RMT Strike

[Southover Street Seagull]

It probably is, not entirely sure! In all honesty the problems behind this lie in privatising the rail infrastructure, I just get frustrated at basically using the general public and millions who commute daily as a bargaining tool.

I agree, nationalise the lot and invest in public transport in this country without a private shareholder benefiting from taxes the general public has to pay for.
Contrary to popular right wing belief the days of unions going on so called strikes in the 70's for the sake of it are long gone, legislation saw to that in the 80's. It also may surprise some people that most people who go on strike do not do it lightly. So as I said in an earlier post, I think you'll find this is the RMT and TSSA's last resort.

 

[SICKASAGULL]

There is no question of maintenance being cut back, its a change of rostering to enable additional trains to be run at both ends of the day and weekends.
These sort of alterations are common in other industries and the rail unions must accept the situation if they want a growth in traffic.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

There is no question of maintenance being cut back, its a change of rostering to enable additional trains to be run at both ends of the day and weekends.
These sort of alterations are common in other industries and the rail unions must accept the situation if they want a growth in traffic.

Not according to what Bob Crowe has said about jobs being cut trackside and responsibilities for gang safety being given to someone in a signal box looking at cctv.

 

[SpidersLegs]

Bob Crow talks bollocks most of the time. I should know I'm a member of his poxy union!

 

[Springal]

What do we reckon then, are RMT likely to drop the strike or are national rail (or whoever) likely to cave in?

Can get a nice hilton if I book now (non-refundable) but by Thursday I'll likely only end up with a shitty travelodge. If strike is cancelled I'll end up with £150 of hotel bookings I don't need!

 

[beorhthelm]

Not according to what Bob Crowe has said about jobs being cut trackside and responsibilities for gang safety being given to someone in a signal box looking at cctv.

apposed to who currently responsible for safety? reading between the lines, some members of the workgang are there just to look out and spot for trains: maybe being radioed from a signal box that a train is coming is slight more productive use of manpower

put it this way, does anyone rationally think that in this day and age of elf and safty and compo culture the network rail managment would risk anyone being injured due to thier changes? this isn't the age of the slave driver, those middle managers live and breath H&S regs and targets.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

There is no question of maintenance being cut back, its a change of rostering to enable additional trains to be run at both ends of the day and weekends.
These sort of alterations are common in other industries and the rail unions must accept the situation if they want a growth in traffic.

Do you know this having or currently working in the railway industry?

 

[British Bulldog]

There is no question of maintenance being cut back, its a change of rostering to enable additional trains to be run at both ends of the day and weekends.
These sort of alterations are common in other industries and the rail unions must accept the situation if they want a growth in traffic.

It's nothing to do with rostering it's to do with Network Rail cutting back on safety in order to cut jobs, I'm no fan of Bob Crow but he's got it right on this one.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

It's nothing to do with rostering it's to do with Network Rail cutting back on safety in order to cut jobs, I'm no fan of Bob Crow but he's got it right on this one.

What annoys me about all these "safety" things is that noone (neither union or National Rail) explains actually what it relates to.

What exactly do they want to change?

 

[Hannibal smith]

What exactly do they want to change?

Seconded. Can someone explain what the saftey aspects actually are? I assume that its not cutting out red lights or leaving the barriers up on level crossings.

Seeing as trains are pretty much the safest way to travel it sounds like union bollocks but I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

 

[bhaexpress]

Seconded. Can someone explain what the saftey aspects actually are? I assume that its not cutting out red lights or leaving the barriers up on level crossings.

Seeing as trains are pretty much the safest way to travel it sounds like union bollocks but I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

It's about the track maintenence and the safety of the people who repair it as much as anything. Mind you given the restricted practices of so many unions you do wonder how much real truth there is in these claims.

 

[British Bulldog]

What annoys me about all these "safety" things is that noone (neither union or National Rail) explains actually what it relates to.

What exactly do they want to change?

