Politics, politics, politics

[Danishfurniturelover]

Southern have said that the ticket guards will now not be responsible for closing the doors any more. The train drivers will be responsible for this, Southern said no jobs would be lost but rather that their on board staff would take on other roles. You now how in our jobs our duties change slightly over time to correspond with the needs of the business and company we are working for.

But that is to much for the unions at Southern they are striking because of "job cuts" job cuts on a line where the operator has said they need to put more services on because of passenger numbers, so far from being job cuts the would actually be job creation.

Southern are an awful service and rumour has it that they want out and are using this dispute as an excuse to try and get out of the franchise. Corbyn could have caught one of these trains from Brighton/Worthing and legitimately not got a seat, but he is now like all the other politicians one of spin. Wonder how all the students feel tonight knowing their man is a false prophet.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I find all this train/sitting on the floor b0llocks depressing on all sides. Very disappointed in Corbyn if he's come up with some cheap stunt. What would be the point? Just point to our own poster's love of Southern Railway to make a case for doing something different with our rail system. No need for any nonsense.

Then the other side, waiting 'til the olympics is over with, get this trivial crap in the news cycle. There are proper arguments and debates to be had for and against Corbyn policies, I wish the news would be a bit more serious about it all.

I've already voted for Corbyn in the leadership contest, did it online. I'm not interested in a cult of personality, though I know that a fair few of his voters are. I am interested in the left-wing policies he espouses and the democratisation of the Labour Party, and the choice given to the wider electorate come a general election. I hope the he paves the way for another left-wing leader in the future.

I like you and admire your conviction in your views, maybe someone like you should go into politics.

Problem with Corbyn is, he is a liar and if he lies about something like this(something he did not have to lie about if he caught a southern train) what else is he going to lie about.

 

[parklane1]

I like you and admire your conviction in your views, maybe someone like you should go into politics.

Problem with Corbyn is, he is a liar and if he lies about something like this(something he did not have to lie about if he caught a southern train) what else is he going to lie about.

Nothing new in that as they all our at some point.

 

[glasgowspur]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...-corbyn/?_ga=1.30003775.1037419970.1471945018

Re the terrorist angle, corbyn and his kind still think they are fighting the Empire, and anything that destroys it is justified.
They are fighting battles won long ago, but by winning them they have made themselves irrelevant.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Nothing new in that as they all our at some point.

Now Bernie Sanders has come out and denied sending him support. Oh Jez so many lies, just the same as the others, I felt the same when Farage was sending money into tax avoidance schemes after he had said he was not. They pretend to be about a new kind of politics and even if their politics you respect them because they are men of conviction......

but they never are and the are the same as the others.

I voted in the referendum but I never now vote in general elections, I turned into my dad, he used to say to me, benjamin trust no fudger in a position of power.

 

[milo]

The problem with Southern is the union. Nothing to do with privatisation.

Yep. Plenty of other train lines run exactly the type of set up that is being proposed on Southern without any safety issues, many from the same stations that Southern serve. This just a case of the RMT blocking change.

 

[scaramanga]

Yep. Plenty of other train lines run exactly the type of set up that is being proposed on Southern without any safety issues, many from the same stations that Southern serve. This just a case of the RMT blocking change.

FWIW I actually agree with the RMT that the long term plans are job cuts - anyone running a unionised business that isn't planning on automating everything is a fool.

That's not this issue though. In order to strike, the vote should be put to commuters and union members. If a majority still want a strike then clearly something is wrong.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Yep. Plenty of other train lines run exactly the type of set up that is being proposed on Southern without any safety issues, many from the same stations that Southern serve. This just a case of the RMT blocking change.

Or looking after their members so that when the change happens they are not totally screwed over.
Unions can often be seen as obstructing change for the sake of being obstructive but not all employers act fairly or decently towards their staff when pushing through changes. Some need to be held to account.
(Admittedly I don't know enough about the situation with Southern Rail to know whether this is the case but Iif the union is acting to protect its members (and the union can only does as its members vote it to do) then I don't have too much of an issue with that.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

FWIW I actually agree with the RMT that the long term plans are job cuts - anyone running a unionised business that isn't planning on automating everything is a fool.

That's not this issue though. In order to strike, the vote should be put to commuters and union members. If a majority still want a strike then clearly something is wrong.

I disagree and you made a post the other day that I read about how when one job is automated then others are created, Southern might cut jobs in ticket offices for example, but other jobs will be created. Particularly as new trains will be coming and extra services are coming on the lines.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Or looking after their members so that when the change happens they are not totally screwed over.
Unions can often be seen as obstructing change for the sake of being obstructive but not all employers act fairly or decently towards their staff when pushing through changes. Some need to be held to account.
(Admittedly I don't know enough about the situation with Southern Rail to know whether this is the case but Iif the union is acting to protect its members (and the union can only does as its members vote it to do) then I don't have too much of an issue with that.

