Transport in London is shit

Who is Walter Galt?

Walter, wouldn't closing ticket offices also "keep sick people from care" - to a much lesser degree, but on a permanent, ongoing basis? wouldn't reducing tube staff numbers by almost 1000 diminish the essential service that these sick people need?

I don't know. I don't think so, necessarily, but I don't think anyone really knows. But while that discussion happens, I don't believe that people should be put at risk. A 'narrow' position, maybe, but one that still begs the question 'why are people who depend on the service for something like daily cancer treatment - as one example - 'selfish' for thinking that their very real needs could be considered in the discussion about how to preserve the jobs of these employees?'

I don't believe that 'you're out of luck for a few days while we sort this out' is okay. I think the mayor is an asshole too - like everything in this, it's not as simple as "your anger should be focused at him, not the strikers."

Also much easier to believe you are the only person in the world who matters than consider the people who provide you services also deserve to be treated like human beings.

What an awful thing to say.

Terrible thing. AWFUL!

But, y'know, kind of where you're at?

I always thought that certain people were exaggerating when they described the supposed behaviour of "Thatcherbabies" or whatever. But then, this bloke is actually proving that people who grew up under Reagan and Thatcher and their policies really do have completely warped ideas about the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers and who owes whom what.

how bad would their working conditions have to be for you to absolve tube workers of their apparent duty of care to the personal needs of all customers, walter?

Walter, wouldn't closing ticket offices also "keep sick people from care" - to a much lesser degree, but on a permanent, ongoing basis? wouldn't reducing tube staff numbers by almost 1000 diminish the essential service that these sick people need?

I don't know.

Come on.

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1368/55/1368559197838.gif

I'm open to this stuff; I'm not from here and I'm just trying to understand it. And I admit a very heavy emotional involvement. I just don't think that my belief that people shouldn't be put at serious risk over these discussions means that I believe "I'm the only person in the world who matters" (I said it's an awful thing to say because you don't know me; what I'm dealing with; and outside of my initial post, which I've discussed further, I actually haven't said anything nearly hyperbolic enough to suggest I feel that way. So it comes across as quite aggressive and cruel).

I've admitted that my previous experience with this kind of thing has been in the context of the Taylor Law, which, whether or not you agree with all of it, I feel puts human safety first by ensuring a situation where these discussions can happen without a gap in the service for people who need it.

Oh, re: an earlier point: i don't see why buses "aren't an option". they serve all of london.

Packed, jostling buses are a much more painful & even violent journey - I don't know if you've taken any in the last 48 hours but they're quite a different experience than a normal bus ride

personally hate a bus

I rode a bus yesterday; it was fine. It was also fine during the last tube strike, when I was using a cane to hobble round on account of an injury. And the idea of these "packed, jostling, painful and violent" buses... as opposed to the spacious, comfortable and non-confrontational tube carriages during rush hour? Really? I'll take a bus before I take a tube any day, tube strike or no.

My question would be: what would hospitals and care services do in the event of an accident on the tube? What if parts of the tube service broke down because of lack of maintenance or safety? Are there plans in place for those eventualities? Why can't they be used in the case of a tube strike?

You're basically saying nothing that doesn't boil down to "the tube is an invaluable and indispensable part of living in London and its services should be protected at all costs." Which is exactly what the striking workers are saying. Their point, you are proving it.

Crowds and noise and maybe being pushed or falling or etc are a whole different thing when you're frail and in pain, I know that first-hand and I've heard it from friends with significant injuries or illnesses. So while the families of patients could arguably just switch to a bus with the rest of London, I do get that patients' needs are different and profound.

On the other hand the Taylor Law looks like total bullshit that primarily serves the needs of the owners, and only benefits users of public services by accident.

Oh that was an xp btw.

Packed, jostling buses are a much more painful & even violent journey - I don't know if you've taken any in the last 48 hours but they're quite a different experience than a normal bus ride

... and still less packed and jostling than your average rush hour tube journey.

.. oh BB more or less said the same thing a couple of post previously

If you're frail, or in pain, or use a wheelchair, and you need help to get on or off a tube train, I would think that you would have an added incentive to keep all tube stations fully staffed at all times. Because that is something I do currently see on a regular basis, on my journeys: people with disabilities being facilitated in their journeys by TFL staff. With Boris' cuts, what will happen to them?

Get a bus instead

I would imagine that if one were severely negatively impacted by the strikes during a time of personal illness or distress that it would be possible to be angry/upset about the strike action while simultaneously being entirely sympathetic to the ultimate aim of the strikers.

