I've travelled on tube/metro/underground systems across the UK, Europe & The World and there is nothing that the LU has that would make any of the others better. It's also by far the most expensive one. If you were to start the LU from scratch, you'd have driverless trains, automated ticket machines and a proper travelcard system (Oyster's system is frankly crap compared to one's elsewhere in the world). Every other system in the world usually has at least one member of staff visible at the stations and according to TFL or whoever this still isn't changing, it's just ticket offices they're shutting. Hong Kong is by far the best system I've used and considering I don't understand the language I find it just as easy to use as the LU and it's about the tenth of the price for a ticket. All stations are brightly lit and safe, at least the ones I went to (which was quite a few and not all of them were main stations).
The point is whenever there is the threat of any change, good or bad, Bob Crow throws a spanner in the works. He's living in the 1970s and the world has moved on. With the technology available today you could run the LU with the tenth of the workforce it currently has and for even less than a tenth of the cost. Of course Londoners can't have it both ways - if you want manned ticket offices and manned trains (despite many other cities embracing driverless trains with no complaints) then of course you're going to have to pay for it - what is it now, nearly a tenner for a return nowadays? I could feed a family of 4 on what a tube journey costs nowadays. Claiming Bob Crow is sticking to his socialist scruples is moot when hard-working families are directly negatively affected as a result of his belligerent actions - they either have to foot the bill for his demands or lose a day's wages because they can't go to work because he's called a strike. One day he will overplay his hand and leave a lot of the workers he represents in trouble, just like Unite did at Grangemouth - but at least he'll be OK as he's a millionaire and has a free house from the Government. I don't know any union that saved jobs by making it unaffordable to keep them employed, and that is fast what Bob Crow is doing. Resisting changes that make the cost of each employee cheaper is frankly suicide as far as job security is concerned.
This 100%. 150k would be his "official" salary before other "perks" such a union credit card with monthly allowance, business class travel etc, etc. All paid for by members who would be better off employing an Independent Industrial Relations Service to help them with any grievance should one arise. Unions have long since passed their sell by date. They have become a hotbed of greed and corruption. They were relevant 50 years ago but the world has moved on and "jobs for life" is a concept consigned to history. Forcing up wages and imposing unreasonable conditions on employers simply forces businesses to relocate to cheaper parts of the world, or automate their operations and dispose of staff as we see happening here.
I'm sorry but to state that unions are irrelevant today is patently not the case. No matter what spin is put on it we, in the UK, are still in a period of massive financial difficulty. Employers in both the public and private sector have used the fear and uncertainty this creates in the workforce to drive through job losses, moves towards zero hours contracts, changing working practices, downgraded pensions, privatisation of public services, etc, etc.
You can discuss whether the unions have done enough to ensure these changes are fair to both sides but to say that unions have no role to play and everything a union does is about 'forcing up wages or imposing unreasonable conditions' on the employer is simply not true.
I refer you to SHG's excellent earlier summary of the benefits to (most of) us of the trade union movement.
Huge crush at Waterloo this morning resulting in a heavily pregnant woman being shoved to the ground (luckily the overground station staff and members of the public managed to calm the situation but she still had a nasty cut on her head). Nice one Bob - thats on your shoulders and the strikers if anything has happened to her child.
I've travelled on tube/metro/underground systems across the UK, Europe & The World and there is nothing that the LU has that would make any of the others better. It's also by far the most expensive one. If you were to start the LU from scratch, you'd have driverless trains, automated ticket machines and a proper travelcard system (Oyster's system is frankly crap compared to one's elsewhere in the world). Every other system in the world usually has at least one member of staff visible at the stations and according to TFL or whoever this still isn't changing, it's just ticket offices they're shutting. Hong Kong is by far the best system I've used and considering I don't understand the language I find it just as easy to use as the LU and it's about the tenth of the price for a ticket. All stations are brightly lit and safe, at least the ones I went to (which was quite a few and not all of them were main stations).
The point is whenever there is the threat of any change, good or bad, Bob Crow throws a spanner in the works. He's living in the 1970s and the world has moved on. With the technology available today you could run the LU with the tenth of the workforce it currently has and for even less than a tenth of the cost. Of course Londoners can't have it both ways - if you want manned ticket offices and manned trains (despite many other cities embracing driverless trains with no complaints) then of course you're going to have to pay for it - what is it now, nearly a tenner for a return nowadays? I could feed a family of 4 on what a tube journey costs nowadays. Claiming Bob Crow is sticking to his socialist scruples is moot when hard-working families are directly negatively affected as a result of his belligerent actions - they either have to foot the bill for his demands or lose a day's wages because they can't go to work because he's called a strike. One day he will overplay his hand and leave a lot of the workers he represents in trouble, just like Unite did at Grangemouth - but at least he'll be OK as he's a millionaire and has a free house from the Government. I don't know any union that saved jobs by making it unaffordable to keep them employed, and that is fast what Bob Crow is doing. Resisting changes that make the cost of each employee cheaper is frankly suicide as far as job security is concerned.
This 100%. 150k would be his "official" salary before other "perks" such a union credit card with monthly allowance, business class travel etc, etc. All paid for by members who would be better off employing an Independent Industrial Relations Service to help them with any grievance should one arise. Unions have long since passed their sell by date. They have become a hotbed of greed and corruption. They were relevant 50 years ago but the world has moved on and "jobs for life" is a concept consigned to history. Forcing up wages and imposing unreasonable conditions on employers simply forces businesses to relocate to cheaper parts of the world, or automate their operations and dispose of staff as we see happening here.
I'm sorry but to state that unions are irrelevant today is patently not the case. No matter what spin is put on it we, in the UK, are still in a period of massive financial difficulty. Employers in both the public and private sector have used the fear and uncertainty this creates in the workforce to drive through job losses, moves towards zero hours contracts, changing working practices, downgraded pensions, privatisation of public services, etc, etc.
You can discuss whether the unions have done enough to ensure these changes are fair to both sides but to say that unions have no role to play and everything a union does is about 'forcing up wages or imposing unreasonable conditions' on the employer is simply not true.
I refer you to SHG's excellent earlier summary of the benefits to (most of) us of the trade union movement.
IMO union members would be better served saving their money rather than funding the extravagant lifestyles of union bosses (the council house thing is a red herring BTW). They would be better served by putting that money aside and employ an Independent Industrial Relations Service or legal representation if required. Most people spend their working years contributing towards union bureaucracy and see very little in return. You may be one of the lucky one's who feels that they are getting value for money, but I can tell you that in Australia Union membership is dropping off drastically as more scandal and corruption is being revealed on an almost daily basis. Members are finally waking up to the fact that they are being taken for a ride by the very people who are supposed to be looking after their interests.
I've travelled on tube/metro/underground systems across the UK, Europe & The World and there is nothing that the LU has that would make any of the others better. It's also by far the most expensive one. If you were to start the LU from scratch, you'd have driverless trains, automated ticket machines and a proper travelcard system (Oyster's system is frankly crap compared to one's elsewhere in the world). Every other system in the world usually has at least one member of staff visible at the stations and according to TFL or whoever this still isn't changing, it's just ticket offices they're shutting. Hong Kong is by far the best system I've used and considering I don't understand the language I find it just as easy to use as the LU and it's about the tenth of the price for a ticket. All stations are brightly lit and safe, at least the ones I went to (which was quite a few and not all of them were main stations).
The point is whenever there is the threat of any change, good or bad, Bob Crow throws a spanner in the works. He's living in the 1970s and the world has moved on. With the technology available today you could run the LU with the tenth of the workforce it currently has and for even less than a tenth of the cost. Of course Londoners can't have it both ways - if you want manned ticket offices and manned trains (despite many other cities embracing driverless trains with no complaints) then of course you're going to have to pay for it - what is it now, nearly a tenner for a return nowadays? I could feed a family of 4 on what a tube journey costs nowadays. Claiming Bob Crow is sticking to his socialist scruples is moot when hard-working families are directly negatively affected as a result of his belligerent actions - they either have to foot the bill for his demands or lose a day's wages because they can't go to work because he's called a strike. One day he will overplay his hand and leave a lot of the workers he represents in trouble, just like Unite did at Grangemouth - but at least he'll be OK as he's a millionaire and has a free house from the Government. I don't know any union that saved jobs by making it unaffordable to keep them employed, and that is fast what Bob Crow is doing. Resisting changes that make the cost of each employee cheaper is frankly suicide as far as job security is concerned.
This 100%. 150k would be his "official" salary before other "perks" such a union credit card with monthly allowance, business class travel etc, etc. All paid for by members who would be better off employing an Independent Industrial Relations Service to help them with any grievance should one arise. Unions have long since passed their sell by date. They have become a hotbed of greed and corruption. They were relevant 50 years ago but the world has moved on and "jobs for life" is a concept consigned to history. Forcing up wages and imposing unreasonable conditions on employers simply forces businesses to relocate to cheaper parts of the world, or automate their operations and dispose of staff as we see happening here.
I'm sorry but to state that unions are irrelevant today is patently not the case. No matter what spin is put on it we, in the UK, are still in a period of massive financial difficulty. Employers in both the public and private sector have used the fear and uncertainty this creates in the workforce to drive through job losses, moves towards zero hours contracts, changing working practices, downgraded pensions, privatisation of public services, etc, etc.
You can discuss whether the unions have done enough to ensure these changes are fair to both sides but to say that unions have no role to play and everything a union does is about 'forcing up wages or imposing unreasonable conditions' on the employer is simply not true.
I refer you to SHG's excellent earlier summary of the benefits to (most of) us of the trade union movement.
IMO union members would be better served saving their money rather than funding the extravagant lifestyles of union bosses (the council house thing is a red herring BTW). They would be better served by putting that money aside and employ an Independent Industrial Relations Service or legal representation if required. Most people spend their working years contributing towards union bureaucracy and see very little in return. You may be one of the lucky one's who feels that they are getting value for money, but I can tell you that in Australia Union membership is dropping off drastically as more scandal and corruption is being revealed on an almost daily basis. Members are finally waking up to the fact that they are being taken for a ride by the very people who are supposed to be looking after their interests.
Being a member of the RMT has saved my job at least twice. Nobody i work with thinks we are being taken for a ride , in fact we think our union fees are priceless. I really couldn't care less how big a house Bob Crow has because all i know is , is me and my family and many hundreds more wouldn't have a job ( or maybe our houses ) if it wasn't for the RMT. Our wages would have just gone to the shareholders profits and the safety of the passengers would have been compromised.
Huge crush at Waterloo this morning resulting in a heavily pregnant woman being shoved to the ground (luckily the overground station staff and members of the public managed to calm the situation but she still had a nasty cut on her head). Nice one Bob - thats on your shoulders and the strikers if anything has happened to her child.
Lucky there were station staff present then eh? Bobs fault, behave.
Huge crush at Waterloo this morning resulting in a heavily pregnant woman being shoved to the ground (luckily the overground station staff and members of the public managed to calm the situation but she still had a nasty cut on her head). Nice one Bob - thats on your shoulders and the strikers if anything has happened to her child.
Lucky there were station staff present then eh? Bobs fault, behave.
Lucky they were not sat on their arses in a ticket office you mean.
I've travelled on tube/metro/underground systems across the UK, Europe & The World and there is nothing that the LU has that would make any of the others better. It's also by far the most expensive one. If you were to start the LU from scratch, you'd have driverless trains, automated ticket machines and a proper travelcard system (Oyster's system is frankly crap compared to one's elsewhere in the world). Every other system in the world usually has at least one member of staff visible at the stations and according to TFL or whoever this still isn't changing, it's just ticket offices they're shutting. Hong Kong is by far the best system I've used and considering I don't understand the language I find it just as easy to use as the LU and it's about the tenth of the price for a ticket. All stations are brightly lit and safe, at least the ones I went to (which was quite a few and not all of them were main stations).
The point is whenever there is the threat of any change, good or bad, Bob Crow throws a spanner in the works. He's living in the 1970s and the world has moved on. With the technology available today you could run the LU with the tenth of the workforce it currently has and for even less than a tenth of the cost. Of course Londoners can't have it both ways - if you want manned ticket offices and manned trains (despite many other cities embracing driverless trains with no complaints) then of course you're going to have to pay for it - what is it now, nearly a tenner for a return nowadays? I could feed a family of 4 on what a tube journey costs nowadays. Claiming Bob Crow is sticking to his socialist scruples is moot when hard-working families are directly negatively affected as a result of his belligerent actions - they either have to foot the bill for his demands or lose a day's wages because they can't go to work because he's called a strike. One day he will overplay his hand and leave a lot of the workers he represents in trouble, just like Unite did at Grangemouth - but at least he'll be OK as he's a millionaire and has a free house from the Government. I don't know any union that saved jobs by making it unaffordable to keep them employed, and that is fast what Bob Crow is doing. Resisting changes that make the cost of each employee cheaper is frankly suicide as far as job security is concerned.
This 100%. 150k would be his "official" salary before other "perks" such a union credit card with monthly allowance, business class travel etc, etc. All paid for by members who would be better off employing an Independent Industrial Relations Service to help them with any grievance should one arise. Unions have long since passed their sell by date. They have become a hotbed of greed and corruption. They were relevant 50 years ago but the world has moved on and "jobs for life" is a concept consigned to history. Forcing up wages and imposing unreasonable conditions on employers simply forces businesses to relocate to cheaper parts of the world, or automate their operations and dispose of staff as we see happening here.
I'm sorry but to state that unions are irrelevant today is patently not the case. No matter what spin is put on it we, in the UK, are still in a period of massive financial difficulty. Employers in both the public and private sector have used the fear and uncertainty this creates in the workforce to drive through job losses, moves towards zero hours contracts, changing working practices, downgraded pensions, privatisation of public services, etc, etc.
You can discuss whether the unions have done enough to ensure these changes are fair to both sides but to say that unions have no role to play and everything a union does is about 'forcing up wages or imposing unreasonable conditions' on the employer is simply not true.
I refer you to SHG's excellent earlier summary of the benefits to (most of) us of the trade union movement.
IMO union members would be better served saving their money rather than funding the extravagant lifestyles of union bosses (the council house thing is a red herring BTW). They would be better served by putting that money aside and employ an Independent Industrial Relations Service or legal representation if required. Most people spend their working years contributing towards union bureaucracy and see very little in return. You may be one of the lucky one's who feels that they are getting value for money, but I can tell you that in Australia Union membership is dropping off drastically as more scandal and corruption is being revealed on an almost daily basis. Members are finally waking up to the fact that they are being taken for a ride by the very people who are supposed to be looking after their interests.
Being a member of the RMT has saved my job at least twice. Nobody i work with thinks we are being taken for a ride , in fact we think our union fees are priceless. I really couldn't care less how big a house Bob Crow has because all i know is , is me and my family and many hundreds more wouldn't have a job ( or maybe our houses ) if it wasn't for the RMT. Our wages would have just gone to the shareholders profits and the safety of the passengers would have been compromised.
Pleased to hear that Beds. I have no doubt that some unions have done great things for their members in the past. However I believe that the model is now broken and unsustainable. We have a situation here where production line workers in a canning factory are earning 50k per year and Qantas air stewards are earning 150k per year. Then we wonder why said companies are in deep trouble and workers jobs are in serious jeopardy. Then they expect the Government/taxpayers to prop up the failing companies!
33% of UK union members are over the age of 50. It will all be over soon.
Union members also earn 14% more on average than non - union members in comparable jobs.
2/3 are under 50 then and looking at working well into their late 60's so, unless the government intervenes I doubt you'll see the back of unions in the near future.
As for your second point, you say this like it's a bad thing? Since the majority of union members are in low paid public sector roles to start with all that stat demonstrates is how valuable union membership is to those people and how, without a union presence, employers will drive down their employees wages to levels where the taxpayer has to pick up the slack through benefits anyway.
33% of UK union members are over the age of 50. It will all be over soon.
Union members also earn 14% more on average than non - union members in comparable jobs.
So your saying the majority of union memership is made up of under 50s and you are likley to have a better standard of living if you belong to a union. Good advert for the trade union movment.
We elect Governments with percentages of the vote in he 30s. In theory 70% of the tube workers should be working if they opposed the strike. I was inconvenienced today, but would never advocate taking people's rights from them.
I am saying that 1/3 rd of the members will soonish dissappear and that public distaste for unions will increase
I'm not sure it works that way. We have many apprentices that start every year and one of the first things they do when they pass out is join the union as do all new starters. One man retires another starts his/her career .
I am saying that 1/3 rd of the members will soonish dissappear and that public distaste for unions will increase
I'm not sure it works that way. We have many apprentices that start every year and one of the first things they do when they pass out is join the union as do all new starters. One man retires another starts his/her career .
Just 4% of union members are 24 or under but that age bracket supplies 14% of UK employees.
33% of members are over 50 and that age group provides 27% of the working population.
The kids are not sold on it are they, perhaps they don't queue up to buy tube tickets.....
According to one newspaper Bob Crow has increased the membership of the RMT since taking charge, I wonder if that is because they have poached members from other rail unions or that their are more workers in the rail industry. Any thoughts Beds? The article was in a Tory newspaper and he came across quiet well. Hates what Tony Blair did to the Labour Party, I agree with him there.
I am saying that 1/3 rd of the members will soonish dissappear and that public distaste for unions will increase
I'm not sure it works that way. We have many apprentices that start every year and one of the first things they do when they pass out is join the union as do all new starters. One man retires another starts his/her career .
Just 4% of union members are 24 or under but that age bracket supplies 14% of UK employees.
33% of members are over 50 and that age group provides 27% of the working population.
The kids are not sold on it are they, perhaps they don't queue up to buy tube tickets.....
I think you'll find that it's got more to do with the type of short term insecure zero hours non-unionised work available to young people (as well as the higher unemployment rate in that age group - the 2 are related), rather than 'kids' being "not sold on" the idea of unions....
I am saying that 1/3 rd of the members will soonish dissappear and that public distaste for unions will increase
I'm not sure it works that way. We have many apprentices that start every year and one of the first things they do when they pass out is join the union as do all new starters. One man retires another starts his/her career .
Closed Shop then Beds? I thought that was illegal these days ;-)
Actually never mind Crow, if you want to see the glee about the inconvenience caused to Londoners just have a browse through some of the strikers' tweets. You do really get the impression that this strike is actually not about working conditions, job losses or public safety at all.
I am saying that 1/3 rd of the members will soonish dissappear and that public distaste for unions will increase
I'm not sure it works that way. We have many apprentices that start every year and one of the first things they do when they pass out is join the union as do all new starters. One man retires another starts his/her career .
Just 4% of union members are 24 or under but that age bracket supplies 14% of UK employees.
33% of members are over 50 and that age group provides 27% of the working population.
The kids are not sold on it are they, perhaps they don't queue up to buy tube tickets.....
Kids never think of getting old or ill health or having a disability or getting sacked unfairly etc but as you get older you get wiser.
According to one newspaper Bob Crow has increased the membership of the RMT since taking charge, I wonder if that is because they have poached members from other rail unions or that their are more workers in the rail industry. Any thoughts Beds? The article was in a Tory newspaper and he came across quiet well. Hates what Tony Blair did to the Labour Party, I agree with him there.
Where I work there are two main unions. RMT and Unite . I would say there is a 70% are RMT 20% are Unite and about 10% are non union. There has been no poaching as far as I'm aware but people have moved over to RMT in recent years .That it more down to the Unite Rep not being very good .
According to one newspaper Bob Crow has increased the membership of the RMT since taking charge, I wonder if that is because they have poached members from other rail unions or that their are more workers in the rail industry. Any thoughts Beds? The article was in a Tory newspaper and he came across quiet well. Hates what Tony Blair did to the Labour Party, I agree with him there.
He had the hump now nearly all drivers are in ASLEF. As a Driver I would not take a train out the depot with out the protection from almost criminal gaffers that my union provides.
There are always dinosaurs like Bob Crow and David Cameron who will fight tooth and nail against any progress. Yes, shock horror, both political wings can be against progress. Fact is many jobs will become automated, I don't buy into no ticket offices = no human interaction. Workers can still linger round the ticket machines and offer assistance to multiple customers at once if they need a ticket and cant work the machines.
I was in Tescos the other day and an employee came up to me and asked whether I considered using their new do it yourself scanner. I told her no, because I’m against doing people like you out of jobs. Supermarkets are an important source of employment, but they would rather make more profits and cut costs if they could than help the country/meet social obligations so we should help them do the right thing by boycotting self-service checkouts etc…
We should also do the same for companies that overuse automated switchboards that never put you through to who you want and call centres in India. We underestimate the power of the consumer. The same goes for ticket offices. It just makes sense that LT has them and I’d rather they pay their staff to man them than I pay them in benefits. And if somebody says we pay them in fares – well do you honestly believe any savings will go into the consumer’s pockets?
We talk about benefit scroungers, but companies are some of the worst culprits in the country's benefits bill. People shouldn't have in work benefits to make work viable!
I was in Tescos the other day and an employee came up to me and asked whether I considered using their new do it yourself scanner. I told her no, because I’m against doing people like you out of jobs. Supermarkets are an important source of employment, but they would rather make more profits and cut costs if they could than help the country/meet social obligations so we should help them do the right thing by boycotting self-service checkouts etc…
I did they same thing in Morrisons, also in Natwest Bank when paying in a cheque, I queued foe about 5 mins, the chasier ask why I did not use the automatic machine, I replied the machine did not say good morning or give me a nice smile. I got the impression she thought I was unable to use the machine due to my age (69).
I was in Tescos the other day and an employee came up to me and asked whether I considered using their new do it yourself scanner. I told her no, because I’m against doing people like you out of jobs. Supermarkets are an important source of employment, but they would rather make more profits and cut costs if they could than help the country/meet social obligations so we should help them do the right thing by boycotting self-service checkouts etc…
We should also do the same for companies that overuse automated switchboards that never put you through to who you want and call centres in India. We underestimate the power of the consumer. The same goes for ticket offices. It just makes sense that LT has them and I’d rather they pay their staff to man them than I pay them in benefits. And if somebody says we pay them in fares – well do you honestly believe any savings will go into the consumer’s pockets?
We talk about benefit scroungers, but companies are some of the worst culprits in the country's benefits bill. People shouldn't have in work benefits to make work viable!
What you say sounds good but is not borne out by the facts. Self-scanning is what makes a shopper's experience quicker and is in much demand (if nothing else, it means your frozen goods don't melt while queueing at a checkout while some dozy shopper searches for her purse at the bottom of her handbag!)
In 2007, Tesco employed 260,000 people in the UK and 380,000 worldwide. Those figures are now 310,00 in the UK and 530,000 worldwide. So it doesn't seem as if Tesco has been cutting staff numbers much does it? In fact they've put on 20% more jobs during a period of recession. They have done this by embracing technological change and being more efficient than their rivals and more attractive to customers. I suspect many employees wished their company could say the same! (Yes, I know many of those jobs will be part-time but that suits many people who have other responsibilities and might like to work other than Nine to Five.)
I was in Tescos the other day and an employee came up to me and asked whether I considered using their new do it yourself scanner. I told her no, because I’m against doing people like you out of jobs. Supermarkets are an important source of employment, but they would rather make more profits and cut costs if they could than help the country/meet social obligations so we should help them do the right thing by boycotting self-service checkouts etc…
I did they same thing in Morrisons, also in Natwest Bank when paying in a cheque, I queued foe about 5 mins, the chasier ask why I did not use the automatic machine, I replied the machine did not say good morning or give me a nice smile. I got the impression she thought I was unable to use the machine due to my age (69).
I use automated machines at supermarkets and banks if they are free and there is a queue at the tills. I too prefer human contact but let's not pretend that all cashiers, call centre operators and supermarket till workers give you a smile and and say good morning. I think customer service in England has not progressed in recent years despite many companies proclaiming the opposite.
Comments
You can discuss whether the unions have done enough to ensure these changes are fair to both sides but to say that unions have no role to play and everything a union does is about 'forcing up wages or imposing unreasonable conditions' on the employer is simply not true.
I refer you to SHG's excellent earlier summary of the benefits to (most of) us of the trade union movement.
Union members also earn 14% more on average than non - union members in comparable jobs.
Bobs fault, behave.
As for your second point , i could quite well believe that.
As for your second point, you say this like it's a bad thing? Since the majority of union members are in low paid public sector roles to start with all that stat demonstrates is how valuable union membership is to those people and how, without a union presence, employers will drive down their employees wages to levels where the taxpayer has to pick up the slack through benefits anyway.
Good advert for the trade union movment.
33% of members are over 50 and that age group provides 27% of the working population.
The kids are not sold on it are they, perhaps they don't queue up to buy tube tickets.....
Actually never mind Crow, if you want to see the glee about the inconvenience caused to Londoners just have a browse through some of the strikers' tweets. You do really get the impression that this strike is actually not about working conditions, job losses or public safety at all.
There has been no poaching as far as I'm aware but people have moved over to RMT in recent years .That it more down to the Unite Rep not being very good .
We should also do the same for companies that overuse automated switchboards that never put you through to who you want and call centres in India. We underestimate the power of the consumer. The same goes for ticket offices. It just makes sense that LT has them and I’d rather they pay their staff to man them than I pay them in benefits. And if somebody says we pay them in fares – well do you honestly believe any savings will go into the consumer’s pockets?
We talk about benefit scroungers, but companies are some of the worst culprits in the country's benefits bill. People shouldn't have in work benefits to make work viable!
In 2007, Tesco employed 260,000 people in the UK and 380,000 worldwide. Those figures are now 310,00 in the UK and 530,000 worldwide. So it doesn't seem as if Tesco has been cutting staff numbers much does it? In fact they've put on 20% more jobs during a period of recession. They have done this by embracing technological change and being more efficient than their rivals and more attractive to customers. I suspect many employees wished their company could say the same! (Yes, I know many of those jobs will be part-time but that suits many people who have other responsibilities and might like to work other than Nine to Five.)
How about getting a telephone number from the internet rather than calling 192?
I would assume you've never bought a holiday online.