Southern Rail

[r-u-s-x]

Disagree this is Government sticking it the union while they are in a position of power - they engineered this situation if it wasn't this they would keep pushing buttons until they strike. its ideological on both sides but this is about taking on the unions not guardless carriages

 

[ringo]

Both employers and employees have a set of separate/distinct mutually exclusive interests, and a set of mutually inclusive interests. It doesn't seem sensible to allow either the employer or the employee to satisfy their set of mutually exclusive interests. As neither of those two options would be likely to produce the best performance for the consumer. Therefore, removing the union, wouldn't seem sensible in that context, from a consumer's perspective.

However, given that Govia is a limited company and its primary duty is to the shareholders, what is good for the consumer -the passenger -in this case, doesn't really matter, especially given that there are limited number of travel alternatives for the train passenger. I suspect that Govia will only back down if either a) the shareholders -particularly the directors begin to feel the financial pain in a personal way; b) it becomes politically inconvenient to the government - either in a personal capacity or in a political capacity. Similarly for the employees taking union action (official or unofficial) - although they may feel the financial pain sooner -and be replaced through staff turnover.

In a world of increasing automation, regardless of the merits of this particular disagreement, this type of dispute is likely to become a frequent occurrence.

 

[ringo]

If that were the case, then wouldn't the decline of unions have coincided with a decrease in working conditions?

Unions are all but dead in this country and will hopefully be gone for good in the next 10 years. Yet working conditions have continued to improve.

There is a potential difficulty with this argument. Because even if it is true -and that would depend on the criteria used to measure working conditions - it would be hard to argue that working conditions improve for those people who lose their jobs as a consequence of organisational change.

Automatio/AI will result in many more millions of people losing their jobs. A market efficient approach would argue that this is both an inevitable and a good thing, as it creates a more efficient organisation and market. But there may come a point when the efficient market approach is outweighed by the negative social and economic consequences of that approach, and we need to enforce inefficient measures. Otherwise there really isn't any such thing as society.

I believe there are a number of forces at play which mean we are fast approaching what lovers of management jargon call a paradigm shift, a time when we rethink and rework traditional economic and social approaches, the notion of the corporation and corporate purpose, the role of the public sector and the state, social structures, even the concept of the nation state. We are entering a period of serious and profound economic and social upheaval.

I still hate it when the train is late, though. (Or doesn't turn up at all).

 

[scaramanga]

There is a potential difficulty with this argument. Because even if it is true -and that would depend on the criteria used to measure working conditions - it would be hard to argue that working conditions improve for those people who lose their jobs as consequence of organizational change.

Automation will result in many more millions of people losing their jobs. A market efficient approach would argue that this is both and inevitable and a good thing, as it creates a more efficient organization and market. But there may come a point when the efficient market approach is outweighed by the negative social and economic consequences of that approach, and we need to enforce inefficient measures. Otherwise there really isn't any such thing a society.

I believe there a number of forces at play which mean we are fast approaching what lovers of management jargon call a paradigm shift, a time when we rethink and rework traditional economic and social approaches, the notion of the corporation and corporate purpose, the role of the public state, social structures, even the concept of the nation state. We are entering a period of serious and profound economic and social upheaval.

I still hate it when the train is late, though.(Or doesn't turn up).

People have been concerned about automation for a couple of centuries, but doing so completely ignores human nature.

Automation removes jobs, but the increased "leisure" time (not really leisure but a measure of time not spent performing that manual action) creates new job requirements and new functions to fill that void.

The classic example is the motor car. It used to take a lot of people to make a horse go - someone had to grow it, shoe it, feed it, do whatever other stuff horses need (I'm not a country person). The number of people required to build and maintain a car was significantly fewer.

What happened though, was that the car created the roadside diner, the motel, the petrol station. It increased the number of people who could holiday, it meant you didn't need to work where you lived, it created new towns that would have been inaccessible.

