• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Bob Crowe is such a *expletive deleted*"

Collapse

  • Addanc
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    He's doing what he's paid to do, representing the interests of the members of his union.
    Hopefully this will result in the tube-trains becoming fully automated.

    Leave a comment:


  • sweetandsour
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    You'd probably have to pay them enough to retire straight away on their current benefits.
    They already get two months paid holiday a year so it wouldn't be such a huge leap to pay them for doing nothing.

    Here is an article. It's an old one but I don't expect conditions to have worsened in that time.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2002...slaves.careers

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
    Nonsense, just ship in a load of Poles to replace them. At least the trains in Poland are cheap and run on time too.
    Plus if something goes wrong with the train or network, the Polish drivers could just nip out and fix the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    You'd probably have to pay them enough to retire straight away on their current benefits.
    Nonsense, just ship in a load of Poles to replace them. At least the trains in Poland are cheap and run on time too.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by sweetandsour View Post
    It will be necessary to pay-off the current drivers well otherwise they will cause chaos as soon as they got wind of what was going on. I can't see any way around that.
    You'd probably have to pay them enough to retire straight away on their current benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • sweetandsour
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    The unions won't stand for it...
    It will be necessary to pay-off the current drivers well otherwise they will cause chaos as soon as they got wind of what was going on. I can't see any way around that.

    I can't say that I would shed any tears for the union.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by sweetandsour View Post
    I can't see any reason why the other trains can't work like that.
    The unions won't stand for it...

    Leave a comment:


  • sweetandsour
    replied
    Originally posted by Sockpuppet View Post
    Personally I'd just automate the trains.
    The Docklands Light Railway trains don't have drivers and they work OK (apart from when the signals stop working and the passenger service agent has to manually override the controls to make the train limp along at 5mph).

    I can't see any reason why the other trains can't work like that.

    According to the Office of Rail Regulation there were 62 incidents of human drivers not stopping their trains when they were supposed to (Signals Passed At Danger -SPADs) in the second quarter of 2009, http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/spad_q2_2009.pdf

    The sooner that these things are controlled by machines the better I say.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    He's doing what he's paid to do
    Yes, maybe so, but he is showing very poor judgment in choosing the strike option, and will succeed in very little but further alienating the public. His approach is completely anachronistic as the "militant union approach" curled up its toes in the 80s. No doubt HE personally will be alright in much the same way as Scargill was, but he is doing little to further the cause of his members. Still, if they were stupid enough to have a cretin like him representing him many might agree they will get what they deserve. Blimey, even sg has grasped this!!

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    I don't know what the issues are and frankly, I don't care. The union members obviously have a greivance and Bob his doing his job.

    With regards to being sensitive, I'm sure there's a cream you can get from the chemist for that particular little problem.
    a minority of militant union members.

    That much is clear because every time there's a strike, there's alwasy some lines that stay open as tube workers refuse to strike.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Bob Crow is "representing" his members as Scargill "represented" the miners.

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Bob is paid to represent the interests of his unions members, not the travelling public.
    I do not dispute that.

    AtW, please read my posts regarding the SS again. It was their job to represent the interests of the upper echelons of the nazis, at no time did I say that the upper echelons were "in the SS".
    The SS were there to fight for the interests of the NSDAP, which was representing interests of the public who voted for it (majority in the 30s).

    Since all upper echelons were members of NSDAP (like the communist party in the USSR) one could argue that the SS were indeed representing upper echelons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    Hey, I'm a sensitive guy .

    I would suggest that his members are well treated and to insist that they are not leads to a bad public impression of him and them, which will ultimately lead to the loss of his members livelihoods.
    I don't know what the issues are and frankly, I don't care. The union members obviously have a greivance and Bob his doing his job.

    With regards to being sensitive, I'm sure there's a cream you can get from the chemist for that particular little problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by Churchill View Post
    Why do you insist on bringing emotion in to this? All I have said is that he is doing his job as a representative of the union.
    Hey, I'm a sensitive guy .

    I would suggest that his members are well treated and to insist that they are not leads to a bad public impression of him and them, which will ultimately lead to the loss of his members livelihoods.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Bob is paid to represent the interests of his unions members, not the travelling public.

    AtW, please read my posts regarding the SS again. It was their job to represent the interests of the upper echelons of the nazis, at no time did I say that the upper echelons were "in the SS".

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X