UK union leader Bob Crow dead

The Economist has an obituary-style article (not in the obituary section): http://www.economist.com/news/brita...and-militant-trade-unionist-dies-last-walkout

What will happen to his union now? The RMT is sure to remain powerful—as London’s economic might grows, the chaos a union can cause on its transport network grows too. Politicians and transport chiefs, who greeted their old opponent’s death with genuine sadness, may yet miss him: his replacement could prove more militant, says Christian Wolmar, an expert on Britain’s railways. Yet without Mr Crow’s voice, Britain’s other unions may accelerate their transformation into campaigning and mutual-aid organisations
Click to expand...
 
I think it is unfair to characterise Mr Crowe as having only his members interests at heart. Much of his campaigning was against policies he believed -rightly or wrongly depending on who you ask- to be lowering standards of safetyfor passengers. Evenwhen it would seem benificial to some members. Unfortunately I will refrain from commenting on individual policies to steer well clear of anything that might remotely touch on the social media policy of various companies. I will simply say he thought of a wider picture than some may credit him.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I think it is unfair to characterise Mr Crowe as having only his members interests at heart. Much of his campaigning was against policies he believed -rightly or wrongly depending on who you ask- to be lowering standards of safetyfor passengers. Evenwhen it would seem benificial to some members. Unfortunately I will refrain from commenting on individual policies to steer well clear of anything that might remotely touch on the social media policy of various companies. I will simply say he thought of a wider picture than some may credit him.
Click to expand...


Fair - but only up to a point, in my opinion.

My belief is that Crow often used the safety argument as a smokescreen to disguise, excuse and justify his real aims, and to give the impression that his demands had some sort of wider moral purpose.

To take it to a reductio ad absurdum, one can argue that it's in the passengers' best safety interests to have in every carriage on every train/tube a well-paid guard who has paramedic training. One could present this as a "safety" argument.

There's ALWAYS a trade-off between safety, risk and economic realities. For example (again, slightly ad absurdum for effect) airlines could spend millions and millions putting powered ejector mechanisms in civil airlines to potentially enable passengers to eject and parachute to earth in the event of mechanical failure at cruising altitude. But even though such systems could probably be designed and implemented, and even though clearly they might save lives at some point, the costs and disruption vastly outweigh the "moral" arguments.

I think Crow knew full well that many (if not most) of his "safety" arguments had ulterior motives. The employers and their shareholders knew/know full well their safety obligations - and the potential ramifications (commercial, reputational, loss-of-franchise) of serious safety breaches. And there is plenty of enforceable legislation to protect passengers and ensure a high - but reasonable - standard of safety.
 
LondonJohn said:
Fair - but only up to a point, in my opinion.

My belief is that Crow often used the safety argument as a smokescreen to disguise, excuse and justify his real aims, and to give the impression that his demands had some sort of wider moral purpose.

To take it to a reductio ad absurdum, one can argue that it's in the passengers' best safety interests to have in every carriage on every train/tube a well-paid guard who has paramedic training. One could present this as a "safety" argument.

There's ALWAYS a trade-off between safety, risk and economic realities. For example (again, slightly ad absurdum for effect) airlines could spend millions and millions putting powered ejector mechanisms in civil airlines to potentially enable passengers to eject and parachute to earth in the event of mechanical failure at cruising altitude. But even though such systems could probably be designed and implemented, and even though clearly they might save lives at some point, the costs and disruption vastly outweigh the "moral" arguments.

I think Crow knew full well that many (if not most) of his "safety" arguments had ulterior motives. The employers and their shareholders knew/know full well their safety obligations - and the potential ramifications (commercial, reputational, loss-of-franchise) of serious safety breaches. And there is plenty of enforceable legislation to protect passengers and ensure a high - but reasonable - standard of safety.
Click to expand...

That's very true. He even tried to claim that strikes over reduction in ticket office staff were over safety. I can't think of a single situation in which having staff sat behind a glass panel in a separate room would make you safer.
 
