Course they haven’t. They want to keep as far from this as possible. They thought they would get an easy win and be able to play the “hero’s” busting the evil union.
They want the strikes to go ahead, because these strikes will be tremendously unpopular.
It seems a really bad move by the train staff. They’re going to turn the public against them and potentially damage the Labour Party, which was their ticket to staying in their jobs.
As it stands, the Tories make no secret of wanting to lay off train staff and start streamlining. And they have a point: these services could undoubtedly be streamlined.
If I were you, rail workers, I would not have upset the apple cart.
is this why Boris went to get surgery so he could leave Raab to deal with the mess. essentially tying him to the tracks for a train to run him over but it never comes.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas man
They want the strikes to happen because then they can classed us rail workers as “key workers” and ban them from striking. Then, when it suits them, we won’t be key workers again.
And yet, people defend the cunts.
Andrew Roden, deputy editor of Modern Railway magazine speaking on BBC5live today:
“If you are a train company and you need to change something like an engine on a diesel train, you have to get permission from the government, through the department of transport, to get the funding to do that. So there is no way anywhere where the train companies can negotiate freely with the unions and find out what is possible unless the government gives them permission to do so. The government is absolutely in control of the railways and if the government wanted to avert this dispute, if it wanted to give the train companies freedom to negotiate it could have done so a very, very long time ago.
Q: Grant Shapps said there is effectively an existential threat to the railways because people have changed how they are using them… people are staying at home, numbers indicate more use at weekends. Is it such a fundamental threat to the railways as he points out?
AR: Only because the government says it is. The government wants to cut funding to the national rail network by about 2 billion quid, huge cuts planned for TFL. He doesn’t have to do this. Now passenger numbers are recovering, it is mostly leisure though, but they are recovering. We need a strong rail network to get people out of their cars, we need rail to carry more freight. If it’s an existential crisis it’s one that the government decided exists. Not one that necessarily has to be the case. It’s a political calculation.
Q: what about his [Shapps] point in the commons today about the inflexibility of the system, and he quoted the voluntary working on a Sunday that’s been in place since 1919?
AR: Yeah, there’s certainly working practices that if you were starting an organisation with a blank sheet of paper you wouldn’t even think of looking at. There are certainly technological developments using technology to measure the state of the infrastructure, that are going to require fewer workers on the track, which from a safety point of view is a good thing because the fewer workers you have on the track the less chances you have of anyone getting hit. This is not black and white on either side, there are certainly working practices that need to change.
Equally what we are hearing from rail staff is that they are desperately concerned about their job security. As a very local example from here, down in far west Cornwall, 3 single boxes are going to close with some resignslling. If I were a signaller, I’d be terrified about what was going to happen to my job. There are legitimate concerns from the unions, there’s a legitimate drive from the government and parts of the rail industry to modernise some working practices. What hasn’t happened, as far as we are told, is that the rail companies and network rail have been given the freedom to actually negotiate meaningfully and come up with something that works.
Q: So it’s one thing to have a pay dispute, you are arguing that the government are holding the levers, but what about modernisation? Is that something in your eyes that the government would determine or would it be down to network rail themselves to make those decisions?
AR: If you take modernisation in the round looking at network rail and the train companies, yesh there’s loads of things that you can do that can run the railways more efficiently… new signalling system…trains are becoming smarter, maintenance is becoming smarter, you are able to identify the state of a bridge or a viaduct, or an overhead line mass… so you can intervene when it’s needed rather than taking an educated guess or doing things on a time based basis.
These things are happening now and they are going to continue to keep happening and the pace of technological change will accelerate. I don’t think there’s any question about that, it’s how you manage it. And if there are going to be reductions in the workforce and I think there probably will be overtime, how you do that fairly.
Q: Yeah and Mick Lynch referred to that today, that he’s had no guaranties that there would be any forced or compulsory redundancies, which was one of the issues today as well as the all the pay.
Is this because they’ve actually been spending their time in meetings with other tory mps about how to shield alexander from any more shit?
When you’re busy being as corrupt as this lot are it’s hard to find time to do anything else I’m sure.
Just pay them. Pay them what they want. Working class needs a win.
The strikes would go ahead if they had met with unions because the Tories would never negotiate or compromise with union bosses in any meaningful way. Besides, the Tories probably want the strikes so they can increase the hatred people already feel towards rail workers, who strike on a more frequent basis than any other sector. They know their voters hate unions and strikes, letting them go ahead gives them some ammo to use.
Why should they? The government don’t own the rails
Because they want the strikes to go ahead so they can attack the unions and have a nice distraction from their constant scandals and fuck ups. At least, until they can somehow blame it on Labour.
Just seen Shapps on the news refusing to get involved because and I quote ‘the employers have the facility to be able to negotiate what are complex and detailed – 20 different areas of reform that are required – there’s no way that a minister could step into that discussion and be any help.’
Is this how govt works now? Create a pie in the sky wish list and remove yourself from the consequences? Do they actually ever do any real work? Was Brexit written on the back of a fag packet too?
Government admits it hate plebs.
I think there are probably more people against strike action now than for.
Sorry folks, Overton Window has shifted too far.
Blair should have trigger PR, and Labour shouldn’t have joined the Tories in getting the Lib Dem vote reform referendum watered down to AV.
We could have still been in the EU with a Centre Left government right now.
it’s not an admission, it’s what they say their policy is.
How could they meet with rail unions when they’re so busy blaming Labour?
