Southern Rail Strike - right or wrong
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 7mins  In the bush 19 Dec 16 11.39pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
Arrogance. Thinking you are better than you are, or know better than others. A bit like Alan Pardew is accused of. So they vote to inflict misery on thousands. Without facing the hardship. They voted to strike of safety issues, they are losing thousands and they will never get that money back... all for safety... hardly arrogant. Southern management refused talks, so drivers voted for industrial action... I think that is arrogant. Could it be, that you don't know what your talking about? ^don't be offended, it's just a question...I'm trying to gauge your level of knowledge
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 19 Dec 16 11.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
Yes they could, and I have no idea if the guards think it is beneath (thought it a silly question to be honest) But the above is a moot point, as Southern have no intention to retrain them. They said there will be no redundancies. Do you choose to disbelieve them, or do you have evidence?
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 19 Dec 16 11.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
They said there will be no redundancies. Do you choose to disbelieve them, or do you have evidence? There will be no redundancies... I absolutely believe them. What is of concern to me, is cutting back on safety trained staff...let them sack off all the gateline/ticket office staff they want... I don't think they should get rid safety trained staff... my point of view has never been based on staff losing their jobs.... s*** happens, but you can't get rid of saftey critical trained staff.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 19 Dec 16 11.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's almost like this dispute is about safety...who'd a thunk it huh?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 19 Dec 16 11.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
They voted to strike of safety issues, they are losing thousands and they will never get that money back... all for safety... hardly arrogant. Southern management refused talks, so drivers voted for industrial action... I think that is arrogant. Could it be, that you don't know what your talking about? ^don't be offended, it's just a question...I'm trying to gauge your level of knowledge There is no evidence of safety issues. It has been proved by an independent board, and the guards will still be there. Albeit not solely as guards. That stinks of "jobs for the boys". And I don't doubt Southern's duplicity in this. But they are merely providing a poor service. Not no service. And try not to be so condescending with your "You don't know what you are talking about" comments. It's tedious. The union will give them some of their wages too, unlike the commuters who work in the real world. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (19 Dec 2016 11.50pm)
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 19 Dec 16 11.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
It's almost like this dispute is about safety...who'd a thunk it huh? So, you agree that the safety trained staff keep their jobs, where is the safety issue? Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (19 Dec 2016 11.52pm)
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 19 Dec 16 11.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
There is no evidence of safety issues. It has been proved by an independent board, and the guards will still be there. Albeit not solely as guards. That stinks of "jobs for the boys". And I don't doubt Southern's duplicity in this. But they are merely providing a poor service. Not no service. And try not to be so condescending with your "You don't know what you are talking about" comments. It's tedious. The union will give them some of their wages too, unlike the commuters who work in the real world. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (19 Dec 2016 11.50pm) You are wrong... the guards will not still be there, they will have no safety responsibilities at all. The RSSB said DOO is safe IF the relevant TOC have put in place their own safety procedures...have you seen the cctv images on here? Jobs for boys??? Why would drivers give up thousands of pounds for guards they hardly ever met.... would you give up £1000's for another department in your company? If it's about jobs for boys, why didn't drivers strike for platform/gateline/ticket office? Would it be possible for you to answer my points.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 19 Dec 16 11.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
So, you agree that the safety trained staff keep their jobs, where is the safety issue? Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (19 Dec 2016 11.52pm) No...the safety trained staff lose their safety jobs... they then get non safety jobs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 20 Dec 16 12.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
You are wrong... the guards will not still be there, they will have no safety responsibilities at all. The RSSB said DOO is safe IF the relevant TOC have put in place their own safety procedures...have you seen the cctv images on here? Jobs for boys??? Why would drivers give up thousands of pounds for guards they hardly ever met.... would you give up £1000's for another department in your company? If it's about jobs for boys, why didn't drivers strike for platform/gateline/ticket office? Would it be possible for you to answer my points. You said there will be no redundancies.So the guards are still employed. What will they be doing? Safety stuff maybe? Just guessing, as I am obviously a fool. Are these drivers who are striking the same ones whose very likelihood depends on the the needless guards they have hardly ever met? And, as you said, the other jobs mentioned are low skill jobs, so expendable. (Like you say. In your earlier post.)
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Dec 16 12.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
I don't relish people losing jobs, but if they are obsolete, they are necessary. What do prisons have to do with this strike? Prison workers cannot strike by law. One of the consequences of this is that they are rendered toothless if any issues arise. One of the issues is that in order to save money / increase dividends a large number of staff went. As we saw in Birmingham jail at the weekend, 2 guards failed to control 150 inmates. Now if those communists in the unions had the option of strike action they may have used the threat in order to negotiate and compromise with g4s serco or whoever (notice how often those names crop up)and there would have been a much more safe ratio of guards to prisoners. It may be that what happened at the weekend. Let's be thankful that these drivers can take action when they feel that what they are being asked to do is unsafe but they are still liable. If you haven't taken the time to read the thread I suggest you do. I can't imagine what a pain in the arse this strike has been. It shows what an important job these drivers and guards do keep the city moving. They want to work, but safely. And yes you've got someone gobbing off about bringing down the government, but there always will be. It's the left ffs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 20 Dec 16 6.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
You said there will be no redundancies.So the guards are still employed. What will they be doing? Safety stuff maybe? Just guessing, as I am obviously a fool. Are these drivers who are striking the same ones whose very likelihood depends on the the needless guards they have hardly ever met? And, as you said, the other jobs mentioned are low skill jobs, so expendable. (Like you say. In your earlier post.) Guards are being changed in to OBS's. With NO safety responsibilities AT ALL.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cardiff eagle  20 Dec 16 6.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
Guards are being changed in to OBS's. With NO safety responsibilities AT ALL. Assume this also means that legally they cannot do the safety stuff even if they know how to also? So whilst some would still have the skills (albeit diminish over time due to lack of refreshers), they wouldn't be able to act on them without breaching policy. Which is almost like they don't have the skills.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.