So, tube strike huh?

theteal

Anybody particularly badly affected by this? Some of the pictures surfacing look a bit mental.

Being a driver and generally sticking to the Essex corner of the A406 I didn't think it would affect me much. . .wrong. Woodford Green was bumper to bumper on the drive in this morning, thankfully there are some conveniently quiet residential roads that lead up to the office so I wasn't too late. I'm glad I don't have any site visits "up London" planned for this week. Getting home may be interesting this evening.

Anyway, share your tales of woe.

enda1

Warning: NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu_cfy33bY

Playboy

Had to take a cab, a 45 min journey took me two hours. Thanks tfl

83ste

Playboy wrote: »

Had to take a cab, a 45 min journey took me two hours. Thanks tfl

You mean thanks RMT.

rainbow kirby

Or thanks to Boris Johnson and Bob Crow for being two blockheaded twats who just don't know when to back down.

Wasn't terrible for me, just had 4 buses go through full before finally getting on a bus just before 8 that would take me to within 5 minutes walk of the office. Saw 30-40 people waiting at most bus stops though on the way. This actually worked out a lot better than my original plan of getting a lift from my OH to Finsbury Park to try for national rail from there!

biZrb

I thought the roads were grand this morning, I was driving from South London to North West London and it took the same length of time as yesterday.

However it took my colleague 4 hours to drive from Guildford to East London this morning.

woof im a dog

im lucky that i can walk to work so it was grand for me, that said its raining now so might have to get a sneaky bus later!

essex road was absolutely mad with traffic earlier though

FTA69

No strain for me at all really; Capital Connect station right next to my house.

FTA69

83ste wrote: »

You mean thanks RMT.

If Johnson wasn't posturing for his own political gain the strike could well have been avoided.

enda1

FTA69 wrote: »

If Johnson wasn't posturing for his own political gain the strike could well have been avoided.

Every major political party condemns the strike. The blame falls squarely with the dinosaurs that are the RMT.

Playboy

83ste wrote: »

You mean thanks RMT.

Indeed I do!

FTA69

enda1 wrote: »

Every major political party condemns the strike.

So what? Are politicians infallible now?

The fact is that Boris is trying to implement a load of swingeing cuts and job cuts while at the same time trying to portray himself as a modern day Thatcher in "standing up to the unions". This strike would have been avoided had Johnson entered negotiations with no preconditions as opposed to bulling in with a load of cuts that will result in a worse service for those who need it most.

Reekwind

I particularly liked Boris' rubbishing of the strike on the basis that only 30% of union members voted in favour (out of a turnout of 40%). By which logic only 28% of potential voters favoured Boris in 2012.

Tube staff have a right to strike and, in this case (with up to 1,000 redundancies) a perfectly understandable reason to. Denying them this, or getting angry at the unions for exercising it, is to suggest that any customer facing job has no right to collective bargaining. So long as it inconveniences you at least

enda1 wrote:

The blame falls squarely with the dinosaurs that are the RMT

Is there really anyone who believes that the wholesale shutting of ticket offices (in a city that annually attracts millions of tourists) is a burst of genius? Or are people just labelling all unions "dinosaurs" now?

enda1

FTA69 wrote: »

So what? Are politicians infallible now?

The fact is that Boris is trying to implement a load of swingeing cuts and job cuts while at the same time trying to portray himself as a modern day Thatcher in "standing up to the unions". This strike would have been avoided had Johnson entered negotiations with no preconditions as opposed to bulling in with a load of cuts that will result in a worse service for those who need it most.

Those who need the service most are workers. Office works, cleaners, hotel workers etc. throughout London. The changes proposed for the network would improve/make no difference to the service to them - certainly not dis-improve it.

Boris is not making these cuts, TFL is.

The politicians who were democratically elected represent the opinion of the people and there is all party consensus that the strike is uncalled for.

It is the RMT who are playing politics and as usual holding the people to ransom to satisfy their greedy aspirations.

There will not even be any forced redundancies, they will be voluntary. The RMT have just been waiting for an opportunity to strike whatever the reason and their hand is showing because they went on strike without due cause.

enda1

Reekwind wrote: »

I particularly liked Boris' rubbishing of the strike on the basis that only 30% of union members voted in favour (out of a turnout of 40%). By which logic only 28% of potential voters favoured Boris in 2012.

Tube staff have a right to strike and, in this case (with up to 1,000 redundancies) a perfectly understandable reason to. Denying them this, or getting angry at the unions for exercising it, is to suggest that any customer facing job has no right to collective bargaining. So long as it inconveniences you at least

Is there really anyone who believes that the wholesale shutting of ticket offices (in a city that annually attracts millions of tourists) is a burst of genius? Or are people just labelling all unions "dinosaurs" now?

Ticket offices will be closed, but staff will be in the concourse to help instead with the purchasing of tickets.

How does financially harming the city, their company, and Joe Public ensure that there is now enough money to save those 1000 jobs? It is not a perfectly valid reason to strike actually. These are voluntary redundancies too.