I wish if it were down to a vote then the should have to be at least a 50% majority of union members voting for strike action, the last report I saw in the Argus was that not even 50% of union members turned out to vote, let alone vote in favour of strike.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Yep. Plenty of other train lines run exactly the type of set up that is being proposed on Southern without any safety issues, many from the same stations that Southern serve. This just a case of the RMT blocking change.

I actually agree, you never fail to surprise me with your considered and intellectual approach to topics, I really feel your a great poster who has opened my eyes to different things and different point of views.

If only your views on the song dark side of the moon and comfortable numb were not so perverse I would say you were the best poster on this site, but of course that accolade goes to me.

 

[scaramanga]

Or looking after their members so that when the change happens they are not totally screwed over.
Unions can often be seen as obstructing change for the sake of being obstructive but not all employers act fairly or decently towards their staff when pushing through changes. Some need to be held to account.
(Admittedly I don't know enough about the situation with Southern Rail to know whether this is the case but Iif the union is acting to protect its members (and the union can only does as its members vote it to do) then I don't have too much of an issue with that.

What's fair?

Turning up to the job for which you get paid? Doing what (obviously within reason) your employer wants done in order to make the business successful?

There is no good reason whatsoever for a union to exist. If your employer behaves in a manner you don't like, get another job. If employers continue to act that way, they will not attract or retain staff and will have to improve conditions.

I don't understand why trains aren't automated anyway - it seems to me as if we've had the technology for a long time. Then we can do the only logical thing to do with unionised workers and sack them.

 

[scaramanga]

I wish if it were down to a vote then the should have to be at least a 50% majority of union members voting for strike action, the last report I saw in the Argus was that not even 50% of union members turned out to vote, let alone vote in favour of strike.

Not even 50% of those voting voted for a strike - that's why they've all been "off sick" for months.

How long does it take to train up a guard? A day? Two maybe? They should have sacked them all and replaced them by people with a work ethic months ago.

 

[scaramanga]

I disagree and you made a post the other day that I read about how when one job is automated then others are created, Southern might cut jobs in ticket offices for example, but other jobs will be created. Particularly as new trains will be coming and extra services are coming on the lines.

What if Southern did what needs to be done and shut down all ticket booths, automated all the trains and outsourced security to those who are good at it?

Then there'd be no "coal face" jobs at all and commuters would get a decent service.

 

[Rorschach]

I could understand all the political negativity IF we didn't all have a vote.
But we do, your choices may not get power but that's democracy.
Proportional representation would ba step forward IMHO but the voters said no to that......

A truer democracy. I honestly can't understand how it hasn't been introduced in Britain before now.

 

[milo]

I wish if it were down to a vote then the should have to be at least a 50% majority of union members voting for strike action, the last report I saw in the Argus was that not even 50% of union members turned out to vote, let alone vote in favour of strike.

I don't agree with that. What other elections do we have were you need a majority of the eligible electorate to vote rather than the majority of votes cast? No government in living memory has had that kind of mandate and none of the recent referendums and they have far wider impact.

 

[milo]

Or looking after their members so that when the change happens they are not totally screwed over.
Unions can often be seen as obstructing change for the sake of being obstructive but not all employers act fairly or decently towards their staff when pushing through changes. Some need to be held to account.
(Admittedly I don't know enough about the situation with Southern Rail to know whether this is the case but Iif the union is acting to protect its members (and the union can only does as its members vote it to do) then I don't have too much of an issue with that.

I understand that an I am supportive of trade unions generally but I think that the RMT have got this one wrong.

The main issue of the dispute as I understand it is that Southern want to introduce trains with driver operated doors. This is the same as operate on Crossrail and many Southeastern routes. Having interoperable rolling stock would give the operators greater flexibility.

There are not any current plans to remove ticket ticket inspectors from their trains. The safety argument is spurious. I understand the desire to protect jobs but employers have to have the ability to modernise and introduce change.

 

[milo]

That's not this issue though. In order to strike, the vote should be put to commuters and union members. If a majority still want a strike then clearly something is wrong.

That's a ludicrous suggestion. Customers have little knowledge or interest in workers terms of employment and should not have a veto on their right to remove their labour. We have some of the tightest union legislation in Europe. Very little days are lost here to industrial action.

 

[scaramanga]

That's a ludicrous suggestion. Customers have little knowledge or interest in workers terms of employment and should not have a veto on their right to remove their labour. We have some of the tightest union legislation in Europe. Very little days are lost here to industrial action.

Yet it's the customers (who can't vote with their feet because the market isn't properly opened up) who suffer the cost.

I keep getting told by lefty types that companies can't exist purely to make profit for their shareholders, that all stakeholders should be considered and consulted. In that case, the same has to go for unions - they have to operate in a manner that doesn't hurt the customer.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[milo]

Yet it's the customers (who can't vote with their feet because the market isn't properly opened up) who suffer the cost.

I keep getting told by lefty types that companies can't exist purely to make profit for their shareholders, that all stakeholders should be considered and consulted. In that case, the same has to go for unions - they have to operate in a manner that doesn't hurt the customer.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Would you support customers having a say in all aspects of a company or just workers T&Cs?