Network Rail Signallers: Strike Action

[CarterUSM]

Honestly captain, how many people do you think will lose their job? I really cannot see it. Hyperbole of the highest order.

 

[CosherB]

Honestly captain, how many people do you think will lose their job? I really cannot see it. Hyperbole of the highest order.

Millions - yes millions (no hyperbole) will be hit by this inward-looking selfish action. Not everyone has such reasonable attitudes to empoyees as NR (if you think that's unreal, try working for minimum wage for some office cleaning company in any big city - that's the Real World - no show, next day; no job. No big powerful Crow to look after them, is there?).

You lot live in a protected world that robs you of a view of what life is like for many in UK today. Makes me sick! You need a wake-up call, a very very long swim in Lake Reality, not an easy chance to impose chaos on the lives of others in persuit of your selfish aims.

At least one of your number has said he is not that well educated and probably couln't get an equivalent job outside NR. How would minimum wage cleaning appeal? THAT is the real world. So get real!

Just think, seriously and a bit wider than your own interests (if you can), about what you are doing.

 

[CarterUSM]

Sounds like someone took the jam out of your doughnut mate. Jealousy is a little childish too.

 

[CosherB]

Jealousy is a little childish too.

Jealous of what, exactly? The chance to put others out of work? the chance to seriously screw up the lives of millions of folk who've done you no harm perhaps costing them a fortune in lost hotel bookings etc.? The chance to be manipulated by a dinosaur union leader? What?

Thing is - striking is for losers. I never considered it as an option. There were times I had to suffer the most appalling injustices at work. Hey, that's life (real life)! Roll with the punches, bide your time, and take the opportunies when they arise. Work hard, work well, to be in a position to do that. And then have the last laugh.

I've always considered the threat of strike to be an un-natural mechanism for some workers to lever themslves over the shoulders of others in persuit of job security and more money, at the expense of those they levered themselves over. In other words, it's not how good you are at your job that gets you the rewards, but how many fellow workers (who may be more deserving than you) can you leapfrog over becuase you happen to have the balls of the travelling public in your hands, and you just have to squeeze to get what you want.

That is dispicable, and only worthy of contempt.

Take it to it's natural conclusion - just suppose everyone in the UK was in a strong union and had the public's balls in their grasp, and they all demanded more money or whatever. They'd ALL go on strike - nothing in the country working while everyone in UK is demanding everyone else pays them more! Of course, in today's globalised economy, the far east would walk in, do it all, and leave GB Ltd redundant!

What we actually have is a few unions who have a stranglehold on vital services, and they can, if they are so minded, abuse that position and demand their 'better deal' at everyone else's expense. Which is where we came in, I think.

 

[cuccir]

Jealous of what, exactly? The chance to put others out of work? the chance to seriously screw up the lives of millions of folk who've done you no harm perhaps costing them a fortune in lost hotel bookings etc.? The chance to be manipulated by a dinosaur union leader? What?

I'm off to fly some aeobatics in our aeroplane tomorrow. And the rest of the week looks pretty good, too. I can do this because I worked bleedin hard for over 40 years, retired a few years ago on a company pension, and I'll feel really jealous of you while I'm doing all this and more (not!).

Thing is - striking is for losers. I never considered it as an option. There were times I had to suffer the most appalling injustices at work. Hey, that's life (real life)! Roll with the punches, bide your time, and take the opportunies when they arise. Work hard, work well, to be in a position to do that. And then have the last laugh.

Relying on dinosaurs like Crow to look after you is ok if you are a sheep. I'm not.

"I'm all right Jack"

 

[the sniper]

Ah, the whole world's out of step except Sniper. I think see your problem, old boy.

At least one of your number has said he is not that well educated and probably couln't get an equivalent job outside NR. How would minimum wage cleaning appeal? THAT is the real world. So get real!

Hmm... I might as well take this opportunity to declare that I'm actually 20 years old, fresh out of the education system with nine GCSE's at grade C to A* and the equivalent of four A levels, I'm currently unemployed looking for work like thousands of other young people in my position in Birmingham.

I don't have any allegiance in this 'debate', I just don't agree with virtually anything you've said here.

 

[Tom C]

That is dispicable, and only worthy of contempt.

I think you are going a little too far by saying that people who are striking because the job they are doing will get less safe to the point of dangerous are only worthy of contempt.

