Tube strike

[longfingernails]

Could Bob Crowe posssibly get London to hate him more?

The RMT are the NUM of today - and unlike the miners, no-one actually likes TfL staff or has any romantic notions about their work.

By the way, Ken Livingstone works from the offices of one of the striking unions, the TSSA.

So, MNers, how did you beat the strike and get into work today?

they lied about weapons of mass destruction, and I think that their green claims and boasts are a similar weapon of mass decption.

mass deception

claig just curious, who are 'they'?

I'm going to step away before this gets any wierder, but FWIW I do know whereof I speak, (have some friends who are scientists; other friends who work in these mythical 'green industries'; and a DH who works in the field as well) and it's all for real I promise.

they are the politicians, those who deceived us about the war. I'm glad that you have so much faith in them and the scientists. I expect you also believed their pandemic swine-flu death projections as well. I don't go by promises, I've seen Tony Blair break too many of them.

The tube prices are so high because it is part privatised, transport systems in huge cities never make money, they need subsidy to work. Free markets don't work, they are wasteful and inefficient. Merely political ideology which is why right wing lunatics support them. (See this thread) Market economics nearly destroyed society 2 years ago. It's simple, shut up and pay up.

Go to Tokyo and see a proper, hugely subsidised system at work, not a single delay, train delays make the local news...pay for quality. Even Moscow runs on time...because the state pays for it, doing the work markets never can...

Coolfonz

Please explain to me why part of each Tube fare should be paid by taxpayers instead of farepayers? Especially when the Tube is running at pretty much full capacity in terms of passenger numbers.

I'm guessing that you don't like the bankers who work for Goldman Sachs. Why exactly do you want to pay for their Tube fare?

tbh I find most the comments on here pretty distressing especially the 7/7 ones - wtf! Were you actually there?

Two important points re strikes:

1. Safety may not be important to you but perhaps you don;t get the tube home at odd hours by yourself to remote stations. If you did you might be more worried about rape, muggings or even being thrown under a train all of which have happened in the last year. Not just women of course but men too who are especially at risk of assault. And older people. I don't like being the only one on the platform, I especially don't like being just one person except for a group of young men or (often worse) teenage girls) - perhaps wrongly but I find it intimidating. I also may in future need help with a buggy. This is why I want fully staffed tube stations and ticket offices and think the strikers are right.

2. The attitude on here to collective action is horrible. Unions are important as is the right to strike if employers make unreasonable demands. Those comments about how much drivers earn - why is it if someone earns more than you people get so bitter about their employment rights - they have rights too. Novicemama you mention they earn 40k. Maybe you are pissed off because you get less - well are you responsible for hundreds of people's safety. Or maybe you earn more than them and you are one of those people who likes to keep the working man in his place - either way it's pretty horrid.

All public transport in the UK should be paid for - in a large part - through tax. Not just the tube. It's called society. Rich, poor and middling alike can use them.

All the railways and metro systems should be nationalised, democratised and subsidised.

If individuals then choose not to use the systems, that is their right.

The right wing lunatics on this forum simply hate society and the thought of contributing to things they don't use/like. It's called greed.

Society vs Greed.

At the moment those who love greed are way in the majority and you can see the effects of their hardline ideology all over the UK. I don't expect anything to change soon in the UK...

Coolfonz is absolutely right. It's not remotely possible to run a public transport system without subsidy.

Longfingernails, I'm having trouble understanding what your argument is. Earlier on in the thread you seemed to be saying tube fares are too high. Now you want the cost of running the tube to be borne entirely through fares and not by taxpayers. How on earth do you think that low fares are achieved except through public subsidy?

thequark

Well, you will be happy that under the TfL plans some ticket office staff are being told not to sit on their arses doing nothing because of Oyster, and being put onto platforms actually helping customers.

Unfortunately Bob Crow seems to have a problem with this.

In terms of being helped in the event of a crime at a station: you do realise that the RMT recommends that its staff stay well away from any altercation? That is perfectly understandable - but it means that they won't be much use to you if you are a victim. Oh, sure, there might be a deterrent effect - but I doubt the deterrent would be much bigger with two ticket office staff rather than one.

As for unions: they are largely pointless today. You can see that in the decline in union membership. Bob Crowe, the UNITE union's BA strikers, and all the rest haven't achieved anything with their strikes other than annoying the public. Strikes only work if the public is sympathetic. The public will only be sympathetic if the cause is half-decent. Almost all Londoners know how pointless heavily staffed LU ticket offices are with Oyster. And Bob Crowe has trotted out "safety" as a reason too often. If there really is a wolf, I expect the London public to notice it long before Bob Crowe.

ZepherineDrouhin You achieve low fares by getting rid of a significant part of the bloated TfL workforce, and by cutting their unnecessarily large and unjustifiable salaries.

Prolesworth Fair point. I don't have an opinion poll.

However, I suggest you search Twitter yesterday evening for Bob Crow. Bear in mind that Twitter in general is very left-leaning compared to the population at large (just like Mumsnet).

Not a scientific stufy, but it should at least be indicative!

lfn can you point us in the direction of any of these marvellously run subsidy-free public transport systems?

The New York subway as I mentioned earlier comes to mind, Zephedrine.

Incidentally, it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who got rid of federal subsidies for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

When I mean "subsidy", I mean subsidies of running costs of course. Of course governments need to invest in capital costs when building new lines.

Even if unions do fulfil a use today (which I don't really see), you definitely can't make that case for the RMT.

The RMT is famous for striking on the days of England football matches so its members can get drunk without worrying about going to work (I notice it did it again yesterday).

What is it that makes you think that the New York metro is not subsidised, lfn?

Sorry, you're right.

There is a public subsidy - but no federal subsidy any more. And the public subsidy has been more or less flat since 1997 - which means in real terms, it is very low these days.

This report is two years old:

www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/newsfax/insidethebudget158.pdf

Gov Paterson cut the state grant to the MTA (and thus the subway subsidies) last year.

Most capital costs in New York are met with the issuance of bonds - not something I hugely agree with, but municipal bonds are an interesting idea - a much more transparent way of private financing than Gordon Brown's PFI schemes.

I think that unions are needed to stop rapacious bosses on million pound bonuses from desstroying workers' rights. Germany has strong unions and employers work with them. Germany is a more successful industrial nation than us. I think that unions here have been ineffective recently due to their suntanned leaders on salaries of £100,000 and £200,000 not working for the interests of their members. I wonder whose side some of the union bosses are really on and whether some of them are pied pipers in league with the bosses?

Why aren't the unions fighting to stop jobs being shipped to the third world? Why do they always roll over? Who is protecting the working people?

I for one support the striking staff.

I live in Central London, and use the tube every day to firstly drop dd at school, and then walk on to work. I've lived here for years, and the station staff at all the nearby stations are without fail friendly, helpful, welcoming and reassuring.

The comments about the staff not being helpful on 7/7 are outrageous, and appear to be speculative at best. I was there that day, at one of the affected stations, and can vouch for the fact that the station staff helped enormously.

I've been off work sick this week, so yesterday that meant 2 dreadful, long bus journeys and 2 45-minute walks, whilst feeling flu-ey and under the weather. Not fun, but I don't mind because I believe they are right to be standing up for themselves over issues which the Mayor's office seem to be simply brushing under the carpet just so they can loudly trumpet their success in saving money.

thequark, I totally agree with your post, too.

I am not sure that staffed stations are any more of an effective crime deterrent than CCTV cameras, and I am not sure that striking is an effective way to demonstrate that reducing staffing will result in compromised safety. The Northern line operated with a Good Service during the stikes and to my knowledge there were no incidents due to the reduced staff presence. I don't quite know what they expect to prove.

The irony of the strikes of course is that if there were fewer underground staff and more of the operation was automated, they would les able to hold the city to ransom as they have done the past couple of days. Surely they themselves are sealing the case for reduced staffing levels?

the quark you say:

'The attitude on here to collective action is horrible. Unions are important as is the right to strike if employers make unreasonable demands. Those comments about how much drivers earn - why is it if someone earns more than you people get so bitter about their employment rights - they have rights too. Novicemama you mention they earn 40k. Maybe you are pissed off because you get less - well are you responsible for hundreds of people's safety. Or maybe you earn more than them and you are one of those people who likes to keep the working man in his place - either way it's pretty horrid.'

I do earn a little bit less than £40k yes but it's irrelevant (becasue DH earns way more no, but seriously seriously...). People should be paid according to the work they do. Do you seriously think that £40k to open and close doors is a reasonable salary? I'm tempted to apply to do it myself except I happen to value job satisfaction quite a bit and sitting in a little cab underground all day doesn't sound like much fun. I think the point is that of course we are all concerned with safety on the tube - I use the damn thing every day - but I don't believe that Bob Crow and the unions really care about safety at all, they just like throwing their weight around.

I get quite frustrated with people who STILL romanticise this idea of collective action and 'the workers united' marching against the faceless capitalists etc etc. IME the vast majority of union bosses in this country are nasty bullies who not so long ago were up in arms about equal pay for women and the threat of immigrants 'coming here and stealing our jobs', neither of which are particularly edifying points of view.

Novice - "I happen to value job satisfaction quite a bit and sitting in a little cab underground all day doesn't sound like much fun. I"

You said it yourself - don't you think having a not enjoyable job also warrants extra money?

I hope if you ever need trade union help you change your tune - that could be in case of redundancy, discrimination, a grievance against you or perhaps you are being bullied. It may not happen to you now but maybe it will one day and then you will want union help.

Am delighted you earn good money and even more delighted your dh gets way more - that makes you alone a higher than average earner and you together very well off - get over yourself and start thinking of others a bit.

thequark no, I don't think people should be paid megabucks for not doing anything much. Nurses, teachers, firefighters - I agree that they deserve more money for the undervalued work they do but driving a tube train? no.

FYI I used to work at a place which had a very strong union and I was an active union member all the 4 years I was there. I'm pretty lefty tbh despite all our enormous riches . I also experienced bullying at that workplace but it wasn't from 'management' it was from the union. We were going through a restructuring and the pay deal we were being offered was a very good and fair one and I could see that it was. But not good enough for the union who wanted more and always more, refused to trust anyone in management, virtually refused to even put together a negotiating team, and were eager to get out and strike by any means possible. They really were just spoiling for a fight, for the 'romance' of standing on a picket line and pretending it was 1985, and when I challenged them I was shouted down in a very intimidating way and hencforth blanked in the corridors. A long long way from your ideals thequark

My DH is a union member where he works and his experiences have been very similar to mine, but ideologically he believes in collective action so he stays involved even though he has to sit through some outrageous union meetings which seem to just be an opportunity for some vocal people to let off steam in the rudest and least professional way possible.

As I said further up the thread, I am a born and bred leftie, but Bob Crow really does take the piss and he completely confirms all my experiences of unionisation and its ills.