|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 7, 2016 18:35:29 GMT
When will Sadiq Khan and the London Assembly realise that most of the disruption caused is completely out of GTR's control, and this would happen to any rail company operating on that section of track?! The RMT Union are deliberately causing trouble by striking over opening and closing doors in my opinion, and the DfT need to take action against them rather than GTR if they continue to strike over it. Striking over door control and causing masses of disruption is a stupid and crazy reason to hold a strike over in my opinion, and if I was working as a conductor in the RMT, I would vote against a strike. What is the point of striking when you're job is safe, but you just are assigned a new role? Most of the disruption anyway is caused by track problems, and this is the responsibility of Network Rail, NOT GTR. *rant over* I don't think you're seeing the wider picture here. It is not all down to the RMT. There are enormous problems in the franchise - some inherited, some not. There is also a clear government policy agenda in play. If think if you were a guard on 12 car trains that are heaving full with hundreds trying to board at East Croydon you'd have a completely different mindset. I understand the frustration of everyone who's having their journeys mucked about but this is NOT a one sided dispute. But is 12 much different to 10 car trains which are already DDO .... this is where the RMT argument falls down .... either it is unsafe or safe. If it is unsafe, then they need to also be pressing for existing services to have a guard. If it is safe , then why can't the other half of Southern trains be operated in a similar manner to the rest. The fact that DDO has been operating for so long on Southern, they would find it hard to prove the unsafe option. Additionally there are platform staff at stations, that often see trains away (3 on most platorms at EC) ... so it is not all down to just the train driver
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 7, 2016 20:31:03 GMT
I don't think you're seeing the wider picture here. It is not all down to the RMT. There are enormous problems in the franchise - some inherited, some not. There is also a clear government policy agenda in play. If think if you were a guard on 12 car trains that are heaving full with hundreds trying to board at East Croydon you'd have a completely different mindset. I understand the frustration of everyone who's having their journeys mucked about but this is NOT a one sided dispute. But is 12 much different to 10 car trains which are already DDO .... this is where the RMT argument falls down .... either it is unsafe or safe. If it is unsafe, then they need to also be pressing for existing services to have a guard. If it is safe , then why can't the other half of Southern trains be operated in a similar manner to the rest. The fact that DDO has been operating for so long on Southern, they would find it hard to prove the unsafe option. Additionally there are platform staff at stations, that often see trains away (3 on most platorms at EC) ... so it is not all down to just the train driver I've read a number of accounts from drivers of trains of varying lengths that run on Southern's tracks. On the basis they are telling the truth then I would contend there are issues that need attention. I had a long involvement in platform / train interface (PTI) issues on LU so have a level of insight around the dangers, the risks, the technology and operating practices. LU is a long way ahead of TOCs and NR on PTI issues and the ORR raised concerns two years ago about the gap in practice. Since then there has been enormous growth on Southern and Thameslink which changes the risk profile because trains are more and more crush loaded, people are more impatient to board and platforms are tremendously busy. This is my main area of concern and I'm not convinced Southern's strategy is right. We are talking about live and death issues here and I am NOT exaggerating. I've read too many official incident reports to use this as some sort of phoney or half baked argument. I agree that the union's approach can be seen and quite probably is inconsistent given DOO trains already exist. However there are safety issues that I don't believe are being properly managed. Given the chaos within Southern over driver training, recruitment and train maintenance I am not convinced that now is the time to convert almost their entire network to DOO. It is also the case that there is a government policy agenda here to weaken the power of trade unions through the progressive loss of jobs and the removal of a role that is currently required for trains to run. The government are not being honest about this and they should be. If they are confident that passengers would support them then why not make it obvious and put it to the public? Probably because they are NOT confident they would win! We already know that the franchises for SWT, those awarded in the North and Scotland plus Greater Anglia and the upcoming West Midlands franchise all require an extension of DOO / removal of the guard's role. This is why Southern has become a "fight to the death" for the Govt and the RMT. None of the parties in this dispute have a perfect case. There are flaws and issues with all of their arguments and my concern is that the most crucial issue is being obscured in all the arguments.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Sept 7, 2016 20:43:21 GMT
