I don't think accusing the general public of jealousy helps people sympathise with tube workers. It is really rubbing our noses in it. I may also add that it sounds like jealousy when people mention the high wages paid to their management.
One has to look at the wider issues going on behind the scenes. The soundbite headline is about booking office closures, however this is not the only part of the dispute.
*All* station staff are part of this reorganisation. This includes Station Supervisors and Duty Station Managers.
In a nutshell, the stations setup will go from
CSA / SAMF (booking office) / SCRA (control room assistant)
SS
DSM
GSM
to
CSA
CSS
CSM
AMS
Part of the issue is that the numbers don't match up, so if the current plans go ahead we will see
GSM to AMS (this is more or less guaranteed)
DSM to AMS (promotion) or DSM to CSM (demotion)
SS to CSM (promotion) or SS to CSS (slight demotion)
SCRA / SAMF to CSA (demotion), though in some cases they may go up to CSS.
CSA to CSA.
Role allocations will be determined on the basis of a "selection event".
I think if staff had confidence in the whole process, the pill would be easier to swallow. Unfortunately London Underground did a very similar reorganisation with some management grades in 2010, posts were allocated based on a written application form with three competency-based questions.
The outcome of that was an unmitigated disaster. Some unsuitable individuals ended up in certain posts, either tempted by a pay rise or because putting a cross in a particular box appeared the most attractive career move. Most of these individuals are still in post today. A lot of people became very disillusioned, and hitherto highly performing and experienced staff now give a base level of performance. A quirk of the pay / grading system means it's often the case that the most highly paid staff are in the lowest grade roles -- this leads to issues as you have the ridiculous situation where two people are doing the identical job and one is paid £47k and the other over £60k.
Another aside was that a lot of people took VS, and a bad taste was left as it was generally seen that a lot of poorly performing staff took the opportunity to leave. In some cases these staff were going to retire anyway, and I can think of examples where individuals stayed on for some time doing the bare minimum in order to secure a VS payment. Many saw this as rewarding years of poor performance.
Getting the wrong person in a particular role is bad for the *company*, and it's bad for morale generally. The management reorganisation sidelined staff with trains knowledge, and brought over managers from the stations side of the business who were attracted by the pay increase or perceived career prospects. Many of these staff did not suit the trains side of the business, and have performed frankly appalling in their new roles. In most cases they are very weak performers, and have not responded well to training. There was also widespread suspicion about how certain people got certain roles or locations, and likewise how others didn't.
Repeating these mistakes across the entire stations business unit could prove disastrous. I think it's fair to say most staff on LUL do want to do their best for the company, they don't want to see these mistakes repeated; at the moment this is exactly what the company is heading towards.
None of this is a good way to run a successful business.