Train Drivers Strike : 'Summer Of Discontent'

[Chekhov]

56 minutes ago, Resident said:

 

Margaret, see the above response. 

If all the train drivers quit right now, do you think the companies would be rubbing their hands and offering new applicants a lower wage? You clearly don't understand how employment market forces work.

No, I do, and its Unions like the RMT that are trying to circumvent it. If there were fewer people wanting to be train drivers than there were jobs for train drivers the wages would go up and vice verse.  What makes I find even harder to accept about the RMT is they want to get round that by hugely disrupting many people's lives, then, in the final analysis, the tax payer will be helping fund their ill gotten wage rises because, as we all know, the railways get huge subsidy from the government (i.e. us tax payers)

It make me feel sick.

[L00b]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Come off it, you know as well as I do the train crews , esp the drivers, would not be getting what they do were it not for their industrial muscle, which they are very willing to (selfishly) use. I have heard salaries of £50K plus mentioned, and it's even worse in London Underground drivers. When I hear that I start wanting driverless trains because that is just taking the ****.

 

(…)

Just out of interest, how much do you think “living with the image of some poor sap diving under your train or Tube, for the rest of your life” is worth, in your open market economy?

 

Is a psychopath diagnosis desirable on a train or Tube driver CV, and therefore worth more, to mitigate counselling costs?

 

Just a minute aspect of everything that goes into the overall package, besides all other variables.

 

Since you believe that £50k is too much, then what do you think a train driver is worth?

[show your workings for full marks]

Edited May 25, 2022 by L00b

[Chekhov]

27 minutes ago, El Cid said:

A shortage of workers will always lead to an employer being held to ransom when it comes to wages.

If it is a genuine shortage of workers, and not an artificial one like a strike, then I do not see that as employers being held to ransom. Such a situation would result it increased wages, that's the market, it works both ways (even though left wing Union leaders will not admit that).

[Chekhov]

Just now, L00b said:

Just out of interest, how much do is living with the image of some poor sap diving under your train or Tube, for the rest of your life, worth in your open market economy?

I agree that would be the worst part of being a train driver. I think that is a particularly selfish way of topping yourself.

 

As an indication, if a coach driver gets £25,000 a year I'd have thought in that area, but it is not for me to say what is the right level of payment, it is for the market to determine that :

 

Companies are experiencing difficulties recruiting train drivers = increase the pay

Companies are experiencing no difficulties recruiting train drivers = do not increase the pay (effectively a pay cut in these inflationary times)

[L00b]

37 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I agree that would be the worst part of being a train driver. I think that is a particularly selfish way of topping yourself.

 

As an indication, if a coach driver gets £25,000 a year I'd have thought in that area, but it is not for me to say what is the right level of payment, it is for the market to determine that :

 

Companies are experiencing difficulties recruiting train drivers = increase the pay

Companies are experiencing no difficulties recruiting train drivers = do not increase the pay (effectively a pay cut in these inflationary times)

But you see, that’s just the thing: we’ve established earlier in the thread, that train drivers are employed by private companies, and these determine the market rate, since they set the packages. Union membership and Union pressure is costed in, same as in any other industry employing unionised labour.

 

Your gripe would look more legitimate, if it was directed  at the cost of disruption on the occasion of a strike.

[Resident]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I agree that would be the worst part of being a train driver. I think that is a particularly selfish way of topping yourself.

 

As an indication, if a coach driver gets £25,000 a year I'd have thought in that area, but it is not for me to say what is the right level of payment, it is for the market to determine that :

 

Companies are experiencing difficulties recruiting train drivers = increase the pay

Companies are experiencing no difficulties recruiting train drivers = do not increase the pay (effectively a pay cut in these inflationary times)

As someone who holds a PCV licence and has friends who are (well were, they're management now). The difference between driving a coach and driving a train is the difference between riding a bike with stabilisers in a park and driving a car on the motorway with heavy traffic. 

From said friend (because train companies/TOC don't publish the figures) most applicants wash out at the first assessment, prior to the interview stage. If you pass the interview stage (of which there are 2) then there are 7 brutal tests on your visual/auditory acuity, cognitive reflexes & co-ordination. Less than half get through this stage & once in the job the fall-out rate (quits within  first  6months) is high due to the stress.

The wage reflects all of this. 

Surgeons are paid from public funding as are nurses. Should we tell surgeons that they're overpaid and should do the job at the same pay as nurses? 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Resident

[El Cid]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

If it is a genuine shortage of workers, and not an artificial one like a strike, then I do not see that as employers being held to ransom. Such a situation would result it increased wages, that's the market, it works both ways (even though left wing Union leaders will not admit that).

The work to rule in Scotland has lead to massive cuts to train time tables.

[Anna B]

Employers and CEOs now earn 78 times the average wage. It used to be 5 times the average wage.

So how did that happen? Where was the outpooring of rage over that?

 

Yet if a worker wants a modest increase in wages he has to get down on his knees and beg for it. Or strike. 

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Employers and CEOs now earn 78 times the average wage. It used to be 5 times the average wage.

So how did that happen? Where was the outpooring of rage over that?

 

Yet if a worker wants a modest increase in wages he has to get down on his knees and beg for it. Or strike. 

Where are you getting your stats from? I really do feel you need to look beyond the headlines sometimes and get full context. Just because the Guardian make some dramatic story out of something doesn't mean applies to everything.

 

Whilst there are of course outliers and the headline grabbers particularly in globalised conglomerates earning billions in revenue, the reality is statistics show the average CEO salary in the UK is around £80,000-£120,000.

 

Not every company is some globalised FTSE 100 conglomerate Anna.   Not every CEO with great responsibilities and hundreds of staff works for some evil profit-making corporation. There are plenty in government departments, social services, Healthcare are and other elements of the public sector who earn nowhere near such dramatic multipliers.

 

40 years ago the average salary in the UK was around £6,000 and is now over £31,000 per annum - an increase of around 416%. It stands to reason the top level executive jobs will increase, at minimum the same level, if not more.

 

There also needs to be considered the other aspects of changing society. Far more people going into university, becoming graduate-level, changes in careers away from heavy manual industrial into automation, computer skills, White Collar roles....

 

We had far more women entering the workplace not just doing token jobs but actually pursuing their own careers. We have have school leavers and students who are far more ambitious seeking advancement and progression which their parents generation previous wouldn't even have considered.

 

It's all far more nuanced.  

[Chekhov]

On 25/05/2022 at 16:35, Resident said:

As someone who holds a PCV licence and has friends who are (well were, they're management now). The difference between driving a coach and driving a train is the difference between riding a bike with stabilisers in a park and driving a car on the motorway with heavy traffic. 

From said friend (because train companies/TOC don't publish the figures) most applicants wash out at the first assessment, prior to the interview stage. If you pass the interview stage (of which there are 2) then there are 7 brutal tests on your visual/auditory acuity, cognitive reflexes & co-ordination. Less than half get through this stage & once in the job the fall-out rate (quits within  first  6months) is high due to the stress.

The wage reflects all of this. 

Surgeons are paid from public funding as are nurses. Should we tell surgeons that they're overpaid and should do the job at the same pay as nurses? 

Unfortunately all of this is totally irrelevant.

It does not matter if being a train driver is harder than being  a brain surgeon, or it's "only" as hard as being a coach driver, all that matters is the question can the rail companies get enough drivers by paying what they are doing now ?

If they are then they do not need to raised the wages.

If they cannot they need to raise the wages (like trucking companies had to a few months ago).

And that is before we remember that the train unions are happy to get what they want by massively inconveniencing millions of people.

There is no excuse.

 

On 25/05/2022 at 17:15, Anna B said:

Employers and CEOs now earn 78 times the average wage. It used to be 5 times the average wage.

So how did that happen? Where was the outpooring of rage over that?

 

Yet if a worker wants a modest increase in wages he has to get down on his knees and beg for it. Or strike. 

No, all he has to do is leave and find a better paying job, like almost everyone has to.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Chekhov