hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1205 of 1279 FirstFirst ... 205705110511551195120212031204120512061207120812151255 ... LastLast
Results 24,081 to 24,100 of 25573

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #24081
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    The union cares because it results in fewer union jobs in the long run. It's exactly the same line they used to object to automated drivers (used all around the world without problems). They will NEVER accept a change that reduces headcount, however sensible.
    No fucking shit, it's literally their job to represent the interests of their current members.

    Do you expect a letting agent to pressure a landlord into reducing rent below the market value?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  2. #24082
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    "It's about passenger safety"

    If you believe that presumably you believe corporations make decisions based on their social conscience too.
    Do you not remember some 4 or 5 years ago a guard went to prison for failing to adequately do his job and ensure it was safe for the train to leave, causing a young girl to die?

    Train drivers understandably do not want to be in the position where someone could die because they only have some crappy CCTV screens to check the length of the train, or because a passenger was ill and no one was aboard the train to assist them.

    The fact the company is willing to offer so much cash to drivers over this is also indicative that their secondary concern, that it will be eventually used as an excuse to cut job numbers, also seems well founded.
    As I said, the overground network has used driver operated trains for 30 years without issue. People still act negligently sometimes, sure.

    Of course its going to cut job numbers! And why shouldn't it when there is lots of evidence that you dont need two people to do this job?
    An overground train is about 1/3 of the length of an intercity train which typically has a guard. London Overground stations are also typically well manned with station staff to check the train, wheras most rural stations, such as the one I use, are not.



  3. #24083
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    It always amazes me that so many people are (quite rightly) skeptical of the idea that corporations will be motivated by anything but bottom line (long or short term), but haplessly accept that unions are acting altruistically for the public good and not just with the aim of maintaining their own bargaining position and members' income.
    A Union exists to act in protecting the employment rights of its members, which does not purely mean getting them more money. I'll remind you that actually most of the major achievements by unions over the years have been non-monetary, such as the right to paid holiday, sick pay, maternity leave, flexible working and, of course, protecting the jobs of their members.
    Most of those changes were achieved by EU dictat, not the unions, but I accept the general point.

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.

  4. #24084
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Of course its going to cut job numbers in the long run! And why shouldn't it when there is lots of evidence that you dont need two people to do this job?
    Throwing people onto the scrap heap in austerity ravished Britain is exactly what we need more of!

    Who do you think will benefit from less labour costs? It won't be the customers, it won't be the poor bastard who is sacked and it wont be the current employees.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  5. #24085
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    It always amazes me that so many people are (quite rightly) skeptical of the idea that corporations will be motivated by anything but bottom line (long or short term), but haplessly accept that unions are acting altruistically for the public good and not just with the aim of maintaining their own bargaining position and members' income.
    A Union exists to act in protecting the employment rights of its members, which does not purely mean getting them more money. I'll remind you that actually most of the major achievements by unions over the years have been non-monetary, such as the right to paid holiday, sick pay, maternity leave, flexible working and, of course, protecting the jobs of their members.
    Most of those changes were achieved by EU dictat, not the unions, but I accept the general point.

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    If the driver becomes responsible for safety checks he previously wasn't then it is inevitably about safety whether you think it is or not. And sure it also about job numbers, which is again why Southern's stupid payrise offer was rejected.

    Also who do you think lobbied the EU to make these kind of changes? It certainly wasn't the CBI or IoD.
    Last edited by Smuggo; July 14 2017 at 12:34:53 PM.



  6. #24086
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    Why not both?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  7. #24087

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    5,702
    Offering such a pay rise, which is in effect offering drivers a cut of the savings made from firing other staff, is just crass & really does suggest southern rail either miss the point or are so pig headedly determined to cut staff they'll undermine their own justifications to do it. Now if they were to acquiesce & then aslef said actually we're gonna strike for that 20% raise for everyone as well, there'd be grounds for union bashing.

  8. #24088
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    Why not both?
    Because if there was a positive safety case for cutting staff numbers unions like ASLEF would still oppose it (see: automated driverless trains). So it isnt about safety.

  9. #24089
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    Why not both?
    Because if there was a positive safety case for cutting staff numbers unions like ASLEF would still oppose it (see: automated driverless trains). So it isnt about safety.
    Why are automated trains a positive safety case?



  10. #24090
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post

    Anyway good Brexit piece on the Graun today with particularly salient point quoted for those of you who still think we can stay in the EU.
    I think that's just Djan. And i don't think even he actually thinks that, just desperate hope more than anything.
    I think money talks and if it ever got seriously bad we might, but i don't think it will.

  11. #24091

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    5,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    Why not both?
    Because if there was a positive safety case for cutting staff numbers unions like ASLEF would still oppose it (see: automated driverless trains). So it isnt about safety.
    Why are automated trains a positive safety case?
    We're already at the stage where it's almost more of a danger to have someone behind the wheel/stick/monitor etc - with nothing to do because all the basic functions of travel are automated - rather than just automating everything. An ironic side effect of ever higher standards of safety is that we're about at the point where the part most prone to failure is the person in control. The recent Air Canada near disaster being an example. The runway was clear, but the pilot misjudged the landing in the dark & nearly slammed into the taxiway.

  12. #24092
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    11,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancehot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    Why not both?
    Because if there was a positive safety case for cutting staff numbers unions like ASLEF would still oppose it (see: automated driverless trains). So it isnt about safety.
    Why are automated trains a positive safety case?
    We're already at the stage where it's almost more of a danger to have someone behind the wheel/stick/monitor etc - with nothing to do because all the basic functions of travel are automated - rather than just automating everything. An ironic side effect of ever higher standards of safety is that we're about at the point where the part most prone to failure is the person in control. The recent Air Canada near disaster being an example. The runway was clear, but the pilot misjudged the landing in the dark & nearly slammed into the taxiway.
    Sounds like one hell of a train journey!

  13. #24093

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    5,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancehot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    I understand and agree what the point of Unions is. That's why I can see through the claims that this is about safety. It isnt, it's about job numbers.
    Why not both?
    Because if there was a positive safety case for cutting staff numbers unions like ASLEF would still oppose it (see: automated driverless trains). So it isnt about safety.
    Why are automated trains a positive safety case?
    We're already at the stage where it's almost more of a danger to have someone behind the wheel/stick/monitor etc - with nothing to do because all the basic functions of travel are automated - rather than just automating everything. An ironic side effect of ever higher standards of safety is that we're about at the point where the part most prone to failure is the person in control. The recent Air Canada near disaster being an example. The runway was clear, but the pilot misjudged the landing in the dark & nearly slammed into the taxiway.
    Sounds like one hell of a train journey!
    Fair enough. Here's a more relevant example.

  14. #24094
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    *crickets*

  15. #24095

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    *crickets*
    For people who don't piss away their evenings at the office, this is driving/eating time.

    Unless you live 5 minutes from work

  16. #24096
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,892
    I don't see how crickets could drive a train.



  17. #24097
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    11,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    I don't see how crickets could drive a train.
    Green fuel to use in coal burners?

  18. #24098
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    Because if there was a positive safety case for cutting staff numbers unions like ASLEF would still oppose it (see: automated driverless trains). So it isnt about safety.
    But there isn't so why is that relevant?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  19. #24099
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    The union cares because it results in fewer union jobs in the long run. It's exactly the same line they used to object to automated drivers (used all around the world without problems). They will NEVER accept a change that reduces headcount, however sensible.
    No fucking shit, it's literally their job to represent the interests of their current members.

    Do you expect a letting agent to pressure a landlord into reducing rent below the market value?
    Self interest is only reasonable if you're rich
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  20. #24100
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post

    The union cares because it results in fewer union jobs in the long run. It's exactly the same line they used to object to automated drivers (used all around the world without problems). They will NEVER accept a change that reduces headcount, however sensible.
    No fucking shit, it's literally their job to represent the interests of their current members.

    Do you expect a letting agent to pressure a landlord into reducing rent below the market value?
    Self interest is only reasonable if you're rich
    And the just world fallacy suggests that rich people are better anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •