Greeny
Member
Agreed - some of those individuals should try working for the world class company they support so enthusiastically.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Network Rail Signallers: Strike Action
- Thread starter GB
- Start date
- Status
Agreed - some of those individuals should try working for the world class company they support so enthusiastically.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
theblackwatch
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Messages
- 10,715
Nice to see union people trying to get the public on their side! :roll:
Something you potential strikers seem not to have hauled on board is that you actually work for the fare-paying public and the taxpayer. That's who pays your wages, not NR.
Those are the very people you cycnically use, who'se lives you'll selfishly disrupt, in order to settle an internal dispute. The rights and wrongs of your grievance are of no interest to me, any more than you'd be interested in a any grievance I might have with my employer (and there've been plenty).
Holding your customers to ransom is quite simply unacceptable. You'll only get away with it because they are largely captive customers, which is all the more reason why, if you had any moral sense, you wouldn't do it.
Or are you persuaded to by the political and career ambitions of that 1970s dinosaur, Mr Crow?
Crikey, we'll soon have Gene Hunt back running Greater Manchester CID at this rate!
CarterUSM
Established Member
Actually captain, you primarily ensure the publics safety as opposed to working for them. As I said earlier though, i'll deal with it. I'm sure i'll get to work by another method.
That's fine for you. However, your personal arrangements to deal with the consequences of a strike are entirely irrellevant to the argument. For millions of people, there will be no viable alternative to the train.
Last edited by a moderator:
CarterUSM
Established Member
Also as I said earlier, tough. Bleating on about it isn't going to change anything. I do detect a hint of hyperbole though. Millions of people? Please. This isn't the stone age.
krus_aragon
Established Member
He is back, actually. (New series starts on the 2nd!)
With a population of >60M, of course it'll be millions, with absolutely no hyperbole - just listen to Beeb news. What's the stone age got to do with it?
Unless of course you're referring to the neanderthal attitude of the strikers?
To punish the public for your own ends just because you can is dispicable. It really is that simple!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
These people are inward-looking and think the world revolves around them. Well the rest of us have moved on since the 1970s. These potential strikers really need a wake-up call, the sort Reagan gave to the striking US Air Traffic Controllers - he sacked them!
And guess what? No planes crashed, delays were minimal, and lots of folk now have jobs in ATC thanks to that clearing out of the self-serving dead wood!
Last edited by a moderator:
CarterUSM
Established Member
Sack them all. Great idea. That'll solve the dispute. I'm sorry, but I just cannot see your angle here, obviously you would prefer to be walked all over as an employee by the sounds of it. Blame NR management. It's them that's the problem.
I don't have an 'angle'. I simply despise workers who cynically abuse their customers for those workers' own ends. That's it!
NR rail management aren't threatening a strike, so why should I blame them? You're the ones threatening to take away our rail service for 4 days, not them!
It's your dispute, not ours - so don't scew up your customer's lives over it.
NR rail management aren't threatening a strike, so why should I blame them? You're the ones threatening to take away our rail service for 4 days, not them!
It's your dispute, not ours - so don't scew up your customer's lives over it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain, do you despise employers who cynically abuse their own workers (unilaterally tearing up AGREEMENTS, imposing changes without consultation or negotiation) for their own ends. without caring about the effect of their actions on the safety of customers? Or by provoking industrial action with no thought for the consequences?
I doubt it, as you've already clearly stated that you have no interest in the cause of what you term an internal dispute! You will presumably also have no interest in why the moderate TSSA is also striking...
I doubt it, as you've already clearly stated that you have no interest in the cause of what you term an internal dispute! You will presumably also have no interest in why the moderate TSSA is also striking...
90019
Established Member
Maybe the customers should go on strike sometime 
Last edited:
Greenback, you use emotional language - 'tearing up agreements' for instance. If I decide to terminate my motor insurance and take out a policy with a different company, am I 'tearing up an agreement' or simply excercising my right to change insurer?
Imposing changes without consultation? Oh, you poor dears! What a sheltered life you must have led; try working for a large American IT corporation and see if they consult you on changes! Of course they don't - and no right-minded person would expect that. If you want things run a particular way and it's not happening, get your finger out and become a manager - then you can make things happen exactly as you would wish.
Or perhaps, having topped that particular mountain, you'll find the view is very different than it was back in sleepy hollow. You might suddenly realise WHY changes sometimes have to happen without consultation, and why it's not possible to keep everyone happy all of the time - if you are running the business!