Fysh

I've heard two (lonely) voices of sanity on the topic of the strike today: Harriet Harman stating that both sides need their heads knocking together, and Vince Cable saying that changing the entirety of industrial relations law just to try and stop one strike from happening again is a bad idea.

I was reasonably lucky with the Overground today, but I sympathise with anyone who's been shafted by transport comedy in general. Casting blame on one side or the other rather than the failure by both to even pretend to reach a real compromise is failing to understand the root of the problem, though. (Anyone who thinks that Boris Johnson has any more credibility on this topic than Bob Crow is deluding themselves, IMO. They're both clowns who can best help the issue by removing themselves from the negotiation process.)

Reekwind

enda1 wrote: »

Ticket offices will be closed, but staff will be in the concourse to help instead with the purchasing of tickets

So closing ticket offices, firing a good chunk of their staff and putting the remainder out on the floor will be more efficient that the current scenario? Those long queues that you currently see at the ticket offices will just disappear? (Not that Boris and Dave seem to notice them now.)

Maybe. Maybe this really is the best plan. I'm not massively fussed over whose view is correct. What I do strongly disagree with is the suggestion that it's such an open and shut case that anyone who disagrees with it is a "dinosaur" and that the affected workers should not have the right to object.

How does financially harming the city, their company, and Joe Public ensure that there is now enough money to save those 1000 jobs? It is not a perfectly valid reason to strike actually

It's an entirely valid reason to strike. The suggestion that people do not have sense or the right to strike because it costs the city money or you time is worryingly wrong. The strike is the last stop in the collective bargaining process* and to deny it to people is, literally, criminal

*Which, let's not forget, is what this is about. The unions are striking to force a return to the negotiating table. That's all

cottager83

Folks, need some help ere, need to get to royal marsden hosp on Fulham road tomor for an appointment. Will be coming from greenford. Think i heard tube is going as far as white city? If so would it be best to get a cab from there . Will need to be there for 10.30. Any help appreciated! Thanks

Jack B. Badd

cottager83 wrote: »

Folks, need some help ere, need to get to royal marsden hosp on Fulham road tomor for an appointment. Will be coming from greenford. Think i heard tube is going as far as white city? If so would it be best to get a cab from there . Will need to be there for 10.30. Any help appreciated! Thanks

Tubes lines (like the Bakerloo) were reported as running this morning when there was no actual service. Buses & trains were diverted from their original destinations & what services were running were very delayed & full so people had to queue to catch anything. Basically I wouldn't trust any public transport option tomorrow morning if I had an appointment I had to get to at a certain time. You might get where you need to go in time, you might not.

If I were you, I'd ring a cab company & book a cab for the full journey & give yourself plenty of lead time because the roads will probably be busy as more people drive.

theteal

Was the strike cancelled? There was not a bit of traffic this morning (thankfully as I was running a smidge late). I think the residents of Woodford and surrounding ares learned their lesson from sitting in their cars yesterday and called in sick. . . .either that or they're all gathering outside Mr. Crow's house with pitchforks

FTA69

enda1 wrote: »

Those who need the service most are workers. Office works, cleaners, hotel workers etc. throughout London. The changes proposed for the network would improve/make no difference to the service to them - certainly not dis-improve it.

There are millions of transactions every year involving ticket offices. Tourists are frequent users of them and London is the biggest tourist destination in the world. Similarly the elderly and people with sight issues also find them invaluable.

Boris is not making these cuts, TFL is.

TFL is answerable to the Mayor's Office.

The politicians who were democratically elected represent the opinion of the people and there is all party consensus that the strike is uncalled for.

It is the RMT who are playing politics and as usual holding the people to ransom to satisfy their greedy aspirations.

Like what? Protecting jobs and standing up for an inclusive service free of austerity-led cuts?

The RMT have just been waiting for an opportunity to strike whatever the reason and their hand is showing because they went on strike without due cause.

Yeah, people love going on strike risking their jobs and losing pay. The last thing anyone wants is a strike, least of all the workers.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

Tube staff have a right to strike and, in this case (with up to 1,000 redundancies) a perfectly understandable reason to.

As has already been pointed out, there will be no compulsory redundancies and hundreds of staff have already come forward seeking voluntary redundancy.

Reekwind wrote: »

Denying them this, or getting angry at the unions for exercising it, is to suggest that any customer facing job has no right to collective bargaining. So long as it inconveniences you at least

You don’t think they’re abusing their power?

Reekwind wrote: »

Is there really anyone who believes that the wholesale shutting of ticket offices (in a city that annually attracts millions of tourists) is a burst of genius?

I seem to remember the very same arguments being made when the oyster card was introduced, which was, as far as I recall (and I’m open to correction here), also opposed by the unions.

Reekwind wrote: »

So closing ticket offices, firing a good chunk of their staff and putting the remainder out on the floor will be more efficient that the current scenario?

