyones right to do that.
As will I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bigbhudda View Post
it should also be any employers right to sack anyone who does that in the form of a strike.
Yes it should be, but it isn't. They may even be taken to court for failing to promote an employee with a history of striking in favour of one without such a history.
  Reply With Quote
09-01-2017, 14:44   #40
sgtkate
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Total Posts: 3,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoilhat View Post
Doctors and ticket office workers aren't really the same thing. One is highly trained and carries life and death in his or her hands at all times and one, well, doesn't but with their union power can disrupt a captital city when public opinion and let's face it, good sense dictates their job is probably numbered. i still think TfL will cave to some degree - the union is very strong. And that's what's going to "win" this not common sense, not an economic argument, not the hassle they're putting everyone else through but union power.

Now el cid makes a valid point - is it a safety issue. I don't know either but there only so much they can do in an office, that in my very limited experience they are reluctant to leave.
I wasn't really trying to compare doctors with ticket office staff. I was simply pointing out that someone's right to strike is pretty crucial as far as I'm concerned and should be protected.

I can see why some areas cause severe problems such as TFL strikes and so on, but there isn't a quick fix unless you do as unbeliever suggests and remove anyones right to strike and that isn't something I agree with.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2014 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017