Southern Rail

[spurs' magna carter]

Took 3 hours to get home.

Usually takes 1hr 15/30 mins. If that isn't a good enough to hate them then I don't what is.

 

[scaramanga]

Market forces can still dictate the price of labour with or without a union, they just get a little helping hand to a point that is acceptable to both parties as opposed to one side. I don't really understand why you have an issue with people managing to squeeze more money out of a company for their wages?

That's how market pricing works. It comes to the price that is acceptable to both sides.

If you introduce a union then you're not getting the equilibrium price because you're loading the power to one side.

It amounts to the normal, forward thinking attitude of trying get as much money as you can to better yourself but it sounds like you would like an underclass that you could lord over and earning what you feel they should earn although why you feel it is your business or why you are even interested what unionised industries pay considering you don't work within them is beyond me.

I have a vested interest because I'm a customer of unionised industries and I'm a tax payer. They not only cost me more in monetary terms, but worse than that, they've stolen my time.

 

[Libero]

I don't get this idea that in a blanket fashion all people who work on a railway lack any form of skill. Typical speak of people who know nothing of how a railway works/runs other than that they use it to go to work/home.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

That's how market pricing works. It comes to the price that is acceptable to both sides.

If you introduce a union then you're not getting the equilibrium price because you're loading the power to one side.


I have a vested interest because I'm a customer of unionised industries and I'm a tax payer. They not only cost me more in monetary terms, but worse than that, they've stolen my time.

Without union representation then the power tends to be loaded on the owners side. Even with it management still have more power.

I know you don't agree but history tends to point otherwise

 

[r-u-s-x01]

Took 3 hours to get home.

Usually takes 1hr 15/30 mins. If that isn't a good enough to hate them then I don't what is.

It's crap but make sure you spread the hate around to govia and the government who have hung you out to dry.

 

[scaramanga]

Without union representation then the power tends to be loaded on the owners side. Even with it management still have more power.

I know you don't agree but history tends to point otherwise

What makes you think that?

There genuinely can't be a more fair and independent way of measuring value than using the market. the very definition of what a market does is to settle at the value that both parties agree to.

If an employer is paying too little or treating employees poorly then employees will rightly take another job. If those employees cannot get another job then they are worth less than others in that market and need to lower their demands to a point where the market matches their value to their cost.

I have yet to see a good reason why people would want to interfere with that as an arm's length measure of value.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

What makes you think that?

There genuinely can't be a more fair and independent way of measuring value than using the market. the very definition of what a market does is to settle at the value that both parties agree to.

If an employer is paying too little or treating employees poorly then employees will rightly take another job. If those employees cannot get another job then they are worth less than others in that market and need to lower their demands to a point where the market matches their value to their cost.

I have yet to see a good reason why people would want to interfere with that as an arm's length measure of value.

I don't agree, in a highly skilled or specialised industry you would be right. For the majority of jobs the workforce is a lot more homogenised, the impact of losing the negotiation effects the employee a magnitude more than the employer, hence they have the power. Like playing poker against someone who has £1000 while you have 10p, it's a different game and you have to pick and choose and be certain of your choices.

Added to this fact a lot of people are stupid or not aware of their own worth.

Union increases the down side for the employer making a fairer balance of power.

We also have a system by design where companies will use every advantage to them agnostic to the impact on society or their employees.

My reasons for and your reasons against seem pretty much textbook, I don't think I can effect your position on this but to highlight it is not a universally recognised view point, and economies that are closest to your ideal are not ones I envy.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

If they are the best person for their job, then they don't have to worry about their job security.

In terms of unions negotiating wages, people are paid what the market dictates is a worthwhile amount. If an employer is not paying enough or doesn't offer good enough conditions then they won't fill the roles they need to fill.

There is no good that can ever come of a trade union.

Gee Scara, you really do live with the fairies at the bottom of the garden don't you. No consideration of relative bargaining power, no mention of how employees can be exploited, due to this. No, in Scara's world, employees go around spreading magic fairy dust and handing out sweeties to their workers.

 

[Grays_1890]

No doubt your view of them is completely reciprocated.

Why would that be? I am not stopping them doing their job I pay top whack for a service that their strikes are killing?