At least WG isn't one of the MANY people impacted no more severely than getting to work 15 minutes later than usual who still proclaims that the strikers are all lazy bastards who get paid plenty and shouldn't complain.

it's kind of annoying how these arguments always go by the way of

anti-strike: "SELFISH SO AND SO HATE UNIONS", without considering strikes are not really so great for the actual people striking (hello, no pay) and is done because of the lack of more effective means of getting their views heard, which ultimately is a symptom of poor management/structure who is the true culprit

pro-strike: "LOL AT THESE PEOPLE MOANING ABOUT HAVING TO TAKE 20 MORE MINUTES TO WORK", without acknowledging people who do get seriously affected. it'd be dishonest to pretend that there's no cost to welfare, particularly those who are frail, each time there is a strike, of course there is some responsibility on things like service providers such as hospitals to plan for such events but often we don't hear these concerns being acknowledged when strikes are planned.

and instead of any sensible argument it's just people getting angry at each other without any real meaningful discussion.

xpost

i think the pro-strike people *do acknowledge people get affected by these strikes? i think pro-strike people have in fact acknowledged this above?

... because most of them have, in fact, been affected themselves... doh!

another theme that usually happens is when one blends the issue the strike is over, and the concept of a strike itself, into a single, mangled, unsound argument.

e.g. "I HAVE NEVER USED A TICKET OFFICE - BAN ALL STRIKES NOW!"

"i think the pro-strike people *do acknowledge people get affected by these strikes? i think pro-strike people have in fact acknowledged this above?"

not just on this thread

but certainly often i hear a tone of flippancy

Flippancy is the best option when confronted with dipsticks

You're basically saying nothing that doesn't boil down to "the tube is an invaluable and indispensable part of living in London and its services should be protected at all costs." Which is exactly what the striking workers are saying. Their point, you are proving it.

I know I am! All of this is true, but doesn't change my point - there's got to be a way of protecting the employees that *doesn't* put vulnerable people at risk - even temporarily! And the Taylor Law (as employed in New York City), though far from anything even approaching perfect, does protect these people.

As for the buses, I can very admittedly only speak to my experiences (which seem like they've been very different to Tom D.'s in the last couple of days - my buses have mostly been rolling past my stop without stopping because they're so full, and one of the buses I was on had a fight on it when the driver wouldn't open the front door and some people jumped on through the exit door and knocked into a guy who went crazy on them) - but we find buses much more difficult to navigate much of the time.

I guess it's nice to hear Ken c say it'd be dishonest to pretend that there's no cost to welfare, particularly those who are frail, each time there is a strike, of course there is some responsibility on things like service providers such as hospitals to plan for such events but often we don't hear these concerns being acknowledged when strikes are planned. because we DON'T hear anything like this. Instead we're told stuff like we're self-centred, naive, and believe we're the only people in the world, when we express our frustration. And I get frustrated that people can't accept that it's possible to support the workers' goals and think that their strike itself is difficult to support.

this taylor law it isn't in britain is it

Walter, one of the things you are coming up against is a failure to understand a very specific British cultural attitude, that is: The Stiff Upper Lip; Mustn't Grumble; Blitz Spirit. We have a complex relationship with "Our Things" (as evidenced by the fact that this thread is entitled "Transport in London is shit" but god help you if you actually seriously disparage London and its transport from the viewpoint of an outsider).

A Tube Strike is a nuisance. Strikes are *supposed* to cause a nuisance, the whole point of them is to cause a nuisance, to make people realise that the services being cut off are valuable, important and worth protecting. A nuisance; but not the end of the world. Something to be survived and got around with ingenuity and perseverance, rather like our weather.

But when you come in, as an outsider and a newcomer, and start tearing down the things that we hold 'sacred', especially comparing it to an American thing most of us would consider Draconian, you are violating several cultural mores, and triggering a defensive reaction. Especially when you are playing into a line which is often repeated by the right-wing press, in order to tear down rights that British people have spent a couple of hundred years fighting for.

You're allowed to grumble; you're even allowed to say London's transport system is shit when you are speaking as a Londoner. But when you come in and say "oh, this would never happen in New York!" - you know what else doesn't happen in NYC? People getting their cancer treated, for free, by the state.

Uh or people being helped on and off of public transit by staff members who are employed for anything remotely resembling that purpose.

In terms of a successful strike campaign, if it were possible for the striking body to identify a group whose suffering as a result of the strike was lasting and more..."consequential" than the gen pop's, they could in theory approach that body and try to agree to a workaround. Maybe volunteers from, say, the transit workers' union offering to drive shuttle vans or something, for free, to minimize human suffering and provide a way for X number of patients and all their friends and families to publicly show solidarity with the strike efforts. And it would be excellent PR.

But when something affects a whole city it's just too big for that particular lens, maybe? I'm not sure that kind of effort can be scaled up that far.

I think that would be an excellent idea, in orbit, though I'm guessing the extra gridlock on London's streets might make it impossible. It's a big city - or if not big, certainly dense. And the media here has such a vested interest in maintaining its blanket anti-union stance I'm not sure the message would get out.

