• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Southern Rail

scaramanga said:
Very little at the managerial/strategic level, that's why they're not management or directors.
Click to expand...

Paper pushers are usually quite deluded about just how much they know concerning work places. "Managerial, strategic level" what a laugh, parasitical level more like.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Scara answer pretty much covered it. This is point of view debate not personal, no need to be an ********

Logic seems fine but you ignore it more than anyone or claim it to be one big conspiracy so as you like logic let's stick to it:

- Jobs secured by contract for Southern Staff, offer on the table contractually makes job secure.

- Drivers have been given pay rises

- DOO approved by watchdog for rail safety

- Head of Aslef signed off on 12 train DOO changes to Thameslink in 2011 so the H&S card is redundant on several front.

- DOO Figures on safety are vast improvement on the later Guard system

- DOO has been in place for 30 years on some lines and has done so successfully.
- Only people losing jobs are joe public, Southern staff have not lost their job

And finally speaking from personal point, if these strikes were about Jobs I would be backing the strikes and I would in future if Southern renegade on the deal, but this is about job comfort not loss or H&S.
Click to expand...


Where was I personal? Have I addressed any personal insults to you? However you seem fit to call me an arsehole. I wont get down to your level, hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
I suppose the point would be, that If safety was a glaring issue for passengers the strike would be better supported by the public.

As I said before I would support a strike on Job security grounds but I have seen in writing that no jobs are up for threat. That the beauty of it being 2017, you don't actually have to be in the four walls of the meetings anymore to gain the information.

What I alluded to in an earlier post is that Southern are presenting a lot more fact than the Union. In an Interview on Friday in the Standard the Unions answers to a lot of questions about improved safety records and hard facts were along the lines of "I have been a driver for 31 years I know best" or equally washy answers. When asked if they would welcome improvements to technology and stations to help drivers the answer was equally militant. Based on this and a lot of other things I've seen I can't side with the Union and strikers.
 
Only Kool Aid drinking neo-liberals could apply 'free market' principles to a monopoly. As I keep saying, neo-liberalism is nothing more than a cult.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
It's a monopoly, yet you rush in with your free market ideology, so funny, cannot make this up. More Double Think Scara!
Click to expand...
In terms of a monopoly you're right - the lines should be opened up to multiple providers.

That doesn't change the fact that there are lots of alternatives to trains if the public doesn't deem them safe. Clearly though, the public are happy with drivers closing doors.
 
it's not a true free market, it's only the services which are franchised, they don't own the metal or the signaling equipment, they are also beholden to minimum service schedules rather than being allowed to run profitable schedules only and do not have freedom to set prices accordingly

also, as has been pointed out it's not a monopoly as other forms of transport are available, i'm off on my 30 mile commute in the morning and there are many ways I could get there, I could walk, cycle, drive, use buses, a train or a tube, a boat, a plane (assuming Stansted has a London City service still), if I chose to live in an area with only one form of transport available that would be pretty fudging stupid wouldn't it
 
galeforce said:
it's not a true free market, it's only the services which are franchised, they don't own the metal or the signaling equipment, they are also beholden to minimum service schedules rather than being allowed to run profitable schedules only and do not have freedom to set prices accordingly

also, as has been pointed out it's not a monopoly as other forms of transport are available, i'm off on my 30 mile commute in the morning and there are many ways I could get there, I could walk, cycle, drive, use buses, a train or a tube, a boat, a plane (assuming Stansted has a London City service still), if I chose to live in an area with only one form of transport available that would be pretty fudging stupid wouldn't it
Click to expand...

It was implied that people had the 'freedom' to use other transport if they weren't happy, which is a free market idea. Don't go trying to run away from it. However the railway is a monopoly. There is only Southern, even Scara has conceded as much.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
It was implied that people had the 'freedom' to use other transport if they weren't happy, which is a free market idea. Don't go trying to run away from it. However the railway is a monopoly. There is only Southern, even Scara has conceded as much.
Click to expand...

only direct services, depending on destination you could use south eastern/thames link/cross country and even grand central I believe to get to (or close to) some destinations

for example I had to get to exeter once when FGW were having issues, I ended up going via southampton but got thre in the end
 
galeforce said:
only direct services, depending on destination you could use south eastern/thames link/cross country and even grand central I believe to get to (or close to) some destinations

for example I had to get to exeter once when FGW were having issues, I ended up going via southampton but got thre in the end
Click to expand...


Ha, ha, good try my man but no cigar. ;)
 
galeforce said:
eh?

all i'm saying is alternate routes are available, if you don't believe me look at a map
Click to expand...
And so are cars, buses, planes, cycling (spit), walking and moving house/job.

If people genuinely thought getting on a train was dangerous, they wouldn't do it.
 
Some people don't drive. Cabs are expensive. None of these forms of transport equate to the monopoly of Southern Rail. That's about as logical as saying it isn't a monopoly because people could walk. :D
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Some people don't drive. Cabs are expensive. None of these forms of transport equate to the monopoly of Southern Rail. That's about as logical as saying it isn't a monopoly because people could walk. :D
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has said that Southern don't have a monopoly, merely that there are more than enough alternatives that if people thought trains were dangerous they could avoid them.
 
So the strike continues and I enjoy the lively debate, so all bias aside how do you see this ending if at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back