In message <t1a7kd$f3s$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:03:25 on Mon, 21 Mar
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>> this direction.
>>
>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation
>>when possible. But things have changed with Omicron: we can all
>>expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation, masks,
>>or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn to live with it, or become a
>>recluse.
>
>So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>baby sister will also be constrained.
>
>Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.

Have already have. But hey, cull the sick, it reduces the demand on the
NHS. The ultra right wing knows it makes sense.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t1a7kd$f3s$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:03:25 on Mon, 21 Mar
>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>> this direction.
>>>
>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation
>>>when possible. But things have changed with Omicron: we can all
>>>expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation, masks,
>>>or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn to live with it, or become a
>>>recluse.
>>
>>So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>baby sister will also be constrained.
>>
>>Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>
>Have already have. But hey, cull the sick, it reduces the demand on the
>NHS. The ultra right wing knows it makes sense.

So, do you recommend a permanent lockdown, with no meetings, no public transport and no on-site working?

In message <1ubh3hpd598esooo4tbc773sr09ira242h@4ax.com>, at 17:03:40 on
Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t1a7kd$f3s$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:03:25 on Mon, 21 Mar
>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>> this direction.
>>>>
>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation
>>>>when possible. But things have changed with Omicron: we can all
>>>>expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation, masks,
>>>>or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn to live with it, or become a
>>>>recluse.
>>>
>>>So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>
>>>Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>
>>Have already have. But hey, cull the sick, it reduces the demand on the
>>NHS. The ultra right wing knows it makes sense.
>
>So, do you recommend a permanent lockdown, with no meetings, no public
>transport and no on-site working?

No, just sensible precautions.

--
Roland Perry

On 21/03/2022 13:10, Graeme Wall wrote:

> Reminds me of when I went freelance back in the 1990s. There were
> several jobs opening up at various tech colleges for teaching staff for
> the newly created media studies courses. As a tutor they wanted minimum
> 5 years experience, fair enough, but they also wanted a Media Studies
> degree which hadn't existed even 2 years before, never mind 5!

Is "must have 5 years experience with Software 2021" still pretty much
compulsory in these sort of job adverts?

--
Arthur Figgis

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:25 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>
>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>
>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>> all wearing masks.
>>
>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>
> Yes, that's true.
>

No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
vulnerable need to wear. It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut
down normal life. Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and
ultimately kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health
care for the majority in the long term.

There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
such folk?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1ubh3hpd598esooo4tbc773sr09ira242h@4ax.com>, at 17:03:40 on
> Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t1a7kd$f3s$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:03:25 on Mon, 21 Mar
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation
>>>>> when possible. But things have changed with Omicron: we can all
>>>>> expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation, masks,
>>>>> or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn to live with it, or become a
>>>>> recluse.
>>>>
>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>
>>> Have already have. But hey, cull the sick, it reduces the demand on the
>>> NHS. The ultra right wing knows it makes sense.
>>
>> So, do you recommend a permanent lockdown, with no meetings, no public
>> transport and no on-site working?
>
> No, just sensible precautions.
>

Sensible precautions don’t stop the spread of Omicron. If you are
vulnerable take your own precautions, ie wear a proper FFP3 mask.

On 22/3/22 05:06, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 21/03/2022 13:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>
>> minimum 5 years experience, fair enough, but they also wanted a Media
>> Studies degree which hadn't existed even 2 years before, never mind 5!
>
> Is "must have 5 years experience with Software 2021" still pretty much
> compulsory in these sort of job adverts?
>

That's because the job adverts are written by HR or recruitment agencies
and not the tech people 'on the ground'. They take a vague spec and
apply the 'standard template' to it.

I had HR turn the advertisement for an IT assistant into near gibberish.
When I complained I got told there was no money to re-advertise with
corrected requirements.

This was before the using agencies to generate shortlists was common, so
I got all the applications and crossed off immediately any one claiming
to have extensive experience on the non existent system.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1ubh3hpd598esooo4tbc773sr09ira242h@4ax.com>, at 17:03:40 on
> Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t1a7kd$f3s$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:03:25 on Mon, 21 Mar
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation
>>>>> when possible. But things have changed with Omicron: we can all
>>>>> expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation, masks,
>>>>> or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn to live with it, or become a
>>>>> recluse.
>>>>
>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>
>>> Have already have. But hey, cull the sick, it reduces the demand on the
>>> NHS. The ultra right wing knows it makes sense.
>>
>> So, do you recommend a permanent lockdown, with no meetings, no public
>> transport and no on-site working?
>
> No, just sensible precautions.
>

For protection against Omicron, that would be a full respirator set-up.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:24:10 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 16:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>
>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately too many extreme right wingers are uninterested in the
>>> ramifications that the vulnerable members suffer under their "covid
>>> crisis is over" policy.
>>
>> So, is the death rate shooting up then?
>
> In Scotland the death rate is falling, the hospitalisation rate is higher
> now than it was in January, both as a proportion of cases and in absolute
> numbers, and the number of people in ICU is rising. The hospitalisation
> rate may well reflect the general prevalence in the population, with more
> infected patients in hospital for reasons other than COVID.

I think that's the key point: many more patients are being admitted for
completely different reasons, but happen to test positive for Covid,
probably to their own surprise. They are patients who happen to have
Covid, probably unknowingly, not Covid patients.

Similarly, if I travel on a crowded bus, train, plane or through an airport
(all of which I've done in recent days), I assume there will be people
around me who would test positive. Unlike Roland or Martin, that thought
doesn't turn me into a trembling wreck. I just regard it as the new normal,
and get on with my life.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t19npr$5pq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:15 on Mon, 21 Mar
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your
>>>>>> workforce. I doubt
>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>
>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>> or resignation.
>>>
>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>> from a different employer.
>>>
>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>> industries.
>>
>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>
>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally;
>
> FSVO "internally". It doesn't help TOC A, if TOC B poaches lots of its
> drivers.
>
>

Except with a recruitment freeze they won't be able to poach.

I was thinking more in terms of roles where the absence of one person can
prevent many trains running; and those roles are likely to be where there
are a smaller pool of people to pull reserves from when required. So not
only roles like Duty Control Manager etc, but things like Head Of Traincrew
or Engineering - those roles are more often filled by people who move up
from the shop floor rather than recruited externally.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 21/03/2022 11:33, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>
>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>> or resignation.
>>>
>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>> from a different employer.
>>>
>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>> industries.
>>
>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>
>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally; this means your
>> shortage of staff is more likely to occur among guards and catering staff,
>> as they move on to other roles.
>>
>
> I suspect guards are amongst the roles the treasury regard as
> supernumerary.
>

Well there's a lot of services which can't operate without them without
major spending on infrastructure first, so…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:51:38 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:41:01 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>>On 21/03/2022 16:36, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:24:10 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2022 16:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately too many extreme right wingers are uninterested in the
>>>> ramifications that the vulnerable members suffer under their "covid
>>>> crisis is over" policy.
>>>
>>> So, is the death rate shooting up then?
>>
>>It's certainly going up at the moment and hospital cases are rising
>>which means that essential treatments are being delayed again.
>
>Actually, the death rate is not going up at the moment. It's about a third of what it was two months ago.
>
Death rates had been declining since late January but since the end of
February have increased in all home countries except Wales.
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=e92000001&areas=s92000003&areas=w92000004&areas=n92000002&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnh&areasRegional=uspr&areasRegional=usdc&areasRegional=usfl&areasRegional=usmi&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2021-11-01&values=deaths
[https://tinyurl.com/47btrrhs]
>>
>>On the other hand the number of long covid cases is shooting up.
>
>Do you have data for that?

In message <t1b3m5$ivv$1@dont-email.me>, at 00:02:13 on Tue, 22 Mar
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t19npr$5pq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:15 on Mon, 21 Mar
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your
>>>>>>> workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then;
>>>>>or if they
>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>
>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>
>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>> industries.
>>>
>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>
>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally;
>>
>> FSVO "internally". It doesn't help TOC A, if TOC B poaches lots of its
>> drivers.
>
>Except with a recruitment freeze they won't be able to poach.

Only TOC A has a recruitment freeze, in this example.

>I was thinking more in terms of roles where the absence of one person can
>prevent many trains running; and those roles are likely to be where there
>are a smaller pool of people to pull reserves from when required. So not
>only roles like Duty Control Manager etc, but things like Head Of Traincrew
>or Engineering - those roles are more often filled by people who move up
>from the shop floor rather than recruited externally.

But do they have to move up for your exact shop floor. So for example
Duty Control Manager for TPE cannot have risen from the shop floor at
East Midlands Trains?
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1afk5$knv$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:19:49 on Mon, 21 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>
>>>> Very little, in fact. Mask wearing provides minimal protection: Omicron
>>>> spread at lightning speed even when people were
>>>> all wearing masks.
>>>
>>> Which just shows that vulnerable people can’t rely on masks to protect
>>> them, only social isolation in the case where the infection is rife.
>>
>> Yes, that's true.
>>
>
>No, proper FFP3 masks worn correctly prevent infection. That’s what the
>vulnerable need to wear.

Exactly.

>It’s unrealistic to expect everyone else to shut down normal life.
>Doing that would damage the economy in the long term and ultimately
>kill many more people as we would be able to afford less health care
>for the majority in the long term.
>
>There’s plenty of other infectious diseases out there that can be very
>harmful to the immuno compromised. Why pick on just covid as being bad for
>such folk?

Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of areas 10%
of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1athu$oh8$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:17:34 on Mon, 21 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>Similarly, if I travel on a crowded bus, train, plane or through an airport
>(all of which I've done in recent days), I assume there will be people
>around me who would test positive. Unlike Roland or Martin, that thought
>doesn't turn me into a trembling wreck. I just regard it as the new normal,
>and get on with my life.

Trembling wreck, really? Just showing concern for the more vulnerable
members of society, versus your distinct empathy-bypass.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1afq8$op2$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:23:04 on Mon, 21 Mar
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1ubh3hpd598esooo4tbc773sr09ira242h@4ax.com>, at 17:03:40 on
>> Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:53:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t1a7kd$f3s$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:03:25 on Mon, 21 Mar
>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation
>>>>>> when possible. But things have changed with Omicron: we can all
>>>>>> expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation, masks,
>>>>>> or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn to live with it, or become a
>>>>>> recluse.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>
>>>> Have already have. But hey, cull the sick, it reduces the demand on the
>>>> NHS. The ultra right wing knows it makes sense.
>>>
>>> So, do you recommend a permanent lockdown, with no meetings, no public
>>> transport and no on-site working?
>>
>> No, just sensible precautions.
>
>Sensible precautions don’t stop the spread of Omicron. If you are
>vulnerable take your own precautions, ie wear a proper FFP3 mask.

And that is precisely the sort of sensible precaution I had in mind.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1aqtb$2l0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:32:27 on Mon, 21 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>> So, do you recommend a permanent lockdown, with no meetings, no public
>>> transport and no on-site working?
>>
>> No, just sensible precautions.
>
>For protection against Omicron, that would be a full respirator set-up.

Some FFP3 are marked "respirator", but they aren't the full hazmat
version.

Other precautions are keeping one's distance, opening windows, asking
visiting tradesmen to wear a mask (so at last they aren't coughing all
over you), and so on.

You give the impression you think that one virus particle is enough to
infect, when the total viral load does still matter, as much now as for
previous variants.
--
Roland Perry

On 22/03/2022 00:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2022 11:33, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>
>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>
>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>> industries.
>>>
>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>
>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally; this means your
>>> shortage of staff is more likely to occur among guards and catering staff,
>>> as they move on to other roles.
>>>
>>
>> I suspect guards are amongst the roles the treasury regard as
>> supernumerary.
>>
>
> Well there's a lot of services which can't operate without them without
> major spending on infrastructure first, so.

Most people here understand that but I doubt few in the treasury do.

