Southern Rail Strike - right or wrong - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Southern Rail Strike - right or wrong

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 9 of 74 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

johnfirewall 02 Dec 16 9.37pm
If they dropped the 'safety' angle the public could actually decide whether they're behind them and we might see support for something which protects staff without preventing progress. 70% of trains already being operated in the proposed fashion with only the driver but 30% held back by dinosaurs has seen them lose the contract.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

02 Dec 16 9.37pm

If they dropped the 'safety' angle the public could actually decide whether they're behind them and we might see support for something which protects staff without preventing progress.

70% of trains already being operated in the proposed fashion with only the driver but 30% held back by dinosaurs has seen them lose the contract.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 16 9.47pm
Originally posted by johnfirewall If they dropped the 'safety' angle the public could actually decide whether they're behind them and we might see support for something which protects staff without preventing progress. 70% of trains already being operated in the proposed fashion with only the driver but 30% held back by dinosaurs has seen them lose the contract. I may be wrong, but I'm sure I heard/read that most of the 70% of trains are a lot shorter than the 12+ carriage trains on some southern routes.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 16 9.47pm

Originally posted by johnfirewall

If they dropped the 'safety' angle the public could actually decide whether they're behind them and we might see support for something which protects staff without preventing progress.

70% of trains already being operated in the proposed fashion with only the driver but 30% held back by dinosaurs has seen them lose the contract.

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I heard/read that most of the 70% of trains are a lot shorter than the 12+ carriage trains on some southern routes.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 02 Dec 16 10.43pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I may be wrong, but I'm sure I heard/read that most of the 70% of trains are a lot shorter than the 12+ carriage trains on some southern routes. Not all platforms can accommodate 12 carriages, let alone more. You could have more carriages, and get passengers to get on the train where appropriate. You are then putting the rail company in the position of explaining to customers which carriages they can use if the wish to alight at various different stations. It's even confusing trying to word it correctly, so getting Joe Moron/Public to comply is futile. Increasing platform length is not possible in many cases. Even if it was, it's quite expensive. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 02 Dec 16 10.43pm

Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Originally posted by nickgusset

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I heard/read that most of the 70% of trains are a lot shorter than the 12+ carriage trains on some southern routes.

Not all platforms can accommodate 12 carriages, let alone more. You could have more carriages, and get passengers to get on the train where appropriate. You are then putting the rail company in the position of explaining to customers which carriages they can use if the wish to alight at various different stations. It's even confusing trying to word it correctly, so getting Joe Moron/Public to comply is futile. Increasing platform length is not possible in many cases. Even if it was, it's quite expensive.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 02 Dec 16 11.06pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I may be wrong, but I'm sure I heard/read that most of the 70% of trains are a lot shorter than the 12+ carriage trains on some southern routes. I'm not aware that there is such a thing as >12 here and I can't see the difference when the carriages are monitored by the driver on CCTV screens but if we're talking technical capabilities it's common across the world to have 4 carriages running driverless. The sort of thing that wouldn't really occur to Londonders aside from in this debate.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

02 Dec 16 11.06pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I may be wrong, but I'm sure I heard/read that most of the 70% of trains are a lot shorter than the 12+ carriage trains on some southern routes.

I'm not aware that there is such a thing as >12 here and I can't see the difference when the carriages are monitored by the driver on CCTV screens but if we're talking technical capabilities it's common across the world to have 4 carriages running driverless. The sort of thing that wouldn't really occur to Londonders aside from in this debate.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 03 Dec 16 10.03am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 I think going on strike is akin to holding someone to ransom. It's playing on the survival of someone. In this case the MD. It is immoral. I have no problem with unions, in fact I think they are needed more now than in the last 30 odd years. Negotiation between workers and management is at 1930's levels. But striking just piles on misery to countless innocents who have nothing to do with the perceived problem. In this day and age, companies should be allowed to sack anyone who strikes, as there are plenty of other deserving workers who are desperate to earn their wages. I understand that this sounds Victorian, but workers rights have been established. Striking to merely increase wages (same as less hours, same wages) or to keep unnecessary jobs is downright idiotic. Negotiating pay rises, genuine H&S issues (which are already almost non-existant, bar stupidity) fine. But refuse to work to get that, P45! Work to rule, go slow, constant union pressure on the management (meetings every day) are legitimate methods of getting results. Striking is only acceptable if pay or conditions are adverse to a workers well being. Those conditions are illegal. As is blackmail, which is how I view unions calling strikes over spurious matters. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (02 Dec 2016 8.16pm) One of the best posts about this debate so far. Well said Tim.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 03 Dec 16 10.03am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

I think going on strike is akin to holding someone to ransom. It's playing on the survival of someone. In this case the MD. It is immoral.