London Assembly Transport committee today voted to ask Government to reconsider its decision not to strip Go-Ahead of Southern franchise link Reading full motion, aiming to get TfL metro services introduced sooner rather than wait for franchise to expire A complete waste of time. The Mayor made a strategic mistake in constantly badgering the Government about "TfL help" when it was clear to everyone that the DfT were not interested and, to be frank, TfL have no competence in running TSGN. They don't operate any main line rail directly - it's all contracted out as is the DLR. Chris Grayling's recent dismissive remark and the Rail Minister's letter show the DfT aren't remotely interesting in external interference. The fact there has been a huge silence about rail devolution for months suggests two possible outcomes 1. Work is proceeding behind the scenes to allow an announcement of TfL taking over South Eastern's services come 2018. This would be in line with statements made by the previous Mayor and Secretary of State. 2. Work is not proceeding because government is reviewing the previous policy and considering if it wants to follow the previous policy with all the likely demands for extra spending on infrastructure and more TfL funding. I also think DfT don't like the idea of a larger TfL operation "showing up" their inadequacies on other franchises. I also think the "modernisation agenda" all too evident in TSGN is clearly wider government policy and they would not want TfL coming along and possibly diluting their agenda. My growing sense is that (2) is what is happening. I hope I'm wrong but the lack of any communication and the increased frustration of Assembly Members are worrying signs. The new consultation of future Thameslink services due out on Friday might give us a clue if the rumoured service from North Kent into the Thameslink is propose as that could be seen as part of "tidying up" South Eastern's service groupings to allow segregation of longer distance and local services come 2018. It actually shows a lack of understanding. The metro services have been DOO for years, the mainline services (which TfL aren't after are the ones with guards). Some guards still exist, but that is where DOO equipment isn't yet fitted. I suspect the Government sees the RMT as some sort of dinosaur from yesteryear that hasn't moved with the times. Hundreds of thousands of people are carried on DOO trains and tube each day. The RMT argument is like a rerun of those 1982 and 1983 disputes when first DOO trains were built (the 317s for Bedford - St Pancras / Moorgate). It's about staffing, the other things like cctv, power doors, train to base radios etc. are now fitted anyway. It's also obvious that the SWT franchise spec depends on dispute being resolved to roll this out.
|
|
|
Post by 700101 on Sept 15, 2016 18:25:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 15, 2016 23:26:58 GMT
Speaking as a "non expert" on rail services south of the Thames here are my comments. 1. Seems bizarre to send Thameslink to Rainham in Kent when the works at London Bridge really don't allow for Thameslink to North Kent services very effectively. Trains will be making two sets of conflicting movements and probably have to wait in the Bermondsey Diveunder for access to tracks. Why spend a decade building something and then create a service not designed for it? 2. Love the way Epsom, Ewell East and Epsom Downs get an improved service. Which seat does the Secretary of State for Transport represent? Cynical moi? Mais non my little frozen pizzas. 3. I struggle with the immense complexity of the service patterns and the pretty poor frequencies. 4. I find it odd that they seem content to reduce frequencies on some off peak trains in Greater London. This is the antithesis of what is actually needed. 5. I love (not) the way that Network Rail can't build a new platform at Stevenage which means part of the Great Northern service becomes a RRS on an ongoing basis. I'm astounded that sort of mess was allowed to be in a consultation. Makes Network Rail look worse than incompetent. 6. There seems to be a great reliance on interchange at Norwood Junction in future. I wonder if the place can cope given the poor station layout, lack of accessibility and narrow stairs. 7. Some of the interchange times given on some journeys which are losing their through services are a joke - 23 minute wait at Stevenage anyone? Who designs this rubbish? There appear to be some genuine attempts at some improvements but given GTR can barely find their own backside with their hands never mind run a full train service why should anyone have confidence that they can properly run something on this scale? Southern's a disaster, Great Northern has collapsed since Govia took over, Thameslink remains an utter nightmare and who cares about Gatwick Express? I know they *have* to consult on such large scale changes but the real issues are competence and trust first not a whizzo timetable that offers more than today (generally) when today's service can't be operated to an acceptable standard.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2016 0:21:09 GMT
Speaking as a "non expert" on rail services south of the Thames here are my comments. 1. Seems bizarre to send Thameslink to Rainham in Kent when the works at London Bridge really don't allow for Thameslink to North Kent services very effectively. Trains will be making two sets of conflicting movements and probably have to wait in the Bermondsey Diveunder for access to tracks. Why spend a decade building something and then create a service not designed for it? 2. Love the way Epsom, Ewell East and Epsom Downs get an improved service. Which seat does the Secretary of State for Transport represent? Cynical moi? Mais non my little frozen pizzas. 3. I struggle with the immense complexity of the service patterns and the pretty poor frequencies. 4. I find it odd that they seem content to reduce frequencies on some off peak trains in Greater London. This is the antithesis of what is actually needed. 5. I love (not) the way that Network Rail can't build a new platform at Stevenage which means part of the Great Northern service becomes a RRS on an ongoing basis. I'm astounded that sort of mess was allowed to be in a consultation. Makes Network Rail look worse than incompetent. 6. There seems to be a great reliance on interchange at Norwood Junction in future. I wonder if the place can cope given the poor station layout, lack of accessibility and narrow stairs. 7. Some of the interchange times given on some journeys which are losing their through services are a joke - 23 minute wait at Stevenage anyone? Who designs this rubbish? There appear to be some genuine attempts at some improvements but given GTR can barely find their own backside with their hands never mind run a full train service why should anyone have confidence that they can properly run something on this scale? Southern's a disaster, Great Northern has collapsed since Govia took over, Thameslink remains an utter nightmare and who cares about Gatwick Express? I know they *have* to consult on such large scale changes but the real issues are competence and trust first not a whizzo timetable that offers more than today (generally) when today's service can't be operated to an acceptable standard. Only recently have I actually bothered to use Norwood Junction for the first time ever (I was interchanging) and I found it to be quite confusing. Now I could quite of easily just been in a dum mood but even though there is signage there, I didn't really understand it. Still, not as bad as Barking
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 16, 2016 4:06:36 GMT
Speaking as a "non expert" on rail services south of the Thames here are my comments. 1. Seems bizarre to send Thameslink to Rainham in Kent when the works at London Bridge really don't allow for Thameslink to North Kent services very effectively. Trains will be making two sets of conflicting movements and probably have to wait in the Bermondsey Diveunder for access to tracks. Why spend a decade building something and then create a service not designed for it? 2. Love the way Epsom, Ewell East and Epsom Downs get an improved service. Which seat does the Secretary of State for Transport represent? Cynical moi? Mais non my little frozen pizzas. 3. I struggle with the immense complexity of the service patterns and the pretty poor frequencies. 4. I find it odd that they seem content to reduce frequencies on some off peak trains in Greater London. This is the antithesis of what is actually needed. 5. I love (not) the way that Network Rail can't build a new platform at Stevenage which means part of the Great Northern service becomes a RRS on an ongoing basis. I'm astounded that sort of mess was allowed to be in a consultation. Makes Network Rail look worse than incompetent. 6. There seems to be a great reliance on interchange at Norwood Junction in future. I wonder if the place can cope given the poor station layout, lack of accessibility and narrow stairs. 7. Some of the interchange times given on some journeys which are losing their through services are a joke - 23 minute wait at Stevenage anyone? Who designs this rubbish? There appear to be some genuine attempts at some improvements but given GTR can barely find their own backside with their hands never mind run a full train service why should anyone have confidence that they can properly run something on this scale? Southern's a disaster, Great Northern has collapsed since Govia took over, Thameslink remains an utter nightmare and who cares about Gatwick Express? I know they *have* to consult on such large scale changes but the real issues are competence and trust first not a whizzo timetable that offers more than today (generally) when today's service can't be operated to an acceptable standard. Re No6. Norwood Junction is my local station, and do not think it will have much effect. What it does not take into account is those that already change here, but will no longer as the train now goes via East Croydon, as opposed to Via West Croydon or Vice Versa. Fast London Bridge trains will now come from Redhill, not sure if that will make them more packed or not. The only extra need to change will be those travelling to New Cross Gate, and probably changing to Overground. Just means they now join at Norwood Junction for a slower service ... but numbers were not that great to have that greater effect on the station. Personally, more direct trains to Sutton is the only thing that will affect me which is a plus, in addition to 2tph into the Thames link core. As someone who regularly use the station, not sure how people find it confusing. All London bound trains from platform 1 except London Bridge fasts from platform 3. Away from London is a little more complicated with 3 platforms in use 4/5/6, 6 was hardly used before Overground came. 4, is for East Croydon routes, 6 for West Croydon routes, whilst 5 can be used for either. Seems the plan to terminate the West Croydon Southern stoppers from Crystal Palace at a reintroduced platform 7 to reduce Windmill Bridge conflicts, has been dropped.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 16, 2016 8:43:54 GMT