On 21/03/2022 22:17, Recliner wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:24:10 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2022 16:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 11:57:04 +0000, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 10:24, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 09:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The number of tourists required is enormous (12-car trains 4tph, huge
>>>>>>>>> numbers), and those tourists don't just need to be assured the trains
>>>>>>>>> are sanitised, but their destinations are too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deep-cleaning of trains makes virtually zero difference to Covid
>>>>>>>> transmission - spreading via surfaces is minimal. (If the threat were,
>>>>>>>> say, Ebola then it would be a completely different matter.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's needed to make train travel safer re Covid is a dramatic increase
>>>>>>>> in forced ventilation (and maybe HEPA filtration). But I don't suppose
>>>>>>>> that's practicable with modern trains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the government understands the need for ventilation to
>>>>>>> reduce covid transmission so I don't suppose we'll see any movement in
>>>>>>> this direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do understand the need, and do encourage greater ventilation when
>>>>>> possible. But things have changed with Omicron:
>>>>>> we can all expect to encounter it repeatedly, regardless of ventilation,
>>>>>> masks, or incessant hand cleaning. Either learn
>>>>>> to live with it, or become a recluse.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my elderly and frail friends, and my friends’ granddaughter who is on
>>>>> chemo for leukaemia, will be prevented from travelling or taking part in
>>>>> normal activities, like nursery for the granddaughter, and her parents and
>>>>> baby sister will also be constrained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t underestimate the effect removing precautions will have.
>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately too many extreme right wingers are uninterested in the
>>>> ramifications that the vulnerable members suffer under their "covid
>>>> crisis is over" policy.
>>>
>>> So, is the death rate shooting up then?
>>
>> In Scotland the death rate is falling, the hospitalisation rate is higher
>> now than it was in January, both as a proportion of cases and in absolute
>> numbers, and the number of people in ICU is rising. The hospitalisation
>> rate may well reflect the general prevalence in the population, with more
>> infected patients in hospital for reasons other than COVID.
>
> I think that's the key point: many more patients are being admitted for
> completely different reasons, but happen to test positive for Covid,
> probably to their own surprise. They are patients who happen to have
> Covid, probably unknowingly, not Covid patients.
>
> Similarly, if I travel on a crowded bus, train, plane or through an airport
> (all of which I've done in recent days), I assume there will be people
> around me who would test positive. Unlike Roland or Martin, that thought
> doesn't turn me into a trembling wreck. I just regard it as the new normal,
> and get on with my life.
>
I don't turn into a shivering wreck. I occasionally push back against
covid misinformation though.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2022 00:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2022 11:33, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>>
>>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>>> industries.
>>>>
>>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>>
>>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally; this means your
>>>> shortage of staff is more likely to occur among guards and catering staff,
>>>> as they move on to other roles.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect guards are amongst the roles the treasury regard as
>>> supernumerary.
>>>
>>
>> Well there's a lot of services which can't operate without them without
>> major spending on infrastructure first, so.
>
> Most people here understand that but I doubt few in the treasury do.

The obvious target would be trains that could be DOO, but aren't, purely
because of union objections.

The Treasury isn't interested in the details; it just wants TOCs to reduce
costs by 10%. How the costs are reduced is up to the DfT.

On 22/03/2022 10:45, Recliner wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/03/2022 00:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2022 11:33, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>>>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>>>> industries.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>>>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally; this means your
>>>>> shortage of staff is more likely to occur among guards and catering staff,
>>>>> as they move on to other roles.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect guards are amongst the roles the treasury regard as
>>>> supernumerary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well there's a lot of services which can't operate without them without
>>> major spending on infrastructure first, so.
>>
>> Most people here understand that but I doubt few in the treasury do.
>
> The obvious target would be trains that could be DOO, but aren't, purely
> because of union objections.
>
> The Treasury isn't interested in the details; it just wants TOCs to reduce
> costs by 10%. How the costs are reduced is up to the DfT.
>

As a former civil servant I can category state that the treasury do take
an interest in the detail. They used to challenge the cost evaluate
tenders as compliant and expected us to blindly accept the cheapest.
More relevant at the moment they challenged the cost of inspecting
completed work.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1b3m5$ivv$1@dont-email.me>, at 00:02:13 on Tue, 22 Mar
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t19npr$5pq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:15 on Mon, 21 Mar
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your
>>>>>>>> workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then;
>>>>>> or if they
>>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>>
>>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>>> industries.
>>>>
>>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>>
>>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally;
>>>
>>> FSVO "internally". It doesn't help TOC A, if TOC B poaches lots of its
>>> drivers.
>>
>> Except with a recruitment freeze they won't be able to poach.
>
> Only TOC A has a recruitment freeze, in this example.
>

I thought we were discussing a situation where a recruitment freeze was
imposed unilaterally on the entire industry, by GBR/DfT?

>> I was thinking more in terms of roles where the absence of one person can
>> prevent many trains running; and those roles are likely to be where there
>> are a smaller pool of people to pull reserves from when required. So not
>> only roles like Duty Control Manager etc, but things like Head Of Traincrew
>> or Engineering - those roles are more often filled by people who move up
>> from the shop floor rather than recruited externally.
>
> But do they have to move up for your exact shop floor. So for example
> Duty Control Manager for TPE cannot have risen from the shop floor at
> East Midlands Trains?

They don't *have* to have come from within the same TOC but IMX they very
often do.

I've just compared the public-facing gWr vacancy list, with the latest
internal email vacancy list, and there are many more jobs on the internal
list. Perhaps there's also a way (other than 'who you know') for getting
appropriate talent from other TOCs, but I'm not aware of it.

Of course if there's an (external) recruitment freeze then there's no
choice but to recruit internally for such positions.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2022 10:45, Recliner wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2022 00:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2022 11:33, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t182ci$mk1$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:21:38 on Sun, 20 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 13:40:55 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then; or if they
>>>>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal retirement
>>>>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>>>>> industries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>>>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry, with many
>>>>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally; this means your
>>>>>> shortage of staff is more likely to occur among guards and catering staff,
>>>>>> as they move on to other roles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect guards are amongst the roles the treasury regard as
>>>>> supernumerary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well there's a lot of services which can't operate without them without
>>>> major spending on infrastructure first, so.
>>>
>>> Most people here understand that but I doubt few in the treasury do.
>>
>> The obvious target would be trains that could be DOO, but aren't, purely
>> because of union objections.
>>
>> The Treasury isn't interested in the details; it just wants TOCs to reduce
>> costs by 10%. How the costs are reduced is up to the DfT.
>>
>
> As a former civil servant I can category state that the treasury do take
> an interest in the detail. They used to challenge the cost evaluate
> tenders as compliant and expected us to blindly accept the cheapest.

That sounds like the Treasure was specifically NOT interested in the
detail? It just wanted costs to be cut.

> More relevant at the moment they challenged the cost of inspecting
> completed work.

The Treasury has no dealings with the TOCs. Its cost-cutting edicts are to
the DfT, through which the hugely increased subsidies are paid.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 07:13:01 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

> Mainly because it's the only such disease where in plenty of areas 10%
> of the population have it during any one week (it's 11% here). Also
> apparently the second most infectious one, behind measles.

Strange that we've eliminated smallpox, ebola, even measles to some
extent, but given up on covid.

In message <t1ca2f$4uv$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:19 on Tue, 22 Mar
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>>> A 5 year hiring freeze is only going to change the mean age of the
>>>>>>>>> workforce by 5 years. It gets rid of roughly 25% of your
>>>>>>>>> workforce. I doubt
>>>>>>>>> the railway could cope with losing any more than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You still have the problem that the people you lose may not necessarily
>>>>>>>> be the ones you can do without. Some key roles will always need filling
>>>>>>>> if they become vacant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those won't be the ones eligible for voluntary redundancy, then;
>>>>>>> or if they
>>>>>>> are, a replacement will be recruited as they would for a normal
>>>>>>>retirement
>>>>>>> or resignation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A hiring freeze also affects an organisation's ability to replace key
>>>>>> workers who leave *other* than on any form of redundancy scheme. For
>>>>>> example if they retire (ago or ill health) or just get a better offer
>>>>>> from a different employer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most hiring freezes will also come with a ban on bribing people to
>>>>>> stay, even if that were otherwise possible in more than a handful of
>>>>>> industries.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is true, if the hiring freeze is throughout the organisation and
>>>>> non-negotiable, eg "we won't be able to run trains unless we recruit X".
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also generally a flow upwards within in railway industry,
>>>>>with many
>>>>> (presumably most) positions being filled internally;
>>>>
>>>> FSVO "internally". It doesn't help TOC A, if TOC B poaches lots of its
>>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> Except with a recruitment freeze they won't be able to poach.
>>
>> Only TOC A has a recruitment freeze, in this example.
>
>I thought we were discussing a situation where a recruitment freeze was
>imposed unilaterally on the entire industry, by GBR/DfT?

The TOC example is just an analogy, other industries with multiple
employers (and I think TOCs are multiple employers, unless you want to
tell me your pay cheques come from DfT) might be in the same sector.

For example FirstBus (or whatever it's called) versus Stagecoach. Or
Scottish Power versus whatever Southern Electickery is called this week.
--
Roland Perry