geared   305 #25 Posted January 9, 2017  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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #26 Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 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 ----------  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. Edited January 9, 2017 by unbeliever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #27 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #28 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
El Cid   216 #29 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #30 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
El Cid   216 #31 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Robin-H Â Â 11 #32 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Â How are ticket office staff responsible for the safety on the tube train? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #33 Posted January 9, 2017 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
web1 Â Â 10 #34 Posted January 9, 2017 It's in London. Who cares? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #35 Posted January 9, 2017 How are ticket office staff responsible for the safety on the tube train?  Beat me by seconds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Supertramp   10 #36 Posted January 9, 2017 So they want a job that is effectively to be on hand in case of emergency. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...