Disqus - Latest Comments for anotherobserver

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:44:19 -0000

What a ludicrous argument. You are not paid to be black or homosexual. You don’t sign a certificate of gayness or blackness that outlines an agreement of how you should behave during the work day. It is nothing like this issue - a paid staff member of LU, in uniform, behaving in a way that goes against their agreed and expected conduct.

Now let’s look at a really interesting twist to your stereotyping argument and replace “old white guy” with a “black man” or “homosexual” being abused by an LU worker. I think the tone of many of these posts would be different again.

Oh I love the overly PC world of the liberal do-gooder.

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:25:49 -0000

Thanks for that list of, at best objectionable and at worst illegal, stuff to do on the tube network. This isn’t a list of activities not to film it’s a list of things you shouldn’t be doing anyway!

Presumably LU had created this list of ‘activities not to film’ in the hope that people wouldn’t do them, rather than wouldn’t film them? Thank you LU for spending your time generating such ‘useful’ information.

Surely capturing any of these actions on film, (even in part), is a public service either journalistically or as criminal evidence? I hardly think the act of simply capturing one of the aforementioned actions constitutes ‘losing the high ground’ even if it is on a spurious list created by LU.

Sharing the film publicly is another matter and the ethics of this rather depend on whether you think it is in the public interest or not.

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:52:50 -0000

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:52:50 -0000

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:43:40 -0000

ugworker - You didn’t 1) swear at her 2) follow her along the platform trying to escalate the incident or 3) try to prevent her from getting on subsequent trains because she’d been a bit dense. All of these were present in Ian’s video. You also tried reasoning first. Seems perfectly logical to me. If we were watching a video of your incident I imagine the public response would be markedly different.

Vegeta3113 – I can only assume that this is the name on your Petri dish? A single-celled organism can see that in an emergency / evacuation situation a more measured, clear but firm response is probably appropriate to avoid causing panic. “Get the hell out of here” is unlikely to have the clam, authoritative effect required by someone tasked with the safety of the public in such situations. Did you even think that the “where and how” which the passengers asking were “where are the exits”, “how do I get out”? There were probably signs, but due to the panic you caused I’d imagine some of the passengers may have been a little flustered and have needed further direction.

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:25:42 -0000

‘Dick’. (I simply call it as I see it.) You are missing the point.

Whilst I accept that you may not have directly defended Ian in your initial post are you selectively reading a large number of the other responses here? Lots of people (many of whom gleefully badge themselves as LU workers) are defending him.

If you had read my initial piece thoroughly you would see that my assertion is not that I have the right to ‘visit that behaviour back on Ian’s colleagues’ on the basis of the behaviour I have witnessed in the video. Rather, I am suggesting that perhaps I adjust my behaviour to mirror that which I experience from Ian’s colleagues as, from many of their responses here, many are advocating ‘an eye for an eye’ escalation of abusive behaviour as an acceptable response. In some cases they suggest that this retaliation doesn’t have to be directed at the same member of public from which any original abuse stemmed, just blow when you feel like it!

Personally I don’t think this is an acceptable way to behave, but was interested that so many self-proclaimed LU workers here thought it was. I’m sure, and indeed I hope, that this is not the majority, (although a quick tally of the comments here says otherwise).

I do have a problem with the fares I pay and the service I receive. This is not ‘fine’. It is a testament to the stinking, self-serving unions that impact on our transport systems. Those unions who protect people who demonstrate they have no place in public facing roles. I am not talking about an individual (Ian), but rather those more numerous ‘LU workers’ who start yapping whenever one of their kind is held up to public inquiry after being identified and questioned (see numerous posts here) for behaviour that in any other walk of working life would simply be unacceptable.

It is those same ‘workers’ who will doubtless respond to my disgust at the service I receive on the underground with a smug “don’t use it then”, “walk” or other such disconnected advice (again clearly seen in posts here) in the belief that the world owes them a living and safe in the knowledge that their odious union will defend this pipe dream regardless of customer opinion, or even customer presence.