Its like me going into a restaurant and the staff being unhappy and giving me half a burger as a result, I would tell them to do one and ask for my money back, why would I be expected to "do one", the person who like every other customer is contributing the the profits of the company but getting fudge all of a service.

Behave mate

 

[Jurgen the German]

I don't agree, in a highly skilled or specialised industry you would be right. For the majority of jobs the workforce is a lot more homogenised, the impact of losing the negotiation effects the employee a magnitude more than the employer, hence they have the power. Like playing poker against someone who has £1000 while you have 10p, it's a different game and you have to pick and choose and be certain of your choices.

Added to this fact a lot of people are stupid or not aware of their own worth.

Union increases the down side for the employer making a fairer balance of power.

We also have a system by design where companies will use every advantage to them agnostic to the impact on society or their employees.

My reasons for and your reasons against seem pretty much textbook, I don't think I can effect your position on this but to highlight it is not a universally recognised view point, and economies that are closest to your ideal are not ones I envy.

Sometimes I think he is actually Boycie from Only Fools and Horse, but more of a snob

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Why would that be? I am not stopping them doing their job I pay top whack for a service that their strikes are killing?

Its like me going into a restaurant and the staff being unhappy and giving me half a burger as a result, I would tell them to do one and ask for my money back, why would I be expected to "do one", the person who like every other customer is contributing the the profits of the company but getting fudge all of a service.

Behave mate

You have come to the prejudicial view that this dispute is all the union's fault. Take a look at the employer, it takes two to tango. I am behaving perfectly well thank very much.

 

[Grays_1890]

You have come to the prejudicial view that this dispute is all the union's fault. Take a look at the employer, it takes two to tango. I am behaving perfectly well thank very much.

I believe the actions of staff taking days off sick to drive the service into the ground is the fault of the staff yes. I was on the train from East Croydon and had to listen to two conductors laughing about how they would be taking days off sick to add to the problems, that was a genuine tactic of the staff to put extra pressure on the service.

I have just as much to complain about when it comes to Southern, especially their utter gash compensation package, believe you me.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I believe the actions of staff taking days off sick to drive the service into the ground is the fault of the staff yes. I was on the train from East Croydon and had to listen to two conductors laughing about how they would be taking days off sick to add to the problems, that was a genuine tactic of the staff to put extra pressure on the service.

I have just as much to complain about when it comes to Southern, especially their utter gash compensation package, believe you me.

I think the Sick day thing has been debunked somewhat. What they are now doing is Working to rule. They have staff to cover 80% of the schedule and make up the rest with overtime. Normally this works ok as there is enough cover to do this and there was flexibility with people able to swap shifts. During the dispute Southern first of all stopped overtime (since rescinded) and have also stopped the swapping of shifts. The staff are now working their contracted hours only this has been the main cause for the lack of staff.

The non-swapping of shifts has increased sick days as they do not have the flexibility they once had and are taking sick days rather than swapping. You can argue that they should not be taking sick days but regardless of this if the management did not impose this restriction there would be more staff available.

I have read (early on in the strike) but have not been able to back this up that GOVIA in its attempt to crack down on "sickies" mandated that sick leave kicked in after 2 days off, this had the adverse effect of increasing the length of Sick leave as if you are ill for two days you "may as well take a couple of more".

The staff Union are not blameless in this but if the management are not willing to negotiate civilly (poster campaign) then it is likely to raise tensions.

In your analogy of waiters bringing half a burger I would be p*ssed off with the staff but also the management for letting it get this way, and I think it translates to this dispute.

 

[Grays_1890]

I think their are alot of facts that are debunked, I use another service into London that uses exactly the same trains and does not need guards, non of the staff in the transition from old to new lost their jobs but were retrained and still work for the company, I know because some are local to me and I know them.

The RMT would have us engage debate about whether or not modern train doors can safely be closed automatically by the driver, or whether we must persist with traditional guards. Already 40 per cent of services on Southern are operated by the driver in this way and as I say the majority of region rail companies have operated like this for years. Modern trains no more need a guard to close doors than they need a fireman to shovel coal.

And as I have said before the RMT action would be more comprehensible if jobs or wages were under threat. Southern has confirmed that there will be no job losses and no one will take a cut in salary. Instead, on-board staff would be able to concentrate on providing a better quality service for the growing number of customers.