So stop trying to run the business from sleepy hollow using your captive customers as a lever! Leave it to the managers, or become one and change it from within!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In the real world, they do! BA customers are right now voting with their feet and flying other airlines instead of BA. The sad thing is that it won't only be the amazingly self-centred cabin crew who will end up in the dole queue, so will thousands of hard working and non-striking BA employees - dragged down by the neanderthals!
Imposing changes without consultation? Oh, you poor dears! What a sheltered life you must have led; try working for a large American IT corporation and see if they consult you on changes! Of course they don't - and no right-minded person would expect that. If you want things run a particular way and it's not happening, get your finger out and become a manager - then you can make things happen exactly as you would wish.
Or perhaps, having topped that particular mountain, you'll find the view is very different than it was back in sleepy hollow. You might suddenly realise WHY changes sometimes have to happen without consultation, and why it's not possible to keep everyone happy all of the time - if you are running the business!
So stop trying to run the business from sleepy hollow using your captive customers as a lever! Leave it to the managers, or become one and change it from within!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe the customers should go on strike sometime
In the real world, they do! BA customers are right now voting with their feet and flying other airlines instead of BA. The sad thing is that it won't only be the amazingly self-centred cabin crew who will end up in the dole queue, so will thousands of hard working and non-striking BA employees - dragged down by the neanderthals!
Last edited by a moderator:
CarterUSM
Established Member
Newsflash 'captain', this is the UK and not the USA! 
It's NR's fault for not adhering to the current agreements whether you like it or not. Anyway, my best regards to the signallers, maintenance staff and my fellow guards for the various disputes.
It's NR's fault for not adhering to the current agreements whether you like it or not. Anyway, my best regards to the signallers, maintenance staff and my fellow guards for the various disputes.
90019
Established Member
Newsflash captain, this is the UK and not the USA!
No, but some of the larger companies are TNCs, which will have many employees in this country, so it's irrelevant.
CarterUSM
Established Member
Well stop giving us silly US company analogies when they clearly have no relevance to the debate. That is my point.
Well stop giving us silly US company analogies when they clearly have no relevance to the debate. That is my point.
Well then your point is wrong. If you think it's a 'silly analogy' then you are deluding yourself. Any successful company, regardless of nationality, can be substituted.
You make the mistake of believing I am involved in this dispute. I am not. I do not belong to either union, and I do not work in the rail industry. In fact I was a manager in the private sector who was made redundant and is now starting his own business.
Now having established my background is not in sleepy hollow I'll address your points. Your motor insurance analogy is not a good one. I don't have a car msyelf, but my house insurance is taken out for a fixed period and must be renewed or not when it comes to an end. Similarly, I can sign up to a mobile phone provider for a fixed term. If I tear up my agreement during the term of that agreement there are penalties to pay, as contained in the contract. Agreements made between employer and employee can be for a fixed term, but are usually binding until a new agreement is negotiated. Disputes normally occur over the interpretation of such agreements - if either side can ignore the agreements there is no point in having them in the first place, which would result in abject chaos. As I've seen from the managerial side, agreements are a benefit tp both sides.
I have no wish to work for any organisation, American or not, in IT or not, that treats it's employees in such a way. A successful company is run in such a way as to take account of it's employees and it's customers, otherwise it cannot succeed in the long term. Again, from my experience, it is far better to get your staff to agree to do something, rather than to tell them, for example 'You must all work a 12 hour shift for four days from next week and if you don't like it leave.' If I was to do that, the results would be very bad indeed for my business. However, it is usually possible through discussion and a little bit of compromise to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all sides, because some people will be happy with the new arrangements, and actually welcome different working hours.
I regret to say that the assumptions you made about me, along with your constant allusions to the US, point towards you being someone who gets all of their information from 1980's management text books, has little understanding of how things actually work in real life and is unwilling to consider issues from any other angle.
Last edited:
I wouldn't go that far! What I personally try to do, is to listen to both sides of any argument and then decide which view I prefer on the balance of probabilities. I just wish that others would do the same! To this end I have listened to the NR view through press releases, their website, and the TV interviews given by Robin Gisby. I am not persuaded that there are many signallers on £65000 for a 3 day - this appears disingenous in itself as the dispute is not about pay at all.
I think that the Captain has already decided that the strikers are in the wrong, but has refused to look at the causes of the disagreements, presumably as he or she doesn't want to change their mind. Perhaps they have been heavily influenced by newspapers, which always use emotive language when reportng on industrial disputes, usually in favour of the employers (ie unions demanded, managers offered etc). I have no way of knowing how they have arrived at their opinion, I seek only to put forward counter views in the hope they may see the error of their ways!
