Originally Posted by Recce19

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

Originally Posted by organiccomposition

well driving a train isn't rocket science is it - you only have to go in a straight line and stay awake from boredom to stop at the station on time. Yet you seem to think we all owe you a living and a high salary at £30k plus a year for a job that a child could do. So am sorry if you throw your toys out just coz you dont get a pay rise this year - i don't give a fcuk and couldnt care less if you had to sign on the dole next week coz you didnt wanna work under such harsh conditions having to sit in a warm cab drinking a flask of coffee. - if it was my choice, i'd sack the lot of you and give the jobs to people who acually want to work and take pride in just having a job during the current climate :P

go on then get a job as a train driver mate, beat the 3000 applicants for every job to interview, pass the interview then be the one in 25 who get that far who can pass the pyschometric tests, then pass a years training and the volumes of rule books involved and then take responsibility for 100's of lives where a mistake leads to disaster and a manslaughter charge, then do every friggin hour god sends doing it


then you can voice an opinion about something which you obviously know sod all about, there is more to it than you o level qualification in beret shaping mate

You probably don't know the answer but I find that figure odd - and I did my Masters Degree dissertation on the use of psychometric testing for ATO selection. Got a source for the figure?

R-M, it does have a high fail rate. The problem is, is that no-one is actually told their results; just pass or fail. On top of this, the results are held on a central database that is only acceccable bt thr rail companies themselves.

As a further annoyance to some, you are only allowed three attempts. Each attempt must have a gap of six moonths in between and again, all is recorded. You could have all the attempts and fail with company 'A' and then go to company 'B', but they will tell you not a chance, as you ahve used all your goes.

The pyschometric tests were nly valid for two years, but about a year (or more?) ago they were extended to five years.[/quote]

Cheers mate - I did a bit of research myself and came up with this.

http://www.rodge.force9.co.uk/faq/driver.html

They make sense to me! :D

Originally Posted by angular

Another bunch of tw@ts who think the country owes them a living, and there's a bottomless pit of money somewhere that'll pay their bills for them.

Do you think that it is a good idea to reduce maintanance of the railwway infrastructure? I don't.

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

Originally Posted by Recce19

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

Originally Posted by organiccomposition

well driving a train isn't rocket science is it - you only have to go in a straight line and stay awake from boredom to stop at the station on time. Yet you seem to think we all owe you a living and a high salary at £30k plus a year for a job that a child could do. So am sorry if you throw your toys out just coz you dont get a pay rise this year - i don't give a fcuk and couldnt care less if you had to sign on the dole next week coz you didnt wanna work under such harsh conditions having to sit in a warm cab drinking a flask of coffee. - if it was my choice, i'd sack the lot of you and give the jobs to people who acually want to work and take pride in just having a job during the current climate :P

go on then get a job as a train driver mate, beat the 3000 applicants for every job to interview, pass the interview then be the one in 25 who get that far who can pass the pyschometric tests, then pass a years training and the volumes of rule books involved and then take responsibility for 100's of lives where a mistake leads to disaster and a manslaughter charge, then do every friggin hour god sends doing it


then you can voice an opinion about something which you obviously know sod all about, there is more to it than you o level qualification in beret shaping mate

You probably don't know the answer but I find that figure odd - and I did my Masters Degree dissertation on the use of psychometric testing for ATO selection. Got a source for the figure?

R-M, it does have a high fail rate. The problem is, is that no-one is actually told their results; just pass or fail. On top of this, the results are held on a central database that is only acceccable bt thr rail companies themselves.

As a further annoyance to some, you are only allowed three attempts. Each attempt must have a gap of six moonths in between and again, all is recorded. You could have all the attempts and fail with company 'A' and then go to company 'B', but they will tell you not a chance, as you ahve used all your goes.

The pyschometric tests were nly valid for two years, but about a year (or more?) ago they were extended to five years.

Cheers mate - I did a bit of research myself and came up with this.

http://www.rodge.force9.co.uk/faq/driver.html

They make sense to me! :D[/quote]

Just to add to information in the link, for those interested in the process

All the tests bar the memory test, are carried out on a computer now. The dots test is mind numbing and is probably the longest 10 minutes of your life :D.

