Lazy underground staff

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

<snip>

I think they are trying to prove the point that if they don't have a job the network collapses.
</snip>

That's the point, for this very reason their jobs aren't at risk.

Ian

[Rob Dobson]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

I think they are trying to prove the point that if they don't have a job the network collapses.

And when the Mayor of London who holds the budget to pay their wages gives his commitment that their jobs are not under threat they strike because....?

Well according to the BBC the strike is now because the employees of Metronet didn't like their pension package at the now defunct Metronet.

[dry suit diver]

Originally Posted by Rob Dobson

And when the Mayor of London who holds the budget to pay their wages gives his commitment that their jobs are not under threat they strike because....?

Well according to the BBC the strike is now because the employees of Metronet didn't like their pension package at the now defunct Metronet.

I remember Ken saying the congestion charge wouldn't go up and he wouldn't rejoin labour.
oh and whose to say that the next micky mouse company that gets to provide engineering won't 'streamline' the labour force, cos thats never ever happened before has it.

[Scuby]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

oh and whose to say that the next micky mouse company that gets to provide engineering won't 'streamline' the labour force, cos thats never ever happened before has it.

See, this is part of what I don't understand. The company is clearly unprofitable in its current form. For most companies now, labour is by far their biggest cost. So how do the Unions think a company is going to survive to give ANYONE a job if they make all of these silly demands - they want more pay, better pensions, lower working hours, better conditions, and lifetime guarantees for their job security. Think they're lucky to have got any guarantees the way things are!

David

[JasonP]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

so you meet a lot of the metronet maintenance staff during the course of your day then?

Nope, I just stand around in the huge queues caused by the fact that they've not finished their maintenance in time. Or because a train's crashed because they've left something on the tracks as happened a few weeks ago. Or have my station closed due to "excessive dust" from their maintenance is another favourite.

Jason

[JasonP]

Originally Posted by Scuby

See, this is part of what I don't understand. The company is clearly unprofitable in its current form. For most companies now, labour is by far their biggest cost. So how do the Unions think a company is going to survive to give ANYONE a job if they make all of these silly demands - they want more pay, better pensions, lower working hours, better conditions, and lifetime guarantees for their job security. Think they're lucky to have got any guarantees the way things are!

The reason it was unprofitable was because Metronet's management couldn't manage the projects properly. So you had gangs turning up for jobs, finding they couldn't start because things weren't ready for them. They then went home and claimed full pay for doing nothing. Metronet spent too much money, got totally behind with what they were supposed to be doing and went bust.

The operator that runs the other 3 lines is having no such problems.

Jason

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Scuby

Wonder if any of them have considered that maybe the reason they went out of business was partly due to all the time lost and overruns due to all the previous strikes?

IIRC, the cash shortfall that caused the downfall of Metronet was less than the amount withdrawn by the campanies that made it up.

Adrian

[JAG]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

so you meet a lot of the metronet maintenance staff during the course of your day then?

the strike is not by the general LU staff, drivers etc but the maintenance staff, I think they are trying to prove the point that if they don't have a job the network collapses.

that said Bob Crow is a cnut and needs a good slapping

To many people the London Underground is the London Underground, despite what faction has decided throw their toys out of the pram this time.

TBH I don't care if they are metronet or whoever, all I, and no doubt tens of thousands of others care about is the fact that the tube is not running again, rightly or wrongly they all get tarred with the same dog turd covered brush.

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Scuby

See, this is part of what I don't understand. The company is clearly unprofitable in its current form. For most companies now, labour is by far their biggest cost. So how do the Unions think a company is going to survive to give ANYONE a job if they make all of these silly demands - they want more pay, better pensions, lower working hours, better conditions, and lifetime guarantees for their job security. Think they're lucky to have got any guarantees the way things are!

David

I don't know if it is still the case, but LUL was not allowed to make a profit by law. Neither was it allowed to budget for a loss. In otherwords it walked a financial tightrope.

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by JAG

A pair of glasses for the short sighted please...

Look in the mirror, you'll see the biggest tw*t of all..

F*ck you too.

Chris