It's difficult to explain to people with no knowledge of railway workings but I'll give it a go, When you block a line for engineering work say from point "A" to point "B" 2 people ( Blockmen ) are employed to put out protection at both points which consist of 3 detonators clamped to the line and either a STOP board during the day or a red lamp at night and they are responsible for that protection for the duration of the work. Not only is it protection for the people working on the track but it's also a stopping point for any engineering trains going in and out of the work area, ie if an engineering train was going into the works the signalman tells the driver to procede as far as the protection where the engineers take over responsibility for the train, And it's the blockmans job to lift the protection to allow the train in and then replace it again. It's the same princible for trains coming out of the engineering works.

Now what Network rail are proposing is to do away with the Blockmen ( to cut jobs ) and also to do away with the protection at points "A" and "B" and put the whole responsibility for safety of the workmen and trains going in and out of, And moving around inside of engineering works on the signalman. There's a lot more to it as well that gets complicated so I wont even try and explain it, But the fact of the matter is the system we have now is safe and it works and has done for years, The proposed new system is an accident waiting to happen.

 

[beorhthelm]

yep, i'd like to hear the specific saftey impacting changes too. its always the way, union makes bold claims without providing any detail.

seen above. that doesnt sound too unreasonable. but why A and B, surely a train can only be going one way? and are there really only 1 "blockmen" at either end or a couple. i do think with modern communications a better solution is possible, though i do like the simplicty of the solution descibed.

and i rather fail to see how this would lead to "another Hatfield" as Crow keeps saying, i despise the way he abuses that tragedy for his political ends. if he explained the above, you never know he might gain some public support for his members.

 

[British Bulldog]

but why A and B, surely a train can only be going one way?

It's not allways just A & B it can be C D & E as well, But no matter how many points there are protection is put on all lines because trains can go in and out of engineering works on any line in any direction.

 

[Thimble Keegan]

RMT UNION SIGNALLERS STRIKE - IMPORTANT INFORMATION : Southern

I'm completely stuffed

If what happens on that link is actually what will occur then I am screwed. There is no mention of any trains from the Coast-Way West to London and there appears to be nothing before 7:00am which is a pain as I am normally on the 5:33am out of Angmering to Victoria.

God knows what I am going to do next week.

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Littlehampton BHA

 

[essbee]

Bulldog - a good explanation - thanks!

So -

Don't management have an ounce of common-sense and realise that this type of change is going to inflame things?

Equally - don't the unions have the common-sense to explain to the public what's going on. They have enough air time ffs. 75% of people if asked would say they thought it was money based. It is clearly not. They would get a lot more public support if they did surely?

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

You know Im reminded of what my old boss used to say which killed ANY argument.

He used to say if you dont like it LEAVE. (actually it was f*** Off but you get my gist)

No one did by the way.

Maybe we should use that phrase a bit more. f***ing unions.

 

[Arthur]

You know Im reminded of what my old boss used to say which killed ANY argument.

He used to say if you dont like it LEAVE. (actually it was f*** Off but you get my gist)

No one did by the way.

Maybe we should use that phrase a bit more. f***ing unions.

D'ya know what I was thinking the exact same thing!

"But there aren't any jobs elsewhere at the moment!" - Well going on strike and preventing the country getting to work is really going to help that predicament isn't it!

A mate of mine works on the railway and each night he does one of his gangs soul responsibility is to make tea and coffee.

 

[Chicken Run]

Having had just about enough of these fat cat union bosses over the last couple of weeks, can somone who is a member of a large union explain to me where they get their ££££££'s to pump into the Labour party?

 

[British Bulldog]

You know Im reminded of what my old boss used to say which killed ANY argument.

He used to say if you dont like it LEAVE. (actually it was f*** Off but you get my gist)

No one did by the way.

Maybe we should use that phrase a bit more. f***ing unions.

I've heard that sort of rubbish from quite a few managers and they all get the same reply, " I'd rather stick around and make a nuisence of myself it makes your job harder "