Primus said:
That's very true. He even tried to claim that strikes over reduction in ticket office staff were over safety. I can't think of a single situation in which having staff sat behind a glass panel in a separate room would make you safer.
Click to expand...

Really? You can't imagine a situation where having a manned tube or train station would be beneficial to someone in a dangerous situation or one where they're having health problems?

Remember that these staff weren't being moved to other areas, as TFL claimed, as there were hundreds of jobs being lost.
 
Dissolution said:
Really? You can't imagine a situation where having a manned tube or train station would be beneficial to someone in a dangerous situation or one where they're having health problems?

Remember that these staff weren't being moved to other areas, as TFL claimed, as there were hundreds of jobs being lost.
Click to expand...

Not if they're in a ticket office no. Has there ever been a single incident of a TFL staff member bursting out of the ticket office and intervening in a mugging?

The fact is that most people don't use the ticket office any more so it didn't make sense to have the same staffing levels as there was in the offices before Oyster was introduced.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Much of his campaigning was against policies he believed -rightly or wrongly depending on who you ask- to be lowering standards of safetyfor passengers. Evenwhen it would seem benificial to some members.
Click to expand...
Can you cite an industrial cause that Bob Crow took the RMT to action about which was in the interest of passengers and contrary to the interest of union members?
 
Dissolution said:
Really? You can't imagine a situation where having a manned tube or train station would be beneficial to someone in a dangerous situation or one where they're having health problems?
Click to expand...
Misrepresentation. Eliminating ticket offices does not result in stations being "unmanned"

(Incidentally there are *lots* of staff around tube stations now and they are very helpful. Of course it makes the service expensive too)
 
One of the real problems the Labor party has had in the U.K. is balancing the good of the nation as a whole agains the good for the members of a particular union. "Feathebedding" (keeping people employed even when their jobs are really not that useful to the company or the governement Agency) seems to be a bad habit of many Unions in the UK.
 
Francesca R said:
If Crow acted against members' interests, he would probably have been removed from the position of general secretary.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Nearly every successful politician or elected leader knows that the primary skill set (and focus) of a politician or elected representative is to get elected and to get re-elected. Ideology without power is (in the eyes of many people who go into politics or posts requiring election) worth very little.

And this factor was, in my opinion, extremely heavily in play with Crow. I think that near the top of his agenda was the protection and strengthening of his own position (and that of his allies beneath and around him). I believe that his public visibility was a significant and very deliberate part of this strategy, and I believe that his "crusade" for safety was part and parcel of that.

As you sagely pointed out, it almost goes without saying that Crow never campaigned for a "safety" issue that did not also directly benefit his own members. I believe that his carefully-planned strategy was to be viewed by his members as someone who not only fought their corner, but also as someone who had high moral values and who was recognised in the wider public arena as such.
 
Francesca R said:
Misrepresentation. Eliminating ticket offices does not result in stations being "unmanned"

(Incidentally there are *lots* of staff around tube stations now and they are very helpful. Of course it makes the service expensive too)
Click to expand...


Yes. How pleasant it is to have groups of LU employees milling around in Central London tube station ticket lobbies. Just in case of an "emergency" or dozens of travellers simultaneously all requiring assistance or information.

Well worth another 10-15p on the price of each tube journey, wouldn't you say.... :rolleyes:
 
Francesca R said:
Can you cite an industrial cause that Bob Crow took the RMT to action about which was in the interest of passengers and contrary to the interest of union members?
Click to expand...

Not specific causes due to the reasons mentioned previously. So once again, I am not trying to offer insight on if Crow was right or wrong with any statement or policy, but just thinking about how he might have reached his opinions: In general terms the response to the McNulty report and such has been portrayed by some as being only in the interest of members because it is seen to be fighting to protect jobs. But those same arguments do not protect other interests. The number of track patrols can be seen in terms of job numbers, but also in terms of how many man hours are spent on lines open to traffic over working over night with the electricity of. There are other interests a union represents and protects than job numbers.

