Re: Cityrail don't need guards (Was: [OT] Rod-o-matic (was: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image))

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

"Dave Proctor"
> "Tezza"
> > "Dave Proctor"
> > > "sean"
> > > > Why the <beep> would CityRail want DOO? with the instants of
> > > bushing/mugings on trains?
> > >
> > > The current crop of guards don't get out of their little cubbie-hole
> anyway, so a fat lot of good they are.
> >
> > They're not required to. It's the lazy Chubbies who are responsible for
> most of the inaction on assaults.
>
> And it is attitudes like this that will lead to DOO - the best way to
> preserve these jobs is to make themselves indispensable.

I quite agree. The Union wants train guards to be responsible for on-board
security. They already have the option of patrolling the train if they want,
the problem being of course they could only get 10 feet answering 50 questions
before they'd have to rush back to open the doors.

The Union never wanted the Chubbies in the first place, they're trying to get
extra train guards on the train to do the job.

The problem with either of these though is you'd never get most of the sheilas
out of the cabs, they'd be too scared (along with plenty of the blokes).