The car didn't remove jobs, it just created ones we didn't think we needed. The same goes for computers and most other modern technology.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...BG3qzXiePOR6XIyiQ&sig2=v5LYOK2vFWmIpXXeF5CLgA

 

[r-u-s-x01]

Both employers and employees have a set of separate/distinct mutually exclusive interests, and a set of mutually inclusive interests. It doesn't seem sensible to allow either the employer or the employee to satisfy their set of mutually exclusive interests. As neither of those two options would be likely to produce the best performance for the consumer. Therefore, removing the union, wouldn't seem sensible in that context, from a consumer's perspective.

However, given that Govia is a limited company and its primary duty is to the shareholders, what is good for the consumer -the passenger -in this case, doesn't really matter, especially given that there are limited number of travel alternatives for the train passenger. I suspect that Govia will only back down if either a) the shareholders -particularly the directors begin to feel the financial pain in a personal way; b) it becomes politically inconvenient to the government - either in a personal capacity or in a political capacity. Similarly for the employees taking union action (official or unofficial) - although they may feel the financial pain sooner -and be replaced through staff turnover.

In a world of increasing automation, regardless of the merits of this particular disagreement, this type of dispute is likely to become a frequent occurrence.

Normally the line is a franchise, meaning that strike action and lack of journeys would seriously effect their profitability, bringing their interests in line with the consumer.

This line has been given a management contract insulating them from strike activity and then they behave in a manner that makes strikes inevitable, almost as if it was planned.

 

[ringo]

People have been concerned about automation for a couple of centuries, but doing so completely ignores human nature.

Automation removes jobs, but the increased "leisure" time (not really leisure but a measure of time not spent performing that manual action) creates new job requirements and new functions to fill that void.

The classic example is the motor car. It used to take a lot of people to make a horse go - someone had to grow it, shoe it, feed it, do whatever other stuff horses need (I'm not a country person). The number of people required to build and maintain a car was significantly fewer.

What happened though, was that the car created the roadside diner, the motel, the petrol station. It increased the number of people who could holiday, it meant you didn't need to work where you lived, it created new towns that would have been inaccessible.

The car didn't remove jobs, it just created ones we didn't think we needed. The same goes for computers and most other modern technology.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...BG3qzXiePOR6XIyiQ&sig2=v5LYOK2vFWmIpXXeF5CLgA

This is certainly true of the past, and probably true of the near future. However, it is possible to imagine a time when the opportunities for new productive labour, envisaged or otherwise, can be fulfilled by the automation/AI that creates them. That's not going to happen at the same time for each economy, but I believe that time is a lot nearer in the developed economies than many people think. It took 180 years to go from the Montgolfier brothers to Concorde. 100 years from the difference engine designs to the solid state calculator. Moore's Law. Quantum computing. We are on the cusp of the age of robots and AI - it's going to be exciting, game changing, but very scary and unsettling too.

 

[Grays_1890]

Ok so more reports of people being sacked off the back of Southern Strikes so here is a genuine question.

Supporters of Unions and the strike, is it only worth defending those losing their jobs if they are part of a union? If you are losing your jobs as a result of the Southern Strikes does it not matter?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Strikes are bad, feel terrible for the passengers and it is fudged up that their life is being effected, but why blame the Unions and not the managanemnet

this also started in the summer http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37560012 it is now resolved, no strikes. If they left it at status quo why they negotiate a resolution the strikes would end pretty sharpish.

I have written a lot about this situation being engineered and I stick by it.

 

[parklane1]

Every single advantage of note currently enjoyed by British workers was won through the hard work and sacrifice of unionist going right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Scratch an anti unionist and find a hypocrite, because they all enjoy these hard won benefits as free riders, who refuse to pay their way. Never seen one of these two bob capos ever donate conditions and wages back though. They all seem happy to scab on unionists though. Not people I'd ever have anything to do with.

I have never been a union man ( i nearly started a riot in the States when i suggested we walked on the job when some were downing tools), however i agree that without the unions there would be the them and us ( the us being the owners fat and rich, and the us living in the gutter). And i say that as a owner of a buisness in the past.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

As many on here know I have centre right political views. But and I say this as a fairly regular customer of southern. I actually do not think all the blame is on the unions. They have tried to make political capital out of this for sure, but I ask myself why if the drivers suddenly decide to work to rule and not do over time is it crippling the network.

