Southern Rail Strike - right or wrong
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 npn  Crowborough 02 Dec 16 12.02pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
Guards are trained in loads of safety procedures Thanks for your input, as someone 'in the know'. It's interesting and informative. As a commuter who suffers regularly because of this, I would ask, however, what is different about Southern from all of the current services which are driver only (trams, tubes, and I believe some train lines, for instance)? We all know that companies will say whatever it takes to get a cost saving through, but is there really a safety implication? On my line, literally all the guard does is to open the doors and carry a ticket machine to sell tickets when your station office is closed. It's very frustrating, from this side, when the guards gets stuck on another service, and your train is cancelled when you are completely aware that the train could run perfectly OK without them. The fact that this is step one to getting rid of them is obvious (regardless of the promise to keep them for a few years), but how long can you fight against the advance of technology (I'm sure plenty of stokers were laid off when trains went electric, for instance).
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| 7mins In the bush 02 Dec 16 12.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Thanks for your input, as someone 'in the know'. It's interesting and informative. As a commuter who suffers regularly because of this, I would ask, however, what is different about Southern from all of the current services which are driver only (trams, tubes, and I believe some train lines, for instance)? We all know that companies will say whatever it takes to get a cost saving through, but is there really a safety implication? On my line, literally all the guard does is to open the doors and carry a ticket machine to sell tickets when your station office is closed. It's very frustrating, from this side, when the guards gets stuck on another service, and your train is cancelled when you are completely aware that the train could run perfectly OK without them. The fact that this is step one to getting rid of them is obvious (regardless of the promise to keep them for a few years), but how long can you fight against the advance of technology (I'm sure plenty of stokers were laid off when trains went electric, for instance). The problems we encountered were more to do with 12 car trains...there was a ratio of 1400:1 in terms of passengers to staff... Any evacuation would be impossible... The safety peeps didn't like them numbers. Also any technical fault means the drivers had to leave the train to fix it or do what's called "protection" this is a procedure where the driver leaves the train to go meet another train that will tow the busted train away... The safety bods didn't like passengers being left alone on a train with no member of staff. The problem we had, was guards had this safety training.... We needed to get rid of that and then we could get rid of guards
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 02 Dec 16 12.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Trams are smaller and the DfT have always treated them as more akin to busses....something called line of sight driving. As I said...I think guards will lose...they're fighting a Tory government, with little public sympathy. I also think they are right.. We should have more staff on our railways, not less. Passenger numbers have gone through the roof.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Dec 16 2.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
Trams are smaller and the DfT have always treated them as more akin to busses....something called line of sight driving. As I said...I think guards will lose...they're fighting a Tory government, with little public sympathy. I also think they are right.. We should have more staff on our railways, not less. Passenger numbers have gone through the roof. You weren't doing too bad until then. You've let your "guard" slip. As npn said, we all know it's about eventually reducing staff levels. Making the public suffer, while telling them they're striking for something else, is foolhardy.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 02 Dec 16 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
You weren't doing too bad until then. You've let your "guard" slip. As npn said, we all know it's about eventually reducing staff levels. Making the public suffer, while telling them they're striking for something else, is foolhardy. The Southern franchise is a only A management contract. Southern get paid to carry out the mandate of DfT. Do you disagree with any of that?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Dec 16 3.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
The Southern franchise is a only A management contract. Southern get paid to carry out the mandate of DfT. Do you disagree with any of that? GTR get paid to run the Southern franchise. We didn't have a tory government when they set out what was being bid for. And they weren't the only bidders.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7mins In the bush 02 Dec 16 5.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
GTR get paid to run the Southern franchise. We didn't have a tory government when they set out what was being bid for. And they weren't the only bidders. What are you talking about?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Dec 16 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by 7mins
What are you talking about? Trains, same as you.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 steph_eagle Thornton Heath 02 Dec 16 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Not sure if anyone's posted this but we'll get compensation of around a months costs, not that that helps when people can't even get to work.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 02 Dec 16 8.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I think going on strike is akin to holding someone to ransom. It's playing on the survival of someone. In this case the MD. It is immoral. I have no problem with unions, in fact I think they are needed more now than in the last 30 odd years. Negotiation between workers and management is at 1930's levels. But striking just piles on misery to countless innocents who have nothing to do with the perceived problem. In this day and age, companies should be allowed to sack anyone who strikes, as there are plenty of other deserving workers who are desperate to earn their wages. I understand that this sounds Victorian, but workers rights have been established. Striking to merely increase wages (same as less hours, same wages) or to keep unnecessary jobs is downright idiotic. Negotiating pay rises, genuine H&S issues (which are already almost non-existant, bar stupidity) fine. But refuse to work to get that, P45! Work to rule, go slow, constant union pressure on the management (meetings every day) are legitimate methods of getting results. Striking is only acceptable if pay or conditions are adverse to a workers well being. Those conditions are illegal. As is blackmail, which is how I view unions calling strikes over spurious matters. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (02 Dec 2016 8.16pm)
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Dec 16 9.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
I think going on strike is akin to holding someone to ransom. It's playing on the survival of someone. In this case the MD. It is immoral. I have no problem with unions, in fact I think they are needed more now than in the last 30 odd years. Negotiation between workers and management is at 1930's levels. But striking just piles on misery to countless innocents who have nothing to do with the perceived problem. In this day and age, companies should be allowed to sack anyone who strikes, as there are plenty of other deserving workers who are desperate to earn their wages. I understand that this sounds Victorian, but workers rights have been established. Striking to merely increase wages (same as less hours, same wages) or to keep unnecessary jobs is downright idiotic. Negotiating pay rises, genuine H&S issues (which are already almost non-existant, bar stupidity) fine. But refuse to work to get that, P45! Work to rule, go slow, constant union pressure on the management (meetings every day) are legitimate methods of getting results. Striking is only acceptable if pay or conditions are adverse to a workers well being. Those conditions are illegal. As is blackmail, which is how I view unions calling strikes over spurious matters. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (02 Dec 2016 8.16pm) How and why do you think that health and safety conditions have got better. What southern are proposing would mean a staff member to passenger ratio of 1:1400
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 02 Dec 16 9.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
How and why do you think that health and safety conditions have got better. What southern are proposing would mean a staff member to passenger ratio of 1:1400 I work in the construction industry Nick. H&S have been the bane of my life since 1985ish. They reached an acceptable standard of H&S then. Since then, they just make up rules to cover completely ridiculous situations. A bit like who closes the doors. How many deaths occurred when we had to close our own doors as opposed to automatic closing? It works fine elsewhere. If the cameras fail, upgrade them, don't revert to redundant methods.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| 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.