Again, nobody is being fired. And those ticket offices that are going to be closed can be rented out to retailers, raising money for TFL to compensate for the recent reduction in its government funding.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's an entirely valid reason to strike. The suggestion that people do not have sense or the right to strike because it costs the city money or you time is worryingly wrong. The strike is the last stop in the collective bargaining process* and to deny it to people is, literally, criminal

People have the right to object and protest if they are being treated unfairly, but I’m seeing very little evidence of unfair treatment here.

rainbow kirby

theteal wrote: »

Was the strike cancelled? There was not a bit of traffic this morning (thankfully as I was running a smidge late). I think the residents of Woodford and surrounding ares learned their lesson from sitting in their cars yesterday and called in sick. . . .either that or they're all gathering outside Mr. Crow's house with pitchforks

Wasn't cancelled, but there seems to be a lot more people in my office working from home today than there was yesterday. Guessing that could have been the case elsewhere too?

My commute this morning was actually faster than normal - Northern line not stopping at Tufnell Park or Angel made things a bit quicker! OH had a dreadful journey though, over 50 minutes to go from Archway to Kentish Town.

djpbarry

rainbow kirby wrote: »

...over 50 minutes to go from Archway to Kentish Town.

That couldn't be more than a 20-minute walk?!?

rainbow kirby

djpbarry wrote: »

That couldn't be more than a 20-minute walk?!?

He was driving and got seriously tangled up in traffic. :eek:

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I've heard two (lonely) voices of sanity on the topic of the strike today: Harriet Harman stating that both sides need their heads knocking together, and Vince Cable saying that changing the entirety of industrial relations law just to try and stop one strike from happening again.

I was reasonably lucky with the Overground today, but I sympathise with anyone who's been shafted by transport comedy in general. Casting blame on one side or the other rather than the failure by both to even pretend to reach a real compromise is failing to understand the root of the problem, though. (Anyone who thinks that Boris Johnson has any more credibility on this topic than Bob Crow is deluding themselves, IMO. They're both clowns who can best help the issue by removing themselves from the negotiation process.)

Whilst agreeing that the ability to strike is a very important right that we need to protect I also feel that measures need to be introduced to stop Unions abusing their power especially in relation to essential services like the tube. To be able to call a strike of this impact based on a 30% turnout is frankly a ludicrous situation to be in. Having read a lot of material on both sides of this debate I still cannot see a valid reason for this strike.

TFL should be able to make decisions on staffing without facing a strike. There is no compulsory redundancy here and as others have stated many of the workers have come forward for voluntary redundancy. Staff will be redeployed from ticket offices where in most stations (bar the very busy central london station) they are under utilized. I don't see why that is a bad thing or why it means we need a strike? Are we to believe that the Union believes that reducing ticket office staff numbers will impact safety and that the motivation of the strike is to protect Joe public?

Happy to be informed differently but I really just dont get what all the fuss is about.

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

You don’t think they’re abusing their power?

Not at all, they're collectively withdrawing their labour in defence of their conditions and also in support of an important service within the Underground.

I seem to remember the very same arguments being made when the oyster card was introduced, which was, as far as I recall (and I’m open to correction here), also opposed by the unions.

I don't believe the RMT opposed Oyster. What they were successful in doing however, was preventing TFL from bringing in a £5 limit for the card which would have had a negative effect on the poor.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, there will be no compulsory redundancies...

It's worth noting that this is not because of the benevolence of TfL but because the unions won this as a concession years ago.

But regardless, there are a whole host of proposals at stake here (albeit the most obvious is removing at least 700 frontline staff from the system at the same time as opening hours are being extended) that the unions disagree with. Now they may be right and they may be wrong but they unquestionably have a case of some sort.

You don’t think they’re abusing their power?

Not in the slightest. The union feels that the proposals will adversely affect its members, the union has sought to negotiate and, when negotiations broke down, the union has taken industrial action. I fail to see any abuse there

Playboy wrote:

Whilst agreeing that the ability to strike is a very important right that we need to protect I also feel that measures need to be introduced to stop Unions abusing their power especially in relation to essential services like the tube

Let's be absolutely clear on this: the Tube is categorically not an "essential service". The fire brigade is an essential service, hospitals are an essential service and the police are an essential service. All three have, in some form or other, restrictions on their ability to withdraw their labour for precisely this reason. The ability of Tube staff to make a commute difficult is certainly not in the same category.

If it was, where would you draw the line? Forbid postmen to strike because bills and Amazon packages need to be delivered? Legislate against baristas unionising because office drones need their coffee? Express outrage when pilots strike during the summer?

To be able to call a strike of this impact based on a 30% turnout is frankly a ludicrous situation to be in

Why? The turnout for this ballot was the higher (at 40%) than that of the 2012 mayoral election (38%). Do you think that it's absurd that Boris Johnson is permitted to run one of the largest cities in the world on the basis of this low turnout?

And the unions, as noted in a previous post, had a much more responding win than Boris: 75% of those who voted were in favour of strike action.

Having read a lot of material on both sides of this debate I still cannot see a valid reason for this strike.

That may be because you don't work there.

It constantly amazes me how many people are suddenly experts on the inner workings of the Tube. Nearly as surprising as how many people see absolutely no problem with sweeping changes being made to someone else's job. It's akin to having a coal miner following me around the office and berating my Excel skills or suggesting that I calm down when a sixth of my company's jobs are disappearing and I've got to reapply for my current job.

Playboy

Reekwind wrote: »

Let's be absolutely clear on this: the Tube is categorically not an "essential service". The fire brigade is an essential service, hospitals are an essential service and the police are an essential service. All three have, in some form or other, restrictions on their ability to withdraw their labour for precisely this reason. The ability of Tube staff to make a commute difficult is certainly not in the same category.

Re the bolded bit, that is your opinion so its not categorical.

You think that without the tube, the other forms of transport would simply pick up the slack? I disagree. It is, imo, a crucial, essential utility, without which the economy would be in serious difficulties.

Have a look at the stats for lost output/GDP as a result of the strikes and ponder why the other transport systems were seemingly incapable of performing the job the tube does.

Perhaps you think the roads are currently under-used for example, or that there is lots of excess capacity on the trains? This is not my daily, squeezed experience on a train or evidenced by my 2hr journey in a taxi that should have been 45 mins yesterday morning.

It is not a convenience, it is a vital element of the capital's infrastructure.

Reekwind wrote: »

If it was, where would you draw the line? Forbid postmen to strike because bills and Amazon packages need to be delivered? Legislate against baristas unionising because office drones need their coffee? Express outrage when pilots strike during the summer?

Strawmen examples and I didnt say anywhere that a strike shouldnt be allowed. I said for services such as the tube there should be stricter conditions for when/how a strike can be called.

Reekwind wrote: »

Why? The turnout for this ballot was the higher (at 40%) than that of the 2012 mayoral election (38%). Do you think that it's absurd that Boris Johnson is permitted to run one of the largest cities in the world on the basis of this low turnout?

And the unions, as noted in a previous post, had a much more responding win than Boris: 75% of those who voted were in favour of strike action.

A comparison that has been bandied around in the press for the last few days and its another strawman. That is a completely separate issue.

Reekwind wrote: »

That may be because you don't work there.

It constantly amazes me how many people are suddenly experts on the inner workings of the Tube. Nearly as surprising as how many people see absolutely no problem with sweeping changes being made to someone else's job. It's akin to having a coal miner following me around the office and berating my Excel skills or suggesting that I calm down when a sixth of my company's jobs are disappearing and I've got to reapply for my current job.

It amazes me too as I didn't realize you were such an authority on the strikes given the level of certainty expressed in your posts. It might surprise you but most people in London use the tube quite regularly, understand some of the issues with the service and are entitled to an opinion different to yours based on the coverage in the media. Obviously these are opinions from afar but the key issues are being debated in the public domain by the key players and its entirely reasonable for people to make up their own mind as to whether they agree or disagree with the action taken. Should we all just keep our mouths shut and struggle on standing at bus stops for 30 minutes in the cold?

breadmonkey

Reekwind, do you have any association with RMT or TSSA, directly or indirectly?

Fysh

breadmonkey wrote: »

Reekwind, do you have any association with RMT or TSSA, directly or indirectly?

That's an irrelevant question and I'm taking this opportunity to put my Mod Hat on:
Attack the post, not the poster. You do not need to know any poster's personal connection to either side in order to discuss or debate their comments, and asking the question seems worryingly close to trying to dismiss an opinion with a "well, of course you'd say that" handwave.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

Whilst agreeing that the ability to strike is a very important right that we need to protect I also feel that measures need to be introduced to stop Unions abusing their power especially in relation to essential services like the tube. To be able to call a strike of this impact based on a 30% turnout is frankly a ludicrous situation to be in. Having read a lot of material on both sides of this debate I still cannot see a valid reason for this strike.

I'm entirely in favour of a strict quorum requirement for union strike votes, with the proviso that the exact same requirement is applied to all government elections. If a 38% turnout is enough to elect the Mayor of London, a 40% turnout is enough for a union to call a strike. (Personally, I'm also a fan of the Australian system wherein you're fined if you are on the electoral register and don't vote in an election, but that might be tricky to apply to union members...)

Playboy wrote: »

TFL should be able to make decisions on staffing without facing a strike. There is no compulsory redundancy here and as others have stated many of the workers have come forward for voluntary redundancy. Staff will be redeployed from ticket offices where in most stations (bar the very busy central london station) they are under utilized. I don't see why that is a bad thing or why it means we need a strike? Are we to believe that the Union believes that reducing ticket office staff numbers will impact safety and that the motivation of the strike is to protect Joe public?

Happy to be informed differently but I really just dont get what all the fuss is about.

The rhetoric from both sides has gotten in the way of actually discussing the changes, unfortunately, which is frustrating for everyone - more so as the strike drew closer and both Bob Crow and Boris Johnson decided that playing the hard man was more important than actually achieving a resolution to the dispute.

As I understand it there are several issues at hand:
1) the plan to close all ticket offices is already problematic - my own experience of the Tube & Overground stations in Kilburn alone is that if I had to rely purely on the machines for any Oyster-related operations, I'd have been unable to get to work on at least a couple of dozen occasions in the last few years. So I already find myself sceptical on that one.
2) despite the "no compulsory redundancies" line being touted, I've heard suggestions at several points that staff affected by the changes are having their job titles and descriptions changed just enough to require them to reapply for their jobs. That may sound innocent, but as a public sector employee I happen to know (from personal experience) it's a trick that is sometimes used by management to get rid of people who are on inconveniently high wages or older contracts with better terms than are now offered by the company. Unfortunately Union support (including the threat of strike action) is frequently the only defence against such manouevres that actually works; I'm wary to just take it as gospel that the nice man from TfL is being entirely sincere and that no workers are getting shafted as a result.

On a wider scale, saying that unions running non-essential services (and whether you disagree on that in principle, in legal fact the Underground is currently classed as a non-essential service) should not have the right to strike in protest at changes to their working conditions is a stance that has far-reaching implications, most of them negative for anyone who can in any way be classed as a "worker". (It's also worth noting that the party currently in power is also the party who did such a stellar job of promoting competition and ongoing reinvestment into that other non-essential chunk of transport network known as national rail. So I wouldn't recommend having too much faith in them...)

breadmonkey

Fysh wrote: »

That's an irrelevant question and I'm taking this opportunity to put my Mod Hat on:
Attack the post, not the poster. You do not need to know any poster's personal connection to either side in order to discuss or debate their comments, and asking the question seems worryingly close to trying to dismiss an opinion with a "well, of course you'd say that" handwave.

I don't understand that is definitely relevant to the discussion at hand. What's wrong with having all our cards on the table here?

Reekwind

Playboy wrote: »

Re the bolded bit, that is your opinion so its not categorical

No, it is. The Tube is not an essential service. Neither the UK government nor the relevant UN agency (the ILO) consider rail services to be 'essential'. Not like hospitals, utilities, police, air traffic controllers, fire brigade, etc. These all have restrictions on striking because their absence would put lives at risk

You may feel that the Tube should be an essential service but that's a different matter. But in that case you'll have to explain how the lack of an Underground system would put the very fabric of society at work. Complicating people's commutes is not on the same scale.

A comparison that has been bandied around in the press for the last few days and its another strawman. That is a completely separate issue

Because...? How can you question the legitimacy of workers voting to stop doing their job and then apply a completely different standard to electing a mayor, assembly or government?

breadmonkey wrote:

Reekwind, do you have any association with RMT or TSSA, directly or indirectly?

No. Why would you assume that I do?

Jack B. Badd

The next person who questions a Mod decision or warning will be taking a well-deserved holiday from the forum & this thread will be locked.

Thank you,
Jack

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

On a wider scale, saying that unions running non-essential services (and whether you disagree on that in principle, in legal fact the Underground is currently classed as a non-essential service) should not have the right to strike in protest at changes to their working conditions is a stance that has far-reaching implications, most of them negative for anyone who can in any way be classed as a "worker".

Reekwind wrote: »

No, it is. The Tube is not an essential service. Neither the UK government nor the relevant UN agency (the ILO) consider rail services to be 'essential'. Not like hospitals, utilities, police, air traffic controllers, fire brigade, etc. These all have restrictions on striking because their absence would put lives at risk

You may feel that the Tube should be an essential service but that's a different matter. But in that case you'll have to explain how the lack of an Underground system would put the very fabric of society at work. Complicating people's commutes is not on the same scale.

Fair point re the legal classification of an 'essential' service but in my opinion something is essential if it can not be done without. London would not be able to function for any extended period of time without the tube, it would absolutely cripple the economy of the City.

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I'm entirely in favour of a strict quorum requirement for union strike votes, with the proviso that the exact same requirement is applied to all government elections. If a 38% turnout is enough to elect the Mayor of London, a 40% turnout is enough for a union to call a strike. (Personally, I'm also a fan of the Australian system wherein you're fined if you are on the electoral register and don't vote in an election, but that might be tricky to apply to union members...)

I don't agree or see the relevance of the comparison. A Trade Union who represents a restricted group potentially abusing their power to achieve aims that may not be in the public interest is a very different proposition to voter apathy in a mayoral election.

Fysh wrote: »

As I understand it there are several issues at hand:
1) the plan to close all ticket offices is already problematic - my own experience of the Tube & Overground stations in Kilburn alone is that if I had to rely purely on the machines for any Oyster-related operations, I'd have been unable to get to work on at least a couple of dozen occasions in the last few years. So I already find myself sceptical on that one.

Fair enough, everybody will have different personal experiences, I for instance haven't used a ticket office in about 6 years. However we cannot assume to try and control how TFL run their business. I'm sure that if the ticket offices were generating revenue and were sufficiently busy then TFL would not withdraw the service in that station. Why would they?

Fysh wrote: »

2) despite the "no compulsory redundancies" line being touted, I've heard suggestions at several points that staff affected by the changes are having their job titles and descriptions changed just enough to require them to reapply for their jobs. That may sound innocent, but as a public sector employee I happen to know (from personal experience) it's a trick that is sometimes used by management to get rid of people who are on inconveniently high wages or older contracts with better terms than are now offered by the company. Unfortunately Union support (including the threat of strike action) is frequently the only defence against such manouevres that actually works; I'm wary to just take it as gospel that the nice man from TfL is being entirely sincere and that no workers are getting shafted as a result.