I have no problem with unions, in fact I think they are needed more now than in the last 30 odd years. Negotiation between workers and management is at 1930's levels. But striking just piles on misery to countless innocents who have nothing to do with the perceived problem.

In this day and age, companies should be allowed to sack anyone who strikes, as there are plenty of other deserving workers who are desperate to earn their wages. I understand that this sounds Victorian, but workers rights have been established. Striking to merely increase wages (same as less hours, same wages) or to keep unnecessary jobs is downright idiotic. Negotiating pay rises, genuine H&S issues (which are already almost non-existant, bar stupidity) fine. But refuse to work to get that, P45! Work to rule, go slow, constant union pressure on the management (meetings every day) are legitimate methods of getting results.

Striking is only acceptable if pay or conditions are adverse to a workers well being. Those conditions are illegal. As is blackmail, which is how I view unions calling strikes over spurious matters.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (02 Dec 2016 8.16pm)

One of the best posts about this debate so far.

Well said Tim.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 03 Dec 16 12.51pm
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 I have no problem with unions, in fact I think they are needed more now than in the last 30 odd years. Striking is only acceptable if pay or conditions are adverse to a workers well being. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (02 Dec 2016 8.16pm) So,where public safety is a legitimate issue and the dispute directly affects the employees' own conditions(ie masses will lose their jobs)you,on the basis of your own analysis (lauded by Hoof), should think it legit that they strike in this instance,no?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

03 Dec 16 12.51pm

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

I have no problem with unions, in fact I think they are needed more now than in the last 30 odd years.

Striking is only acceptable if pay or conditions are adverse to a workers well being.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (02 Dec 2016 8.16pm)

So,where public safety is a legitimate issue and the dispute directly affects the employees' own conditions(ie masses will lose their jobs)you,on the basis of your own analysis (lauded by Hoof), should think it legit that they strike in this instance,no?

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 03 Dec 16 9.48pm
Originally posted by legaleagle So,where public safety is a legitimate issue and the dispute directly affects the employees' own conditions(ie masses will lose their jobs)you,on the basis of your own analysis (lauded by Hoof), should think it legit that they strike in this instance,no? Public safety is not detrimental to the workers who are going to strike. It may be an argument for keeping guards, but that is in dispute. So, no reason to strike. If public safety is proved not to be an issue, the guard's job is redundant. So, no reason to strike. The guards who are being removed from the trains are being offered other positions. So, no reason to strike. So, to answer your question. A strike is not legitimate. It is merely "arm-flexing", and should be made illegal in situations like this. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 03 Dec 16 9.48pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

Public safety is not detrimental to the workers who are going to strike. It may be an argument for keeping guards, but that is in dispute. So, no reason to strike.

If public safety is proved not to be an issue, the guard's job is redundant. So, no reason to strike.

The guards who are being removed from the trains are being offered other positions. So, no reason to strike.

So, to answer your question. A strike is not legitimate. It is merely "arm-flexing", and should be made illegal in situations like this.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 04 Dec 16 10.38am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Public safety is not detrimental to the workers who are going to strike. It may be an argument for keeping guards, but that is in dispute. So, no reason to strike. If public safety is proved not to be an issue, the guard's job is redundant. So, no reason to strike. The guards who are being removed from the trains are being offered other positions. So, no reason to strike. So, to answer your question. A strike is not legitimate. It is merely "arm-flexing", and should be made illegal in situations like this. I "laud" you again Tim. A strike in this instance is most definitely not legitimate and the Union are just sh1t stirring.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 04 Dec 16 10.38am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Public safety is not detrimental to the workers who are going to strike. It may be an argument for keeping guards, but that is in dispute. So, no reason to strike.

If public safety is proved not to be an issue, the guard's job is redundant. So, no reason to strike.

The guards who are being removed from the trains are being offered other positions. So, no reason to strike.

So, to answer your question. A strike is not legitimate. It is merely "arm-flexing", and should be made illegal in situations like this.

I "laud" you again Tim.

A strike in this instance is most definitely not legitimate and the Union are just sh1t stirring.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 04 Dec 16 10.50am
The strike is wholly legitimate. DOO is less safe... I worked to introduce it for years. I've sat in meetings where management have admitted it's less safe... but could we muddy the waters enough to get this thru. Halfing the safety trained staff is always going to impact safety... only a moron would say otherwise. The head of safety changed jobs at my company (he moved to driver training) he didn't wanna sign off on DOO. Now I don't know if it went against his morals or it was self preservation.., but he didn't want his name on DOO. I spoke to a ex colleague last night... she says some middle management are voicing concerns. Also Southern lied about sickness and they also implemented a overtime ban(they thought staff would fund strike days with overtime) Southern denied this publicly, a few managers went broken arrow and released memos on social media proving Southern were lying. There is now a massive distrust between senior and middle management. One manager also released sickness stats proving Southern were lying about high levels of sickness. Edited by 7mins (04 Dec 2016 10.52am)
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 04 Dec 16 10.50am

