Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Thanks for the detailed on-point answer. </snark>

accuse me again, "under the impression"

I have an impression (not accusation under impression), which, debating on the basis of the subjective experience of one side, I should be allowed to communicate.

My impression was precipitated upon things like the fact that you cite union claims on work conditions -- claims which came up in the political debate, your argument about passenger inconvenience (which is a general anti-strike argument), that you thought not hitting passengers with closing doors is all that there is to tram driver responsibility. Incidentally, the 16 to 17 km/h argument you made without specifying "average line speed" reinforced my impression, for it sounds like an anti-union propaganda argument ("1 km/h faster and they cry foul -- ridiculous!") that you may have caught up.

"bureaucratic managers" (engineers too, I suppose)

You somehow seem to have missed the crucial "hired from the outside with no clue about how railways actually work" part. The engineers know their thing, managers back when they had actual technical experience also tended to know their thing, but today managers are considered interchangeable, and railways often get types who make decisions whose adverse effects can be (and are) predicted at the getgo. I could write long diaries about these -- in fact, I did. What's more, there are a couple of models for the Paris situation, say the failed Athens tram timetable. (Also, I'm not sure about tram drivers, but locomotive drivers nowadays are technically engineers, too.)

A culture of dialogue should replace a culture of class warfare.

I agree, but a unilateral announcement of a virtual paycut, accompanied by a campaign describing locomotive drivers as having it too good with lots of privileges, is not dialogue. It is class warfare. I find it strange that you can only perceive class warfare when fought from below.

I can't reply to any point made by anybody. I still believe

How should I debate statements of faith?

Maybe with subjective observations of my own. Where I live, it happens often that bus drivers talk with someone in the cab/door, it happens that locomotive drivers invite someone into the cab, but I have never seen tram or subway drivers do it. When I was in France last year, I didn't get on a Paris tram, but did get on them in a couple of other cities, and there was discipline too (and on-time trams). So if what you saw was as serious as you describe it, or worse a regular occurence, it doesn't mean that tram divers have it too good but that oversight is lenient (maybe managers should focus on that) and the talkative drivers should be punished before they cause a serious accident.

Would I be wrong if I said you read me through the filter of your far left convictions?

I am indeed among the 6-7 regulars on ET who could be classified as hard left; replaced with that, the above statement would be debatable, though I don't understand the occasion (my above described "impression" was not based on a presumed political stance of yours). However, I am not beating up capitalists in back alleys, or calling for an instant expropiation of rich landowners, or for the exiling of the editorial board of The Economist, or praising Stalin or hailing José Bové as Dear Leader, or whatever other parallels there can be to the behaviour of the far-right (say the Italian one we discussed some time back); and indeed I haven't written anything upthread that a moderate Social Democrat couldn't say -- so even that you thought that you could reply to my "accusation" this way implies a tilted sense of what's "far" in politics.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series