Southern Rail

[r-u-s-x]

Its always been the same in progression terms. It took 20 years and 100,000 men to build the pyramids, it would take a lot less time and me to do it now. It might sound like a cold thing to say but we all profit from change, I would imagine to a man on this forum we own products that have been produced by industry that has streamlined its production and staffing over the years, we don't moan when the products improve and become cheaper. Its the same with the trains for me and thats not me pulling up the ropes and saying I'm alright jack, its just life and always has been.

Trains are not getting cheaper and removing members of staff (which is the plan in the longer term) will cause a worse service not better.

 

[Grays_1890]

Trains are not getting cheaper and removing members of staff (which is the plan in the longer term) will cause a worse service not better.

The train from London to Brighton is faster than it was 20 years ago, the trains are better quality and the technology in trains mean they take less people to operate than they did. That's the point I am making

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Its always been the same in progression terms. It took 20 years and 100,000 men to build the pyramids, it would take a lot less time and me to do it now. It might sound like a cold thing to say but we all profit from change, I would imagine to a man on this forum we own products that have been produced by industry that has streamlined its production and staffing over the years, we don't moan when the products improve and become cheaper. Its the same with the trains for me and thats not me pulling up the ropes and saying I'm alright jack, its just life and always has been.

But that's the point isn't it? We don't ALL profit from change. What a ridiculous generalisation.

 

[Grays_1890]

But that's the point isn't it? We don't ALL profit from change. What a ridiculous generalisation.

In some way shape or form you do

 

[scaramanga]

Trains are not getting cheaper and removing members of staff (which is the plan in the longer term) will cause a worse service not better.

Why would it make for a better service?

On the rare occasion that I get on a train, I want it to take me as quickly as possible from one inconvenient location to another. I neither need nor desire human interaction on that service - possibly someone bringing me a coffee would be nice, but I'd forgo it to avoid the possibility of strikes.

 

[scaramanga]

Great video. This is what the Tories are all about. Doing shonky deals with their mates in big business and doing anything and I mean anything to drive profits up. I think Marx referred to this as "an inherent contradiction in capitalism", that being, that if you keep putting consumers out of work there will ultimately be no demand. Of course Scara would say "but there will be all these new shiny emerging jobs." The problem is, capitalism is finding so many ways to get rid of workers, the new jobs cannot keep up. And Scara reckons the unions are greedy. His whole philosophy is centred on greed. It seems to only be a problem for him, when someone else wants a look in. Gotta laugh.

The entirety of history is filled with people making that point about technology removing jobs, all of them have been wrong. Are you suggesting you're the first one to be right?

 

[r-u-s-x]

The train from London to Brighton is faster than it was 20 years ago, the trains are better quality and the technology in trains mean they take less people to operate than they did. That's the point I am making

Yes probably but the service will be worse if the guards are removed,

Why would it make for a better service?

On the rare occasion that I get on a train, I want it to take me as quickly as possible from one inconvenient location to another. I neither need nor desire human interaction on that service - possibly someone bringing me a coffee would be nice, but I'd forgo it to avoid the possibility of strikes.

An alarm is pulled on a toilet it means the driver can stay in the cabin when the guard sorts it out, an alarm is pulled on a door ditto - someone faints can carry on driving why another member of staff deals with it, there is an accident two members of staff there to help. etc.

 

[scaramanga]

An alarm is pulled on a toilet it means the driver can stay in the cabin when the guard sorts it out, an alarm is pulled on a door ditto -

Is that a common occurrence? I've never in my life been on a train or tube where the alarm was pulled. Do we employ thousands of staff for those rare occasions?

someone faints can carry on driving why another member of staff deals with it, there is an accident two members of staff there to help. etc.

Why should Southern Rail be providing people to look after those with poor health? If I faint in a taxi there's a decent chance the driver won't look after me - if I faint in my own car nobody will.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Is that a common occurrence? I've never in my life been on a train or tube where the alarm was pulled. Do we employ thousands of staff for those rare occasions?

Why should Southern Rail be providing people to look after those with poor health? If I faint in a taxi there's a decent chance the driver won't look after me - if I faint in my own car nobody will.

If you think they should be doing these is moot. I am no expert in these matters but off the top of my head I came up with a handful of things where the service would be removed- so something they are doing now and will no longer be able to, so the service would be worse.

 

[Grays_1890]

Yes probably but the service will be worse if the guards are removed,

An alarm is pulled on a toilet it means the driver can stay in the cabin when the guard sorts it out, an alarm is pulled on a door ditto - someone faints can carry on driving why another member of staff deals with it, there is an accident two members of staff there to help. etc.

Well that is ok because Southern will have a Customer Service person on the train to deal with it, that person will just not be the guard.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Well that is ok because Southern will have a Customer Service person on the train to deal with it, that person will just not be the guard.

yes I am sure they will in the short term and pretty sure they will then outsource it to the lowest bidder.

 

[Grays_1890]

yes I am sure they will in the short term and pretty sure they will then outsource it to the lowest bidder.

An independent expert has approved guardless trains on the subject of H&S, stations have staff and trains will have the guards in their new roles of customer service and no one is losing their jobs, that my friend is the facts.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The entirety of history is filled with people making that point about technology removing jobs, all of them have been wrong. Are you suggesting you're the first one to be right?

Haven't you seen the sea change? Thanks to your neo-liberal ideology, full employment has flown out the window. Neo-liberalism has put an abrupt end to the post war consensus. You are wrong in your basic hypothesis. BTW, haven't you heard of the enclosures? landowners wanted to run sheep or put it under the plough. New technology made the latter much more attractive, as it was more profitable than running small shareholders and gaining rents Thousands of crofters were turned off their properties and many starved in the ditches, they searched for work in the cities, but usually failed. Learn some history.

 

[r-u-s-x]

An independent expert has approved driverless trains on the subject of H&S, stations have staff and trains will have the guards in their new roles of customer service roles and no one is losing their jobs, that my friend is the facts.

Who is talking about driverless trains? In general or just for Southern, if they are removing drivers surely they would be losing their jobs.

 

[Grays_1890]

Who is talking about driverless trains? In general or just for Southern, if they are removing drivers surely they would be losing their jobs.

That was a typo, I have ammended

 

[Grays_1890]

Haven't you seen the sea change? Thanks to your neo-liberal ideology, full employment has flown out the window. Neo-liberalism has put an abrupt end to the post war consensus. You are wrong in your basic hypothesis.

My old man lost his job as a gas fitter due to changes in industry, went back to college in his mid 40s to retrain and got a job with Credit Suisse, the world outside unionised jobs have done it forever

 

[scaramanga]

If you think they should be doing these is moot. I am no expert in these matters but off the top of my head I came up with a handful of things where the service would be removed- so something they are doing now and will no longer be able to, so the service would be worse.

Worse is a very subjective term - it won't be any worse for me and if industrial disputes are reduced/removed by eliminating staff on trains then I think many would agree that the overall service is better.

 

[r-u-s-x]

That was a typo, I have ammended

I did think that it was a light on Facts , talking about facts have you got a link for "almost all of the guards have now accepted their new contracts" I tried to find something on this and could not.

Think its a bit naïve to think this is not part of the process to move to single staff trains in the longer term, in fact they have come out and said this will be able to happen

Southern says its plans are not about job cuts; guards’ staff numbers and salaries will be unaffected. Without the door duty, it claims, guards will be better able to help passengers. There will be a small but significant reduction in “dwell time”, which should accelerate trains on one of the most congested networks in the world. In addition, trains will be able to run if a guard is unavailable, cutting the number of cancellations. This last issue appears to be the key sticking point.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-does-it-mean-for-the-future-of-a7177716.html

 

[scaramanga]

Haven't you seen the sea change? Thanks to your neo-liberal ideology, full employment has flown out the window. Neo-liberalism has put an abrupt end to the post war consensus. You are wrong in your basic hypothesis. BTW, haven't you heard of the enclosures? landowners wanted to run sheep or put it under the plough. New technology made the latter much more attractive, as it was more profitable than running small shareholders and gaining rents Thousands of crofters were turned off their properties and many starved in the ditches, they searched for work in the cities, but usually failed. Learn some history.

Yet there isn't rampant unemployment increasing all the time due to changes in technology. Because, as predicted by just about every economist with half a brain, the time freed up by technology goes to either more leisure or more work, both of which require more services and employment.

We're currently about as close to full employment as we're ever likely to get, despite centuries of technology replacing workers. Again, what makes you think you're so special that you're the first one to be right when making this prediction?

 

[Grays_1890]

I did think that it was a light on Facts , talking about facts have you got a link for "almost all of the guards have now accepted their new contracts" I tried to find something on this and could not.

Think its a bit naïve to think this is not part of the process to move to single staff trains in the longer term, in fact they have come out and said this will be able to happen

Its not naive its the terms of the changes, they will not be losing jobs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rikes-absurd-passengers-must-not-made-suffer/