The strike is wholly legitimate. DOO is less safe... I worked to introduce it for years. I've sat in meetings where management have admitted it's less safe... but could we muddy the waters enough to get this thru. Halfing the safety trained staff is always going to impact safety... only a moron would say otherwise. The head of safety changed jobs at my company (he moved to driver training) he didn't wanna sign off on DOO. Now I don't know if it went against his morals or it was self preservation.., but he didn't want his name on DOO.
I spoke to a ex colleague last night... she says some middle management are voicing concerns. Also Southern lied about sickness and they also implemented a overtime ban(they thought staff would fund strike days with overtime) Southern denied this publicly, a few managers went broken arrow and released memos on social media proving Southern were lying.
There is now a massive distrust between senior and middle management. One manager also released sickness stats proving Southern were lying about high levels of sickness.

Edited by 7mins (04 Dec 2016 10.52am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 04 Dec 16 11.05am
Originally posted by 7mins The strike is wholly legitimate. DOO is less safe... I worked to introduce it for years. I've sat in meetings where management have admitted it's less safe... but could we muddy the waters enough to get this thru. Halfing the safety trained staff is always going to impact safety... only a moron would say otherwise. The head of safety changed jobs at my company (he moved to driver training) he didn't wanna sign off on DOO. Now I don't know if it went against his morals or it was self preservation.., but he didn't want his name on DOO. I spoke to a ex colleague last night... she says some middle management are voicing concerns. Also Southern lied about sickness and they also implemented a overtime ban(they thought staff would fund strike days with overtime) Southern denied this publicly, a few managers went broken arrow and released memos on social media proving Southern were lying. There is now a massive distrust between senior and middle management. One manager also released sickness stats proving Southern were lying about high levels of sickness. Edited by 7mins (04 Dec 2016 10.52am) Why is it that I and millions like me get on the tube every day which is DOO and it works like clockwork with no safety issues about the doors opening and closing? When I was a very young lad in the 60's I used to get the BR train from Carshalton to Sutton and the grown ups let me open the door myself, get on board and shut it myself. The Guard stood at the back of the train with a green flag and a whistle. He made no attempt to help anyone.... he just waved his flag and blew his whistle when all the doors were shut. Safety my arse.... this is just blatant job protectionism nothing more nothing less... just like the opposition to removing ticket offices to replace them with more efficient ticket machines. Stop talking bollocks man.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 04 Dec 16 11.05am

Originally posted by 7mins

Edited by 7mins (04 Dec 2016 10.52am)

Why is it that I and millions like me get on the tube every day which is DOO and it works like clockwork with no safety issues about the doors opening and closing?

When I was a very young lad in the 60's I used to get the BR train from Carshalton to Sutton and the grown ups let me open the door myself, get on board and shut it myself.

The Guard stood at the back of the train with a green flag and a whistle. He made no attempt to help anyone.... he just waved his flag and blew his whistle when all the doors were shut.

Safety my arse.... this is just blatant job protectionism nothing more nothing less... just like the opposition to removing ticket offices to replace them with more efficient ticket machines.

Stop talking bollocks man.

Alert a moderator to this post

gambler Kent 04 Dec 16 11.14am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Why is it that I and millions like me get on the tube every day which is DOO and it works like clockwork with no safety issues about the doors opening and closing? When I was a very young lad in the 60's I used to get the BR train from Carshalton to Sutton and the grown ups let me open the door myself, get on board and shut it myself. The Guard stood at the back of the train with a green flag and a whistle. He made no attempt to help anyone.... he just waved his flag and blew his whistle when all the doors were shut. Safety my arse.... this is just blatant job protectionism nothing more nothing less... just like the opposition to removing ticket offices to replace them with more efficient ticket machines. Stop talking bollocks man. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

gambler

Kent 04 Dec 16 11.14am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Why is it that I and millions like me get on the tube every day which is DOO and it works like clockwork with no safety issues about the doors opening and closing?

When I was a very young lad in the 60's I used to get the BR train from Carshalton to Sutton and the grown ups let me open the door myself, get on board and shut it myself.

The Guard stood at the back of the train with a green flag and a whistle. He made no attempt to help anyone.... he just waved his flag and blew his whistle when all the doors were shut.

Safety my arse.... this is just blatant job protectionism nothing more nothing less... just like the opposition to removing ticket offices to replace them with more efficient ticket machines.

Stop talking bollocks man.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

gambler Kent 04 Dec 16 11.15am
[Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

gambler

Kent 04 Dec 16 11.15am

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 9 of 74 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Southern Rail Strike - right or wrong

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors