Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Bob Crow.

145791012

Comments

  • vffvff
    edited February 2014
    Not sure if I understand what you mean by subsidised rents for social housing. Do you mean that social housing rents are cheaper than private rents ? Or not as extortionate as private rents to put it a different way. Rents are ridiculously high due to few houses being built and the lack of any coherent housing policy. That's going off down a different track. In terms of how much social housing rent over the lifetime of the property / tenancy, the house is paid for. You will have to explain that a bit more Fiish what you mean there.

    In other countries such as France and Germany, a much larger section of the population rent and it is not exceptional. If Bob Crow chooses not to buy a house then so what. If he did buy a house then the people who criticise him for living in a council house would criticise him for living in a big house. He can't win either way.
  • edited February 2014
    Housing Associations usually charge at three rent levels.

    Social Housing Rent - secure tenancies, in London usually at about 50% of Private Rental.

    Affordable Rent - usually new housing, starter tenancies moving to secure tenancies, in London usually about 70% Private Rental.

    Market Rent - as above but usually in London about 80% Private Rental.

    Bob Crowe would be on Social Housing rent, but I believe this has gone up by £14 per week due to underoccupancy and therefore he's been charged bedroom tax.
  • vffvff
    edited February 2014
    Market rent is ridiculously high. Why should social housing rents be compared to private rent ? Is it because it reminds everyone has out of control the market rents have become ? There should be a lot of new houses built. Rent levels should be set at more reasonable levels. The lack of proper housing policy and strategy in this countries is appalling. Why should the punitive level be the norm that everyone has to fall to.
  • Boris himself needs to swallow his pride and try and sort this out.
  • Bob does a great job for his members and a shite job for London, basically he is a good trade unionist, if there is such a thing.
  • edited February 2014
    Double post
  • Fiiish said:

    Fiiish said:

    I've travelled on tube/metro/underground systems across the UK, Europe & The World and there is nothing that the LU has that would make any of the others better. It's also by far the most expensive one. If you were to start the LU from scratch, you'd have driverless trains, automated ticket machines and a proper travelcard system (Oyster's system is frankly crap compared to one's elsewhere in the world). Every other system in the world usually has at least one member of staff visible at the stations and according to TFL or whoever this still isn't changing, it's just ticket offices they're shutting. Hong Kong is by far the best system I've used and considering I don't understand the language I find it just as easy to use as the LU and it's about the tenth of the price for a ticket. All stations are brightly lit and safe, at least the ones I went to (which was quite a few and not all of them were main stations).

    The point is whenever there is the threat of any change, good or bad, Bob Crow throws a spanner in the works. He's living in the 1970s and the world has moved on. With the technology available today you could run the LU with the tenth of the workforce it currently has and for even less than a tenth of the cost. Of course Londoners can't have it both ways - if you want manned ticket offices and manned trains (despite many other cities embracing driverless trains with no complaints) then of course you're going to have to pay for it - what is it now, nearly a tenner for a return nowadays? I could feed a family of 4 on what a tube journey costs nowadays. Claiming Bob Crow is sticking to his socialist scruples is moot when hard-working families are directly negatively affected as a result of his belligerent actions - they either have to foot the bill for his demands or lose a day's wages because they can't go to work because he's called a strike. One day he will overplay his hand and leave a lot of the workers he represents in trouble, just like Unite did at Grangemouth - but at least he'll be OK as he's a millionaire and has a free house from the Government. I don't know any union that saved jobs by making it unaffordable to keep them employed, and that is fast what Bob Crow is doing. Resisting changes that make the cost of each employee cheaper is frankly suicide as far as job security is concerned.

    Some good points there but a couple of corrections...

    1) Crow is on 140k, that doesn't make him anywhere near a millionaire!

    2) His Council House is not free, he pays rent on it.

    3) Resisting change which is against the interests of their members is what any lobby group or Union does, it's why they exist.

    4) You are right about HK though, superb train system.

    5) In terms of technology, you are right that modern tech could (and does) save money on ticketing side - but keeping LU going is still a MASSIVE engineering feat which requires a lot of man power.
    1) He's been on 140-150k (I see different figures bandied about) for years now. Assuming that he isn't spending all that money and he is getting some pretty good pension payments from his employers then yes, he is likely categorically a millionaire, or has at least accrued over a million in disposable income over the years.

    2) His rent, like all council tenants, is heavily subsidised compared to what private renters have to pay, and he can afford to buy his own house and should, morally speaking, free up a home so a homeless family who needs it can have it when there is a national housing shortage.