Having also completed the German versions, I found them to be harder or more intense. The concentration one alone, is a solid half hour and it's difficult to keep the eyes focused on the screen contents. The memory test is also handled differently. You are given some information to memorise by reading. Having done so, you would expect the questions to come next - as in the UK version, but another three tests have to be completed first and then memory test quetsions come.

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Believe me, unions don't start strikes on a whim, but for concrete reasons.

Concrete reasons like a pi$$ing contest between a union baron who scents a new golden age of industrial militancy and the CEO of a major airline who has a chip on his shoulder about being a fekkin' dwarf?

That might be the simplistic reason as you see it, Ancient_Mariner, in order to make a point, but there are underlying reasons for the strike that have a lot to do with pay (i.e. fully three-quarters of cabin staff earn under £20,000 per year, and not the almost £30,000 put out for propaganda purposes) and conditions and, crucially, compromising the safety of passengers for profit.

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Originally Posted by Bugsy

It's all too easy to forget that without trade unions, most folks would be working 16 hours a day, six days a week with no annual hols.

That doesn't happen in socialist paradises like North Korea where unions are illegal and it wouldn't happen here.

You're exaggerating but your basic point is sound. The unions did good work in combating the excesses of unfettered capitalism up until about the 1960s. The likes of Arthur Scargill undid all of that good work in a few years during the 1970s.

It may sound like exaggeration, but it’s not. I’d go even further and suggest that without unions the number of industrial deaths would be very high indeed, since it’s easier to just hire a replacement worker than go to the trouble and, crucially, the expense of installing safety equipment.

Of course, there were times when trade unions kicked the arrse out of it a bit, but Scargill’s biggest “crime� was to question the arrogant dominance of industry bosses who didn’t want lowly workers inconveniently pissing on their chips and trying to impart some sort of humane aspect to the work they had to do to earn a livelihood for their families. These bosses were the ones that awful cow Thatcher was pandering to, so she put everything into carrying out their bidding. However, there are two questions here, the answers to which could start folks thinking on their own, instead of relying on the rags to provide them with "impartial" details about unions and strikes in general.
1. Why were unions necessary in the first place?
2. Why are unions still necessary in the 21st Century?
And an additional question: when was the last time you heard of a management board going on strike because of low pay and intolerable conditions?

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Originally Posted by Bugsy

There aren't nearly enough working folks organised into unions as there should be.

"as there should be." AS THERE FEKKIN SHOULD BE? And who gets to decide which unwilling 'working folks' get conscripted into the union against their will? The ruling classes at at the TUC? Their elders and betters at whatever union has the franchise at their place of work? Do you have a closed shop - back to paying off the shop steward every week if you want to keep your job?

Closed shops were a failed attempt by the unions to present a united front in the war (for a war it is) against the dehumanisation/commoditisation of workers. The more folks who see that the unions can effectively represent them and win victories in the ongoing battle to improve pay, conditions and towards an equitable relationship with management, the more will join of their own accord.

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Originally Posted by Bugsy

…including workers having a direct say in the running of their companies - something which should be their right.

You are the ghost of Michael Foot and I claim my ten shillings. Did you write Labour's 1983 manifesto? 'Cos that was one of the main policy announcements. All boards of directors of UK companies to be replaced by a worker's cooperative.

There may have been a time in the distant past when management really did know better. That time, however, has long passed, only management doesn’t want to admit it. The Boxheeds started the ball rolling in this direction over 30 years ago with their workers' committees and workers' representation on any management board. Considering the fact that workers are putting their livelihoods in the hands of these folks in management, they have a right to have a say in how the company is run be privy to a first-hand assessment of how good or bad management is.

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

At this point, I was going to conclude my post with some smart arrsed comments about dinosaurs and Jurassic Park. However, I read that nearly 100 union officials are being parachuted into safe, Labour seats for the election in May. Many, like Jack Dromey (aka Mr Harriet Harman) are from the ultra left of the union movement.

You're not the past Bugsy, you're the future.

