|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 15, 2016 21:11:22 GMT
I'm against it. This 'it's all about safety' line is a load of bollocks. Similar to the doctor's 'save our NHS' crap which was a smokescreen for wanting more money. Responsibility for safety is a management function. Workers' responsibility is limited to carrying out the safety processes and procedures as defined by management. And also trying to preserve the living standards of fellow workers, surely? Or are you suggesting support for the idea that the controlling class become ever wealthier, while the working class become ever poorer? In my experience of the road transport industry, management decisions have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with maximising profit for the company.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 15, 2016 21:26:11 GMT
I'm against it. This 'it's all about safety' line is a load of bollocks. Similar to the doctor's 'save our NHS' crap which was a smokescreen for wanting more money. Responsibility for safety is a management function. Workers' responsibility is limited to carrying out the safety processes and procedures as defined by management. And also trying to preserve the living standards of fellow workers, surely? Or are you suggesting support for the idea that the controlling class become ever wealthier, while the working class become ever poorer? In my experience of the road transport industry, management decisions have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with maximising profit for the company. That's what the dispute is about; preserve the living standards of fellow workers. If that had been the stated problem I would have been more likely to support this but can't find myself supporting a lie that a 10 year old could see through. Thing is: if there's an accident on the railways the driver/ guard, as long as they have followed procedures, have no responsibility. A director on the other hand could face a criminal charge.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 15, 2016 21:33:57 GMT
And also trying to preserve the living standards of fellow workers, surely? Or are you suggesting support for the idea that the controlling class become ever wealthier, while the working class become ever poorer? In my experience of the road transport industry, management decisions have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with maximising profit for the company. That's what the dispute is about; preserve the living standards of fellow workers. If that had been the stated problem I would have been more likely to support this but can't find myself supporting a lie that a 10 year old could see through. Thing is: if there's an accident on the railways the driver/ guard, as long as they have followed procedures, have no responsibility. A director on the other hand could face a criminal charge. Well, it is also about safety, as the unions have stated. It is self-evidently safer to have two members of staff aboard a train than one. It is the media who are trying to undermine this by presenting it as an issue of "who pushes the button to close the doors". Surely you can see that?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 15, 2016 21:43:01 GMT
That's what the dispute is about; preserve the living standards of fellow workers. If that had been the stated problem I would have been more likely to support this but can't find myself supporting a lie that a 10 year old could see through. Thing is: if there's an accident on the railways the driver/ guard, as long as they have followed procedures, have no responsibility. A director on the other hand could face a criminal charge. Well, it is also about safety, as the unions have stated. It is self-evidently safer to have two members of staff aboard a train than one. It is the media who are trying to undermine this by presenting it as an issue of "who pushes the button to close the doors". Surely you can see that? I don't know much about railways but I agree, it must be safer to have 2 staff on a train rather than just 1. As I said though, it's not the responsibility of drivers or guards to set out procedures to ensure safety. They aren't responsible for this, it's not their job. If a change in procedure resulted in danger to staff then a strike would be in order. But nobody is saying this. The staff/ union are saying that the public would be put in danger. That's their opinion, the opinion of those running the company differ. FFS why don't the unions just state the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Dec 15, 2016 21:56:59 GMT
Well, it is also about safety, as the unions have stated. It is self-evidently safer to have two members of staff aboard a train than one. It is the media who are trying to undermine this by presenting it as an issue of "who pushes the button to close the doors". Surely you can see that? I don't know much about railways but I agree, it must be safer to have 2 staff on a train rather than just 1. As I said though, it's not the responsibility of drivers or guards to set out procedures to ensure safety. They aren't responsible for this, it's not their job. If a change in procedure resulted in danger to staff then a strike would be in order. But nobody is saying this. The staff/ union are saying that the public would be put in danger. That's their opinion, the opinion of those running the company differ. FFS why don't the unions just state the truth? Well yes, but then the management and staff might also disagree as to whether trains should be sent out with defective brakes in order to save the company some money. Obviously the bloke up front who lives in a terraced house who is going to get his neck snapped if something goes wrong will have a different view to the bloke in Network Rail Carpetland who lives in a mansion who stands to get a bigger bonus at the end of the year from the saving the company has made on brake pads.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Dec 15, 2016 22:09:14 GMT
As I said, if the changes endangered staff then a strike would be in order.
It's blindingly obvious what's happened here: Workers see the change as adversely affecting the jobs/ prospects of some of their co workers. Their union, fearing that the public wouldn't support action for this reason attempt to spin it as being something else. Unfortunately the spin isn't at all good. Government, management and the public all see through it.
The only thing the union can hope to 'achieve' if they continue with this action is to goad the government into passing legislation which will be detrimental to the strength of railway unions and possibly, the wider union movement.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Dec 16, 2016 9:44:00 GMT
As I said, if the changes endangered staff then a strike would be in order. It's blindingly obvious what's happened here: Workers see the change as adversely affecting the jobs/ prospects of some of their co workers. Their union, fearing that the public wouldn't support action for this reason attempt to spin it as being something else. Unfortunately the spin isn't at all good. Government, management and the public all see through it. The only thing the union can hope to 'achieve' if they continue with this action is to goad the government into passing legislation which will be detrimental to the strength of railway unions and possibly, the wider union movement. So in your view there is no spin from the government? Guards or whatever they may now be called had as I understand it rather more responsibilities then closing doors - and I am not talking about ticket collection. I understood they had responsibility in applying the brakes if a driver was incapacitated, placing detonators to protect a broken down train, in the case of three rail electrics using "shorting bars" in the event of an accident and so on. Just maybe modern trains will apply the brakes themselves if a driver is incapacitated but the Croydon tram and the Paddington accident gives me little confidence it is foolproof. I would like to think the other functions are still available when required to protect the passengers. I also understand that the Southern franchise is in some way different to most others in that the government have rather more say in its running but this comes from a snippet on BBC radio. When I hear government and company spokes persons explaining how the functions above will be carried out ion the event of a smash or incapacitated driver I will happily reconsider my views but at present it seem to me there is an alliance between the operators and the Tory government. One wants to maximise profits at all costs with little thought for passenger safety while the other is rubbing their hands with glee while attempting to smash some more unions. The media is also implicated in all this because they will not explain the full ramifications of one man operation - I doubt many fo them actually have any idea and they have no intention of being briefed by the unions.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 16, 2016 10:47:26 GMT
I am torn a bit in both directions on this one.
I think that guardless (and eventually driverless) trains are probably inevitable (even more so than cars/trucks). The Docklands Light Railway has now been running very successfully for some time now with unmanned trains and there are other similar commuter systems round the world.
However I have not seen any commitment to the level of investment that would be required to do this safely. Retaining manning levels with the present technology until sufficient improvements have been made is part of the argument. A lot of the other comes from Ned Ludd and will be, almost certainly be about as successful as last time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 12:53:12 GMT
I don't know much about railways but I agree, it must be safer to have 2 staff on a train rather than just 1. As I said though, it's not the responsibility of drivers or guards to set out procedures to ensure safety. They aren't responsible for this, it's not their job. If a change in procedure resulted in danger to staff then a strike would be in order. But nobody is saying this. The staff/ union are saying that the public would be put in danger. That's their opinion, the opinion of those running the company differ. FFS why don't the unions just state the truth? Safety is the responsibility of all staff - if a driver moves away with someone trapped in the doors believe me no one will initially look at the company directors to blame. Some of the reasons why Unions can't just state the whole truth is because of so called 'anti-strike legislation' - this may have impacted the recent court case between GTR (Southern) and ASLEF about ruling the strike legal/illegal as the case rested on infringement of European Law (I don't know enough about the relevant law to come to a conclusion). 'Spin' is always used by both sides in disputes like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 12:59:54 GMT
I am torn a bit in both directions on this one. I think that guardless (and eventually driverless) trains are probably inevitable (even more so than cars/trucks). The Docklands Light Railway has now been running very successfully for some time now with unmanned trains and there are other similar commuter systems round the world. However I have not seen any commitment to the level of investment that would be required to do this safely. Retaining manning levels with the present technology until sufficient improvements have been made is part of the argument. A lot of the other comes from Ned Ludd and will be, almost certainly be about as successful as last time. Just a small point; The DLR is only 'driverless' not unmanned, the onboard staff can and do drive the trains on a regular basis - the system would fall apart almost everyday if the onboard staff were not present. Mainly due to the way technology and the network has improved/grown over the years. If you were to build a railway from scratch now you could easily have completely unmanned trains.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 16, 2016 13:06:59 GMT
I am torn a bit in both directions on this one. I think that guardless (and eventually driverless) trains are probably inevitable (even more so than cars/trucks). The Docklands Light Railway has now been running very successfully for some time now with unmanned trains and there are other similar commuter systems round the world. However I have not seen any commitment to the level of investment that would be required to do this safely. Retaining manning levels with the present technology until sufficient improvements have been made is part of the argument. A lot of the other comes from Ned Ludd and will be, almost certainly be about as successful as last time. Just a small point; The DLR is only 'driverless' not unmanned, the onboard staff can and do drive the trains on a regular basis - the system would fall apart almost everyday if the onboard staff were not present. Mainly due to the way technology and the network has improved/grown over the years. If you were to build a railway from scratch now you could easily have completely unmanned trains. That is a surprise to me ..... I have been on DLR trains when there has been virtually nobody on the train except me ... I didn't notice any staff .... but then I wasn't looking for them there certainly was no one in the cab (such as it is) However I don't think it diminishes my argument much
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 13:21:44 GMT
That is a surprise to me ..... I have been on DLR trains when there has been virtually nobody on the train except me ... I didn't notice any staff .... but then I wasn't looking for them there certainly was no one in the cab (such as it is) However I don't think it diminishes my argument much It wasn't meant to diminish your argument, if anything it strengthens it. Being quite knowledgeable about the DLR I often use it as an example of how complex modernisation programs are. Beleive me there was a member of staff onboard otherwise the doors would not have closed. Edit - because the doors open automatically.
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Dec 16, 2016 16:00:32 GMT
Tis true m'lord.....there is a staff member aboard. They have to take over driving at certain sections of track and also during failures. init
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 16, 2016 16:15:11 GMT
I have travelled on the DLR and thought it to be rather bumpy and slow. Have also been on Copenhagen's driverless Metro which was better:
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Dec 16, 2016 16:16:15 GMT
And the DLR is not exactly fast. How would the commuters from Brighton feel if they had to travel at DLR speed.
|
|