So, tube strike huh?

theteal

Anybody particularly badly affected by this? Some of the pictures surfacing look a bit mental.

Being a driver and generally sticking to the Essex corner of the A406 I didn't think it would affect me much. . .wrong. Woodford Green was bumper to bumper on the drive in this morning, thankfully there are some conveniently quiet residential roads that lead up to the office so I wasn't too late. I'm glad I don't have any site visits "up London" planned for this week. Getting home may be interesting this evening.

Anyway, share your tales of woe.

enda1

Warning: NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu_cfy33bY

Playboy

Had to take a cab, a 45 min journey took me two hours. Thanks tfl

83ste

Playboy wrote: »

Had to take a cab, a 45 min journey took me two hours. Thanks tfl

You mean thanks RMT.

rainbow kirby

Or thanks to Boris Johnson and Bob Crow for being two blockheaded twats who just don't know when to back down.

Wasn't terrible for me, just had 4 buses go through full before finally getting on a bus just before 8 that would take me to within 5 minutes walk of the office. Saw 30-40 people waiting at most bus stops though on the way. This actually worked out a lot better than my original plan of getting a lift from my OH to Finsbury Park to try for national rail from there!

biZrb

I thought the roads were grand this morning, I was driving from South London to North West London and it took the same length of time as yesterday.

However it took my colleague 4 hours to drive from Guildford to East London this morning.

woof im a dog

im lucky that i can walk to work so it was grand for me, that said its raining now so might have to get a sneaky bus later!

essex road was absolutely mad with traffic earlier though

FTA69

No strain for me at all really; Capital Connect station right next to my house.

FTA69

83ste wrote: »

You mean thanks RMT.

If Johnson wasn't posturing for his own political gain the strike could well have been avoided.

enda1

FTA69 wrote: »

If Johnson wasn't posturing for his own political gain the strike could well have been avoided.

Every major political party condemns the strike. The blame falls squarely with the dinosaurs that are the RMT.

Playboy

83ste wrote: »

You mean thanks RMT.

Indeed I do!

FTA69

enda1 wrote: »

Every major political party condemns the strike.

So what? Are politicians infallible now?

The fact is that Boris is trying to implement a load of swingeing cuts and job cuts while at the same time trying to portray himself as a modern day Thatcher in "standing up to the unions". This strike would have been avoided had Johnson entered negotiations with no preconditions as opposed to bulling in with a load of cuts that will result in a worse service for those who need it most.

Reekwind

I particularly liked Boris' rubbishing of the strike on the basis that only 30% of union members voted in favour (out of a turnout of 40%). By which logic only 28% of potential voters favoured Boris in 2012.

Tube staff have a right to strike and, in this case (with up to 1,000 redundancies) a perfectly understandable reason to. Denying them this, or getting angry at the unions for exercising it, is to suggest that any customer facing job has no right to collective bargaining. So long as it inconveniences you at least

enda1 wrote:

The blame falls squarely with the dinosaurs that are the RMT

Is there really anyone who believes that the wholesale shutting of ticket offices (in a city that annually attracts millions of tourists) is a burst of genius? Or are people just labelling all unions "dinosaurs" now?

enda1

FTA69 wrote: »

So what? Are politicians infallible now?

The fact is that Boris is trying to implement a load of swingeing cuts and job cuts while at the same time trying to portray himself as a modern day Thatcher in "standing up to the unions". This strike would have been avoided had Johnson entered negotiations with no preconditions as opposed to bulling in with a load of cuts that will result in a worse service for those who need it most.

Those who need the service most are workers. Office works, cleaners, hotel workers etc. throughout London. The changes proposed for the network would improve/make no difference to the service to them - certainly not dis-improve it.

Boris is not making these cuts, TFL is.

The politicians who were democratically elected represent the opinion of the people and there is all party consensus that the strike is uncalled for.

It is the RMT who are playing politics and as usual holding the people to ransom to satisfy their greedy aspirations.

There will not even be any forced redundancies, they will be voluntary. The RMT have just been waiting for an opportunity to strike whatever the reason and their hand is showing because they went on strike without due cause.

enda1

Reekwind wrote: »

I particularly liked Boris' rubbishing of the strike on the basis that only 30% of union members voted in favour (out of a turnout of 40%). By which logic only 28% of potential voters favoured Boris in 2012.

Tube staff have a right to strike and, in this case (with up to 1,000 redundancies) a perfectly understandable reason to. Denying them this, or getting angry at the unions for exercising it, is to suggest that any customer facing job has no right to collective bargaining. So long as it inconveniences you at least

Is there really anyone who believes that the wholesale shutting of ticket offices (in a city that annually attracts millions of tourists) is a burst of genius? Or are people just labelling all unions "dinosaurs" now?