Re No6. Norwood Junction is my local station, and do not think it will have much effect. What it does not take into account is those that already change here, but will no longer as the train now goes via East Croydon, as opposed to Via West Croydon or Vice Versa. Fast London Bridge trains will now come from Redhill, not sure if that will make them more packed or not. The only extra need to change will be those travelling to New Cross Gate, and probably changing to Overground. Just means they now join at Norwood Junction for a slower service ... but numbers were not that great to have that greater effect on the station. Personally, more direct trains to Sutton is the only thing that will affect me which is a plus, in addition to 2tph into the Thames link core. As someone who regularly use the station, not sure how people find it confusing. All London bound trains from platform 1 except London Bridge fasts from platform 3. Away from London is a little more complicated with 3 platforms in use 4/5/6, 6 was hardly used before Overground came. 4, is for East Croydon routes, 6 for West Croydon routes, whilst 5 can be used for either. Seems the plan to terminate the West Croydon Southern stoppers from Crystal Palace at a reintroduced platform 7 to reduce Windmill Bridge conflicts, has been dropped. I was careful to qualify my statements as being from a "non expert" on S London rail services. If you're used to using somewhere then you won't necessarily have the perception as a clueless person. On the interchange point I was just picking up on the repeated remarks in the consultation itself about the need to change for particular origin / destination pairings. As for the complexity of the stn part of my comments come from trying to piece together the place via the NR stn plan plus comments in an article on London Reconnections. I've also seen the apparent nonsense of trains dropping people on platform 2 (?) and hammering on the doors of the Overground train I was on. Of course they don't open the doors both sides so the poor souls miss their connection and have to go down and back up again. Now I recognise extended dwell times from double side opening may not be a good thing but current practice is very customer unfriendly.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 16, 2016 10:38:01 GMT
Re No6. Norwood Junction is my local station, and do not think it will have much effect. What it does not take into account is those that already change here, but will no longer as the train now goes via East Croydon, as opposed to Via West Croydon or Vice Versa. Fast London Bridge trains will now come from Redhill, not sure if that will make them more packed or not. The only extra need to change will be those travelling to New Cross Gate, and probably changing to Overground. Just means they now join at Norwood Junction for a slower service ... but numbers were not that great to have that greater effect on the station. Personally, more direct trains to Sutton is the only thing that will affect me which is a plus, in addition to 2tph into the Thames link core. As someone who regularly use the station, not sure how people find it confusing. All London bound trains from platform 1 except London Bridge fasts from platform 3. Away from London is a little more complicated with 3 platforms in use 4/5/6, 6 was hardly used before Overground came. 4, is for East Croydon routes, 6 for West Croydon routes, whilst 5 can be used for either. Seems the plan to terminate the West Croydon Southern stoppers from Crystal Palace at a reintroduced platform 7 to reduce Windmill Bridge conflicts, has been dropped. I was careful to qualify my statements as being from a "non expert" on S London rail services. If you're used to using somewhere then you won't necessarily have the perception as a clueless person. On the interchange point I was just picking up on the repeated remarks in the consultation itself about the need to change for particular origin / destination pairings. As for the complexity of the stn part of my comments come from trying to piece together the place via the NR stn plan plus comments in an article on London Reconnections. I've also seen the apparent nonsense of trains dropping people on platform 2 (?) and hammering on the doors of the Overground train I was on. Of course they don't open the doors both sides so the poor souls miss their connection and have to go down and back up again. Now I recognise extended dwell times from double side opening may not be a good thing but current practice is very customer unfriendly. At the monent, all trains from Crystal Palace via Norwood Junction terminate at West Croydon, so a good number that change here for services South, can remain on their train, rather than changing ... so should counter act some of the new movements. What is now platform 1 was originally platform 2 ... platform 1 being a small bay (2 maybe 4 car) at the Croydon end of the current platform ... lightly used for trains mainly terminating from Selhurst that were depot bound. Having said that, manual announcements always referred to platforms 1&2. I also remember using it for the depot shuttles on what was the annual depot open days. Think what you are referring to as platform 2 ... is the second down platform, platform 3 ... not so sure a platform 2 actually exists any more. Will check the signage when I am down there later. I can understand how the set up of platorm 1 might be considered confusing, but no doubt one of our ancestors thought it made great sense ... in the days of slammers, boarding from both sides was common ... wonder what the RMT would say about this practice these days. I too have seen the odd person try to board a train from 'platform 2' despite signs clearly saying something like "You can not board or alight trains here" .... what can you do?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2016 13:16:50 GMT