    3) True, but resisting changes that makes the industry more efficient and making it very expensive to keep his members employed in terms of both salaries and the loss of revenue through their constant striking is just hastening the nails being hammered into their long-term employment.

    4) Thanks. I did make that point with little knowledge of the working conditions and salaries of HK train workers though.

    5) Agreed, and I'm not saying we need to sack engineers. In fact, if we embrace automated ticketing, driverless trains and automated logisitics, we'll need more engineers, technicians and professionals than ever. If every station is going to be manned, then instead of having some bloke sit on his arse inside a ticket office we will need people providing customer service, help and directions and be ambassadors of London, especially to tourists and visitors. I saw someone make the point that ticket offices are needed because of the Eurostar - yet I doubt more than a handful ticket office staff in London are fluent in any language apart from their own.

    The point is drivers and ticket salesmen are obsolete and the public shouldn't be footing the bill for their continued employer if the technology exists to make their roles cheaper - just like how you don't see people in lifts anymore operating the lift, or even at modern football grounds where machines scan your ticket and operate the turnstile.

    I'd also quickly like to address the point some have made saying that trade unions are still needed because if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have had worker's rights and employment laws. Granted, but we have those things and it isn't trade unions that are stopping the Government from rolling back those laws. Under the same logic, we should still keep sea-mines in the English Channel because they served a useful purpose in WW2, or we should keep feudal lords because they brought in the Magna Carta.

    I agree with other posters though, Oyster cards are completely naff. The principle is that if you make a mistake or the machine makes a mistake (much more common), you'll get charged the maximum possible fare for the day and have to jump through a series of bureaucratic hoops to get your money back in 2 months time, that's just crap, and I don't think I've seen a system anywhere near as badly designed anywhere else in the world.
    This is why I have some sympathy with Crow and co's position.

    I have needed to get money put back on my Oyster on a few occasions - mainly because of my own mistake - and the ticket office staff have always sorted it out for me with the minimum amount of fuss.

    I'm not a member of a union or a supporter of industrial action, but can see potential downside of the changes that are likely to be made
  • edited February 2014
    Yes, it is when you have a problem that you miss having people to help you rather than push 1 if your enquiry is about this and 2 if it is about that and you get to 7 and none of the options cover your enquiry and it asks if you want to repeat the options!!!! That is the future! Well it is pretty much the present! Of course for the employer, automation saves money - my point is that it can cost the country more than it saves the company. That seems to be a fact that is never factored in and has been a failing with Tory policies since Thatcher.

    If you close down a factory that is the main employer in the area, you not only have to pay benefits to the ex-employees but the owners of businesses that rely on the ex employees! Then you destroy a whole area and spend loads of tax payers money trying to regenerate it. It is madness! Surely when you are looking at the savings you must factor in everything.

    Closing ticket offices is a false saving!
  • Yes, it is when you have a problem that you miss having people to help you rather than push 1 if your enquiry is about this and 2 if it is about that and you get to 7 and none of the options cover your enquiry and it asks if you want to repeat the options!!!! That is the future! Well it is pretty much the present! Of course for the employer, automation saves money - my point is that it can cost the country more than it saves the company. That seems to be a fact that is never factored in and has been a failing with Tory policies since Thatcher.

    If you close down a factory that is the main employer in the area, you not only have to pay benefits to the ex-employees but the owners of businesses that rely on the ex employees! Then you destroy a whole area and spend loads of tax payers money trying to regenerate it. It is madness! Surely when you are looking at the savings you must factor in everything.

    Closing ticket offices is a false saving!

    Yes I blame Thatcher too.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited February 2014
    vff said:

    Not sure if I understand what you mean by subsidised rents for social housing. Do you mean that social housing rents are cheaper than private rents ? Or not as extortionate as private rents to put it a different way. Rents are ridiculously high due to few houses being built and the lack of any coherent housing policy. That's going off down a different track. In terms of how much social housing rent over the lifetime of the property / tenancy, the house is paid for. You will have to explain that a bit more Fiish what you mean there.

    In other countries such as France and Germany, a much larger section of the population rent and it is not exceptional. If Bob Crow chooses not to buy a house then so what. If he did buy a house then the people who criticise him for living in a council house would criticise him for living in a big house. He can't win either way.

    Addickted explained it pretty well but yeah social housing tenants are effectively having their rents subsidised by the Government. Private rents are extortionate but that's not really the issue. Bob could more than afford to pay 10 times the going private rate for his house and still have change for his pina coladas. I imagine his position is less about scruples and more about winding up the Daily Mail, which I guess is a valid enough action, I just object to him using taxpayer's money to make the point. I certainly have no issue with him buying a bigger house with his money, just as I don't object to how most other people spend the money they have legally earned.

    Valid point about the blanket sackings of staff because the job they do isn't needed anymore - if there is nothing for them to go into, then the taxpayer loses again through the welfare state. Would be nice to think TfL would try to accommodate drivers and ticket staff who face job losses into their new plans but I doubt they will. And to be honest a 45 year old man whose only job for the past 20 years is sit behind a window selling tickets to people who can't use a simple machine probably doesn't have great prospects in this job market.

    Re: Zero-hours contracts - several trade unions, charities and the Labour Party advertise jobs with zero-hours contracts and unpaid employment themselves, so don't honestly believe that trade unions are doing much about this, apart from exploiting workers I guess.
  • One of the trade union guys on news just now said the volunteers who helped man the stations to give advice and info were not ambassadors but a scab army. Nice chap he was. Said it twice too.
  • vffvff
    edited February 2014
    Fiiish said:

    vff said:

    Not sure if I understand what you mean by subsidised rents for social housing. Do you mean that social housing rents are cheaper than private rents ? Or not as extortionate as private rents to put it a different way. Rents are ridiculously high due to few houses being built and the lack of any coherent housing policy. That's going off down a different track. In terms of how much social housing rent over the lifetime of the property / tenancy, the house is paid for. You will have to explain that a bit more Fiish what you mean there.

    In other countries such as France and Germany, a much larger section of the population rent and it is not exceptional. If Bob Crow chooses not to buy a house then so what. If he did buy a house then the people who criticise him for living in a council house would criticise him for living in a big house. He can't win either way.

    Addickted explained it pretty well but yeah social housing tenants are effectively having their rents subsidised by the Government. Private rents are extortionate but that's not really the issue. Bob could more than afford to pay 10 times the going private rate for his house and still have change for his pina coladas. I imagine his position is less about scruples and more about winding up the Daily Mail, which I guess is a valid enough action, I just object to him using taxpayer's money to make the point. I certainly have no issue with him buying a bigger house with his money, just as I don't object to how most other people spend the money they have legally earned.

    Valid point about the blanket sackings of staff because the job they do isn't needed anymore - if there is nothing for them to go into, then the taxpayer loses again through the welfare state. Would be nice to think TfL would try to accommodate drivers and ticket staff who face job losses into their new plans but I doubt they will. And to be honest a 45 year old man whose only job for the past 20 years is sit behind a window selling tickets to people who can't use a simple machine probably doesn't have great prospects in this job market.

    Re: Zero-hours contracts - several trade unions, charities and the Labour Party advertise jobs with zero-hours contracts and unpaid employment themselves, so don't honestly believe that trade unions are doing much about this, apart from exploiting workers I guess.
    Addickted didn't answer the question as to why Market rates are seen as the true rate which you agree are extortionate. Its not subsidised, it is just a more sensible rate that everybody should be paying. The only reasons that rents are so high is that not enough social housing / affordable housing is built. I have no problem with people buying their flats, just build some more to replace the ones that were sold.

    Calling Social Housing subsidised is just Conservative right wing speak and doesn't really mean anything just to suggest that those in social housing are getting something for nothing and feeds the Conservative aim of eliminating all social housing provision.

    Bob Crow doesn't have his living arrangements just to wind up the Daily Mail. Maybe it is just a point of principle as to how he wants to live. Difficult to believe in this day and age I know.
  • I recently travelled thru gatwick and stanstead. Only in the last three months so hadn't been there for a while before that. What happened to all the security staff on their desks that checked your boarding pass and passport as you went thru to baggage check.

    Did they go on strike before they got rid of the lot of them for technology?

    You just hold your bar code down and the gate opens and in you go. They've All gone just like that.
  • vff said:

    Fiiish said:

    vff said:

    Not sure if I understand what you mean by subsidised rents for social housing. Do you mean that social housing rents are cheaper than private rents ? Or not as extortionate as private rents to put it a different way. Rents are ridiculously high due to few houses being built and the lack of any coherent housing policy. That's going off down a different track. In terms of how much social housing rent over the lifetime of the property / tenancy, the house is paid for. You will have to explain that a bit more Fiish what you mean there.

    In other countries such as France and Germany, a much larger section of the population rent and it is not exceptional. If Bob Crow chooses not to buy a house then so what. If he did buy a house then the people who criticise him for living in a council house would criticise him for living in a big house. He can't win either way.

    Addickted explained it pretty well but yeah social housing tenants are effectively having their rents subsidised by the Government. Private rents are extortionate but that's not really the issue. Bob could more than afford to pay 10 times the going private rate for his house and still have change for his pina coladas. I imagine his position is less about scruples and more about winding up the Daily Mail, which I guess is a valid enough action, I just object to him using taxpayer's money to make the point. I certainly have no issue with him buying a bigger house with his money, just as I don't object to how most other people spend the money they have legally earned.

    Valid point about the blanket sackings of staff because the job they do isn't needed anymore - if there is nothing for them to go into, then the taxpayer loses again through the welfare state. Would be nice to think TfL would try to accommodate drivers and ticket staff who face job losses into their new plans but I doubt they will. And to be honest a 45 year old man whose only job for the past 20 years is sit behind a window selling tickets to people who can't use a simple machine probably doesn't have great prospects in this job market.

    Re: Zero-hours contracts - several trade unions, charities and the Labour Party advertise jobs with zero-hours contracts and unpaid employment themselves, so don't honestly believe that trade unions are doing much about this, apart from exploiting workers I guess.
    Addickted didn't answer the question as to why Market rates are seen as the true rate which you agree are extortionate. Its not subsidised, it is just a more sensible rate that everybody should be paying. The only reasons that rents are so high is that not enough social housing / affordable housing is built. I have no problem with people buying their flats, just build some more to replace the ones that were sold.

    Calling Social Housing subsidised is just Conservative right wing speak and doesn't really mean anything just to suggest that those in social housing are getting something for nothing and feeds the Conservative aim of eliminating all social housing provision.

    Bob Crow doesn't have his living arrangements just to wind up the Daily Mail. Maybe it is just a point of principle as to how he wants to live. Difficult to believe in this day and age I know.
    vff said:

    Fiiish said:

    vff said:

    Not sure if I understand what you mean by subsidised rents for social housing. Do you mean that social housing rents are cheaper than private rents ? Or not as extortionate as private rents to put it a different way. Rents are ridiculously high due to few houses being built and the lack of any coherent housing policy. That's going off down a different track. In terms of how much social housing rent over the lifetime of the property / tenancy, the house is paid for. You will have to explain that a bit more Fiish what you mean there.

    In other countries such as France and Germany, a much larger section of the population rent and it is not exceptional. If Bob Crow chooses not to buy a house then so what. If he did buy a house then the people who criticise him for living in a council house would criticise him for living in a big house. He can't win either way.

    Addickted explained it pretty well but yeah social housing tenants are effectively having their rents subsidised by the Government. Private rents are extortionate but that's not really the issue. Bob could more than afford to pay 10 times the going private rate for his house and still have change for his pina coladas. I imagine his position is less about scruples and more about winding up the Daily Mail, which I guess is a valid enough action, I just object to him using taxpayer's money to make the point. I certainly have no issue with him buying a bigger house with his money, just as I don't object to how most other people spend the money they have legally earned.

    Valid point about the blanket sackings of staff because the job they do isn't needed anymore - if there is nothing for them to go into, then the taxpayer loses again through the welfare state. Would be nice to think TfL would try to accommodate drivers and ticket staff who face job losses into their new plans but I doubt they will. And to be honest a 45 year old man whose only job for the past 20 years is sit behind a window selling tickets to people who can't use a simple machine probably doesn't have great prospects in this job market.

    Re: Zero-hours contracts - several trade unions, charities and the Labour Party advertise jobs with zero-hours contracts and unpaid employment themselves, so don't honestly believe that trade unions are doing much about this, apart from exploiting workers I guess.
    Addickted didn't answer the question as to why Market rates are seen as the true rate which you agree are extortionate. Its not subsidised, it is just a more sensible rate that everybody should be paying. The only reasons that rents are so high is that not enough social housing / affordable housing is built. I have no problem with people buying their flats, just build some more to replace the ones that were sold.

    Calling Social Housing subsidised is just Conservative right wing speak and doesn't really mean anything just to suggest that those in social housing are getting something for nothing and feeds the Conservative aim of eliminating all social housing provision.

    Bob Crow doesn't have his living arrangements just to wind up the Daily Mail. Maybe it is just a point of principle as to how he wants to live. Difficult to believe in this day and age I know.
    The housing shortage is a problem, but in the same way school dinners & prescription drugs are subsidised because the Government sells them for well below the market rate, so is social housing. Not saying there is anything wrong with that and yes we should be supporting those who can't afford housing, but Bob Crow is effectively getting housing benefit by another name when he earns more in a year than the average worker earns in 6. You wouldn't put up with any other top-rate taxpayer in the private sector claiming housing benefit. Plus it isn't morally right that he squatting in a house intended by society to be used for a family in need. He's effectively blocking a domestic violence victim or someone who is severely disabled from getting a council house, that doesn't sit right with me.
  • edited February 2014
    Think this thread has lasted a lot longer than I thought - everyone seems to be being very civil to each other. Pats on the back all round Charlton Life! Of all the threads that usually get messy, anything that has any undercurrent of 'left wing v right wing' (no matter how subtle) are usually at the top of the list!

    In many ways, striking just doesn't sit comfortably with me. Not in every case - if an employer is endangering it's staff (for example dangerous working conditions in a factory etc), or acting irresponsibly then having an element of protection is valuable for staff. My views are probably clouded by the number of strikes I have seen because people want a pay rise, or a better pension. Especially when we saw it during the recession.

    I know it seems like a black and white view, and I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I have never been in a position to strike in my life - despite the various grumblings I have with my work. I want to be paid more for the hours I put in, I don't want to be sitting in my office from 8am to 11pm keeping me away from my family, I want a bigger bonus for the money I bring in to the agency. But if I said to my boss I was going on strike, he would tell me to naff off and replace me like that. As such, during the recession I just had to suck it up. And at every other point in life, I worked my backside off, almost killing myself at work / driving myself to a breakdown for the next promotion or payrise, in order to better our family life. That's the only option.

    And at many points whilst this is happening, I will be dragging myself home at god knows what time, being made even later because the tube / train is down, and I see people basically going on strike to blackmail their employers to give them what they want. Sometimes you can't get what you want in life. Technology changes, business needs change, things move on. I may get made redundant one day if we lose a big account. In that case, I will have to get off my backside and find something else. Stomping my feet wont be an option.

    I know it is not as black and white as that, and I am not looking for abuse. Just trying to explain it from my side of the fence.
  • I think the posters on this thread could not represent the general population of London any less.
  • I picked a copy of City AM up from one of the unmanned boxes this morning.

    Disgusting that someone wasn't being paid to hand it to me, say good morning and smile.
  • Huskaris said:

    I think the posters on this thread could not represent the general population of London any less.

    What a truly unique bunch we must be!
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited February 2014
    But if I said to my boss I was going on strike, he would tell me to naff off and replace me like that. As such, during the recession I just had to suck it up. And at every other point in life, I worked my backside off, almost killing myself at work / driving myself to a breakdown for the next promotion or payrise, in order to better our family life. That's the only option.

    Which is a good a reason put as to why Union's still have a place in today's workplace. Do you really think that working yourself to the point of a breakdown is the most productive way for your company?. I am not going to knock you for doing a decent day's work for you and your family, and correct me if I am wrong but most people have had no pay rises, or pretty minimal ones over the past few years. Striking should be the last resort of Industrial action, and I am not supporting Bob Crowe, or the Mayor, or TFL. In the UK we do like to make Industrial relation's a pantomime of thing's.
  • Huskaris said:

    I think the posters on this thread could not represent the general population of London any less.

    Really? I think the huge variety in viewpoints expressed here, both eloquently and not so, represents the population of London pretty much perfectly.
  • PL54 said:

    I picked a copy of City AM up from one of the unmanned boxes this morning.

    Disgusting that someone wasn't being paid to hand it to me, say good morning and smile.

    What was the point of that comment? If you are trying to take the piss, at least consider humour.
  • Huskaris said:

    I think the posters on this thread could not represent the general population of London any less.

    Really? I think the huge variety in viewpoints expressed here, both eloquently and not so, represents the population of London pretty much perfectly.
    Well 33% representative and that's enough....

  • edited February 2014
    ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh lets have a hug ! except all you Lefties your on the bonfire .
  • ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh lets have a hug ! except all you Lefties your on the bonfire .

    Do you get money every time you say the word Leftie ? ;-)
  • Commie--red--marxist---laborite----lefty -----twonk------------all the same meaning
  • Dansk_Red said:
    Interesting choice of car - thought he might have bought something British rather than put fellow workers out of a job ;-)

    It reminded me of a spoof advert and how appropriate it actually is.

    image
  • Bob Crow
    Hero or villain ?- Hero to his members who he represents but to me, niether.
    Would you want him representing you?- no, not in my line of work but in that industry I see why he is there.

    Not many have answered the orignal post.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!