Arkady (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} integralthought) wrote,@ 2007-09-03 23:38:00 |
|
Thoughts from a former LUL employee
There seems to be some weird and wonderful misapprehensions out there as to the reasons for the strike actions on the Underground this week and proposed for next week, including some utter bollocks conspiracy theories.
I worked for London Underground for a number of years, reaching the rank of Line Controller on the District Line. I have been a member first of the RMT and then the TSSA after I grew disillusioned with the RMT in general and Bob Crow in particular; so I have extensive working knowledge of how LUL works and of the background to the strike action; I was working for LUL whilst "shadow running" of the PPP companies was in place and during the changeover period when PPP became operational.
The RMT union started a 72-hour strike at 18:00 hours today, in a row over pensions and job security following the collapse of Metronet.This strike isn't about Bob Crow vs The Establishment, though Crow (as per bloody usual) is trying to turn it into that. On Monday, Unite and the TSSA both said they would not go on strike after being given assurances; however the TSSA said its 360 members would take part in the second planned 72-hour strike, if a matter concerning pensions was not resolved. The unions have been seeking guarantees there will be no job losses, forced transfers or cuts in pensions as a result of Metronet's collapse in July, when it went into administration; however it transpires that the assurances given to the TSSA only cover the administration period.
Who are the TSSA? They're the only union that LUL allows employees to pay union fees to directly from their salaries; that's because it's the union that has more members of LUL management in than the RMT, ASLEF and Unison combined. That's why LUL pays attention if the TSSA decides something warrants strike action - because in effect, it's their own management telling them there is something very badly wrong. It was the TSSA who successfully campaigned for all of LUL's equality policies; the RMT were very much riding on the TSSA's coattails for that one, though they've tried to claim the credit for it ever since.
The unions never wanted PPP in the first place. All the Metronet and Tubelines employees working on the Underground were originally LUL employees; they had no say in the matter but instead were transferred over en masse to the PPP companies, whilst retaining such perks as staff passes and the right to apply for internal vacancies both within LUL and within TfL as a whole.
What the unions ideally want is for all Metronet employees to revert back to full employment within LUL and for all maintenance to be brought back in-house - in other words, to do away with PPP altogether. In this I support them fully; the LUL engineers were shamefully treated and had no say over being transferred to Metronet and Tubelines, and now Metronet has gone under they face a very uncertain future that they never asked for when first they joined LUL - some of these people started their careers as apprentices at the age of 15 and had been with LUL for over 30 years in some cases. All they want is an assurance that they will still have jobs when the administration period is over, and that their pensions will not be affected.
PPP was brought in by Gordon Brown however; and it is highly unlikely he will ever agree to its being abandoned; however the Metronet employeeshave already been quite shamefully treated once by having a transfer forcibly imposed upon them; is it really so wrong for them to be seeking assurances that this will not happen again and that their pensions will be protected?
Whilst I fully understand, sympathise with and agree with their reasons for action however, I don't agree with the way Bob Crow and the RMT have gone about voicing their complaints. Much has been made of the RMT members voting "overwhelmingly" for strike action; what they aren't telling you is that less than a third of the RMT members ballotted actually voted - so the strike action is actually being imposed on the majority by a minority, for instance. Bob Crow is also far too militant; he's a dinosaur relic of an era when the unions held far greater sway than they do now, and he wants to drag everyone back to the bad old days of the 70s - kicking and screaming if need be; and it is the people of London who have to suffer.
There seems to be some weird and wonderful misapprehensions out there as to the reasons for the strike actions on the Underground this week and proposed for next week, including some utter bollocks conspiracy theories.
I worked for London Underground for a number of years, reaching the rank of Line Controller on the District Line. I have been a member first of the RMT and then the TSSA after I grew disillusioned with the RMT in general and Bob Crow in particular; so I have extensive working knowledge of how LUL works and of the background to the strike action; I was working for LUL whilst "shadow running" of the PPP companies was in place and during the changeover period when PPP became operational.
The RMT union started a 72-hour strike at 18:00 hours today, in a row over pensions and job security following the collapse of Metronet.This strike isn't about Bob Crow vs The Establishment, though Crow (as per bloody usual) is trying to turn it into that. On Monday, Unite and the TSSA both said they would not go on strike after being given assurances; however the TSSA said its 360 members would take part in the second planned 72-hour strike, if a matter concerning pensions was not resolved. The unions have been seeking guarantees there will be no job losses, forced transfers or cuts in pensions as a result of Metronet's collapse in July, when it went into administration; however it transpires that the assurances given to the TSSA only cover the administration period.
Who are the TSSA? They're the only union that LUL allows employees to pay union fees to directly from their salaries; that's because it's the union that has more members of LUL management in than the RMT, ASLEF and Unison combined. That's why LUL pays attention if the TSSA decides something warrants strike action - because in effect, it's their own management telling them there is something very badly wrong. It was the TSSA who successfully campaigned for all of LUL's equality policies; the RMT were very much riding on the TSSA's coattails for that one, though they've tried to claim the credit for it ever since.
The unions never wanted PPP in the first place. All the Metronet and Tubelines employees working on the Underground were originally LUL employees; they had no say in the matter but instead were transferred over en masse to the PPP companies, whilst retaining such perks as staff passes and the right to apply for internal vacancies both within LUL and within TfL as a whole.
What the unions ideally want is for all Metronet employees to revert back to full employment within LUL and for all maintenance to be brought back in-house - in other words, to do away with PPP altogether. In this I support them fully; the LUL engineers were shamefully treated and had no say over being transferred to Metronet and Tubelines, and now Metronet has gone under they face a very uncertain future that they never asked for when first they joined LUL - some of these people started their careers as apprentices at the age of 15 and had been with LUL for over 30 years in some cases. All they want is an assurance that they will still have jobs when the administration period is over, and that their pensions will not be affected.
PPP was brought in by Gordon Brown however; and it is highly unlikely he will ever agree to its being abandoned; however the Metronet employeeshave already been quite shamefully treated once by having a transfer forcibly imposed upon them; is it really so wrong for them to be seeking assurances that this will not happen again and that their pensions will be protected?
Whilst I fully understand, sympathise with and agree with their reasons for action however, I don't agree with the way Bob Crow and the RMT have gone about voicing their complaints. Much has been made of the RMT members voting "overwhelmingly" for strike action; what they aren't telling you is that less than a third of the RMT members ballotted actually voted - so the strike action is actually being imposed on the majority by a minority, for instance. Bob Crow is also far too militant; he's a dinosaur relic of an era when the unions held far greater sway than they do now, and he wants to drag everyone back to the bad old days of the 70s - kicking and screaming if need be; and it is the people of London who have to suffer.