The very fact that unions still have to fight for even the most basic of amenities and conditions at the end of the first decade of the 21st Century is sad evidence that the entrenched basic attitude of management hasn’t changed in two centuries. There is, today, even less recognition of the fact that work has a vital societal element in that folks have no other choice but to do it in order to maintain their livelihoods. They shouldn't be used as pawns to boost or improve profits for shareholders. That, for me, is the most significant connection between the past and the future.

MsG

Another thing about unions and the usual retoric against them, is how many of these anti-union people turn down their (non-self negotiated) annual pay rise and do not accept the improvements to their terms and comditions?

Unless you have to ask as an individual for a pay rise, then this, in most cases, has been negotiated for you by a union. A good union works with companies and not against them. Strikes or threat of industrial action, are the final straw and are no taken lightly by all involved. H&S is also union represented and again, the reps work with the company, to make for a safer environment for the workers.

Remember, a company is there to make a profit for it's share holders and will not award a pay rise just for the sake of it.

My son woks for Rail Track as a Tree Cutter/ Climber, very qualified and with his team keeps the track-side clear from overhanging trees and brush. He is a member of the union...it's part of the job. However as he freely admits he has no choice as to whether or not to go on strike...the union demands and he must obey.

Don't get anti ...that's how it is in the real world.

Rail Track is asking for a 1500 man cut, principally amongst its long standing workforce. Most of whom are deadwood inherited. My son who is a highly qualified new-comer is naturally concerned for his job. It seems, although not confirmed, that this long term deadwood will be given priority when it comes to a "clearing out" by Railtrack. ie: Highly trained specialists will go to make way for deadbeats, who will be trained to take the place of of the already trained!

As we all find out when we leave the services.............all is not as black and white as we perceive it.

Shagnasty, there is no requirement to join a union, neither must your son strike. The problem would be apparent if he didn't, once the dispute is resolved. Having to work with colleagues who struck/striked (?) and all the finacial hardships that entailed, would be difficult to say the least. Afterall, any union member who sis not strike, would still benefit from any 'positive' outcome.

Having been involved in union activity as a H&S rep, I see membership as an insurance scheme. I am not militant, far from it! I have though, seen how a national rail company lies to its workforce, about what was said in meetings that I was invlved in. There are always two sides to an arguement and not what the press reports.

On a final note, I wish your son luck and hope he keeps his job.

Originally Posted by Recce19

Shagnasty, there is no requirement to join a union, neither must your son strike. The problem would be apparent if he didn't, once the dispute is resolved. Having to work with colleagues who struck/striked (?) and all the finacial hardships that entailed, would be difficult to say the least. Afterall, any union member who sis not strike, would still benefit from any 'positive' outcome.

Having been involved in union activity as a H&S rep, I see membership as an insurance scheme. I am not militant, far from it! I have though, seen how a national rail company lies to its workforce, about what was said in meetings that I was invlved in. There are always two sides to an arguement and not what the press reports.

On a final note, I wish your son luck and hope he keeps his job.

Thanks for that.

Following earlier post. It would seem that the union is complicate in this pact. Can anyone explain to me why long serving "deadwood" should have priority over newly engaged professionals? Equally union members??/?

Then again, has anyone ever discerned equality in any union????

Originally Posted by shagnasty

Following earlier post. It would seem that the union is complicate in this pact. Can anyone explain to me why long serving "deadwood" should have priority over newly engaged professionals? Equally union members??/?

Then again, has anyone ever discerned equality in any union????

Good questions.

It depends which 'side' is pushing the for 'deadwood' to stay. I would assume/hope, that the union(s) is holding out for no redundancies whatsoever. The company will be looking purely at figures ie. who is cheaper to get rid of.

Who has attatched the 'deadwood' label? If it's company, then I would be suspicious. If it's the union(s), then I would be very dissapointed.

Company Councils (union bods that do the negotiating), tread a very fine line between being seen as militant, always being anti anything the company proposes and being seen by their members as being in the company's pocket. I have witnessed first hand, where it has 'gone wrong'.

The union I was involved with (Aslef), seemed to, especially at top level, try to work with the companies. Another problem encountered, is senior management with abslutely no railway knowledge and they are the stumbling blocks, as they purely look at tables and figures, with no understanding of how things work.