17 comments
Course they haven’t. They want to keep as far from this as possible. They thought they would get an easy win and be able to play the “hero’s” busting the evil union.
They want the strikes to go ahead, because these strikes will be tremendously unpopular.
It seems a really bad move by the train staff. They’re going to turn the public against them and potentially damage the Labour Party, which was their ticket to staying in their jobs.
As it stands, the Tories make no secret of wanting to lay off train staff and start streamlining. And they have a point: these services could undoubtedly be streamlined.
If I were you, rail workers, I would not have upset the apple cart.
is this why Boris went to get surgery so he could leave Raab to deal with the mess. essentially tying him to the tracks for a train to run him over but it never comes.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas man
They want the strikes to happen because then they can classed us rail workers as “key workers” and ban them from striking. Then, when it suits them, we won’t be key workers again.
And yet, people defend the cunts.
Andrew Roden, deputy editor of Modern Railway magazine speaking on BBC5live today:
“If you are a train company and you need to change something like an engine on a diesel train, you have to get permission from the government, through the department of transport, to get the funding to do that. So there is no way anywhere where the train companies can negotiate freely with the unions and find out what is possible unless the government gives them permission to do so. The government is absolutely in control of the railways and if the government wanted to avert this dispute, if it wanted to give the train companies freedom to negotiate it could have done so a very, very long time ago.
Q: Grant Shapps said there is effectively an existential threat to the railways because people have changed how they are using them… people are staying at home, numbers indicate more use at weekends. Is it such a fundamental threat to the railways as he points out?
AR: Only because the government says it is. The government wants to cut funding to the national rail network by about 2 billion quid, huge cuts planned for TFL. He doesn’t have to do this. Now passenger numbers are recovering, it is mostly leisure though, but they are recovering. We need a strong rail network to get people out of their cars, we need rail to carry more freight. If it’s an existential crisis it’s one that the government decided exists. Not one that necessarily has to be the case. It’s a political calculation.
Q: what about his [Shapps] point in the commons today about the inflexibility of the system, and he quoted the voluntary working on a Sunday that’s been in place since 1919?
AR: Yeah, there’s certainly working practices that if you were starting an organisation with a blank sheet of paper you wouldn’t even think of looking at. There are certainly technological developments using technology to measure the state of the infrastructure, that are going to require fewer workers on the track, which from a safety point of view is a good thing because the fewer workers you have on the track the less chances you have of anyone getting hit. This is not black and white on either side, there are certainly working practices that need to change.
Equally what we are hearing from rail staff is that they are desperately concerned about their job security. As a very local example from here, down in far west Cornwall, 3 single boxes are going to close with some resignslling. If I were a signaller, I’d be terrified about what was going to happen to my job. There are legitimate concerns from the unions, there’s a legitimate drive from the government and parts of the rail industry to modernise some working practices. What hasn’t happened, as far as we are told, is that the rail companies and network rail have been given the freedom to actually negotiate meaningfully and come up with something that works.
Q: So it’s one thing to have a pay dispute, you are arguing that the government are holding the levers, but what about modernisation? Is that something in your eyes that the government would determine or would it be down to network rail themselves to make those decisions?
AR: If you take modernisation in the round looking at network rail and the train companies, yesh there’s loads of things that you can do that can run the railways more efficiently… new signalling system…trains are becoming smarter, maintenance is becoming smarter, you are able to identify the state of a bridge or a viaduct, or an overhead line mass… so you can intervene when it’s needed rather than taking an educated guess or doing things on a time based basis.
These things are happening now and they are going to continue to keep happening and the pace of technological change will accelerate. I don’t think there’s any question about that, it’s how you manage it. And if there are going to be reductions in the workforce and I think there probably will be overtime, how you do that fairly.
Q: Yeah and Mick Lynch referred to that today, that he’s had no guaranties that there would be any forced or compulsory redundancies, which was one of the issues today as well as the all the pay.
Is this because they’ve actually been spending their time in meetings with other tory mps about how to shield alexander from any more shit?
When you’re busy being as corrupt as this lot are it’s hard to find time to do anything else I’m sure.
Just pay them. Pay them what they want. Working class needs a win.
The strikes would go ahead if they had met with unions because the Tories would never negotiate or compromise with union bosses in any meaningful way. Besides, the Tories probably want the strikes so they can increase the hatred people already feel towards rail workers, who strike on a more frequent basis than any other sector. They know their voters hate unions and strikes, letting them go ahead gives them some ammo to use.
Why should they? The government don’t own the rails
Because they want the strikes to go ahead so they can attack the unions and have a nice distraction from their constant scandals and fuck ups. At least, until they can somehow blame it on Labour.
Just seen Shapps on the news refusing to get involved because and I quote ‘the employers have the facility to be able to negotiate what are complex and detailed – 20 different areas of reform that are required – there’s no way that a minister could step into that discussion and be any help.’
Is this how govt works now? Create a pie in the sky wish list and remove yourself from the consequences? Do they actually ever do any real work? Was Brexit written on the back of a fag packet too?
Government admits it hate plebs.
I think there are probably more people against strike action now than for.
Sorry folks, Overton Window has shifted too far.
Blair should have trigger PR, and Labour shouldn’t have joined the Tories in getting the Lib Dem vote reform referendum watered down to AV.
We could have still been in the EU with a Centre Left government right now.
it’s not an admission, it’s what they say their policy is.
How could they meet with rail unions when they’re so busy blaming Labour?