Train Drivers Strike : 'Summer Of Discontent'

[El Cid 212]

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 1,401]

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 1,020]

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 488]

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

[Guest sibon]

43 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

 

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

No. All he has to do is allow market forces to set his wage. A bit of industrial action might just hurry that process up, but they get paid what they are worth.

 

If you think that the wages are so good, you are free to retrain.

[El Cid 212]

3 hours ago, sibon said:

No. All he has to do is allow market forces to set his wage.

My local authority employer has put up it's funding by the maximum 2.99%

Many of our drivers are HGV drivers subject to shortages, will our wages be set by "market forces"?

[Resident 1,185]

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

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.

 

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

No Margaret, It's not irrelevant at all. 

[Anna B 1,401]

14 hours ago, sibon said:

No. All he has to do is allow market forces to set his wage. A bit of industrial action might just hurry that process up, but they get paid what they are worth.

 

If you think that the wages are so good, you are free to retrain.

Really?

Striking, and the amount of inconvenience /damage it causes, is another way of setting what they are worth. 

We would hardly notice if some workers went on strike, and often they are far better paid than train drivers. 

 

[Chekhov 488]

On 27/05/2022 at 20:03, Chekhov said:

"all he has to do is leave and find a better paying job, like almost everyone has to."

On 27/05/2022 at 20:49, sibon said:

No. All he has to do is allow market forces to set his wage. A bit of industrial action might just hurry that process up, but they get paid what they are worth.

Your post is unclear, are you agreeing with me or not ?

 

I would point out that in a true private sector industry if the company could not afford to pay the higher wages forced ion them by the unions going on strike, they would go bust. Especially as the numbers of customers using their service had recently dropped hugely. Hold on, the latter is just what has happened.

So we have a service where, at the moment anyway, supply outstrips demand, but the unions still want a pay rise, and, just so show they live in a parallel universe, they do not want that pay rise to be funded for by increased productivity (= fewer jobs for the same amount of work) either !

All of this is because they know the rail industry is effectively a public service and they are bargaining on the taxpayer footing the bill for all of this one way or the other.

I would have thought it certain that most people do not support the rail Unions, but, TBH, it amazes me anyone at all does.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Chekhov

[Guest sibon]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

On 27/05/2022 at 20:03, Chekhov said:

"all he has to do is leave and find a better paying job, like almost everyone has to."

Your post is unclear, are you agreeing with me or not ?

 

 

If you are unsure, you can default to the position that I don't agree with you. That will work in most scenarios.

 

I've no idea why you are so keen to see pay suppressed for working people.

[Chekhov 488]

1 hour ago, sibon said:

If you are unsure, you can default to the position that I don't agree with you. That will work in most scenarios.

I've no idea why you are so keen to see pay suppressed for working people.

The market sets everyone's wages.  Whilst some people may think that unacceptable it remains a fact. 

What I cannot understand, though, is people thinking it fine for people's wages to be set by the amount of industrial muscle they happen to have. Surely that is even less acceptable than the market setting people's remuneration. And it is even less fair when one remembers that they only have that industrial muscle by the fact they can thoroughly inconvenience millions of people, who get hurt as "collateral damage".

[Guest sibon]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

The market sets everyone's wages.  Whilst some people may think that unacceptable it remains a fact. 

What I cannot understand, though, is people thinking it fine for people's wages to be set by the amount of industrial muscle they happen to have. Surely that is even less acceptable than the market setting people's remuneration. And it is even less fair when one remembers that they only have that industrial muscle by the fact they can thoroughly inconvenience millions of people, who get hurt as "collateral damage".

On a different thread, you seem unhappy that the minimum wage is over a tenner these days.

 

People need to be paid properly.