> >New Worker Online Digest > >Week commencing 27th October, 2000. > >1) Editorial - Fobbed off. > >2) Lead story - End rail chaos - renationalise! > >3) Feature article - Danger: bosses at work. > >4) International story - No end in sight to Israeli aggression. > >5) British news item - Hands off our homes. > > >1) Editorial > >Fobbed off. > >THE revoking or Connex South Central franchise to run train services from >London to the south coast is just a sop to an increasingly angry public and >a missed opportunity to start bringing the railways back into public >ownership and control. > > The railway disasters at Southall, Ladbroke Grove and now Hatfield, all of >which involved loss of life and many people injured, have provoked >widespread calls for Automatic Train Protection (ATP) systems to be >introduced on all lines and for rail privatisation to be reversed. > > Usually the government makes the excuse that renationalisation would be >too costly because of demands for compensation. But surely when a franchise >expires, as happened with Connex, it would be possible to simply take it >back into public hands instead of giving the franchise to some other >private company. > > By failing to do this the government has shown that it does not intend to >roll-back the privatisation programme and merely hopes that it can find >more efficient capitalist owners to give the franchises to when their >expiry time comes round. > > This ignores completely the fact that private ownership only exists at all >in order to make money for investors and shareholders. By some means or >another the private owners have to make a profit. This must not bejust any >amount of profit but a rate of profit that is competitive with other >companies seeking to attract new investment. > > The profits have to come from somewhere -- and that is the pockets of the >public, in the form of continuing government subsidies and in increased >fares, and it comes from squeezing thejobs of rail workers. > > If the railways were not in private hands the millions taken out in the >form of dividends could be ploughed back into the industry and improvements >made both to the service and to safety. > > On the question of accident prevention both the private rail companies and >the government maintain that installing APT throughout the country would be >very expensive. > > Yes it would. But then so is the cost of examining and repairing Britain's >fleet of nuclear-powered submarines -- a multi-million pound expense that >doesn't seem to have raised a single eyebrow in the corridors of Whitehall! > > Indeed, money for waging war and maintaining Britain's global military >might is always forthcoming -- there are no government ministers then >telling us the country can't afford to foot the bill. > > Of course, the- spate of tragedies on the railways has stirred up such >storm of protest that the government can hardly do nothing at all. Hence >the promise of a further handout to Railtrack along with more fine words >about accountability. > > Surely, if public funds are to be pumped into Railtrack in order to >improve safety then the public should also reap the financial benefits that >will eventually accrue. > > Clearly Railtrack has failed to provide an efficient and safe network and >has lost all credibility. The Hatfield derailment has shown that even the >track itself is inadequately maintained. > > Since that accident it has been revealed that miles and miles of track all >over the country is in such a poor condition that speed restrictions have >been immediately imposed. > > While all this is going on the government claims it is concerned about >growing traffic congestion and air pollution. It talks of finding ways to >encourage people to use their cars less and public transport more. There >will be little chance of achieving this when people fear that the railway >network is unsafe. > > We need a great deal more than handouts to private companies that have >already sucked billions out of the rail transport industry. Our demand is >for the entire rail system to be returned to public ownership with full >democratic accountability and for the interests of the public to be the >first priority. > > That means putting safety first. It means returning the whole industry to >one that is integrated and planned and it means kicking the grasping hands >of the privateers out of the revenues pot. > >Give back our railways, make our trains safe! > > ********************* > >2) Lead story > >End rail chaos - renationalise! > >by Daphne Liddle > >RAILTRACK has responded to criticism over the Hatfield rail crash in which >four people died by closing the West Coast Line between Carlisle and >Glasgow last Wednesday -- giving the train operators and passengers just >two hours notice. > > On the same line, services are also disrupted between Milton Keynes and >Rugby, a 20 miles an hour speed limit has been imposed on the line between >Plymouth and Totnes on the London to Penzance railway and throughout the >country on main lines and commuter lines, chaos is reigning. > > Timetables have gone out of the window and thousands of passengers are >experiencing delays and disruptions throughout the country because of >newly-imposed speed restrictions. > > Railtrack has accepted that a broken rail was the most likely cause of the >Hatfield crash and that the state of the track was "unacceptable". it seems >there are many other unacceptable stretches of track around the country. > > Each one of these restrictions represents a section of rail that Railtrack >cannot be sure is safe and where tests are now being conducted laboriously >with sonar equipment. > > On the Carlisle to Glasgow link alone, some 177 rails have been found to >be so defective they must be replaced immediately. > > Every passenger would sooner suffer delays and get home late rather than >risk being involved in an accident. > > But Railtrack's attitude, when representatives are interviewed and in >giving such short notice of the West Coast line closure, hints at a sort of >defensiveness, implying that the travelling public must chose between >timetable reliability or safety but is being unreasonable in expecting both. > > This is outrageous after Railtrack, at the lime of privatisation, boasted >it would have no problems in running the track better than British Rail had >done and signed contracts to guarantee both safety and service levels. > > It is even more outrageous that the Government, in the light of the >Hatfield crash, has decided last Monday to give Railtrack a £4.7 billion >grant from taxpayers'money -- £855 million more than expected -- over the >next five years to improve safety and track maintenance. > > The reason why our rail tracks are in such a desperate condition is >because Railtrack has failed to invest previous grants in proper track >maintenance. > > It has sacked skilled engineers and brought in cheapskate subcontractors >who employ unskilled workers on low pay to do repairs while Railtrack >pockets the difference for the benefit of shareholders. > > One rail worker last week told the New Worker that Balfour Beatty, the >sub-contractor employed by Railtrack to look after the Hatfield stretch, >are "learning as they go". > > The Government has declared that Railtrack's spending will now be more >closely monitored. Rail Regulator Tom Winsor announced that Railtrack will >be spending £14.9 billion over the next five years "to ensure that Britain >has a railway fit for the demands of increasing passenger numbers". > > Of this money, £3.5 billion will go on track maintenance and renewal, >including £150 million specifically targeted at reducing broken rails. > > Another £4 billion will be spent on maintenance and renewal of signalling >systems and £500 million on signal enhancements such as the Train >Protection Warning System. This is less effective than the Automatic Train >protection system that rail unions and passenger groups are calling for, >but which is deemed too expensive by Railtrack and by the Government. > > Railtrack may have to reduce the annual number of broken rails from around >765 a year now to 615 a year within five years. > > If the company fails to meet its target it could be fined £80,000 per >broken rail over the target but will be rewarded by the same amount per >rail not broken if it reduced the number below the target level. > > This is peanuts to a company that makes £l million profit a day. > > Railtrack will not be fined at all for delays caused by the current round >of safety checks. Tom Winsor said: "There is no question of Railtrack being >whacked with a massive fine if they carry out safety obligations. > > "There is no conflict between performance and safety. Safety must always >come first." So he has bought the Railtrack message that we must chose, we >can't expect both. > > The Government policy of simply giving more money to the greedy >capitalists who have mismanaged our railways to the point where they are >unsafe is madness. > > Talk of stricter regulation is madness. The existing regulators -- Mr >Winsor, the Health and Safety Executive and the Shadow Strategic Rail >Authority -- are all ignored by the profit hungry privateers. > > Last week the Government refused to renew the franchise of Connex South >Central because of its appalling level of services -- showing how easily it >could be done, only to go on and award the franchise to another private >company. > > The railways must be brought back into public ownership. We must protect >the taxpayers' money, the railworkers' jobs and the passengers lives. > > ********************** > >3) Feature article > >Danger: bosses at work. > >by Caroline Colebrook > >SUPPORTERS of the Construction Safety Campaign marked European Week for >Safety and Health at Work last week with a protest picket outside the >Holiday Inn, Nelson Dock, Kotherhithe, south London. > > They were protesting outside the first major conference on construction >occupational health and safety involving the Health and Safety Executive >and the employers. > > The building workers, whose health and safety was being discussed, pointed >out that with conference tickets at £300 each, they were effectively >excluded from the conference. > > The Construction Safety Campaign says that delegates to this event are >much more likely to reach retirement and be fit enough to enjoy it than the >building workers protesting at the door. > > "Fine words about 'partnership', 'stakeholder' and 'innovation' mean >nothing when the industry systematically denies workers the right to >organise and have a say in their own protection," a spokesperson said. > > "If you ask for a mask in construction, you are more likely to get the >sack. Violence against those who insist on safety on the job is common. > > "The promised direct employment drive by employers has halted and >regulation is still as weak as ever. > > "Labour has not delivered on its safety promises. Whitty, Callaghan, >Cooper, Caldwell, Myers -- the industry record on protecting building >workers stinks!" > > The campaign stresses that health, safely and welfare should be a right. >The building industry employs over a million and a half workers. It takes >fit young men and kills and brutalises them. > > Young building workers have little chance of reaching retiring age without >contracting a work related illness. > > The illnesses and causes are well known. The construction industry has the >highest rates for: > > respiratory diseases --ashestosis, silicosis and asthma; > > cancers -- lung cancer, mesothelioma; > > skin diseases -- dermatitis and ulcers; > > vibration white finger and other vibration conditions; > > back injuries; > > repetitive strain injuries -- shoulder, elbows and knees. > > The "Working Well Together" initiative has failed to make any impact on >the health and safety conditions of building workers. > > There is still no occupational health scheme for the industry, no sick pay >scheme and no pension scheme. > > On top of that, since the last European Health and Safety at Work Week >there has been a 20 per cent increase in building workers killed and a 23 >per cent increase in contractors' profits. > > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
