London 2012: RMT Union rejects Tube pay offer

[Otta]

Equally, just because the RMT have managed to bully ?650+ bonuses for London rail staff, does that make it right?

Don't get me wrong, I think the money being spent on the Olympics is sickening, and this would be a drop in the ocean overall, but I just don't see why these people deserve to be paid anything extra for doing their job at a busy time.

Fair play to them, if I was one of them, and I was being told I might get a few hundred quid, I guess I'd be happy enough to go along with it, but something should be done about Bob Crow and pals, because you hear more about bloody tube workers striking than anyone else!

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Charming as ever.

>

> Without feeling the need to be rude to someone

> first?

Judging by your appearance over by the CPZ's thread and Buddug's issues then I suggest you keep your don't know any reasoning to yourself.

The bankers are still getting bonuses in their millions despite bringing this country to near financial ruin. Yet outrage is given to the unions for rejecting a ?100 bonus.

[Otta]

Actually it was buddug being rude. As for my "don't know any better opinions", I'm just as capable of doing a google search as you (which is clearly what you've done).

Bankers bonuses are disgusting, but a very different issue. Yes it's unfair that these RMT members get less than other RMT members, but you have to ask, why are any of them being paid bonuses for their normal working hours?

[Otta]

Almost forgot to call you idiot there.

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Almost forgot to call you idiot there.

Calling me an idiot is laughable at the very least. I more than able to think for myself and have highly developed tastes.

[Chippy Minton]

I just don't see why these people deserve to be paid anything extra for doing their job at a busy time

That's a fair enough opinion if you genuinely think that, but if that's the case the logic needs to be extended to everybody employed in every job in every sector i.e. why should anyone get paid a bonus? People are employed to do a job to the best of their ability - why should they be entitled to a bonus as well, right?

Remember, London Underground themselves agree tube workers will have increased workloads and pressures and that they want to reward them for that. It's the amount they're haggling over, not whether or not a bonus should be paid.

[Undisputedtruth]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually it was buddug being rude. As for my

> "don't know any better opinions", I'm just as

> capable of doing a google search as you (which is

> clearly what you've done).

No need for a google search as kidkruger kindly provided a link to the relevant issue. Clueless as ever, Otta.

Otta Wrote:

> Bankers bonuses are disgusting, but a very

> different issue. Yes it's unfair that these RMT

> members get less than other RMT members, but you

> have to ask, why are any of them being paid

> bonuses for their normal working hours?

I do not agree with your reasoning on the race to the bottom on bonuses for the working class.

[Huguenot]

A bonus is a discretionary incentive.

The clue regarding the unions is in your use of the word 'entitle'. How often do you hear that word bandied about by militant tub thumpers?

Crow and his bullies have managed to turn a discretionary incentive into a grasping entitelment poisoned by threats and menaces.

Your language is all wrong on this Chippy - nobody is 'entitled' to a bonus. It's an incentive an organisation may choose to pay if they have sufficient funds and feel staff have gone beyond expectations.

Within the private sector it's got nothing to do with the general public what bonuses are paid.

It is only within the public sector, where that tax payer is the shareholder, where the general public get a say. This includes those banks that have currently got joe public as the majority shareholder because of bail-outs.

[Undisputedtruth]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A bonus is a discretionary incentive.

>

> The clue regarding the unions is in your use of

> the word 'entitle'. How often do you hear that

> word bandied about by militant tub thumpers?

>

> Crow and his bullies have managed to turn a

> discretionary incentive into a grasping

> entitelment poisoned by threats and menaces.

>

> Your language is all wrong on this Chippy - nobody

> is 'entitled' to a bonus. It's an incentive an

> organisation may choose to pay if they have

> sufficient funds and feel staff have gone beyond

> expectations.

Well since you have been a former employer then I'd come to expect a warped view on what you constitutes a bonus scheme.

Bonus schemes are based on agreements between employee/unions and employers. So if an employee fulfilled their obligation(s) then they're entitled to a bonus.

[Huguenot]

The lights are on but no-ones home...

[Undisputedtruth]

Hugo, nice try but doesn't apply to me. :))

The Kent Management Services Ltd v Butterfield did not endorse your reasoning on bonus entitlement either.

[Otta]

It's not about a "race to the bottom" (good use of a sound byte there), it's about being held to ransom by the RMT.

Believe it or not (and I don't care either way) I am all for a fair deal for the working classes (even though that is a very outdated term, which doesn't really exist anymore). I very much disapprove of the RMT's tactics over the last few years though, and will not support it.

I also believe that there are plenty of people who will be equally as busy, who will get nothing.

[Chippy Minton]

It's not about a "race to the bottom" (good use of a sound byte there), it's about being held to ransom by the RMT.

How ironic!

[katie1997]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where's Chippy?

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing about Straferjack?

[Otta]

Explain the irony to me Chippy. Or are you putting words in to my keyboard again?

[Otta]

Also, just to clarify, of we were talking about tube staff going out on strike for q fair pay deal, I MIGHT be on the other side of the fence. I have supported such action by station workers, who I have dealings with through my job, and think are generally very very good, and helpful. I would look at what they were asking for, and decide whether I thought it was fair enough or not.

This is a very different issue though. This would seem to be the RMT rabble raising, and telling it's members to kick up a fuss just to get a few quid extra for nothing.

Non Crow in my opinion has damaged the RMT and it's members, and killed off most public support for their causes. The man gets invited to appear on the likes of Question Time occasionally, and is frankly embarrassing and cringe worthy to watch. Floating a load of out dated cliches.

[Chippy Minton]

Otta - I find it ironic that you make a snide reference to someone using a sound bite and then in the very same sentence use the phrase "held to ransom by the RMT."

[Otta]

Heh heh fair point, although mine at least describes what is happening, whilst "race to the bottom" is just w@nk speak

[Undisputedtruth]

Hardly Otta, it goes to show what a complete fool you are and getting involved in discussions on the EDF shows how much you're out of your depth.

The RMT rejected a ?100 sum that's hardly holding the TfL to ransom. Yet at the same time 378 of their senior staff earns more than ?100,000 per year.

[Otta]

Salaries have nothing to do with this UDT. You really are in a world of your own aren't you.

Keep it up though, you're the funniest thing on here for a while.

[Undisputedtruth]

Of course the salaries have something to do with it. The senior staff award themselves more bonuses and pay. Yet somehow RMT causes controversy for rejecting a ?100 sum.

Otta, you're really are one of life's losers and any insults you do pass is meaningless.

[Otta]

One of life's losers? Okay then. I'll take that as a somewhatdisputedversionofthetruth, much like pretty much everything you say.

Of course the salaries have something to do with it. The senior staff award themselves more bonuses and pay.

No, it has nothing to do with this. You are talking about a completely different issue, one which I may agree with you on, but bless your cottons, you are getting yourself a bit muddled up.

?100 is rubbish compared to ?500-?600, but the point of this thread, is whether these staff deserve to be paid ANY bonus at all for working during a very busy fortnight.

[Otta]

any insults you do pass is meaningless.

Not that that makes any sense, but for the record, other than calling you idiot several times, I haven't insulted you. I pointed out that some people find your posts funny.

You hide behind the anonymity of an internet forum calling people fool, and loser, amongst other things. That in itself is quite funny. And sad at the same time. I guess that means you're a forum paradox UDT.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yet at the same time 378 of their senior staff earns more than ?100,000 per year.

Do they? That's rather excessive, I must say. Sounds like an across-the-board lowering of salaries, from tube drivers up, wouldn't go astray at TFL.

Mind you, aren't the RMT and ASLEF senior people on over ?100k a year as well?

[Chippy Minton]

Bob Crow is. Mick Whelan probably is. No one else in either RMT or ASLEF will be though.