Speaking as a "non expert" on rail services south of the Thames here are my comments. 1. Seems bizarre to send Thameslink to Rainham in Kent when the works at London Bridge really don't allow for Thameslink to North Kent services very effectively. Trains will be making two sets of conflicting movements and probably have to wait in the Bermondsey Diveunder for access to tracks. Why spend a decade building something and then create a service not designed for it? 2. Love the way Epsom, Ewell East and Epsom Downs get an improved service. Which seat does the Secretary of State for Transport represent? Cynical moi? Mais non my little frozen pizzas. 3. I struggle with the immense complexity of the service patterns and the pretty poor frequencies. 4. I find it odd that they seem content to reduce frequencies on some off peak trains in Greater London. This is the antithesis of what is actually needed. 5. I love (not) the way that Network Rail can't build a new platform at Stevenage which means part of the Great Northern service becomes a RRS on an ongoing basis. I'm astounded that sort of mess was allowed to be in a consultation. Makes Network Rail look worse than incompetent. 6. There seems to be a great reliance on interchange at Norwood Junction in future. I wonder if the place can cope given the poor station layout, lack of accessibility and narrow stairs. 7. Some of the interchange times given on some journeys which are losing their through services are a joke - 23 minute wait at Stevenage anyone? Who designs this rubbish? There appear to be some genuine attempts at some improvements but given GTR can barely find their own backside with their hands never mind run a full train service why should anyone have confidence that they can properly run something on this scale? Southern's a disaster, Great Northern has collapsed since Govia took over, Thameslink remains an utter nightmare and who cares about Gatwick Express? I know they *have* to consult on such large scale changes but the real issues are competence and trust first not a whizzo timetable that offers more than today (generally) when today's service can't be operated to an acceptable standard. Re No6. Norwood Junction is my local station, and do not think it will have much effect. What it does not take into account is those that already change here, but will no longer as the train now goes via East Croydon, as opposed to Via West Croydon or Vice Versa. Fast London Bridge trains will now come from Redhill, not sure if that will make them more packed or not. The only extra need to change will be those travelling to New Cross Gate, and probably changing to Overground. Just means they now join at Norwood Junction for a slower service ... but numbers were not that great to have that greater effect on the station. Personally, more direct trains to Sutton is the only thing that will affect me which is a plus, in addition to 2tph into the Thames link core. As someone who regularly use the station, not sure how people find it confusing. All London bound trains from platform 1 except London Bridge fasts from platform 3. Away from London is a little more complicated with 3 platforms in use 4/5/6, 6 was hardly used before Overground came. 4, is for East Croydon routes, 6 for West Croydon routes, whilst 5 can be used for either. Seems the plan to terminate the West Croydon Southern stoppers from Crystal Palace at a reintroduced platform 7 to reduce Windmill Bridge conflicts, has been dropped. Like I said: 1) I've used the station twice in my whole life 2) I did mention I might of been having a 'stupid' moment I don't use trains that often unless I need to use one whilst on one of my bus journeys.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Sept 16, 2016 14:50:07 GMT
Speaking as a "non expert" on rail services south of the Thames here are my comments. 1. Seems bizarre to send Thameslink to Rainham in Kent when the works at London Bridge really don't allow for Thameslink to North Kent services very effectively. Trains will be making two sets of conflicting movements and probably have to wait in the Bermondsey Diveunder for access to tracks. Why spend a decade building something and then create a service not designed for it? 2. Love the way Epsom, Ewell East and Epsom Downs get an improved service. Which seat does the Secretary of State for Transport represent? Cynical moi? Mais non my little frozen pizzas. 3. I struggle with the immense complexity of the service patterns and the pretty poor frequencies. 4. I find it odd that they seem content to reduce frequencies on some off peak trains in Greater London. This is the antithesis of what is actually needed. 5. I love (not) the way that Network Rail can't build a new platform at Stevenage which means part of the Great Northern service becomes a RRS on an ongoing basis. I'm astounded that sort of mess was allowed to be in a consultation. Makes Network Rail look worse than incompetent. 6. There seems to be a great reliance on interchange at Norwood Junction in future. I wonder if the place can cope given the poor station layout, lack of accessibility and narrow stairs. 7. Some of the interchange times given on some journeys which are losing their through services are a joke - 23 minute wait at Stevenage anyone? Who designs this rubbish? There appear to be some genuine attempts at some improvements but given GTR can barely find their own backside with their hands never mind run a full train service why should anyone have confidence that they can properly run something on this scale? Southern's a disaster, Great Northern has collapsed since Govia took over, Thameslink remains an utter nightmare and who cares about Gatwick Express? I know they *have* to consult on such large scale changes but the real issues are competence and trust first not a whizzo timetable that offers more than today (generally) when today's service can't be operated to an acceptable standard. Only recently have I actually bothered to use Norwood Junction for the first time ever (I was interchanging) and I found it to be quite confusing. Now I could quite of easily just been in a dum mood but even though there is signage there, I didn't really understand it. Still, not as bad as Barking Barking Station is easy (I would say that I use it every day) it's just when you get out the station To be honest, all railways could go a long way to improve their signage at stations, quite often those who sort the signage out forget that they are experts on the railway whereas those who require the signage aren't- Canning Town and Barking being a prime examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 9:07:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 3, 2016 10:06:29 GMT
Meanwhile GTR have told the unions that unless they accept the deal on the table by Thursday they will sack all the guards who refuse to sign new employment contracts. This is an utter disgrace no matter what you think about the conduct of the dispute so far. The image is from a tweet by BBC London's Tom Edwards.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 3, 2016 10:42:07 GMT
Meanwhile GTR have told the unions that unless they accept the deal on the table by Thursday they will sack all the guards who refuse to sign new employment contracts. This is an utter disgrace no matter what you think about the conduct of the dispute so far. The image is from a tweet by BBC London's Tom Edwards. Haven't seen the nuclear option for a while. Sack 'em, and re-employ who we want on our terms. Unfortunately too many people are being inconvienced for too long now so nothing to loose. I did an Industrial Relations course option in mid 1980s whilst at Warwick University (just after the big miners strike) so can see what this about. (Regardless of the public PR and spin) Union trying to preserve old labour intensive way of doing things, employer wants step change (driver doing doors), but was going to retain them in a customer role, but is now not prepared to have more disruption so happy to lose second person. RMT has failed to look after its members by not compromising so may now lose them their jobs. Stupid intrangitance.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 3, 2016 10:52:08 GMT
Haven't seen the nuclear option for a while. Sack 'em, and re-employ who we want on our terms. Unfortunately too many people are being inconvienced for too long now so nothing to loose. I did an Industrial Relations course option in mid 1980s whilst at Warwick University (just after the big miners strike) so can see what this about. (Regardless of the public PR and spin) Union trying to preserve old labour intensive way of doing things, employer wants step change (driver doing doors), but was going to retain them in a customer role, but is now not prepared to have more disruption so happy to lose second person. RMT has failed to look after its members by not compromising so may now lose them their jobs. Stupid intrangitance. Well the Miner's strike is a good analogy because this is really government policy and nothing to do with GTR's own policy or view. GTR are doing what the DfT have demanded - as David Brown of Go Ahead recently made clear. GTR are not especially competent as an employer nor a train operator so they have no "moral high ground" to stand on as far as I am concerned. Their ludicrously clumsy attempt to use social media against the RMT today is a quite pathetic tactic. Some of the responses highlighting Southern's appalling operation *on non strike days* show how utterly fed up passengers are *with the company* not the union or the workers. The union may well have misjudged some of their tactics but you can hardly criticise them for seeking to protect their organisation and its members. As you have studied industrial relations (as I have in part) you will readily understand that there is little merit in having a situation where the employer is overly powerful and the unions are "crushed". It simply leads to a demoralised, under performing workforce and a steady outward flow of employees and perpetual recruitment problems. In short it undermines the business itself.
|
|