My dad was a gas fitter once upon a time and was made redundant, went to college, retrained and went to work for Credit Suisse, not only because his my dad but i have major respect for people like that, not these urban terrorists that are not even losing their jobs but sulking about a little retraining to retain their jobs.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I think their are alot of facts that are debunked, I use another service into London that uses exactly the same trains and does not need guards, non of the staff in the transition from old to new lost their jobs but were retrained and still work for the company, I know because some are local to me and I know them.

The RMT would have us engage debate about whether or not modern train doors can safely be closed automatically by the driver, or whether we must persist with traditional guards. Already 40 per cent of services on Southern are operated by the driver in this way and as I say the majority of region rail companies have operated like this for years. Modern trains no more need a guard to close doors than they need a fireman to shovel coal.

And as I have said before the RMT action would be more comprehensible if jobs or wages were under threat. Southern has confirmed that there will be no job losses and no one will take a cut in salary. Instead, on-board staff would be able to concentrate on providing a better quality service for the growing number of customers.

My dad was a gas fitter once upon a time and was made redundant, went to college, retrained and went to work for Credit Suisse, not only because his my dad but i have major respect for people like that, not these urban terrorists that are not even losing their jobs but sulking about a little retraining to retain their jobs.

I separate the two issues of if they are right regarding the issue of guards and the cause and behavior of the strike. I don't feel qualified to have a strong opinion on the need for guards. You don't agree with the RMT on the need of guards which is fair enough but that does not mean that Strikes and the current situation was not avoidable. Guards have been removed from other lines even with RMT involved, what is different here?

IMO this is a power play by the government to fight the Unions, it is ideological rather than practical. There will be different views if this is necessary for the long term good but I truly believe this is what is happening, if it wasn't the guards they would have engineered something else. The commuters on the line are the innocent bystanders.

As an aside I have full sympathy for those effected by the strike action, it is crap. I have a guy I sit next to at work who's 1.5 hr journey is 3 hrs plus if he can even get in. He has a young family and it is severely effecting his life. Where I am disagreeing is where the blame should fall, I guess this is an ideological view based upon your political outlook.

 

[Grays_1890]

The problem I see for the side of the guards and I am no expert, but from my understanding there is no a drive to retrain those that want to work to cover the shortfall in sickness to plug that hole which will see that element of their action become less effective. Then will it become a case that the long this gets drawn out the longer Southern have to sort out other staff that want to do the new roles from the start, i.e new starters who won't feel hard done by changing their jobs because its new to them?

Then the guards will face the extreme threat of job loss?

 

[r-u-s-x01]

The problem I see for the side of the guards and I am no expert, but from my understanding there is no a drive to retrain those that want to work to cover the shortfall in sickness to plug that hole which will see that element of their action become less effective. Then will it become a case that the long this gets drawn out the longer Southern have to sort out other staff that want to do the new roles from the start, i.e new starters who won't feel hard done by changing their jobs because its new to them?

Then the guards will face the extreme threat of job loss?

I thought the main sticking point is not regarding retraining but the shift of criminal responsibility from the guards to the driver if something goes wrong. This is being imposed upon them rather than negotiated.

They're arguing that on this line the drivers of the train cannot safely use mirrors & cameras to ensure passengers are on board. This is different to other lines which guardless trains are safe.

I would like to see criminal responsibility go all the way to the top if any accident did occur due to the changes(not from negligence) , perhaps that would help persuade the strikers.

 

[Grays_1890]

No what I am saying is the longer the strikes take place the longer Southern have time to find replacements for the staff striking. As I understand that drive for people is already taking places.

Those striking might not have to worry about change of jobs anymore, more worried about having a job

 

[r-u-s-x]

No what I am saying is the longer the strikes take place the longer Southern have time to find replacements for the staff striking. As I understand that drive for people is already taking places.

Those striking might not have to worry about change of jobs anymore, more worried about having a job

Maybe but if they lose their jobs wont that then lead to.... Strikes.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Just to add to the discussion @Grays_1890 and @r-u-s-x , i posted this some months ago in the politics thread, Haven't followed it since very closely: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/railway-roulette/