Tube strike - if I were mayor

I should ban all cars and taxis from the congestion zone and bring in extra buses/coaches.

I should tell the Metronet workers to stuff their pensions and redundancies and take the opportunity to get rid of the lot of them and bring in a new, non-unionised team.

With the threat of two weeks of virtually constant tube disruption the Mayor had an ideal opportunity to pick a fight with the unions who hold London to ransom so outrageously.

Instead he tells them what they want to hear, and they strike anyway.

According to walkit.com by walking to work this morning I burned 300 calories, saving 0.34kg of CO2 had I gone by bus. It neglects to point out that I probably generated between 0.1 and 0.2kg of additional CO2.

The Mapmaker wrote:

I should ban all cars and taxis from the congestion zone and bring in extra buses/coaches.

The taxi drivers would be very angry! You dont want that lot against you if you're running for re-election! I think every bus possible was out there at rush hour but hiring more seems like a good idea.

The Mapmaker wrote:

I should tell the Metronet workers to stuff their pensions and redundancies and take the opportunity to get rid of the lot of them and bring in a new, non-unionised team.

That would be illegal.

The Mapmaker wrote:

Instead he tells them what they want to hear, and they strike anyway.

Showing that it wasn't really his fault.

The Mapmaker wrote:

According to walkit.com by walking to work this morning I burned 300 calories, saving 0.34kg of CO2 had I gone by bus. It neglects to point out that I probably generated between 0.1 and 0.2kg of additional CO2.

That doesnt mean the walking isnt the healthiest, greenest option though.

Neil wrote:

The taxi drivers would be very angry!

So what. There are ?10,000? of them. There are 3m tube commuters who are even angrier.

Quote:

You dont want that lot against you if you're running for re-election!

Proving that for a politician his political career is more important than the people whom he was elected to serve.

Neil wrote:

The Mapmaker wrote:

I should tell the Metronet workers ... bring in a new, non-unionised team.

That would be illegal.

Not necessarily. Metronet will not be the company servicing the tube. It would only be necessary for the new contractor not to take on the old staff en masse. Do you think that those people deserve jobs?

neil wrote:

The Mapmaker wrote:

Instead he tells them what they want to hear, and they strike anyway.

Showing that it wasn't really his fault.

Indeed. Showing that the union has no grounds for striking - surely YOUR boss would sack you if you didn't bother turning up to work for no reason.

There's nothing you can do if people strike (legally). You're protected by the right not to suffer detriment due to striking (except for not being paid for the days you strike). I just think this shows that the people that run the Union are either totally misinformed, or they are just out to cause trouble. They went on strike because they wanted their pensions etc guaranteed after administration, but who could guarantee that?

The unions just like holding London to ransom because it shows that the leaders have some power - they don't strike because it's going to get them anywhere, they strike either because their negotiation skills aren't up to much, or because they get a power trip out of it. As far as I'm aware, strikes don't benefit anyone, including the striking workers.

The Mapmaker wrote:

Neil wrote:

The Mapmaker wrote:

I should tell the Metronet workers ... bring in a new, non-unionised team.

That would be illegal.

Not necessarily. Metronet will not be the company servicing the tube. It would only be necessary for the new contractor not to take on the old staff en masse. Do you think that those people deserve jobs?

Actually, that would be illegal too. If the contract is outsourced by TFL, and if the work goes to a new contractor, then under the TUPE regulations, the metronet staff would have to be transferred to the new contractor.

I don't think it's fair to blame the staff - they are informed by their union and presumably trust the union to be looking out for their best interests.

The Mapmaker wrote:

Neil wrote:

The taxi drivers would be very angry!

So what. There are ?10,000? of them. There are 3m tube commuters who are even angrier.

But taxi drivers talk to a lot of customers / voters. It seems a bit unfair that they get penalised for something out of their control too.

The Mapmaker wrote:

Quote:

You dont want that lot against you if you're running for re-election!

Proving that for a politician his political career is more important than the people whom he was elected to serve.

No it doesnt prove that because it was only me that said it not Ken or anyone else running for mayor.

The Mapmaker wrote:

Neil wrote:

The Mapmaker wrote:

I should tell the Metronet workers ... bring in a new, non-unionised team.

That would be illegal.

Not necessarily. Metronet will not be the company servicing the tube. It would only be necessary for the new contractor not to take on the old staff en masse. Do you think that those people deserve jobs?

That is still illegal.

The Mapmaker wrote:

neil wrote:

The Mapmaker wrote:

Instead he tells them what they want to hear, and they strike anyway.

Showing that it wasn't really his fault.

Indeed. Showing that the union has no grounds for striking - surely YOUR boss would sack you if you didn't bother turning up to work for no reason.

Again nope - if the union had no grounds then it would have been declared an illegal action. I disagree with this strike but it was clearly legal.

So Neil you will stand up for the rights of striking tube drivers, cab drivers who impede buses, and politicians who bend over backwards not to irritate small but vocal groups. Yet you appear utterly, utterly dismissive of the discomfort of the remaining 9.99m Londoners.

And I don't know the exact nature of Metronet's relationship with the tube, but if I sack Arthur Andersen who have gone bankrupt and take on KPMG then TUPE does not apply to the staff even if they move to KPMG. It does not have to be illegal.

I remain bemused as to why striking workers are protected by legislation. If employers are in breach of contract then workers can resort to the courts. If not, then workers can find themselves another job.

The Mapmaker wrote:

So Neil you will stand up for the rights of striking tube drivers, cab drivers who impede buses, and politicians who bend over backwards not to irritate small but vocal groups. Yet you appear utterly, utterly dismissive of the discomfort of the remaining 9.99m Londoners.

No, I was simply pointing out where your proposals would fall foul of the law (and also that it seemed a bit harsh on taxi drivers). I did state that I was against the strike. I didnt say anything about other Lononders (as it happens my sympathies lie with them) so I dont know why you would read that conclusion into my comments.

The Mapmaker wrote:

And I don't know the exact nature of Metronet's relationship with the tube, but if I sack Arthur Andersen who have gone bankrupt and take on KPMG then TUPE does not apply to the staff even if they move to KPMG. It does not have to be illegal.

It really would be illegal to do what you propose for the Metronet workers - google TUPE to see why if you dont believe me.

The Mapmaker wrote:

I remain bemused as to why striking workers are protected by legislation. If employers are in breach of contract then workers can resort to the courts. If not, then workers can find themselves another job.

The right to strike is a fairly fundamental and basic workers' right. I think it has been mis-used in this instance but removing the right to strike would be a step even Margaret Thatcher didnt try (though her government did make many changes which make it quite difficult to call a strike legally).

>>The right to strike is a fairly fundamental and basic workers' right.

With rights (should!) come responsibilities. Striking workers should be denied their 'rights' as a result of ignoring their responsibilities.

>>illegal

Yes, you are apparently correct. Which appears to mean that if I contract with Marie Ltd for Marie and her sister (sole employees of Marie Ltd) to clean my house three mornings a week (sole contract of Marie Ltd), and they are no good... so I contract with Joyce to do the cleaning instead, Joyce has to employ Marie and her sister to continue the cleaning.

>cabbies

It is harsh on cabbies (although if I were mayor I should halve - or more - the number of cabs on the road between 7 am and 7pm for they only cause congestion; why they should be entitled to use bus lanes and be exempt the congestion charge is beyond me) but it would be helpful for the rest of us.

? wot? am i living in the same city? i think we need more cabs not less, and yes get them in the bus lane, so they can fly by and get to the destinations fast (esp on the way to the airport)

helpful to the rest of us in wot way?