Ticket offices will be closed, but staff will be in the concourse to help instead with the purchasing of tickets.

How does financially harming the city, their company, and Joe Public ensure that there is now enough money to save those 1000 jobs? It is not a perfectly valid reason to strike actually. These are voluntary redundancies too.

Fysh

I've heard two (lonely) voices of sanity on the topic of the strike today: Harriet Harman stating that both sides need their heads knocking together, and Vince Cable saying that changing the entirety of industrial relations law just to try and stop one strike from happening again is a bad idea.

I was reasonably lucky with the Overground today, but I sympathise with anyone who's been shafted by transport comedy in general. Casting blame on one side or the other rather than the failure by both to even pretend to reach a real compromise is failing to understand the root of the problem, though. (Anyone who thinks that Boris Johnson has any more credibility on this topic than Bob Crow is deluding themselves, IMO. They're both clowns who can best help the issue by removing themselves from the negotiation process.)

Reekwind

enda1 wrote: »

Ticket offices will be closed, but staff will be in the concourse to help instead with the purchasing of tickets

So closing ticket offices, firing a good chunk of their staff and putting the remainder out on the floor will be more efficient that the current scenario? Those long queues that you currently see at the ticket offices will just disappear? (Not that Boris and Dave seem to notice them now.)

Maybe. Maybe this really is the best plan. I'm not massively fussed over whose view is correct. What I do strongly disagree with is the suggestion that it's such an open and shut case that anyone who disagrees with it is a "dinosaur" and that the affected workers should not have the right to object.

How does financially harming the city, their company, and Joe Public ensure that there is now enough money to save those 1000 jobs? It is not a perfectly valid reason to strike actually

It's an entirely valid reason to strike. The suggestion that people do not have sense or the right to strike because it costs the city money or you time is worryingly wrong. The strike is the last stop in the collective bargaining process* and to deny it to people is, literally, criminal

*Which, let's not forget, is what this is about. The unions are striking to force a return to the negotiating table. That's all

cottager83

Folks, need some help ere, need to get to royal marsden hosp on Fulham road tomor for an appointment. Will be coming from greenford. Think i heard tube is going as far as white city? If so would it be best to get a cab from there . Will need to be there for 10.30. Any help appreciated! Thanks

Jack B. Badd

cottager83 wrote: »

Folks, need some help ere, need to get to royal marsden hosp on Fulham road tomor for an appointment. Will be coming from greenford. Think i heard tube is going as far as white city? If so would it be best to get a cab from there . Will need to be there for 10.30. Any help appreciated! Thanks

Tubes lines (like the Bakerloo) were reported as running this morning when there was no actual service. Buses & trains were diverted from their original destinations & what services were running were very delayed & full so people had to queue to catch anything. Basically I wouldn't trust any public transport option tomorrow morning if I had an appointment I had to get to at a certain time. You might get where you need to go in time, you might not.

If I were you, I'd ring a cab company & book a cab for the full journey & give yourself plenty of lead time because the roads will probably be busy as more people drive.

theteal

Was the strike cancelled? There was not a bit of traffic this morning (thankfully as I was running a smidge late). I think the residents of Woodford and surrounding ares learned their lesson from sitting in their cars yesterday and called in sick. . . .either that or they're all gathering outside Mr. Crow's house with pitchforks

FTA69

enda1 wrote: »

Those who need the service most are workers. Office works, cleaners, hotel workers etc. throughout London. The changes proposed for the network would improve/make no difference to the service to them - certainly not dis-improve it.

There are millions of transactions every year involving ticket offices. Tourists are frequent users of them and London is the biggest tourist destination in the world. Similarly the elderly and people with sight issues also find them invaluable.

Boris is not making these cuts, TFL is.

TFL is answerable to the Mayor's Office.

The politicians who were democratically elected represent the opinion of the people and there is all party consensus that the strike is uncalled for.

It is the RMT who are playing politics and as usual holding the people to ransom to satisfy their greedy aspirations.

Like what? Protecting jobs and standing up for an inclusive service free of austerity-led cuts?

The RMT have just been waiting for an opportunity to strike whatever the reason and their hand is showing because they went on strike without due cause.

Yeah, people love going on strike risking their jobs and losing pay. The last thing anyone wants is a strike, least of all the workers.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

Tube staff have a right to strike and, in this case (with up to 1,000 redundancies) a perfectly understandable reason to.

As has already been pointed out, there will be no compulsory redundancies and hundreds of staff have already come forward seeking voluntary redundancy.

Reekwind wrote: »

Denying them this, or getting angry at the unions for exercising it, is to suggest that any customer facing job has no right to collective bargaining. So long as it inconveniences you at least

You don’t think they’re abusing their power?

Reekwind wrote: »

Is there really anyone who believes that the wholesale shutting of ticket offices (in a city that annually attracts millions of tourists) is a burst of genius?

I seem to remember the very same arguments being made when the oyster card was introduced, which was, as far as I recall (and I’m open to correction here), also opposed by the unions.

Reekwind wrote: »

So closing ticket offices, firing a good chunk of their staff and putting the remainder out on the floor will be more efficient that the current scenario?

Again, nobody is being fired. And those ticket offices that are going to be closed can be rented out to retailers, raising money for TFL to compensate for the recent reduction in its government funding.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's an entirely valid reason to strike. The suggestion that people do not have sense or the right to strike because it costs the city money or you time is worryingly wrong. The strike is the last stop in the collective bargaining process* and to deny it to people is, literally, criminal

People have the right to object and protest if they are being treated unfairly, but I’m seeing very little evidence of unfair treatment here.

rainbow kirby

theteal wrote: »

Was the strike cancelled? There was not a bit of traffic this morning (thankfully as I was running a smidge late). I think the residents of Woodford and surrounding ares learned their lesson from sitting in their cars yesterday and called in sick. . . .either that or they're all gathering outside Mr. Crow's house with pitchforks

Wasn't cancelled, but there seems to be a lot more people in my office working from home today than there was yesterday. Guessing that could have been the case elsewhere too?

My commute this morning was actually faster than normal - Northern line not stopping at Tufnell Park or Angel made things a bit quicker! OH had a dreadful journey though, over 50 minutes to go from Archway to Kentish Town.

djpbarry

rainbow kirby wrote: »

...over 50 minutes to go from Archway to Kentish Town.

That couldn't be more than a 20-minute walk?!?

rainbow kirby

djpbarry wrote: »

That couldn't be more than a 20-minute walk?!?

He was driving and got seriously tangled up in traffic. :eek:

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I've heard two (lonely) voices of sanity on the topic of the strike today: Harriet Harman stating that both sides need their heads knocking together, and Vince Cable saying that changing the entirety of industrial relations law just to try and stop one strike from happening again.

I was reasonably lucky with the Overground today, but I sympathise with anyone who's been shafted by transport comedy in general. Casting blame on one side or the other rather than the failure by both to even pretend to reach a real compromise is failing to understand the root of the problem, though. (Anyone who thinks that Boris Johnson has any more credibility on this topic than Bob Crow is deluding themselves, IMO. They're both clowns who can best help the issue by removing themselves from the negotiation process.)

Whilst agreeing that the ability to strike is a very important right that we need to protect I also feel that measures need to be introduced to stop Unions abusing their power especially in relation to essential services like the tube. To be able to call a strike of this impact based on a 30% turnout is frankly a ludicrous situation to be in. Having read a lot of material on both sides of this debate I still cannot see a valid reason for this strike.

TFL should be able to make decisions on staffing without facing a strike. There is no compulsory redundancy here and as others have stated many of the workers have come forward for voluntary redundancy. Staff will be redeployed from ticket offices where in most stations (bar the very busy central london station) they are under utilized. I don't see why that is a bad thing or why it means we need a strike? Are we to believe that the Union believes that reducing ticket office staff numbers will impact safety and that the motivation of the strike is to protect Joe public?

Happy to be informed differently but I really just dont get what all the fuss is about.

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

You don’t think they’re abusing their power?

Not at all, they're collectively withdrawing their labour in defence of their conditions and also in support of an important service within the Underground.

I seem to remember the very same arguments being made when the oyster card was introduced, which was, as far as I recall (and I’m open to correction here), also opposed by the unions.

I don't believe the RMT opposed Oyster. What they were successful in doing however, was preventing TFL from bringing in a £5 limit for the card which would have had a negative effect on the poor.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

As has already been pointed out, there will be no compulsory redundancies...

It's worth noting that this is not because of the benevolence of TfL but because the unions won this as a concession years ago.

But regardless, there are a whole host of proposals at stake here (albeit the most obvious is removing at least 700 frontline staff from the system at the same time as opening hours are being extended) that the unions disagree with. Now they may be right and they may be wrong but they unquestionably have a case of some sort.

You don’t think they’re abusing their power?

Not in the slightest. The union feels that the proposals will adversely affect its members, the union has sought to negotiate and, when negotiations broke down, the union has taken industrial action. I fail to see any abuse there

Playboy wrote:

Whilst agreeing that the ability to strike is a very important right that we need to protect I also feel that measures need to be introduced to stop Unions abusing their power especially in relation to essential services like the tube

Let's be absolutely clear on this: the Tube is categorically not an "essential service". The fire brigade is an essential service, hospitals are an essential service and the police are an essential service. All three have, in some form or other, restrictions on their ability to withdraw their labour for precisely this reason. The ability of Tube staff to make a commute difficult is certainly not in the same category.

If it was, where would you draw the line? Forbid postmen to strike because bills and Amazon packages need to be delivered? Legislate against baristas unionising because office drones need their coffee? Express outrage when pilots strike during the summer?

To be able to call a strike of this impact based on a 30% turnout is frankly a ludicrous situation to be in

Why? The turnout for this ballot was the higher (at 40%) than that of the 2012 mayoral election (38%). Do you think that it's absurd that Boris Johnson is permitted to run one of the largest cities in the world on the basis of this low turnout?

And the unions, as noted in a previous post, had a much more responding win than Boris: 75% of those who voted were in favour of strike action.

Having read a lot of material on both sides of this debate I still cannot see a valid reason for this strike.

That may be because you don't work there.

It constantly amazes me how many people are suddenly experts on the inner workings of the Tube. Nearly as surprising as how many people see absolutely no problem with sweeping changes being made to someone else's job. It's akin to having a coal miner following me around the office and berating my Excel skills or suggesting that I calm down when a sixth of my company's jobs are disappearing and I've got to reapply for my current job.

Playboy

Reekwind wrote: »

Let's be absolutely clear on this: the Tube is categorically not an "essential service". The fire brigade is an essential service, hospitals are an essential service and the police are an essential service. All three have, in some form or other, restrictions on their ability to withdraw their labour for precisely this reason. The ability of Tube staff to make a commute difficult is certainly not in the same category.

Re the bolded bit, that is your opinion so its not categorical.

You think that without the tube, the other forms of transport would simply pick up the slack? I disagree. It is, imo, a crucial, essential utility, without which the economy would be in serious difficulties.

Have a look at the stats for lost output/GDP as a result of the strikes and ponder why the other transport systems were seemingly incapable of performing the job the tube does.

Perhaps you think the roads are currently under-used for example, or that there is lots of excess capacity on the trains? This is not my daily, squeezed experience on a train or evidenced by my 2hr journey in a taxi that should have been 45 mins yesterday morning.

It is not a convenience, it is a vital element of the capital's infrastructure.

Reekwind wrote: »

If it was, where would you draw the line? Forbid postmen to strike because bills and Amazon packages need to be delivered? Legislate against baristas unionising because office drones need their coffee? Express outrage when pilots strike during the summer?

Strawmen examples and I didnt say anywhere that a strike shouldnt be allowed. I said for services such as the tube there should be stricter conditions for when/how a strike can be called.

Reekwind wrote: »

Why? The turnout for this ballot was the higher (at 40%) than that of the 2012 mayoral election (38%). Do you think that it's absurd that Boris Johnson is permitted to run one of the largest cities in the world on the basis of this low turnout?

And the unions, as noted in a previous post, had a much more responding win than Boris: 75% of those who voted were in favour of strike action.

A comparison that has been bandied around in the press for the last few days and its another strawman. That is a completely separate issue.

Reekwind wrote: »

That may be because you don't work there.

It constantly amazes me how many people are suddenly experts on the inner workings of the Tube. Nearly as surprising as how many people see absolutely no problem with sweeping changes being made to someone else's job. It's akin to having a coal miner following me around the office and berating my Excel skills or suggesting that I calm down when a sixth of my company's jobs are disappearing and I've got to reapply for my current job.

It amazes me too as I didn't realize you were such an authority on the strikes given the level of certainty expressed in your posts. It might surprise you but most people in London use the tube quite regularly, understand some of the issues with the service and are entitled to an opinion different to yours based on the coverage in the media. Obviously these are opinions from afar but the key issues are being debated in the public domain by the key players and its entirely reasonable for people to make up their own mind as to whether they agree or disagree with the action taken. Should we all just keep our mouths shut and struggle on standing at bus stops for 30 minutes in the cold?

breadmonkey

Reekwind, do you have any association with RMT or TSSA, directly or indirectly?

Fysh

breadmonkey wrote: »

Reekwind, do you have any association with RMT or TSSA, directly or indirectly?

That's an irrelevant question and I'm taking this opportunity to put my Mod Hat on:
Attack the post, not the poster. You do not need to know any poster's personal connection to either side in order to discuss or debate their comments, and asking the question seems worryingly close to trying to dismiss an opinion with a "well, of course you'd say that" handwave.