It is appalling management to think that to run a normal service the drivers have to do over time. I also think the must be a safety issue there because I do not want a train driver doing more then a 40 hour week and run the risk of getting tired and not concentrating in a job where public safety is at risk.

 

[scaramanga]

Strikes are bad, feel terrible for the passengers and it is fudged up that their life is being effected, but why blame the Unions and not the managanemnet

this also started in the summer http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37560012 it is now resolved, no strikes. If they left it at status quo why they negotiate a resolution the strikes would end pretty sharpish.

I have written a lot about this situation being engineered and I stick by it.

Southern run the service, what does it have to do with the employees what decisions they make?

If ground level employees were capable of making managerial/strategic level decisions I'd be sat on a beach somewhere drinking beer whilst they did my job.

As for the linked article, that solution isn't a solution at all - they may as well do both if they have to close them. If the aim is for drivers to control doors then the only result that works is drivers controlling the doors.

 

[Grays_1890]

It is appalling management to think that to run a normal service the drivers have to do over time. I also think the must be a safety issue there because I do not want a train driver doing more then a 40 hour week and run the risk of getting tired and not concentrating in a job where public safety is at risk.

I get the overtime argument but I think the stat is that nearly 80% of regional train lines are run without a guard and independent H&S has worked with the development of new trains and said it is safe for drivers to work the doors.

For me as someone that travels on the tube which is the same thing probably worse as it is busier, they manage to run a very good service which includes a new late night service without guards and their H&S record is pretty decent.

Work to rule I can handle, not working at all to stop modernization for the better especially when you are not losing your job...BS

 

[Grays_1890]

Southern run the service, what does it have to do with the employees what decisions they make?

If ground level employees were capable of making managerial/strategic level decisions I'd be sat on a beach somewhere drinking beer whilst they did my job.

That is absolutely golden, I love it

 

[Grays_1890]

What makes me sick is almost all of the guards have now accepted their new contracts, yet strikes have continued. ASLEF has mysteriously joined in, despite the fact that the majority of their members operate driver only trains on other networks and do so safely and happily, now if that is not a contradiction then what is?

 

[scaramanga]

What makes me sick is almost all of the guards have now accepted their new contracts, yet strikes have continued. ASLEF has mysteriously joined in, despite the fact that the majority of their members operate driver only trains on other networks and do so safely and happily, now if that is not a contradiction then what is?

The more political it gets, the better.

There's no public sympathy for overpaid rail staff as it is, this will only improve the government's case for making strikes more difficult. If only they had a stronger majority, they could just make them illegal.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don't mind people being paid well but go to fudging work and earn it, and you aint even losing your jobs you just dont want to walk through trains as customer service now, you want to remain standing in one spot pressing a button to open and close the doors. Thats the long and short of it because I have heard scores of the staff say it

 

[r-u-s-x01]

Southern run the service, what does it have to do with the employees what decisions they make?

If ground level employees were capable of making managerial/strategic level decisions I'd be sat on a beach somewhere drinking beer whilst they did my job.

As for the linked article, that solution isn't a solution at all - they may as well do both if they have to close them. If the aim is for drivers to control doors then the only result that works is drivers controlling the doors.

Are management taking criminal responsibility if something goes wrong

Are there now strikes on the Scottish service? Seems like a decent solution for the passengers

 

[scaramanga]

Are management taking criminal responsibility if something goes wrong

That depends entirely on the level of negligence. The drivers will have some responsibility too, of course.

Are there now strikes on the Scottish service? Seems like a decent solution for the passengers

No, but there are still guards being paid to do something that a button could do. When the plan made by those best positioned to do so was otherwise, we have to consider it not to be an optimal solution.


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

 

[Grays_1890]

Lets just fudge it and go back to coal men, flag men and junction boxes.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

That depends entirely on the level of negligence. The drivers will have some responsibility too, of course.


No, but there are still guards being paid to do something that a button could do. When the plan made by those best positioned to do so was otherwise, we have to consider it not to be an optimal solution.


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

Best for who, do you think ticket prices will be lower? As a commuter would prefer two members of staff on the train for those times things go wrong.