I don't know what line of work you are in but obviously you are quite happy to be used and abused and thats fine because thats your look out. But seeing as you have used the word dispicable against the Network Rail workers then perhaps your own look out could be looked at as spineless. Sure you are quite happy to come on here shouting the odds about how striking is dispicable yet you say that you "suffer the most appalling injustices at work" and are quite happy to accept that which in my estimation is cowardly and spineless.

 

[CarterUSM]

Sorry to hear that sniper, hope you are not out of work for too much longer. Captain, i've the feeling your jealous of the railway industrys staffs terms and conditions. I'd be the first to say they are pretty good, but they were not gained overnight, a lot of sacrifices have been made by previous generations of workers/employees to give me what I and my colleagues from all parts of the industry now have. You don't seem to like that, does it stick in your craw for some reason? Because that is the impression I get from your laughably angry posts. Take a chill pill mate. If your not happy with your own particular employment terms and conditions you can either fight to better them, or bolt off to a new career. Your choice mate.

 

[CosherB]

I don't know what line of work you are in but obviously you are quite happy to be used and abused and thats fine because thats your look out. But seeing as you have used the word dispicable against the Network Rail workers then perhaps your own look out could be looked at as spineless. Sure you are quite happy to come on here shouting the odds about how striking is dispicable yet you say that you "suffer the most appalling injustices at work" and are quite happy to accept that which in my estimation is cowardly and spineless.

Then you've entirely missed my point. the first thing you have to haul on board is the life is not fair. Never was, never will be. I'm amazed I have to say that!

I did NOT meekly accept injustices - I used my nouse to work around them - turned them to my advantage. Have you never observed how predators work in the wild? THAT is life, and THAT is how it works. Bleating and striking.... in the real world, without those testes in your grasp giving you unfair advantage at everyone elses disadvantage, you'd be eaten!

 

[CarterUSM]

You'll need to do better than that to wind me up mate! That's good though, enjoy your retirement old fella. You do deserve it after 40 odd years of graft. And at least you won't have to worry about getting around or being laid off either, so that's 1 off the 'millions' who apparantly will. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[CosherB]

Old? Moi? Come and fly a session of aerobatics with me and see who feels old!

 

[CarterUSM]

I've no doubt I could match you, but I only meant old in the chronological sense! Perhaps mature is a better expression, it's certainly sounds more dignified.

 

[Metroland]

Sometimes this forum really hits low levels of mud slinging, where the debate isn’t moved forward and we get into the realms of ideology, stereotype and passing opinions the writer clearly hasn’t researched, or much knowledge on. Some comments are downright insulting others are just plain wrong.

This debate is being fought from an ideological point of view. The vast majority of people are not signallers or rail maintenance workers, some are clearly pro-union for the sake of it, or anti-union for the sake of it. Many politicians often state ‘I support the right to strike’, yet seem to denounce every strike there is. Which kind of makes me believe, actually they don’t – which is fine. But I do wish people would state what they really believe.

So perhaps the first point is whether there should be a right to strike among certain groups of workers – say in essential services (utilities, transport, emergency services and so on).

Really this a political point of view and has nothing to do with the underlying reasons for this dispute. If people are within the law, and striking, that does not make them selfish, irresponsible as the law stands. Whether anyone likes it or not, the choice to buy or sell goods, seek money for one’s labour, or withdraw it, is currently part of the democratic rights of this country. Some people may argue, because of the pain it creates, this [striking] shouldn’t be allowed, and the law should be changed. This point of view is fine once again, and certainly there is a case for pay demands, but once we apply it to this situation it enters a grey area.

As we all know, the public and media make a great deal of fuss about railway accidents. The public demand a safe system, and should anything go wrong, questions are rightly asked.

This problem in this instance, is groups of workers believe, for whatever reason, what they are being asked to do is not as safe as the system before or even unsafe and may result in an accident – which they will be held ultimately responsible.

Now some people have suggested this is an internal problem, and indeed it is, but let's just imagine; you are someone that is being asked to do something you are not 100% happy with. What would you do?

It really doesn’t matter, if NR management put in a system of work that is potentially less safe – long as they can show at the time they took reasonable care. When accidents happen, usually top management are never found culpable (please name me one case?). Middle management possibly might get moved around to another job, it’s the front line that find themselves in court with a manslaughter charge, entire loss of their income and all that goes with it, and a mental anguish that few can imagine unless you have been in the same situation. This is why unions are popular in the railway – not a political agenda. Most signallers tend to be very independent thinking and conservative in their outlook, nor are they people to be pushed around.

The Gerald Corbetts of the world, find themselves with a big pay offs and a new directorships, the front line staff in the most recent serious cases either lost their jobs, were threatened with jail, or had nervous breakdowns – certainly the driver involved in Southall, and the signalman involved in Ladbroke Grove.

So I ask again, what would you do if you thought something was unsafe?

You really have four lines of defence:

1. You can report your concerns to your line manager, who may or may not back you. Clearly in this case, NR have not backed front line staff, so this option at the moment is closed.

2. You can refuse to do something. Indeed, I have many times, and its part of law that you not only have the right to do this, you should excise that right. In this case you could refuse to allow T3 possessions (I’ve done that on safety concerns) and if this was a universal action, you will find that the railway would have to close anyway, as parts of it would become unsafe.

3. Or you can contact your union (if you have one) and report your concerns to them. They may take up your case. Clearly, here, they have, but cannot find agreement with Network rail. Hence they have balloted for strike action - essentially a joint refusal to take part in ‘unsafe’ activities.

4. The final option is you can resign from your job - indeed I did this myself. But I was lucky, because that was a choice I could make. What people need to understand, is its not a choice for everyone, not because they are uneducated, because like doctors, lawyers, police officers, firelighters, pilots and air traffic controllers, you will find your re-employment opportunities in your chosen field limited to non-existent. You will have to spend years retraining, and with mortgages, families and other commitments sometimes that is near impossible.

I’m afraid when push comes to shove, unless we start running a dictatorship and radically change the legal system, even if you banned striking, you could potentially have a situation where someone refuses to do something on the grounds of safety. I’ve been there, and I can tell you, when its my freedom and conscience is on the line, I’ll be making a the final decision, not a politician, manager, lawyer or anyone else.

Here is a system of work, which NR wish to put in, that in my opinion opens signallers up to error, and I don't blame them in the least, knowing the consequences of making that error.

 

[Greenback]

Metroland, that is an excellent post! A very good analysis that puts this dispute in its proper context, avoiding the subjective views and insulting language that have marred this thread.

 

[GB]

I dont usually agree with Metroland but well said that man!

CS, you talk about the "real world"...do you think any or most of us were born into the rail industry? All/most of us have worked damn hard to get where we are.

 

[CosherB]

Good post, Metro. However, I'd make the following observations:

So perhaps the first point is whether there should be a right to strike among certain groups of workers – say in essential services (utilities, transport, emergency services and so on).

Really this a political point of view and has nothing to do with the underlying reasons for this dispute. If people are within the law, and striking, that does not make them selfish, irresponsible as the law stands.

Which seems to imply that anything which is within the law must be morally OK and not selfish. I disagree.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the choice to buy or sell goods, seek money for one’s labour, or withdraw it, is currently part of the democratic rights of this country.

True, but if you are in a monopoly position (such as running the nation's railways) then you can strike with impunity, since your customers are captive. The BA stikers, for instance, stand to lose their airline and therefore their jobs as their customers go elsewhere. NR workers are protected from that - which is where the immorality of this proposed strike comes in.

Now some people have suggested this is an internal problem, and indeed it is, but let's just imagine; you are someone that is being asked to do something you are not 100% happy with. What would you do?

Write to the Safety Directorate, and get press publicity as well. Striking ain't going to help anyone! Quite the reverse! (And that assumes this stike is about safety concerns, not job reductions or changes in working practice). And you have answered this yourself below in your example of T3 possession refusal.

it’s the front line that find themselves in court with a manslaughter charge, entire loss of their income and all that goes with it,

As long as any employee works within the rules and the law as they exist at the time of any accodent or incident and is not deliberately negligent, they cannot and will not be held culpable by any court.

2. You can refuse to do something. Indeed, I have many times, and its part of law that you not only have the right to do this, you should excise that right. In this case you could refuse to allow T3 possessions (I’ve done that on safety concerns) and if this was a universal action, you will find that the railway would have to close anyway, as parts of it would become unsafe.

Unlike a knee-jerk 'let's strike' option, that specific action would be a very appropriate and laudable method of dealing with something a worker considers to be unsafe practice.

 

[thegrich37423]

The question was: what would you do if you thought something was unsafe, everything else in that so-called 'spot-on post' was debating circular argument after circular argument.
My answer, I'd simply avoid it, hence why I think Bob Crow is the man who's right to say that the railways are inheritenly unsafe. They are! I know a lot of people' whose jobs are on the line and the only way to voice these concerns, including the safety concerns of our railways, is to strike. I said it before and I will say it again, humans often find expressing better through action rather than through words. Metroland's post proves this: its just a post which might have a good point but leads this debate nowhere.
I put forward my opinion, someone else puts forward theirs, and we get nowhere. Believe you me, I'd much rather see the railways become a safer, more reliable mode of transport than an unsafe, risky, creaky Victorian infastructure compared to the fantastic road system and air system we have.
I'm sorry if you disagree with me and that I put my opinions across harshly, but I have every right to defend my ideology and debate with those who 'cross-paths' with it.

Rich.

 

[Metroland]

As I've said I'm not 100% convinced striking is the way to go.

When you do you signalling theory training, it is drummed into you that you should refuse to do things if you think they are unsafe, not just to do with T3s, but all aspects of operations. As I said, the job is very much about running the system within the framework of rules that have been put together over 150 years of hard experience. There are many grey areas, and some occasions where the rules can be bent. As the old saying goes

'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men'

The problem as I see it, is there is a disagreement of whether the new system is safe. As I said, I have serious reservations myself. The refusal to grant T3s would have to be collective, else this would have no effect on NR. Yes, nobody can be prosecuted for following the rules, but what you can be prosecuted for is lapses in concentration let down by systems of work that are not as good as they should be.

The fact remains rail is the safest form of transport and the most reliable (far safer than the roads, and safer than air by passenger hours) because of these safe systems of work and because professionals rigorously apply methods of working. Even with the most modern of equipment (sorry the railways are not creaky and Victorian, it is as modern as any other transport system) mistakes can happen, there is always a human element that only safe systems of work can hope to mitigate against.

 

[jon0844]

The important thing is whether this strike will help ensure a safe railway, or whether there are things that should be done to make them safer still.

 

[Greenback]

The question was: what would you do if you thought something was unsafe, everything else in that so-called 'spot-on post' was debating circular argument after circular argument.
My answer, I'd simply avoid it, hence why I think Bob Crow is the man who's right to say that the railways are inheritenly unsafe. They are! I know a lot of people' whose jobs are on the line and the only way to voice these concerns, including the safety concerns of our railways, is to strike. I said it before and I will say it again, humans often find expressing better through action rather than through words. Metroland's post proves this: its just a post which might have a good point but leads this debate nowhere.
I put forward my opinion, someone else puts forward theirs, and we get nowhere. Believe you me, I'd much rather see the railways become a safer, more reliable mode of transport than an unsafe, risky, creaky Victorian infastructure compared to the fantastic road system and air system we have.
I'm sorry if you disagree with me and that I put my opinions across harshly, but I have every right to defend my ideology and debate with those who 'cross-paths' with it.

Rich.

I'm not aware that Bob Crow has said that the railway is unafe, not as safe as roads or air, or that it is creaking, Victoria system. These appear to be your own personal views, which you are entitled to, but that does not eman they are necessarily correct!

I would agree that humnas often prefer taking action, and usually like to do this with the support of their peers and colleagues, rather than as individuals.

 

[CarterUSM]

While it's an honourable thought, i'm not sure everyone would have the minerals to refuse to carry out duties due to safety concerns unfortunately. This action is justified for its safety and non safety concerns in my opinion. Others do not think the same. We are not going to agree, and that is that.

 

[thegrich37423]

Greenback, whilst I agree its a personal opinion that the railways of today are creaky and Victorian, I also happen to know that it is a commonly held belief, hence why the workforce in question are striking. Not to strike for the sake of striking, but to put across a long-held concern that something needs to be done about improving the safety of the railways.
I was watching the BBC News at 1 and they said that they have 'all week to debate this'. I still believe that they should strike. Debating the safety of the railways will not take 'all week'. They need to strike and make a point of this.