I do not dispute that often, more often than not, these interests aligned. But there were times when policies were informed almost entirely by his perception of not too distant tragedies and incidents, the kind the union could hardly ignore, regardless of that was in the interest of some groups of members.

Given that the RMT covers not only maintenance staff, train operating companies and the variety of contractors in the industry perhaps it is worth pointing out that something that was in the interest of one group of members may have no effect, or a negative effect, on other members. Asking if a policy benefits members is not always a simple question.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes. How pleasant it is to have groups of LU employees milling around in Central London tube station ticket lobbies. Just in case of an "emergency" or dozens of travellers simultaneously all requiring assistance or information.

Well worth another 10-15p on the price of each tube journey, wouldn't you say.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Sorry, but why is the word emergency in quotations there? Are you implying the word should be read sarcastically?

If so, could you explain what percentage of the staff you think would be required to evacuate a station, respond to a medical emergency, to keep an eye on the number of rush hour passengers, or in general fulfil their duties in a safe and responsible manner?
 
Tomtomkent said:
There are other interests a union represents and protects than job numbers.
Click to expand...
No argument with that, which was why the question was if the RMT had ever acted contrary to member interests. Strictly it is probably always the case, for example, that reducing staff levels also decreases safety ex-ante. But it's not as if Mr Crow ever lobbied for massive increases in staff numbers (with concomitant dilution of wage/salary levels for incumbents) in order to better safeguard travellers. (I would expect that his policies were mostly geared to maintaining or strengthening barriers to entry in respect of employment by London Underground, but I don't know)
 
Francesca R said:
Your story seems to be three and a half years earlier than the ticket office issue.
Click to expand...

Or rather before the issue was balloted for action. The issue has been there for a considerable time and has been subject of much debate among unions IIRC. Not just in London but on the national rail network as well.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Sorry, but why is the word emergency in quotations there? Are you implying the word should be read sarcastically?

If so, could you explain what percentage of the staff you think would be required to evacuate a station, respond to a medical emergency, to keep an eye on the number of rush hour passengers, or in general fulfil their duties in a safe and responsible manner?
Click to expand...


Yes, that was my implication.

The probability of a genuine serious emergency occurring in any given tube station, where the instant availability of numerous LU staff would make any significant difference to the outcome, is so small as to be almost negligible. And in case it had escaped your notice, there is an army of dedicated first responders (in the form of police, fire and ambulance personnel and equipment) available within a very short time frame if there ever is any sort of significant emergency.

In my opinion, it's a provable fact - in a good-business-sense-while-covering-off-passenger-safety-apropriately sense - that all central London tube stations are grossly overmanned most of the time. The overwhelming majority of situations requiring staff intervention concern either individual passenger illness or accidents, or criminal acts of some kind. In either case, it takes no more than one or two members of staff to attend.

Look: if there were a manned ambulance, police car and fire engine on every single street corner in London 24 hours a day, I can say with certainty that the safety and welfare of the general public would be improved relative to how it is now. QED..............
 
Tomtomkent said:
Or rather before the issue was balloted for action. The issue has been there for a considerable time and has been subject of much debate among unions IIRC. Not just in London but on the national rail network as well.
Click to expand...


And TFL's position was - and is - that the most sensible business practice is to have only one or two staff on duty in normal circumstances in the smaller tube stations. Not to have none. The TFL internal document was discussing the issue that under such a strategy, there may be occasions when sickness* or shift handovers result in there being short-term periods where these sorts of stations are unmanned. The TFL position appears to be that while having no staff is undesirable, it's acceptable if it is a relatively rare occurrence.


* I wonder what the "sickness" absence rates are among LU staff? I wonder if they are significantly higher than in similar non-publicly-owned businesses? What do you think? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom