*Why are station staff striking?

Contrary to public perception, it has nothing to do with greedy drivers!

Most grades within LUL, including operating grades e.g. drivers have already achieved a 35 hour week. The station staff had been promised a 35 hour week for several years, but each year up until 2004 this important item had been overlooked. Eventually the RMT achieved a 35 hour week by a formula of maintaining the established 37.5 hours but “banking” these hours and achieving 10 extra days leave a year. This was rightly described as “ground breaking” as it represented quality time off work rather than a 30 minute a day reduction, which is negligible.

It has been the implementation of the new rosters that has caused the current dispute. There is an acceptance by the RMT that the demographics within stations are changing: the success of the Oyster card has meant that fewer passengers are queuing at station windows, especially in central London stations in the morning peak. For this reason it was agreed that 200 “multi-functional” staff could be displaced to other positions. There was, however, a tacit acceptance that if 4,500 station staff are getting 10 days extra leave (45,000 work days) rosters would need to be re-visited with the likelihood of more staff being required.

LUL resisted this, and even in the aftermath of the terrorist outrages in July, denied the need for more staff. Meanwhile the Government, with the support of LUL, is trying to do away with the fire regulations (section 12 stations) introduced in the wake of the Kings Cross fire. This will result in the wholesale reduction of station staff in safety critical roles, and consequently a greater risk to passengers. None of these proposed rosters has been safety-validated as required by LUL procedures.

*What effect will the new rosters have on health and safety?

As a direct result of the imposition of new rosters, LUL are bringing in “remote monitoring of the gate line”. This means there will be no staff to assist passengers in station ticket halls. Experience has shown that a uniformed staff presence has a beneficial effect in reducing assaults on passengers as well as offering reassurance to vulnerable passengers. Polls have consistently shown that travelers, and women in particular, are more likely to use public transport when there are staff on stations.

From the point of view of staff health and safety, one of our major concerns is that many more stations may be staffed by a lone woman or man until late at night. There is already a serious problem of staff assaults at outlying stations which can only get worse with single person staffing. Also a large number of station assistants with child-care responsibilities are currently offered part-time positions. The new rosters are causing a great deal of anguish to people who may now have to resign because their needs are nor being catered for in the new rosters.

Many outlying stations are already short of staff; but the agreement reached during the OPO negotiations guaranteed all stations to have at least one member of staff or be closed. This is unfortunately being ignored and drivers have no way of knowing if a station is staffed or not. There was a case on the west end of the Central Line this year when a station was not only unstaffed but also unlocked overnight, so any drunken passenger stumbling in after the last train had gone could have been on the tracks until the first train in the morning - and no-one any the wiser.

*I understand the stations attacked on 7/7 will be adversely affected by the new rosters as well?

LUL’s plans mean that those Edgware Road, King's Cross and Liverpool St. will lose 30%, 75% and 70% respectively of their front line staff. After the attacks on 7/7 Bob Crow predicted that the people the Evening Standard described as heroes would be villains again as soon as we asked for more money / shorter hours. How right he was.

Read in full here:
 http://libcom.org/news/article.php?story=tube-strike-interview-080106