I like that idea, In Orbit.

you're even allowed to say London's transport system is shit when you are speaking as a Londoner.

How many years do I need to put in? Or do the italics mean 'born and bred'? I've got 12 and running; hard time.

I'm not saying it as a superiority thing. It *wouldn't* happen in New York (or Oregon or Chicago, etc. etc.), because of laws that make striking illegal and drive discussions towards independent arbitration and make sure people aren't put at risk during the discussions.

Weird Aunt Sally move with the free health care jab!

It would probably help if you stopped holding up an anti-union, anti-organizing, rentier-favoring bullshit set of laws as some kind of net positive.

Also, on your part, you could have (or maybe could still?) organized patients from your hospital and their families and supporters and taken signatures/requested a meeting/appeared at a gathering of the striking organization to outline the mutual benefit of an agreement that reduces your suffering while increasing support for their cause.

Man, someone should hire me to strategize this shit.

laws that make striking illegal and drive discussions towards independent arbitration and make sure people aren't put at risk during the discussions

I kind of had your back upthread when it seemed like you were getting piled on, but this is a bit rich - do you really think that laws like this are put in place to help vulnerable people?

Making striking illegal is simply stacking the deck in favour of management by taking away one of the most potent weapons available to unionised workers. I definitely feel for you and anyone who has difficult personal circumstances made more difficult by strike action, but if you think making this action illegal is a satisfactory solution then I think you're dead wrong.

Strikes should never be illegal imo

I understand this semi-reluctant pile-on and side with the semi-reluctant pilers-on but Branwell Bluebell you take it far dictating who can and cannot grumble and in what capacity

Strikes should never be illegal, but more should be done to make them less like to happen. However, we don't need Taylor Law, we need Mitbestimmung.

I'm not saying who can and cannot grumble (I should be so lucky to have that power!) but more... be aware of the cultural mores behind people's behaviour.

There is a distinctly British way to say "well, that was shit, but we got through it, for the sake of the greater good" which will be accepted and even encouraged, but if you come in a thread like this and say "well, that was shit but you should be more like NYC, where we just made striking illegal, so this couldn't happen!" you are very rightly going to get a kicking. Now I leave you to it.

cheerio

"I'm new here, help me understand why strikes aren't illegal, like they are in NYC" vs "I been here 12 years, when do I get to consider myself local?" is really kinda disingenuous a bait and switch.

cf. "I'm out of here" vs. "back for another dig"

really kinda disingenuous a bait and switch.

This following you know what else doesn't happen in NYC? People getting their cancer treated, for free, by the state. is pretty rich

do you really think that laws like this are put in place to help vulnerable people?

No, I definitely don't think that, and I didn't mean to phrase it like I did think that - I did mean that they DO help vulnerable people, in the sense that they eliminate a scenario where a sick person can't get to the hospital using public transport while employment discussions are happening.

you should be more like NYC, where we just made striking illegal,

Transit striking has been illegal in NYC since the late '60s

cf. "I'm out of here" vs. "back for another dig"

I'm not out for digs! But I also couldn't bail after Also much easier to believe you are the only person in the world who matters than consider the people who provide you services also deserve to be treated like human beings., which is a super fucked up thing to accuse somebody of when you don't know anything about what they're going through. And when it really does misrepresent what I've been saying entirely.

Also, on your part, you could have (or maybe could still?) organized patients from your hospital and their families and supporters and taken signatures/requested a meeting/appeared at a gathering of the striking organization to outline the mutual benefit of an agreement that reduces your suffering while increasing support for their cause.

I like this idea (incredibly ambitious for anyone dealing with something like heavy medical treatment, where getting out of the house is an achievement, but it's a very good thought. Charing Cross hospital has a cancer support center called Maggie's where these sorts of ideas are discussed and could theoretically be enacted). I wonder how it would be received by the striking organization? It seems like here people think I've meant to say that because I think sick people shouldn't have to deal with what a strike means that I don't think the strikers' concerns are valid, which isn't the case.

my cf. was not directed at you Walter Galt but Branwell Bluebell

Perfectly possible to sympathise with strikers' concerns and think that strikes shouldn't be allowed to happen, which is ultimately what you're trying to say... isn't it?

xp

Any sympathy for the taxi drivers' action in Central London today?

lol, uber is having its biggest sign-up day in two years, up 850% on last week

which, duh, so many people probably hadn't even heard of uber before this and i don't think anyone has loyalty to cabbies per se

i mean, i've had good cab experiences and bad cab experiences but when the bad ones involve homophobia or racism or just plain ol ripping you off massively, it's hard to really go to bat for them when a better service exists

(nb: i have never used uber! because am not in the habit of taking cabs regularly. i am def going to at least investigate it now though)