E
EddieM
The jubliee, central, waterloo & city, northern, hammersmith & district, victoria lines are perfectly capable of being driverless, but they're not.
British rail come back.
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
The jubliee, central, waterloo & city, northern, hammersmith & district, victoria lines are perfectly capable of being driverless, but they're not.
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
Here's a no doubt overly sensational article.
https://www.cityam.com/tube-driver-salaries-break-100000-barrier-despite-train/
https://www.cityam.com/tube-driver-salaries-break-100000-barrier-despite-train/
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,551
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Country
Generally I think there is a balance. They can hold a company to account, when its practices are poor, but in the railways they have gone much further. They hold back progress and they drive conditions and pay that are uneconomical.
No, you said "If they could just get rid of the unions"
So where is the balance in that?
How can they hold a company to account if they don't exist?
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
Quit being pedantic, Motorbiking clearly meant unions that can hold industries to ransom.
Two examples spring to mind.
My company manufactures and installs equipment that can be used in the manufacture and maintenance of trains. I'm being deliberately vague as if i explained what we did it would be obvious who the customers were to those in the industry.
We are currently installing a number of units at a rail related depot in a new building. We have to apply for daily permits to work in the building and we have to apply for a permit for each process. That wouldn't normally be an issue, expect that on this site we have to apply for a permit for each process for each unit we are installing. There are approx 10 processes we do each day, and we are installing 7 units all in the same building. That means both ourselves and the customer have to administer at least 70 permits to work each day instead of 10 permits to work. All permits are identical, with the exception that each permit has the bay number on it. There is no one else working in the building at present.
We challenged the customer about the necessity for a set of permits per unit because its madness, but the customer has an agreement with their union that permits will be issued per unit because each unit sits in a bay and the union has demanded that permits be issued per bay on the grounds of safety. In effect, the union is protecting two unnecessary jobs within the customer's organisation. The customer understood this, but accepted it as appeasement to the union and wrote it off as a cost of doing business. After being on site for 3 months, one of the permit issuers went off sick. A new permit issuer was appointed by the customer. The new permit issuer refused to accept the existing system and wanted something different. The customer tried to insist on the existing system. The union was brought in to negotiate. Eventually, the current system was accepted, except it took 9 working days to resolve. For that 9 working days, my team sat on site not being able to work but expecting it to be resolved the next day so we didn't pull them from site.
We did another installation on another site 4 years ago. On completing the installation, a train was driven to the depot for maintenance work to start on it. Our first unit sits 50 metres inside the building. On arrival, the train driver refused to drive the train 50m into the building because the building was operated by a company with a different union to his own. The customer's driver wouldn't drive the train into their building because the 50m journey started on network rail track which has a different union to his own. It took over a week to resolve, and was resolved after 4 meetings with respective unions and site management by both drivers being in the cab at the same time. The train sat outside the building for a week, unused, whilst the respective unions argued about who's driver should drive the train. The operatives inside the building had nothing to do for the week that the train sat outside (and i mean literally nothing to do. This was a new facility and this was the first train being delivered for processing).
The list of examples of general intransigence and deliberate disruptive behaviour by some of the unionised employees goes on and on, with the employees knowing that their employer will have a real problem if they take them on. That attitude and the fear by the employer of the union taking action against them with the associated costs permeates through the industry and means that there is huge resistance to change or finding efficiencies.
i designed equipment that was used on track renewal projects. During the development of the system I did several days on track evaluating how the system related to the project.
Even where there was no possibility of a train getting to the work site full Hi-Viz clothing has to be worn at all times.
This policy backfired when trackwork on a scorching hot day was carried out by a work force in full Hi_Viz. There was no train access to the work site.
Some of the workforce were badly affected by the heat. I believe one person was taken to hospital with heat ( or sun ) stroke.
Even where there was no possibility of a train getting to the work site full Hi-Viz clothing has to be worn at all times.
This policy backfired when trackwork on a scorching hot day was carried out by a work force in full Hi_Viz. There was no train access to the work site.
Some of the workforce were badly affected by the heat. I believe one person was taken to hospital with heat ( or sun ) stroke.
Nothing pedantic at all about pointing out the actual meaning of 'get rid of'!
E
EddieM
Nothing pedantic at all about pointing out the meaning of 'get rid of'!
Maybe you could try and think around a subject, whilst not wishing to put words into the OP's mouth, it could easily be inferred that they meant get rid of militant unions, rather than unions per se.
Oh dear...
Backtracking does you no good when the bleeding obvious is pointed out!
'Inferred' doesn't work!
If the OP had meant 'get rid of militant unions' he should have stated it instead of a general 'just get rid of the unions'...
But just out of interest, how would you define the difference between 'militant' unions and 'non militant' unions?
And how would you define the difference between honest private companies and those who work for their greedy shareholders/fat cats?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,551
- Reaction score
- 2,173
- Country
"Get rid" of Rail unions because "They hold back progress and they drive conditions and pay that are uneconomical"
Not "Get rid" of all Unions because "Generally I think there is a balance. They can hold a company to account"
I can see other ways to hold a company to account on employee conditions.
Not "Get rid" of all Unions because "Generally I think there is a balance. They can hold a company to account"
I can see other ways to hold a company to account on employee conditions.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,784
- Reaction score
- 849
- Country
The Tory's know that the only way to stay in power is to nick all the labour and liberal policies.
Ah, so get rid of all rail unions then...
Would you stop there or get rid of other unions because in your opinion 'they hold back progress'?
And what is your definition of 'holding back progress' or 'driving conditions and pay that are uneconomical' in other industries/services?
Are the pay of the bosses and their conditions 'economical'?
Last edited:
Ah, so you have a little pin prick then given you have knowledge of such thingsYou could convert - just a small local anasthetic nowadays.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