Well employee contracts should cover whether that type of change is allowable. It is not an issue that I have seen discussed in relation to this strike.

Fysh wrote: »

On a wider scale, saying that unions running non-essential services (and whether you disagree on that in principle, in legal fact the Underground is currently classed as a non-essential service) should not have the right to strike in protest at changes to their working conditions is a stance that has far-reaching implications, most of them negative for anyone who can in any way be classed as a "worker". (It's also worth noting that the party currently in power is also the party who did such a stellar job of promoting competition and ongoing reinvestment into that other non-essential chunk of transport network known as national rail. So I wouldn't recommend having too much faith in them...)

I am in no way saying that workers shouldn't have a right to strike. I do think that mandatory minimum turnouts for strikes of this scale and impact would be appropriate. The level of apathy in respect to the turnout would indicate to me that this is not an issue that the majority of TFL workers feel particularly strongly about so I'm dismayed at the level of disruption it has caused over the last couple of days. I dont think Boris's office or TFL or blameless in this scenario but Bob Crowe has a history of these kind of strong arm tactics and his pursuit of extreme measures to achieve his aims in blatant disregard to the impact on the wider economy and peoples lives.

FTA69

Playboy wrote: »

I don't agree or see the relevance of the comparison. A Trade Union who represents a restricted group potentially abusing their power to achieve aims that may not be in the public interest is a very different proposition to voter apathy in a mayoral election.

It's totally relevant. On one hand you have Boris Johnson lecturing people about mandates and apathy while he himself was elected on a smaller turnout than the strike ballot. If a minimum turnout is needed for a trade union to make a call to its members, why isn't it needed for a politician to be put in charge of the entire city? The fact remains that the turnout issue is a red herring, especially considering the vast majority of TSSA and RMT workers accepted the call on the day.

However we cannot assume to try and control how TFL run their business.

This is nonsense. First of all TFL isn't a business, it's a public service that is supposed to be run in the interests of all those in the city. Second of all, it's a local body and we have every right to comment on how it is run.

I'm sure that if the ticket offices were generating revenue and were sufficiently busy then TFL would not withdraw the service in that station. Why would they?

Because Johnson is pursuing an agenda where he's implementing Tory cuts on public services?

I dont think Boris's office or TFL or blameless in this scenario but Bob Crowe has a history of these kind of strong arm tactics and his pursuit of extreme measures to achieve his aims in blatant disregard to the impact on the wider economy and peoples lives.

Crow said he was willing to meet the Mayor at any stage but Johnson refused unless he withdrew the option of industrial action. That is not negotiation, it is posturing.

Playboy

FTA69 wrote: »

It's totally relevant. On one hand you have Boris Johnson lecturing people about mandates and apathy while he himself was elected on a smaller turnout than the strike ballot. If a minimum turnout is needed for a trade union to make a call to its members, why isn't it needed for a politician to be put in charge of the entire city? The fact remains that the turnout issue is a red herring, especially considering the vast majority of TSSA and RMT workers accepted the call on the day.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree wont we? I stated my reasons earlier.

FTA69 wrote: »

This is nonsense. First of all TFL isn't a business, it's a public service that is supposed to be run in the interests of all those in the city. Second of all, it's a local body and we have every right to comment on how it is run.

It is a business and it is a business that needs to be run efficiently to keep the costs of our travel down and pay for any improvement works and maintenance. Every business needs to be able to have some flexibility in how it manages its cost base and that includes staff. If we remove any power from TFL to make these types of decisions then the public purse will be forced to subsidize it even further.

FTA69 wrote: »

Because Johnson is pursuing an agenda where he's implementing Tory cuts on public services?

What does this mean? I'm not interested in some ideological discussion about what the left or right want to do. I'm interested in having a transport infrastructure that is affordable and reliable.

FTA69 wrote: »

Crow said he was willing to meet the Mayor at any stage but Johnson refused unless he withdrew the option of industrial action. That is not negotiation, it is posturing.

The reports I read/listened to stated that the Union would not meet unless any proposals were removed first. Obviously both sides have an agenda here but the Unions cannot dictate the outcome on any and every staffing decision by using the threat of strike action. There are no compulsory redundancies here so why are we putting up with a strike?

FTA69

Well we will just have to agree to disagree wont we? I stated my reasons earlier.

We can, but as I said above, bringing up mandates is silly when you lecture people about calling on other workers to strike when you yourself are running an entire city on an even lesser mandate.

It is a business and it is a business that needs to be run efficiently to keep the costs of our travel down and pay for any improvement works and maintenance. Every business needs to be able to have some flexibility in how it manages its cost base and that includes staff.

There is always going to be a level of subsidy involved in any effective and inclusive public service. As a public service however, it has a duty to cater to those less-able to access machines etc as well as to facilitate tourists who proportionally contribute a massive amount to the London economy. TFL isn't a body driven by profit and nor should it be.

What does this mean? I'm not interested in some ideological discussion about what the left or right want to do. I'm interested in having a transport infrastructure that is affordable and reliable.

It means that Boris Johnson is a right-wing arse who is a member of a party cutting public services to the bone. This latest move is driven by the same ideology that is seeing the NHS come under attack as well a multitude of other cuts.

The reports I read/listened to stated that the Union would not meet unless any proposals were removed first.

Crow and Cortes said repeatedly they would meet with the Mayor at any stage. This was rebuffed.

tibor

There's a good write-up over on Londonist that looks at the reasons behind the strike.

http://londonist.com/2014/02/a-look-at-the-reasons-behind-the-tube-strike.php

Notably TfL refuse to comment or provide information on a number of fairly important points.

Here's hoping they get it sorted out before the next scheduled strike, even cycling during peak times was a nightmare with traffic. Added at least 5 mins to my journey.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

I don't agree or see the relevance of the comparison. A Trade Union who represents a restricted group potentially abusing their power to achieve aims that may not be in the public interest is a very different proposition to voter apathy in a mayoral election.

So you're trying to suggest that Boris Johnson being anti-union (or at least anti-RMT) is in no way related to him being a Conservative Party member and following the current Conservative drive for austerity-based cuts to any and all public services?

I'm not sure I agree.

Playboy wrote: »

Fair enough, everybody will have different personal experiences, I for instance haven't used a ticket office in about 6 years. However we cannot assume to try and control how TFL run their business. I'm sure that if the ticket offices were generating revenue and were sufficiently busy then TFL would not withdraw the service in that station. Why would they?

Having worked in the public sector for going on 7 years, I'm going to suggest that you may have entirely too much faith in the value placed on actual facts or common sense when making decisions of this sort. Bear in mind that during the Mayoral election Boris said he wouldn't close ticket offices because he knew a number of people felt strongly on the issue, so it's not like he can say this is something that even the people who voted for him explicitly supported.

Playboy wrote: »

Well employee contracts should cover whether that type of change is allowable. It is not an issue that I have seen discussed in relation to this strike.

Again, you may be placing more faith in the adherence to good practice and Not Playing Silly Buggers in the public sector than is necessarily the case. I've seen it mentioned by a couple of TfL employees asked about their concerns regarding the changes, but as most of the coverage has been this idiotic presentation of the strike as a Bob Crow Vs Boris Johnson thing relevant aspects like this (even if only to debunk them) have been mostly ignored.

Playboy wrote: »

I am in no way saying that workers shouldn't have a right to strike. I do think that mandatory minimum turnouts for strikes of this scale and impact would be appropriate. The level of apathy in respect to the turnout would indicate to me that this is not an issue that the majority of TFL workers feel particularly strongly about so I'm dismayed at the level of disruption it has caused over the last couple of days. I dont think Boris's office or TFL or blameless in this scenario but Bob Crowe has a history of these kind of strong arm tactics and his pursuit of extreme measures to achieve his aims in blatant disregard to the impact on the wider economy and peoples lives.

Bob Crow being a bollix doesn't invalidate the strike, though, and I stand by my assertion that if stewardship of the entire country or a given council or borough can be secured on the same kind of turnout that voted for this strike, then it's legitimate.

Placing higher quorum demands on strike action than on actual public representation is a dangerous and anti-labour-rights move, no matter the grounds or motivations for doing so.

I'm also going to take a somewhat controversial stance on the whole "Tube is essential" angle - I disagree that it is essential. It is not impossible to get around London when the Tube isn't running, it's merely inconvenient - in some cases journey times are considerably longer, in other cases alternate routes are needed, in yet other cases you have to walk. But when some of the people complaining about the Tube being "essential" are people who didn't plan at all for the strike, turned up on the day wearing high heels and then spent 2 hours waiting for a bus because the notion of actually walking anywhere was anathema to them, I find it hard to believe.

Bearing in mind that the current essential services are things like the Metropolitan Police, the Ambulance Service and the Fire Brigade (the latter of which have in fact been on strike recently because, again, of Boris Johnson's austerity-driven cuts to public services) - the comparison should be obvious. There are alternatives to the Underground for the vast majority of journeys, albeit less convenient ones; there are not alternatives to the police or fire services available to those of us who need them (unless you're a private megacorp with your own private mercenary army on retainer ).

Playboy

On a lighter note, a great article in the Daily Mash!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/tube-strike-backfires-as-commuters-steal-train-keys-and-drive-themselves-201011303299

Tube Strike Backfires As Commuters Steal Train Keys And Drive Themselves

THE London tube strike ended abruptly last night after commuters stormed trains and instantly mastered the controls.

Remember to stop when you get to one of these
The latest walk-out was prompted by concerns over reduced staffing levels in ticket offices, or pay, or the withdrawal of Quavers from canteen vending machines masquerading as some bull**** about safety.

But the action backfired when a group of frustrated would-be travellers stole keys and entered train cabs to discover that tube driving mainly involves pressing a button.

Civilian hijacker, Martin Bishop, said: “When we got in the cab we discovered there was just one button. A big, red button like a clown’s nose.

“You press it once to stop, once to go. And the train itself is on rails, so you don’t have to worry about steering.

“I thought to myself, ‘I can probably handle this’.”

He added: “Basically, working a train is not that hard and if I was getting forty grand a year to do it I’d probably keep my head down, perhaps even do cockney-style sing-a-longs over the PA to keep everyone sweet.

“In Paris they don’t even have human drivers, it’s all automatic and inside the cabs there’s just a baguette with a cap stuck on it.”

Meanwhile, other angry civilians broke into ticket offices and immediately began operating them in a friendly and polite manner.

Disgruntled punter Emma Bradford said: “Apparently reducing ticket office staffing levels in stations would make them less safe. But, while I can understand that in principle, last time I went to the ticket window and asked for a Zone 2 Travelcard, the man looked at me as if I’d just offered to fill his hat with some of my ****.

“So on that basis, I’m not entirely sure the same person could be relied upon to help if my hair was on fire.”

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

Not at all, they're collectively withdrawing their labour in defence of their conditions and also in support of an important service within the Underground.

Whether or not a ticket office at every station is important seems to be a fundamental issue that people disagree on. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used a ticket office for anything, but I can understand their importance to tourists. But, would staff on the station concourse not be just as effective?

FTA69 wrote: »

It means that Boris Johnson is a right-wing arse who is a member of a party cutting public services to the bone.

Closing some ticket offices hardly constitutes cutting the tube service “to the bone”.

djpbarry

Fysh wrote: »

I'm also going to take a somewhat controversial stance on the whole "Tube is essential" angle - I disagree that it is essential. It is not impossible to get around London when the Tube isn't running, it's merely inconvenient - in some cases journey times are considerably longer, in other cases alternate routes are needed, in yet other cases you have to walk. But when some of the people complaining about the Tube being "essential" are people who didn't plan at all for the strike, turned up on the day wearing high heels and then spent 2 hours waiting for a bus because the notion of actually walking anywhere was anathema to them, I find it hard to believe.

You’re being just a touch harsh here. The point was made that London in its current form could not function for long without the tube and I don’t think there can be any reasonable argument against that – remove the tube and London’s economic output collapses.

As for alternatives to the tube, that’s not a reasonable argument. London’s transport system simply does not have the capacity to pick up the slack if the tube is not operational. Getting a bus during rush hour is difficult at the best of times – getting one in the absence of the tube was nigh on impossible. So, you’re relying on people to walk, cycle or drive. Plenty of people opted for the last option, hence the roads were choked for three days. As for the other options, as much as I’d like to the see the entire city walking or cycling to work, I have to concede it’s not realistic. I usually cycle to work (although I didn’t on one occasion last week because the wind was so strong I deemed it too dangerous), but let’s be honest, that’s not for everyone and for others the distance is just too great to walk (or maybe they’re just not capable).

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re being just a touch harsh here. The point was made that London in its current form could not function for long without the tube and I don’t think there can be any reasonable argument against that – remove the tube and London’s economic output collapses.

Keep in mind that the term 'essential' in this context refers to services that really are essential to the maintenance of society. If there is no fire brigade then London could burn, if there are no police force then law and order breaks down, if there are no hospitals then people die. And so on. The Tube is just not in that category

Whether or not a ticket office at every station is important seems to be a fundamental issue that people disagree on. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used a ticket office for anything, but I can understand their importance to tourists. But, would staff on the station concourse not be just as effective?

I doubt the latter (because look at the queues at offices today - the windows and barriers are there for a reason) but in truth I don't think anyone is overly fussed about the physical offices. It's the elimination of staff that's the issue - the idea that you can maintain the same level of service with (net) 750 odd less workers is questionable at best

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

Keep in mind that the term 'essential' in this context refers to services that really are essential to the maintenance of society.

I never even used the word “essential” – you’re responding to a point I didn’t make.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's the elimination of staff that's the issue - the idea that you can maintain the same level of service with (net) 750 odd less workers is questionable at best

So more staff guarantees better service?

afatbollix

Lusas and the tram line from Wimbledon to Croydon work without ticket offices..

No reason the tube can't either. But I do agree that the tourist areas and main stations should keep ticket offices.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

I never even used the word “essential” – you’re responding to a point I didn’t make

So you're not suggesting that the Tube is important enough to be included in the list of essential services that have legal restrictions on striking? My mistake then

So more staff guarantees better service?

"Guarantee" is a strong word, and not one that I'd use, but the obverse is typically the case. Slashing a workforce while maintaining the same level of customer service requires a damn good process/tech solution to offset the manpower loss.

As tibor's link above noted, that's a pretty key question in this case: how to maintain existing service levels with a fraction of the resources? That's something that TfL have come nowhere near to answering.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

So you're not suggesting that the Tube is important enough to be included in the list of essential services that have legal restrictions on striking?

No, I’m saying that London would be screwed without the tube.

Reekwind wrote: »

"Guarantee" is a strong word, and not one that I'd use, but the obverse is typically the case. Slashing a workforce while maintaining the same level of customer service requires a damn good process/tech solution to offset the manpower loss.

Like automated ticket machines and driverless trains?

enda1

this conversation is going nowhere... just like the tube tomorrow :P