I think that the Captain has already decided that the strikers are in the wrong, but has refused to look at the causes of the disagreements, presumably as he or she doesn't want to change their mind. Perhaps they have been heavily influenced by newspapers, which always use emotive language when reportng on industrial disputes, usually in favour of the employers (ie unions demanded, managers offered etc). I have no way of knowing how they have arrived at their opinion, I seek only to put forward counter views in the hope they may see the error of their ways!
Greenback, you have not read my posts with sufficient degree of care. I have never, at any point, commented on the grievance itself. In my view the strikers are only wrong in threatening to strike! All I have said, all along, is that any grievance should be settled between the parties who are at varience. At no point have I supported either view over the other on the points of difference of opinion in the dispute.
What I have said is that no-one should hold their customers to ransom to force their view to prevail! It is not the customer's argument - it is an argument within NR and that's where it should stay!
To use your customers so is despicable! Outside sleepy hollow, you wouldn't get away with it (see what happens to BA!).
What I have said is that no-one should hold their customers to ransom to force their view to prevail! It is not the customer's argument - it is an argument within NR and that's where it should stay!
To use your customers so is despicable! Outside sleepy hollow, you wouldn't get away with it (see what happens to BA!).
Its not so much that he thinks the strikes in this instance are wrong and as I said earlier, there should have been in my opinion "action short of strike" before bringing out the big guns....after all, thats what the majority voted for.
Its more his general remarks on strikes full stop (what ever industry). Unfortuantly strikes are a necessary tool and sometimes that right needs to be exercised.
Remeber that people do not strike just for the hell of it and all of those that partake in this strike will lose money and forfeit their bonus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And as I said earlier, if no resolution has been made during the negotiating period what would your solution be?
Last edited:
Tell that to the ex-BA workers when they join the dole queue. Especially the ones that didn't strike - the pilots doing cabin crew jobs, for instance, to try to keep their once-proud airline afloat.
It's all too easy to strike when your customers are captive, as most rail customers are.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There will always be a resolution, it just might not be the one you want. How do you think such things are handled in industries where to strike will drive away your customers and leave you jobless?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't wish to comment on the issues causing the dispute - it's not my place. As I've said, it's an NR internal issue. At the end of the day NR have a business to run, just as IBM, Arthur Andersen, Virgin Atlantic, and any other company does. It is the job of the managers of any company to reslove disputes, but everyone has to be flexible in order that a consensus can be arrived at.
To be totally inflexible and unbending and simply throw one's toys out of the pram because you're not happy to concede points is juvenile. One has to ask if people with that immature attitude should be working for the company.
The tree that bends with the wind is the one that survives.
CarterUSM
Established Member
Pilots doing cabin crew duty? Scabs then? I think the whole scenario takes a twist when you hear that TSSA members are striking, i've never heard of it. So captain, what IS the answer then if not strike?
I have quoted directly from your earlier posts. The language used clearly shows the reader where your sympathies lie.
You seem incapable of seeing that strikes punish everyone, the strikers themselves through losing pay, the company by losing revenue, and the customers through inconvenience. This is why strieks are best avoided, and why TSSA are normally a non striking union. Yet they are striking this time. Strikes are a legal and legitimate tool to try and make employers negotiate. Otherwise, how could employees protect themselves against cavalier, oppresive management? Would you have us return to the days of the Victorian mines and mills?
As strikes are damaging to everyone involved, it is incumbent on ALL sides to do their utmost to avoid them. However, your rhetoric makes no mention of Network Rail, except to allude that they should be allowed to do what they please like a US IT company. Based on your posts I have no option but to conclude you are against the strikes, as you have made no effort to find out for yourself what the issues beyond the fact that you may be inconvenienced personally SHOULD they go ahead.
Also, can you accept at least the possibility that the dispute and strikes are safety related? And that part of the issue may be the desire to also protect the safety of the travelling public in the longer term? Probably not, as you said you have no interest in the rights or wrongs of the grievance.
good points GB, I agree. I hope they strike is called off and further negotiations can find a way forward. As far as the Captain is concerned, their remarks that all strikers should be sacked like the US ATC's makes their position that they have not taken sides a little diffcult to defend in my opinion!
Only those that threaten strike action. Hadn't you noticed that's been my point all along? Heaven knows, I must have said it about 50 times by now!
Why would I want to comment on the issues? At the risk of sounding like stuck record, I say again 'that is an internal NR matter'.
Do try to keep up, GB.
- Status