Not sure what any of the Corbyn stuff has to do with anything. Are you suggesting the quotes are fabricated? If we're working on the assumption that the entire British media is fabricating quotes then probably no point in discussing any of this.

Yep, southern refusing to negotiate is widely reported in the media I read (which is accross the political spectrum) and is undoubtedly a factor in the strikes, one which I also find infuriating, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the cause of the strikes from a union perspective.

The leader of the union has stated they are politically motivated. When the leader of a union states strikes are being coordinated to hurt the government, I perhaps foolishly assume that the strikes are being coordinated to hurt the government. You seem to be taking a different view somehow?

"Not a reason to strike but I'd go along with it". What does that mean? Are you honestly trying to justify a union for workers of a train network striking and disrupting wide swathes of the public on a daily basis for months and months because they don't like the elected government? Unreal.

Edited by IMpalace (19 Dec 2016 6.46pm)

Nice bit of impartiality from yer mp there!

The fact he has glossed over the DOO issue, it's far more complex, as seen in the evidence in this thread, than 'oh they do it on other lines' rebuttal to the issues.

'Holding the region to ransom with no cause' Erm, yes there is major concern from 94% of drivers (of which a small percentage may want to bring down the government) that they and their passengers will not be safe if what Southern propose goes through.

Those who are anti the union are effectively saying they want the rail service to be less safe so that dividends are higher.

I stand by the comments that the 'Tories are anti working class'

To be fair, she's not supposed to be impartial - I want her to be on MY side.

The DOO issue: I saw a comment earlier (apologies, can't remember who from) that it works on Thameslink because they only have 6 or 8 car trains. If that's the case, are we saying that it would be a sufficient guarantee if Southern said they would guarantee a gard on any train above a certain number of cars?

Also, I'm not doubting you, but do you have a source for the 94% figure (the only one I can find is in a tube dispute)

Still haven't seen a source, which is what I was after. As I said, I don't necessarily doubt it, but without a source it's just a number on a message board.

I'm not expecting she knows the full story from all angles, as, I imagine, neither do you. I'm leaning towards the union point of view slightly, but Southern, ASLEF, and the RMT can ALL go f**k themselves, bluntly. A plague on all their houses

Nobody is going to lose their job, so what are the guards going to be doing if it goes ahead? Maybe they can also inspect tickets whilst the train is moving, and look down the six carriages from the middle of the train and inform the driver of a safety issue on 12 carriage trains at stations with bends. Southern/GTR won't be getting rid of ticket inspectors, so why can this not be a solution?

Obviously none of the "intellectuals" of the organisations want to back down, but how about considering it?

Edit: Oh, and they can do all the H&S stuff if the driver dies too. Give them a bonus for it even.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (19 Dec 2016 9.45pm)

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

That may well be "the long term plan", but you cannot argue that ticket inspectors are being phased out. You said yourself that they need revenue to hit targets for bonuses. If the ticket inspectors job becomes the guards job, then the ticket inspectors job, as it is, will become redundant. So they will eventually become excess to requirements, the said reduction of workforce (90%)?) will reduce, and safety remains at it's current level.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers