Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Bob Crow.

168101112

Comments

  • I think we have all had to suck it up to differing extents. But there is a difference to working harder for less - which a lot of us have had to do in these hard times and losing your job. I have broken strikes I passionately thought were useless in the past, even though it broke my heart to do so. But, I am a realist and can see why these strikes are happening. It is the strikes that you can't understand why which are more frustrating.

    I think poor planning has also made it more of an ordeal for us. Emergency measures would have stopped the roads clogging up like they did yesterday. Things such as banning the use of private cars on the strike days – unless needed for a disability related reason – which means the extra buses and taxis on the road can get people to where they need to go more efficiently.

    Also before the strike Crow was saying that TFL needed to get round the table and talk to them – I would like to know why TFL said let’s talk now, not wait until next week, yesterday evening, in a statement clearly intended to win points, and they weren't saying this on Monday!
  • Anyone at the helm of the RMT could be looked at as a good unionist leader with the entire London Underground network at their disposal.
  • Bob Crow does an excellent job in putting his members' interests above those of anyone else. His union, like all unions, believe a business or a service should be run for the benefit of those who work in it - end of. I don't have a problem with that, I do have problem with the hypocrisy pretending it has anything to do with protecting the interests of the public or the customer.

    I have never heard of a strike because the employer refused a request from a union to reduce prices or introduce efficiencies to benefit the public or the customer.
  • Bob Crow does an excellent job in putting his members' interests above those of anyone else. His union, like all unions, believe a business or a service should be run for the benefit of those who work in it - end of. I don't have a problem with that, I do have problem with the hypocrisy pretending it has anything to do with protecting the interests of the public or the customer.

    I have never heard of a strike because the employer refused a request from a union to reduce prices or introduce efficiencies to benefit the public or the customer.

    There is some truth in this, but we as a public should not necessarily believe that TFLs idea of progress will benefit us. We need to look at the issue and decide on its merits.
  • Boris himself needs to swallow his pride and try and sort this out.

    Your joking. The man can't even dress himself properly !
  • You know Crow is doing a good job when people play the man, instead of the issues.
  • I've decided I am not bothered about bankers anymore, after all they are just doing the best for themselves, albeit at the expense of us, but good on them!
  • Does Bob Crow have an oyster card?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Kept out of this as I work for a certian subteranean transport company (ahem).... anyhow, lots of very interesting points, but have to dispell some popular myths.

    1. The strike is not related to Train Operators/Drivers, so reference to them (and their pay) is invalid.
    2. This is a total restructure of the current Station Staffing Model, involving Duty Managers, Ticket office staff, Supervisors and CSAs (those marvellous chaps/Chapesses who do a marvellous job in and around the station)
    3. Ticket office staff will be redeployed from inside their ticket office bubble out and about helping customers use the exsisting and new machines, hopefully/probably armed with shiney new machines 'that go bing' to help sell tickets, resolve issues etc. Some of the bigger issues can't be resolved at the tickets office as the customer has to call the Oyster helpline. The new structure may go some way to resolve this.
    4. Removing someone from inisde a room that has no access to CCTV and putting them in a visable position on the station in my opinion does not compromise safety and put women and disabled people at risk.. personally I think it benefits them...

    However, as mentioned this does involve a considerable restructuring of staff, jobs, roles etc... all of which means that people will need to apply for jobs/roles that they are doing (even if worded differently) previously or are completely new to them.

    With the introduction of all night running 200 of the 975 will be assimilated into the additional drivers required.

    A lot of staff put forward some of these suggestions during recent consultation workshops.. they wanted to be flexible, helping customers, use more technology etc etc...

    From a personal perspective I am in favour of unions... our right to strike, behind our right to vote, is I believe one of the hardest fought battles for the working man/woman.

    Unfortunately some of the unions involved in this have never stood up for the office based/support staff who have had their jobs cut/re-organised countless times over the last few years (a friend of mine has had to re-apply for his job 5 times)

    All of this is in the public domain but tends to get lost in waffle.... great piece in the Standard the other night.. unfortunatley ruined by wrong terminology and reference to £50k plus drivers!?!?1

    Anyway... I'll say no more.

    TfL’s ‘The future of the tube’ says “All stations staffed and controlled at all times, with more staff visible to help customers”, and has a short PR video showing smartly dressed staff with hand held terminals advising one or two customers in an almost empty station ticket hall.

    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...mes/28868.aspx

    But in the real world – particularly during ‘rush hour’ – as EastTerrace said:

    “When they are innundated with requests who do they serve first, those who shout the loudest, the strongest who push to the front? The queue won't apply. The elderly [or disabled people] don't stand a chance”.

    Unless, of course, the 'helpers' are then placed in some sort of enclosure (a sort of ‘office’) with some sort of arrangement to ensure that people needing help queue and are attended to in order....errr....

  • Not all stations are zone 1 or Canary Wharf where there probably is a need for more staff out and about, but out in Zone 6 at Upminister, Uxbridge or Stanmore, having a proper ticket office selling high value annual season tickets, dealing with Oyster problems and being available is more useful.

    Shutting them all is a bit of a nuclear option which hasn't been thought through, but then TfL has in the last few years had a track record of pissing money away on stupid projects like the cable car, New Bus for London and fuck knows how much on developing plans for an airport outside its area and remit.
  • You can already see staff carrying out a similar role... 'queue busting/combing' at some of the big London gateway stations, its what they are trained to do, and for the most part, carry out extremely well.... there are already tensa barriers/queing systems at these stations to use the machines, and they work and effective. Removing someone from an office is not going to suddenly mean customers have to 'bundle' the nearest member of station staff...
  • edited February 2014
    This is rail not underground, but I have noticed at my station that they are closing the ticket office more often and usually opening only one window. My magnetic strip wore out on my annual season– as it generally does pretty quickly being used on overground and underground automated barriers and everytime after work that I tried to get a replacement the offices were closed – I couldn’t sort that problem out with a machine.

    When I did get the opportunity, the bloke didn’t want to do it as a queue might develop – I argued that a queue develops because his company are cost cutting on customer service and I had been trying to get a replacement for days. He did it and it took a minute! This is what the train companies want and it isn’t good if you have an issue that is non-standard. The people who help you with the machines will soon go and people will be stuck. But the executives and administartors won't care - well they don't care about anything else to do with the passengers!
  • Of course there will be specific moments where human interaction would mean more efficient service, but on the whole driverless trains and machines pumping out tickets is going to mean less disruption for the average commuter. You might have to call up to solve magnetic strip issues etc, or show it to the staff on the barrier, but for 99.9% of the time everything will work out ok.

    I cant stand these tube strikes as it's always the paying customer who suffers. I hope TFL plow ahead with their plans and eventually create a system which cant be disrupted by tossers like Crow.
  • You can already see staff carrying out a similar role... 'queue busting/combing' at some of the big London gateway stations, its what they are trained to do, and for the most part, carry out extremely well.... there are already tensa barriers/queing systems at these stations to use the machines, and they work and effective. Removing someone from an office is not going to suddenly mean customers have to 'bundle' the nearest member of station staff...

    There’s surely a difference between some staff currently 'queue busting/combing' existing queues, and the plan for mobile staff to be the only point of contact in the future. And whether or not customers “'bundle' the nearest member of station staff”, common sense suggests that younger, healthier, faster people will get to them first; particularly if they’re roaming about.

    And, if you’re going to need some sort of arrangement like tensor barriers during busy times to try and ensure fair and orderly access to ‘helpers’, then perhaps TfL ought to modernise the technology in ticket offices rather than close them, so that they can resolve the ‘bigger issues’ that you say currently require customers to ‘call the Oyster helpline’, plus give them ‘access to CCTV’ which you say they currently don’t have.
  • Maybe Bobs relationship with his house, and the idea of buying one is informed by a philosophy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

    Maybe TFL want to switch staff around to have more ticket inspectors, due to the potential to bypass the machinery. The potential for revenue raising with on the spot fines is higher than with someone helping a partially sighted passenger at High Barnet.
  • Property is theft?
  • Total gobshite IMO
  • edited February 2014
    Rothko said:

    You know Crow is doing a good job when people play the man, instead of the issues.

    By that logic then David 'Eton/Toff/Private School/Oxford/dead son/dead dad/Bullingdon/shiny face' Cameron is doing a fantastic job
  • Sponsored links:


  • Fiiish said:

    Rothko said:

    You know Crow is doing a good job when people play the man, instead of the issues.

    By that logic the David 'Eton/Toff/Private School/Oxford/dead son/dead dad/Bullingdon/shiny face' Cameron is doing a fantastic job
    THIS all day long. Works both ways.
  • Fiiish said:

    Rothko said:

    You know Crow is doing a good job when people play the man, instead of the issues.

    By that logic the David 'Eton/Toff/Private School/Oxford/dead son/dead dad/Bullingdon/shiny face' Cameron is doing a fantastic job
    THIS all day long. Works both ways.
    I agree, both doing good for the people who pay them money.

    Bob Crow/Unions being paid by the working people to whom he does a good job looking after.

    David Cameron/Conservatives being paid by business and corporations to whom he does a good job looking after.
  • Fiiish said:

    Rothko said:

    You know Crow is doing a good job when people play the man, instead of the issues.

    By that logic the David 'Eton/Toff/Private School/Oxford/dead son/dead dad/Bullingdon/shiny face' Cameron is doing a fantastic job
    THIS all day long. Works both ways.
    I agree, both doing good for the people who pay them money.

    Bob Crow/Unions being paid by the working people to whom he does a good job looking after.

    David Cameron/Conservatives being paid by business and corporations to whom he does a good job looking after.
    I work for a business / corporation but also class myself as a 'working person'. In fact I work my nuts off for my family.
  • edited February 2014
    I didnt say that you dont work your nuts off and most people work for a business.

    Just stating that I agreed with the above point. Both men look out for their own. Hence unionised workplaces on average earn more than 10% than non unionised.
    And also why the Government this month, have once again, watered down employment rights for normal working people. Making it easier for companies sack and abuse.
  • edited February 2014
    The fact unionised workplaces earn more than those not supported definitely shows the job people like Crow do, but also why it doesn't sit easy. All I hear is that unions are 'looking after the public interest' (well from Crow) to justify why the public are in a way held to ransom. But I don't think it is right to bully in a pay rise. Nobody has a divine right for more money, and when so many have pay freezes it is wrong when people like Crow hold Londoners to ransom. When you look at the job nurses do, who gave trained for years and are highly skilled and compare their pay to some tube workers........wrong.
  • But you could use the comparison arguement for any amount of jobs.
    A nursery worker on minimum wage who gives your child the groundwork for future learning and social interaction.
    Compared to somebody who works for an employment agency who can earn multiple times that for being a blood sucking leech. Continuously drawing money out of the associated industry........wrong
  • And with regard to forcing a payrise issue.
    If for example an MD/management award themselves a 10% payrise for 5 consecutive years and in that same period freezes the employees pay and also brings up the subject of cost cutting/streamlining/redundancies in a business.
    Would you agree that the employees have ground to be rather pissed off?
  • But you could use the comparison arguement for any amount of jobs.
    A nursery worker on minimum wage who gives your child the groundwork for future learning and social interaction.
    Compared to somebody who works for an employment agency who can earn multiple times that for being a blood sucking leech. Continuously drawing money out of the associated industry........wrong

    I've been called worse.....
  • I would say that the ONLY party affected by this two day strike are the paying public mostly through inconvenience and also through loss of earnings. As the vast majority of London Underground users have season tickets or prepaid Oyster Cards, the only time London Underground will feel any affect of it will be at the end of time when they'll be 2 days short in takings. I work for myself and earn around 1/6th of Crow's reported salary, this two day strike has probably cost me around £250.
  • Rothko said:

    I don't agree with what Boris is doing BUT around 70% of the membership either voted no to strike action or didn't vote at all. Not much of a mandate for strike action.

    It's a nonsense argument, for example only 38% of Londoners voted in the 2012 mayoral elections, does that mean Boris lacks a mandate to be Mayor, because 62% didn't vote? Or did he have a bigger mandate in '08 when 46% of Londoners voted.
    Rothko! That's the 2nd most disgusting post I have ever seen on here.
    Dunno about disgusting, but it's not a valid comparison. There's a world of difference between electing someone and voting to lose pay for a strike. If you've got a small percentage actively supporting it you really don't have a valid mandate to be calling a strike.

    For what it's worth I've worked with good and bad unions and reps. The best ones work to safeguard their members through a change, the worst look to block it just because it's change.

    Two quick examples. I needed to relocate some members to another location a few miles from their current base. The rep worked with me to ensure the move could happen but that we protected the needs - not wishes - of his members. Worked out great for all. Another tried to call localised action because I was moving people between desks. Much discontentment and it happened anyway.

    Bob Crow to me is in the latter camp.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!