Tube workers to get 52 days holiday a year

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
What letter was that? Do you have a copy?

It was leaked to a few news agencies, I'll have a look and find it.

Former Member

Here we go;

"The anti-trade union laws prohibit secondary picketing so we will have no other option but to refuse to work on the grounds of health and safety."

The story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3502581.stm

But I get the impression that you think the union is never in the wrong and all bosses are evil, so whats the point in debating.

Former Member

No, I don't always support unions. But I am on the side of the workers and not the bosses.

Former Member

But the bosses are workers too, the distinction is particulalry hard to motivate in the public sector......

Former Member

The tube is not public sector anymore is it?

Former Member

Even then, the bosses i.e. management etc are workers are they not?

Former Member

The bosses job is to increase profit.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
The bosses job is to increase profit.

Yes? But are they workers?

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
The bosses job is to increase profit.

As is the ordinary worker, both are paid a wage to make profit for the owners, both are workers..........

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
Yes? But are they workers?

Well if the boss also has a financial stake in the company, then no, not strictly. They are an owner.

Former Member

Originally posted by Toadborg
As is the ordinary worker, both are paid a wage to make profit for the owners, both are workers..........

Yes, but a worker and a boss might have slightly different interests you see. A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes, but a worker and a boss might have slightly different interests you see. A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

Both of them have a legal responsibility to do their job, and both of them want to make the most money they can.

Its no where near as black and white as you're suggesting.

Former Member

Yes, I'm simplifying it. I don't have time to write a 10,000 word dissertation on the subject at the moment. But this worker/boss conflict is the key to understanding capitalism and class struggle.

Former Member

You should read Eat The Rich by P J O'Rourke, you probably wont agree with him, but he's very very funny anyway.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes, but a worker and a boss might have slightly different interests you see. A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

There are different interests I admit, and it is complicated by power dynamics but I do think it is wrong to label mgt as doing the owners bidding, there are mnay cases where they do not.......

Former Member

Originally posted by Londonboy
Omg what is going on here these overpaid glorified bus drivers are getting so many good deals whilst nurses and teachers are still at the bottom the governments priority list.

If you are going to make a complaint, perhaps you should know the reality rather than the media approach.

Teachers are currently going through a re-evaluation and redesign of their roles which should help reduce some of the pressures placed upon them, this will remove some of the tasks which they are currently asked to perform and which appear to have little impact on their time with pupils (other than to reduce it!)…

Nurses are currently having their pay scales and leave entitilment changed with both likely to increase. This process, know as Agenda for Change, is affecting all NHS employees and has been ongoing for about a year now.

Originally posted by Kentish
Doctors are now subject to the European working time directive, which has meant changes to working practices, rest periods and pay. Doctors have no choice but to accept these changes (most of which are desirable, but not all) because doctors could never strike, or even work to rule.

Hmmm not strictly true.

Firstly most junior doctors are in support for the WTD becuase it makes their lives much easier. It's causing hospitals huge prblems though.

Secondly doctors are more than capable of working to rule and do. Many PCTs are finding this a particular problem since the new GP contract came into force because it didn't covers some basic apects of patient care, such as arranging transport for vulnerable patients to initial outpatient appointment, removal of stitches. Both of those examples of something which GPs have always done...

Originally posted by Blagsta
A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

A narrow minded boss may see the conflict between the two, just as a narrow minded employee might. Good bosses/employee see that the two are inherently linked.

Also worth noting that the boss, even as an owner, would want good conditions etc for himself He’s just in a better position to influence relevant decisions.

As a manager, who is also an employee, I know that flexibility works both ways and I cannot expect my staff to put in the extra time when it’s necessary if I don’t offer them the same courtesy when they need time out. For example.

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Hmmm not strictly true.

Firstly most junior doctors are in support for the WTD becuase it makes their lives much easier. It's causing hospitals huge problems though.

Perhaps, but it has meant large pay cuts for some juniors and changed trusts' attitudes to rest periods and provisions such as oncall rooms. And just because something makes your life easier doesn't mean you would strike for it - it has caused a hoo-har amongst surgical trainees who are seeing their opportunities to train being cut significantly. Not all junior doctors want shorter hours

Secondly doctors are more than capable of working to rule and do. Many PCTs are finding this a particular problem since the new GP contract came into force because it didn't covers some basic apects of patient care, such as arranging transport for vulnerable patients to initial outpatient appointment, removal of stitches. Both of those examples of something which GPs have always done...

Not really the same. GPs are not doing OOH etc because they don't have to under the terms of the contract which was negotiated on their behalf with the government...so they aren't working to rule out of protest, just providing the service for which they are contracted.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
Perhaps, but it has meant large pay cuts for some juniors and changed trusts' attitudes to rest periods and provisions such as oncall rooms. And just because something makes your life easier doesn't mean you would strike for it - it has caused a hoo-har amongst surgical trainees who are seeing their opportunities to train being cut significantly. Not all junior doctors want shorter hours

Must admit some concern about training opportunities generally.

Can you help with with the rest though

• If they aren't working so many hours, why should they still be paid the same amount? The Trust has to employ extra staff to cover...
  
• Rest periods form part of the new contract, don't they. What is the problem here, can you say?
  
• With regards on-call rooms, why should they be there?

GPs are not doing OOH etc because they don't have to under the terms of the contract which was negotiated on their behalf with the government...so they aren't working to rule out of protest, just providing the service for which they are contracted.

Sorry wasn't talking about OOH because this was something specified within the contract. A right which GPs are exercising and any PCT who has a problem with GPs doing that needs an ass kicking IMHO.

I'm talking about basic patient care which isn't specified in the contract and therefore some GPs (a minority) are refusing to offer patients this care unless they are paid extra for it. Even though they have been providing a service for years. Believe me, GPs will work to rule if they want to... [/exasperation]

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Must admit some concern about training opportunities generally.

Can you help with with the rest though

• If they aren't working so many hours, why should they still be paid the same amount? The Trust has to employ extra staff to cover...

Of course, but who in their right mind would strike for a pay cut?

[*] Rest periods form part of the new contract, don't they. What is the problem here, can you say?

[*] With regards on-call rooms, why should they be there?

I can only speak of what I've read in the medical press - particularly from surgeons and anaethetists who still have back-to-back day/night shifts, and at night may have a lot of "down time" which one could argue requires a room to rest in so they can be in a reasonable condition when they do get bleeped to the ward. Full shift patterns don't eliminate the problem of tired doctors because the shifts are erratic and often unpredictable.

I'm talking about basic patient care which isn't specified in the contract and therefore some GPs (a minority) are refusing to offer patients this care unless they are paid extra for it. Even though they have been providing a service for years. Believe me, GPs will work to rule if they want to... [/exasperation]

OK a minority will work according to the contract, but I can't see it being an issue to strike or work-to-rule over for the majoirty. I think you underestimate the integrity of most doctors there.

ETA: if the contract states that they should be paid for providing a particular service, why should they not claim the remuneration to which they are entitled? Declining to provide extra services and working to rule are not the same thing in that case. It is usually not a case of doctors choosing to provide fewer services because they are not getting paid, but sticking to core services which they can reasonably provide with their current staffing and resources.

Former Member

Someone was suggesting earlier in the thread that the drivers and unions' attitude compromised safety. The opposite is in fact the truth. When it comes to public transport, trains and Underground in particular, you will find that a very good proportion of recent strikes or threat to strike have been directly linked to safety procedures. If it weren't for the unions and the drivers, safety in the Underground would be much worse than it is.

Bosses on the other hand, especially if they're running the network for profit, put safety rather low on their list of priorties, well below profits and share dividends.

Former Member

since the PPP

some of the track inspecitons have fallen to once every 3 nights instead of every night

this was just before the central and northern line derailments strangely enough

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
Of course, but who in their right mind would strike for a pay cut?

People who didn't understand the consequences of dropping their hours. Surely they didn't expect to have their cake and the cream on top.

I can only speak of what I've read in the medical press - particularly from surgeons and anaethetists who still have back-to-back day/night shifts, and at night may have a lot of "down time" which one could argue requires a room to rest in so they can be in a reasonable condition when they do get bleeped to the ward. Full shift patterns don't eliminate the problem of tired doctors because the shifts are erratic and often unpredictable.

If those doctors are still being asked to do their shift then I would recommend that they make a stance. I agree that they should not be doing those shifts and IMHO it compromises patient safety. I would agree that if they are doing such shift then they should have a room overnight.

However, if they a doing a night shift alone then they should be on the wards (for example) and not asleep.

As for the erratic shifts, I can only refer to nurses who have always been expected to do the same thing and would also point to other workers who do split shifts like this...

ETA: if the contract states that they should be paid for providing a particular service, why should they not claim the remuneration to which they are entitled? Declining to provide extra services and working to rule are not the same thing in that case. It is usually not a case of doctors choosing to provide fewer services because they are not getting paid, but sticking to core services which they can reasonably provide with their current staffing and resources.

It's not about what was specified in the contract but rather about the definition of one aspect of the contract which causes a problem. Namely "essential services" and "core practice", some GPs have taken one view, others have taken another and the GPC have just managed to stir things up...

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
People who didn't understand the consequences of dropping their hours. Surely they didn't expect to have their cake and the cream on top.

The reason I mentioned doctors in the first place on this thread was because they had no choice but to comply with the EWTD - it was thrust upon them without the option to strike, whereas firemen can refuse to modernise and strike for 40%. The pay cut is a secondary issue, but still not nice if you have been used to the generous banding of noncompliance.

If those doctors are still being asked to do their shift then I would recommend that they make a stance. I agree that they should not be doing those shifts and IMHO it compromises patient safety. I would agree that if they are doing such shift then they should have a room overnight.

However, if they a doing a night shift alone then they should be on the wards (for example) and not asleep.

What "stance" can one take - it is too often a career decision to object.

As for the erratic shifts, I can only refer to nurses who have always been expected to do the same thing and would also point to other workers who do split shifts like this...

No, it's not the same at all. OK some [nurses] will be on bizarre shift patterns - bank staff and those with funny contracts - but regular staff are often on patterns that will allow a period to adjust e.g. 3 days of 12 hour nights, then 2-3 days off, then twilights, whatever. That's not the same as doing day shifts then switching to a week of nights, then back onto days.

Split shifts aren't pleasant in any job, but doctors shouldn't have to be tired on the job with nowhere to rest in quiet moments. What's the point twiddling your thumbs on a ward when you could have a power nap in an oncall room?

It's not about what was specified in the contract but rather about the definition of one aspect of the contract which causes a problem. Namely "essential services" and "core practice", some GPs have taken one view, others have taken another and the GPC have just managed to stir things up...

I'll take your word for it - I haven't taken the time to look at the contract in detail.

BTW, it's gone 5 - home time for some, eh MoK?

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
You should read Eat The Rich by P J O'Rourke, you probably wont agree with him, but he's very very funny anyway.

I read some O'Rourke a few years ago. Total bastard, but very funny.

Former Member

.

Former Member

.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
I read some O'Rourke a few years ago. Total bastard, but very funny.

I suspected you'd say that, he's not all that keen on the Left.

Former Member

Did you know that its actually station staff that get 52 days. Drivers get about 40 days. These include bank holidays as the tube is open on bank holidays.