At this point I would like to apologise to those LU workers who don’t think that abusiveness in a public facing role is acceptable and would invite them to step forward and speak up above the noisy, empty vessels that are their self-serving colleagues. I know that there are some who will have reacted to Ian’s behaviour with shame, concern or even an increased desire to improve the service.

I don’t know if the good apples are actually in majority or minority anymore, or if the barrel is irreparably damaged. My experience of over ten years travelling daily on the tube doesn’t give me enough support to come down on either side – an equal balance between palatable and rotten. Surely that in itself speaks volumes about the ‘average’ standard of personnel?

Whilst individual staff members are absolutely not to blame for much of what drives my frustration of LU they are a key part of the overall experience and therefore a key part of the problem or solution. In my opinion (and in the opinion of some of the other posts here) Ian’s behaviour is indicative of the worst of the LU attitude to the public. The extreme end perhaps, but that makes it less forgivable and more important that it is addressed for the public and the good apples.

You ask me how I’d feel if ‘every mistake’ I made was recorded and broadcast? Firstly I’m not above admitting that I make mistakes, apologising for them (something completely lacking here) and learning from them. Secondly we’re not talking about ‘every mistake’ in Ian’s case. We’re talking about verbal and (from what I can see in the limited footage) physical abuse of a paying member of the public. I don’t care if he takes too long on a tea break, chucks a sicky or turns up late, but not being rude to and avoiding manhandling customers is fairly fundamental in a public facing role. If it were me I would absolutely expect to be out of my job and not reasonably expect the weight of a mis-guided union behind me.

The fact you say we should be “ashamed if that man loses his job” presumably demonstrates that on the basis of just this short clip your decision has already been made as to what is the appropriate fate of Ian? The fact that the full context wasn’t caught on camera somehow vindicates the actions that were? The point here is that the video has revealed:
- That this is not an uncommon experience for many tube travellers.
- That this is not an isolated incident with Ian and formal complaints as well as other negative customer experiences not reported as complaints have come to light.
- Some shocking attitudes toward what is acceptable behaviour from certain areas within the LU organisation. This should result in some serious action by LU management to address the situation, but I doubt it will. (This was the original point I made - manage him, not sack him).

Is it fair that Ian is the public scapegoat for all that is bad with LU? Probably not, although I stick to my assertion that the behaviour in the clip is wrong, but I think the response to the clip has proved of public interest and has opened a debate that should have been addressed long ago. His final fate will not be decided by open forum, but at least those deciding his fate and what they might learn from it will have a guide as to what the public feel is required from their staff.

Re: Ian From The London Underground Vs An Elderly Man

anotherobserver — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:57:20 -0000

Richard (I am sorely tempted to use the abbreviation), and indeed all the others who are harping on about LU ‘workers’ (now there’s an oxymoron) and the common man – what can’t you see here?

Ian is paid to do a job. Part of that job is not being rude to people. At all. Ever. I completely accept that people should not be rude to Ian either. But they are. They are not paid to adjust their attitude as he is whilst in uniform, representing LU.

Being an offensive LU worker, no matter what the provocation, is not just wrong in the eyes of the general public, but should be wrong in the eyes of anyone else who wears the LU uniform. It doesn’t help the cause, in fact it simply says to me that the view of LU workers is that offensive behaviour is actually acceptable under circumstances of ‘extreme pressure’ or in retaliation. I may well remember that next time I am ‘under pressure’ due to poor service (delays or overcrowding) or when I get short shrift asking to use the manual gates as my overpriced season ticket suffers arbitrary rejection by the automatic barriers. I hope you the ‘common man’ LU workers will judge me by your own standards and not complain as I vent spleen?

To go back the specific gripe from Richard (Dick) – injustice is letting a bunch of people run amok under the banner of workers rights whilst the customers suffer. Think of Jonathan as the LU customers version of Bob Crow, but with a slightly more balanced and objective viewpoint and less of a personal agenda. We don’t have a self-serving gobshite representing the LU customer. We have videos, from people not directly involved, to give a window onto the real world underground. Let’s hope not just Ian’s boss, but many other LU bosses are watching, learning and managing.