UK union leader Bob Crow dead

(I wonder how many more people died on the roads on the days that the tube was hardly operating because of the strike over safety)
 
Yes, that invites conjecture. I would however tentatively suggest that the answer is above zero. While the RMT is not to be held legally liable for any secondary effects like that, in an ethical sense it should be factored into the calculus of the expected impact of their decision if it was based on safety. But one does not hear about that.

In that sense I suppose that it should also feature in the decision of LU to shut ticket offices ("If we do this, the RMT may strike, and there will be more road deaths"). One doesn't hear about that either.

IMO this all points to safety being a subsidiary reason for strikes (as it is for decisions about ticket office closures)
 
Going by that thinking, I'd suggest that the RMT's members clearly deserve large pay rises for the lives that they save by going to work every day. :rolleyes:
 
Francesca R said:
Yes, that invites conjecture. I would however tentatively suggest that the answer is above zero. While the RMT is not to be held legally liable for any secondary effects like that, in an ethical sense it should be factored into the calculus of the expected impact of their decision if it was based on safety. But one does not hear about that.

In that sense I suppose that it should also feature in the decision of LU to shut ticket offices ("If we do this, the RMT may strike, and there will be more road deaths"). One doesn't hear about that either.

IMO this all points to safety being a subsidiary reason for strikes (as it is for decisions about ticket office closures)
Click to expand...

Well you're entitled to your reasoning, however I would ask you to consider that assigning an ethical responsibility for a temporary risk increase in order to protest the possibility of a permanent risk increase seems arch.

Whether you personally consider the building to be burning from the outside, are you saying that someone viewing it to be burning from the inside should not alert others as it may cause a stampede?
 
Dissolution said:
Going by that thinking, I'd suggest that the RMT's members clearly deserve large pay rises for the lives that they save by going to work every day. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not relevant as far as I can tell. Calling a strike on the basis that it is to increase/prevent decrease in safety is not about asking for higher compensation for that, it's ostensibly about preventing the policy from going through.
 
Last edited:
Skepticemea said:
I would ask you to consider that assigning an ethical responsibility for a temporary risk increase in order to protest the possibility of a permanent risk increase seems arch.
Click to expand...
Arch?

If the strike is for safety (and no other reason), then the point is that the intended benefit to safety from successful outcome of the strike (= ticket offices stay open, presumably this is benefits safety relative to the alternative because the union doubts that staff reductions would not accompany their closure at some point) . . . should be weighed against any detrimental aspect to safety of having the tube mostly closed for 48+ hours.
 
Francesca R said:
Not relevant as far as I can tell. Calling a stike on the basis that it is to increase/prevent decrease in safety is not about asking for higher compensation for that, it's ostensibly about preventing the policy from going through.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could've applied that thinking to your original point?
Attempting to blame the RMT for road deaths while they're attempting to maintain or improve safety standards within their own area of the transport structure is the height of irrelevance.
 
Francesca R said:
Arch?

If the strike is for safety (and no other reason), then the point is that the intended benefit to safety from successful outcome of the strike (= ticket offices stay open, presumably this is benefits safety relative to the alternative because the union doubts that staff reductions would not accompany their closure at some point) . . . should be weighed against any detrimental aspect to safety of having the tube mostly closed for 48+ hours.
Click to expand...

"Arch" as in mischevious.

If, as you suggest, the RMT weigh the risk of striking to highlight safety issues, not only would a temporary increase of the risk of travelling by other means as a side-effect of their action, nominal or otherwise, show they have a point, but would also be outweighed by the permanent risk increase their striking is supposed to bring to light?

I don't see your "ethical" argument carrying any weight here. Also, assigning greater social responsibility to an industry union that exists for the protections of it's members rights and renumeration seems a little strange, especially considering those assigning that responsibility are almost always either outwith or against those unions.
 
Skepticemea said:
If, as you suggest, the RMT weigh the risk of striking to highlight safety issues
Click to expand...
To maintain safety, not merely highlight it. And it's not my suggestion, it was the RMT's published principal rationale for the strike(s)

not only would a temporary increase of the risk of travelling by other means as a side-effect of their action, nominal or otherwise, show they have a point, but would also be outweighed by the permanent risk increase their striking is supposed to bring to light?
Click to expand...
Do you know this? How? Who has considered it? Who has even analysed the safety impact of ticket office closures by itself?

I don't see your "ethical" argument carrying any weight here.
Click to expand...
If the basis for industrial action is ethical (safety, over and above job security and compensation), then ethical arguments must surely carry weight.

Also, assigning greater social responsibility to an industry union that exists for the protections of it's members rights and renumeration seems a little strange
Click to expand...
The RMT freely took on that social responsibility when it claimed that the primary reason for the strike action was its social responsibility (passenger safety). So why would it be strange to delve into that?
 
Last edited:
RMT and TSSA are striking and yet Boris Johnson claims that three out of four unions are doing the right thing?
That must be going on strike then, presumably.
 
TSSA are apparently striking to get more money, so they presumably think shutting ticket offices is fine.

London Underground want to create "unparalleled levels of face-to-face service" and "more staff visible on platforms". That's a pity since there are already too many staff IMO. 24 hour weekend operations is a great idea though. Can't see the unions taking that lying down when the time comes (I rather thought they'd like the network to close at weekends)
 
Well it isn't a claim.

But I am fairly sure that other metro systems have significantly fewer station staff (Paris, Madrid, NYC, Chicago are ones I've used in the last year or so)
 
Francesca R said:
Well it isn't a claim.

But I am fairly sure that other metro systems have significantly fewer station staff (Paris, Madrid, NYC, Chicago are ones I've used in the last year or so)
Click to expand...
Most of which are either significantly younger, and/or differently constructed, compared to the London Underground. Most are predominently - if not wholly - cut-and-cover, and thus have much less complex safety implications than London's deep tube tunnels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom