North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Sometimes, brinksmanship delivers results. The threat of action can itself deliver results, as the other side realises the implication of not changing course.

I don't like it, think that heading that way opens Pandora's Box, but recognise the power as a negotiating tactic.

I also think that it is the evil twin of managerial refusal to engage, and that both are to be condemned

 

For a threat to be taken seriously there has to be willingness to carry it out and the ability to do so. If there isn’t a willingness of all those involved to accept the consequences of “bringing the railway to its knees” (not least the impact on future opportunities to volunteer) it would lack credibility.

 

I'm going to make a suggestion to all the regular posters on this forum.

Lineisclear is clear that he is right. His privilege, he's entitled. I wish that somebody somewhere whose opinion he respects would tell him to put a sock in it but because, despite all argument to the contrary, the only opinion he accepts as valid is his own that seems most unlikely.

My suggestion is simple. Stop engaging with him, block his postings, put him on your ignore list and above all don't rise to his utterly discredited, nonsensical and increasingly desperate attempts to justify a cause he lost the moment he first opened his mouth.

It's been a war of attrition which he will have won but it will be a pyrrhic victory and hopefully his last.

 

I think that last comment is right out of order.

Also, it is better to have an alternative point of view sometimes.

 

Post reported to the moderators

 

Kirk Oswald’s latest post is a classic example of on line bullying behaviour attempting to shut down the expression of views he disgarees with. In his world a discussion forum is seemingly confined to ideas that don’t seriously challenge his own. It’s a sad indictment of his intolerance.

 

I’m sorry John but if what was told at the weekend is true then a number of senior staff made serious allegations against the CEO, immediate action was taken and you and another rallied behind her and saved her when her opposition was totally untenable resulting in a high profile resignation and cementing her position for another 12 months which had been another year of damage in every form that Kirk Oswald previously listed. You have now (and for understandable reasons) stepped aside and left this railway on the brink of what others have referred to as total collapse therefore I’m another who now finds your opinion pretty unbearable.

If I am reported to the moderators then so be it, it needed to be said and it is high time that this toxic leadership is called out.

A new trust chair might have some sway and start to force change and a few new trustees may help build a force to push much needed change through and as far as I’m concerned the sight of you and the current chair heading into the distance is long overdue.

 

I may disagree with @Lineisclear in a lot of what he says but I’ll defend his right to say it. He is seemingly the only person pro the current performance of the Senior Management Team that wants to post on here or anywhere else. If only they would do so they might be more credible to what appears to be a majority of those with any interest in the railway.

 

An actual strike is counterproductive, but the credible threat of a strike ought not to be. Management seem to be struggling to listen to the single most important resource they have. If the organisation of a strike is what is required to make them wake up, then that could be positive.

The railway was formed because volunteers came together to make it happen. A sensible reaction to the level of disenfranchisement already evident would be to engage and try to address concerns and to think carefully about the optics of, for example the AGM arrangements. That needs to happen quickly. Without that sign of a shift in attitude from “the top”, then it would perhaps be better to remind the leadership that the railway cannot function without volunteers.

As to whether the volunteers have to be prepared to accept the railway might sink if they actually strike, two points; first the board should absolutely not let it get to that point, and they have failed if it does; second there is a ratcheting scale here from the credible threat, through the partial say half day withdrawal, to the full scale walk out. It is regrettable that we are even having this discussion, but what happens next is entirely in the hands of the boards.

 

I believe there is a new Trust Chair in the shape of John Philip. I can’t remember where I’ve seen it, though. Hopefully, the new broom will sweep clean.

 

Thanks for your thoughts echap and I absolutely respect your opinion on this. You'll hopefully have noticed that I expressed my own opinion as a suggestion only and certainly not a dictat or command. I think it was a justified suggestion because of the sheer volume of postings from Lineislear over the last couple on months as well as the corresponding response of almost overwhelming rejection of his assertions.

Once again I absolutely agree that it is both his entitlement and right to continue posting and I wouldn't attempt to prevent him but feelings are running very high at the NYMR at the moment and, since Im sure you have been following the thread, the threat of strikes, demonstrations and lockouts by almost all staff even upto middle=management levels (none of which I support incidentally) should be avoided.

My basic point remains that I see little point in a verbal war continuing with no hope of agreement or concensus of any kind.

I 100% agree with you that it is better to sometimes have an alternative view and you are absolutely right. It's why I'm responding to you in this way. What I can't see the point of is hundreds more acrimonious exchanges.

Again thanks for your thoughts.

 

I might have used slightly different words to criticise @Lineisclear, but I applaud and endorse fully the sentiments of @Kirk Oswald and @Wonky turntables sentiments I have no problem or disagreement with. I remind readers of the quote I used earlier: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", which I find apposite the situation we find ourselves in here.[/Quote][/Quote]

 

John Philip is a volunteer signaller, who as I understand it has a varied and useful background.

Sawdust.

 

Indeed. As with any negotiation. But that requires the board to be willing to respond in the event of such a threat.

 

I don't know where you got that nonsense from but I have genuinely no idea what events you are are referring to. Mind you that's always the problem with "if what I've been told is true". It allows slurs to be cast without the need to verify that they're justified.

 

The climb down from what was clearly being suggested in a previous post is welcome.
Please remember that the NYMR' s social media policy (in common with quite a few other heritage railways) is not to engage on social media. As I'm posting in a personal capcity I'm no longer bound by that constraint but it would be a huge mistake to assume that because I may appear as a lone voice it's an accurate indication of overall opinion.

 

..... but you in turn seem to be suggesting that all the critical opinions being expressed on here are those of disgruntled individuals. Of course, both views might be true, but there is rather more evidence that there is a groundswell of adverse opinion to the NYMR management than there is to support your utterances in support of it.

 

Given the challenging situation the railway faces it would be surprising if there wasn't a desire for a change of direction and, inevitably, leadership. The underlying question is how best to return the NYMR to financial sustainability. Where we disagree is over the actions to achieve that. You advocate what would be a very expensive cull of management. Others would like to see the Nominations Committee go and contractors no longer used. The list is long. As I see it some posters, including those who are neither members or volunteers, are keen to list what they don't like but far more reticent when it comes to identifying realistic and affordable options for change. I don't post out of blind loyalty to the leadership, or management, but because I believe in change based on a balanced and realistic assessment of what's possible. Posts on here may help secure that but not if they're interpreted as a popularity contest.

 

I would agree that expensive and disruptive culls of management are not ideal. It is also clear that the railway faces an uphill battle to get to some form of sustainable position. Personally I am suggesting that the most effective step that could be taken now is also one which might involve either no, or very little expense relatively. Get someone who can communicate and start doing so. Engage and explain. Listen and react by either doing something different or explaining why that’s not possible. Do everything possible to be more open with the railway’s biggest supporters, those who would, given the chance and the understanding, move heaven and earth to help.

 

At the forthcoming AGM, if you have a vote use it.