 

[Metroland]

Well the railways are not unsafe, and I don't think anyone agrees with that. The public are very relaxed about the 'Hatfield' a day, every day, on the roads. NR and LUL carry over 2 billion passengers per year in safety, more than all the world's civil airlines put together, yet most years there is not an accident - unlike the 4/5 major air crashes or more per year. Overall, the rail system is at least as safe, maybe slightly safer than air. Indeed, the railway's are the safest they have every been.

Punctuality is far higher, in general, on the railways than any other form of transport.

That's not what this debate is about.

What the public do not see is the operational hazards that go on every day (which happen in other forms of transport too) that can result in track worker deaths, near misses, and so on - and dismissals, sackings or prosecutions. Don't underestimate just how strict rules and regulations are applied internally, far exceeding road transport and probably the equal to air.

What protects against accidents (not just passenger ones) is people that are highly trained, disciplined, conscientious and safe working methods that have been put together over a century and a half, which results the excellent safety record.

What the unions are protesting about, is poor use of NR funds in things like vast swaths of over management because of the process of privatisation, and cutting back on front line workers and changing practices to something that many consider is less safe.

I have no problem (although of course the strike is nothing to do with me) if NR wish to propose something that can be done that is cheaper, more flexible, maybe use technology, or even less staff to deliver a result. But from what I have heard (and I stress I have only had this on word of mouth from others that work for NR) I do think what they are proposing is a retrostep, especially as I know of occasions of where trains have ended up inside possessions.

I certainly don't think its 'all the unions fault', because it sounds to me government have told NR to cut their budget and somebody is trying to save some money - which isn't a bad thing, but I would prefer them to save money in other ways until a more sensible approach is used to get the same result.

Yes, safety is not a black and white issues, and there is the debate of safe enough. We have seen disagreements over, for example, DOO. Whereas I have never witnessed DOO contributing to a problem with safety, I do know of occasions of detonators saving the day - several in fact.

What the approach is to solving the issue isn't clear, its very much in the hands of NR.

I don't think jobs is the core issue, there would be very little compulsory redundancy on the maintenance side. On the signalling side, redundancy has always been a issue, and signal boxes have been closing since at least the 30s. But all this is accommodated under natural wastage in any case.

 

[Greenback]

Rich, I am not for one moment that the strike is wrong - some strikes are ineffective and nisguided in my opinion, but this is n;t one of them!

Neither would I disagree that improving safety is a good thing, and that new ways of working may not be safer. What I don't agree with is the assertion that railways are not as safe as the road system. Of course, parts of the rail system are Victorian, and might even be subjectively described as 'creaky', but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are unsafe either.

As far as I am aware, the forthcoming possible strike action has not been called to draw attention tot he current unsafe status of the network, but to the proposed new methods which those doing the job say is less safe than the present system. (yes, I know there are other factors involved apart from safety!)

 

[the sniper]

Sorry to hear that sniper, hope you are not out of work for too much longer.

Thanks bud, I really hope I won't be.

compared to the fantastic road system and air system we have.

I'm fascinated to know what makes our road system so fantastic!

On average, don't seven people die every day on our roads? How have you come to the verdict that the roads are safer then the railways?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

From http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6634.aspx

29 March 2010
From Iain Coucher, Chief Executive:
Network Rail has been advised by the RMT union that it will be calling its members out on strike between
Tuesday 6 April and Friday 9 April.

I am very aware of the effect that this will have on you, and I am doing all I can to negotiate an end
to the disputes to avoid a strike.

If there is a strike, some trains will run: many of our people will want to work as normal. The way in
which this strike has been called – targeting morning and evening services – is designed to maximise
the impact on passengers, and so I regret that on many lines, there will be considerable disruption to
your journey. I apologise for that.

I want to explain the two entirely separate disputes which the RMT has coordinated to cause you
the most difficulty on your daily journeys.

The RMT claims that this is about the safety of passengers and rail workers. It is not. We do not
negotiate on safety – it is at the heart of everything we do, and we will accept no compromises.
The Office of Rail Regulation has now confirmed that it is satisfied with the proposed changes.

Our signallers are seeking reassurance that in the event of future changes to how we work, they will
be treated fairly. We have told them we do not plan to change any of the long-standing agreements
which provide exactly that protection.

In addition, we have presented plans to modernise our maintenance work. They have been rejected
by the unions – so we want to work with them to find a compromise.

For both disputes, Network Rail has worked very hard indeed to make reasonable and worthwhile
offers to the unions so we can negotiate an end to their disputes.

I don’t believe any of those offers have been considered seriously by the unions’ leaders during our
many discussions, which also involved ACAS for two days last week… or they wouldn’t have called
a national rail strike.

We will keep trying to help the unions and their members understand our offers to avoid strikes:
but they must want to negotiate, and not just make empty gestures about talking.

Iain Coucher

I post this for info without comment from me

 

[thegrich37423]

The issue as I see it is that the RMT want to campaign for a safer railway. IMO, that is pretty noble for a union led by a 'dinosaur', as some of you call him. A man with ideals from the 1970s ensuring that we all get a safer railway is one who is to be lauded.
Greenback, I entirely agree with you when you say that this strike is not misguided, and that there have been other strikes in the past which have indeed been ineffective. It is a strike raising valid, pertinent concerns, regardless of the ideology that you think Bob Crow has. Any proposed new methods will not change the fundamental problem with our railways. They should never have been privatised in the first place, that's almost like what happened after they privatised the cleaning done in NHS hospitals. Poor cleanliness in NHS hospitals by these private cleaning firms resulted in poorer infection control. Privatise the railway and you have a system that is inferior in safety and inflexible in design to the railway prior to privatisation, not to mention the road system. I don't think any change that NR will bring about will help alleviate the concerns raised by these union members. I will maintain my stance that striking is the only way to get Iain Coucher and NR's firm attention.
I am in no way ignorant of the fact that striking will cause immediate disruption to people's lives. I for one am truly sorry for this, but I fully support the position of the RMT if it means safeguarding people's jobs and raising the concerns that I have outlined above.

Rich.

 

[CosherB]

I'd much rather see the railways become a safer, more reliable mode of transport than an unsafe, risky, creaky Victorian infastructure compared to the fantastic road system

Um, about 3,000 people a year killed on the roads, many, many thousands more injured, some very seriously maimed.

Last year.... no passenger rail deaths at all. Indeed it was the fourth year in the last five with zero passenger deaths (the fifth year had 1 passenger rail death, an elderly lady at Grayrigg).

Would you care to re-think that, Mr Grich?

 

[Greenback]

The issue as I see it is that the RMT want to campaign for a safer railway. IMO, that is pretty noble for a union led by a 'dinosaur', as some of you call him. A man with ideals from the 1970s ensuring that we all get a safer railway is one who is to be lauded.
Greenback, I entirely agree with you when you say that this strike is not misguided, and that there have been other strikes in the past which have indeed been ineffective. It is a strike raising valid, pertinent concerns, regardless of the ideology that you think Bob Crow has. Any proposed new methods will not change the fundamental problem with our railways. They should never have been privatised in the first place, that's almost like what happened after they privatised the cleaning done in NHS hospitals. Poor cleanliness in NHS hospitals by these private cleaning firms resulted in poorer infection control. Privatise the railway and you have a system that is inferior in safety and inflexible in design to the railway prior to privatisation, not to mention the road system. I don't think any change that NR will bring about will help alleviate the concerns raised by these union members. I will maintain my stance that striking is the only way to get Iain Coucher and NR's firm attention.
I am in no way ignorant of the fact that striking will cause immediate disruption to people's lives. I for one am truly sorry for this, but I fully support the position of the RMT if it means safeguarding people's jobs and raising the concerns that I have outlined above.

Rich.

Rich, I am in agreement about privatisation - it should not have taken place, but unfortunately it did. I've also challenged the use of the dinosaur term and other derogatory remarks and hyperbole on this thread. As far as I am concerned, such language adds nothing to the debate, is designed to inflame others, and comes stright from the pages of the gutter press.

If, however, if one of the aims of the strike is also to renationalise the railway, then however noble that cause may be, it is ultimately doomed to failure at the present time, and will only provide further ammunition to those who want to knock the unions involved, and remove the right to strike from the industry.

 

[Tin Rocket]

From http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6634.aspx

I post this for info without comment from me

Coucher has'nt a clue what goes on in the real world,not very many days go by when the rulebook does'nt get bent to the limit regarding safe systems of work when on or about the railway,things go on locally(definately) and nationally i'm sure that the ordinary punter would not believe week in week out,i don't want to lose money by striking but sometimes you have to make a stand for what you think is right,a lot of work done on the rail is done by goodwill for a decent supervisor or manager with safety having a blind eye turned.I speak from experience.