Jump to content

Train Drivers Strike : 'Summer Of Discontent'

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Chekhov said:

What really brings home to people just how selfish these Unions are is how it affects people on a personal level.

Some friends of mine were going to go on holiday to Newquay this summer by train. But they do not feel they can book it now because they cannot be sure the train will run. They would probably get the fare back (though it's load of hassle) but they will have paid for the hotel and booked off their holiday from work. Thus, I think, they have decided to not go, the third year they will have had no holiday.....

And that, in a microcosm, is why I do not think rail workers should be allowed to go on strike.

 

I'm sure the unions will feel sorry for my friends, not. After all they want to cause as much inconvenience to as many people as possible, ****ers.

 

Normally, in most businesses, a drop in demand (and these threats of strike action must be causing that) would mean less jobs and/or hours for the workers, so why should rail workers not suffer the consequences of their own actions ?

 

Could they go by coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read the soddin' selfish rail unions have called a strike on 23 June (and the 21 and the 25....), just on the day I was planning a rail trip.

As has been stated before, if the rest of us want more money was have to work more hours or get another job, not get it by blackmailing the public who pay their wages, as passengers and as tax payers.

To be quite honest I'd be quite happy of they sacked the lot of them.

Edited by Chekhov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I have just read the soddin' selfish rail unions have called a strike on 23 June (and the 21 and the 25....), just on the day I was planning a rail trip.

As has been stated before, if the rest of us want more money was have to work more hours or get another job, not get it by blackmailing the public who pay their wages, as passengers and as tax payers.

To be quite honest I'd be quite happy of they sacked the lot of them.

Or, of course, get an increase in pay in your current job, whether as annual increase, thru promotion, or just on merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

Or, of course, get an increase in pay in your current job, whether as annual increase, thru promotion, or just on merit.

Absolutely. Just not be inconveniencing millions of people who need a service that is subsidised by the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/06/2022 at 08:48, Chekhov said:

What really brings home to people just how selfish these Unions are is how it affects people on a personal level.

Some friends of mine were going to go on holiday to Newquay this summer by train. But they do not feel they can book it now because they cannot be sure the train will run. They would probably get the fare back (though it's load of hassle) but they will have paid for the hotel and booked off their holiday from work. Thus, I think, they have decided to not go, the third year they will have had no holiday.....

And that, in a microcosm, is why I do not think rail workers should be allowed to go on strike.

 

I'm sure the unions will feel sorry for my friends, not. After all they want to cause as much inconvenience to as many people as possible, ****ers.

 

Normally, in most businesses, a drop in demand (and these threats of strike action must be causing that) would mean less jobs and/or hours for the workers, so why should rail workers not suffer the consequences of their own actions ?

 

They will. If lots of people behave like your friends, then revenue is going to drop even more. The railways already run at a loss due to the EFH drop in demand. I suspect the strikes would further ingrain that, which will just mean even more money has to be saved from somewhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Absolutely. Just not be inconveniencing millions of people who need a service that is subsidised by the taxpayer.

I don't equate "subsidised for by the taxpayer" with "pay them as little as possible".

 

As with NHS front line staff, I want competent, well trained, engaged people in the role. That requires paying people on merit and the job requirements, not employing people who will accept the lowest wage.

Edited by Bargepole23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

I don't equate "subsidised for by the taxpayer" with "pay them as little as possible".

 

As with NHS front line staff, I want competent, well trained, engaged people in the role. That requires paying people on merit and the job requirements, not employing people who will accept the lowest wage.

We live in a  free market, by far the most efficient form of economy, which generates massive amounts of taxation to pay for, amongst other things, the NHS.

It does that by making the most efficient use of capital and labour. It does the latter by paying whatever it needs to get the staff, high or low. That's the system.

Except, it seems, for train workers unions who blackmail themselves higher wages than everyone else gets for doing similar work.

Your implied support for the train staff means you must think the fairest way to distribute money is in proportion to industrial muscle and being selfish enough and aggressive enough to use it. I do not think that is fair, particularly when their jobs are supported by huge subsidies paid by tax payers, the vast majority of whom do not have the option to strike for more money.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

We live in a  free market, by far the most efficient form of economy, which generates massive amounts of taxation to pay for, amongst other things, the NHS.

It does that by making the most efficient use of capital and labour. It does the latter by paying whatever it needs to get the staff, high or low. That's the system.

Except, it seems, for train workers unions who blackmail themselves higher wages than everyone else gets for doing similar work.

Your implied support for the train staff means you must think the fairest way to distribute money is in proportion to industrial muscle and being selfish enough and aggressive enough to use it. I do not think that is fair, particularly when their jobs are supported by huge subsidies paid by tax payers, the vast majority of whom do not have the option to strike for more money.....

The quid pro quo is that those who have no “industrial muscle” can be screwed by their employers which has given us the gig economy.

The management and running of the railways as both a nationalised industry and in private hands is a history of post war failings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

We live in a  free market, by far the most efficient form of economy, which generates massive amounts of taxation to pay for, amongst other things, the NHS.

It does that by making the most efficient use of capital and labour. It does the latter by paying whatever it needs to get the staff, high or low. That's the system.

Except, it seems, for train workers unions who blackmail themselves higher wages than everyone else gets for doing similar work.

Your implied support for the train staff means you must think the fairest way to distribute money is in proportion to industrial muscle and being selfish enough and aggressive enough to use it. I do not think that is fair, particularly when their jobs are supported by huge subsidies paid by tax payers, the vast majority of whom do not have the option to strike for more money.....

Not sure how you make that deduction. I said they should be paid appropriately for the role.

 

What similar roles are you judging train drivers pay rates by?

 

The rail system is supported by taxpayers money. Are you suggesting that is reason to not pay an appropriate wage? That same reasoning applies to a huge amount of jobs.

 

For context, Google says that a train drivers average salary is 50k, which includes payments for weekend work and other unsociable hours. An above average salary for an above average level of responsibility.

Edited by Bargepole23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

For context, Google says that a train drivers average salary is 50k, which includes payments for weekend work and other unsociable hours. An above average salary for an above average level of responsibility.

Let's also not forget that most drivers are represented by ASLEF, and it is the RMT whose member's roles attract lower wages than drivers who have announced this potential strike action. The drivers have no skin in this game at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

We live in a  free market, by far the most efficient form of economy.

Except, it seems, for train workers unions who blackmail themselves higher wages than everyone else gets for doing similar work.

Your use of the word 'blackmail' suggests that you do not believe in a free market economy.

Are we blackmailed when we fill up our cars or choose our energy provider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Not sure how you make that deduction. I said they should be paid appropriately for the role.

What similar roles are you judging train drivers pay rates by?

The rail system is supported by taxpayers money. Are you suggesting that is reason to not pay an appropriate wage? That same reasoning applies to a huge amount of jobs.

For context, Google says that a train drivers average salary is 50k, which includes payments for weekend work and other unsociable hours. An above average salary for an above average level of responsibility.

£50k a year is a good wage, way above the average. And being a train driver is no where near as difficult as it was in steam days, plus they have loads of safety devices these days meaning they have far less responsibility. Driverless trains are becoming more and more common, so, if it is possible to automate the job why do you think it has so much responsibility ?

 

But this is all irrelevant anyway, it is the market that determines wages, and, in a free market, rightly so.

It was places like the Soviet Union that used to determine what should be produced and how much people should be paid to do it. And look what happened to them (and all other Communist countries).

 

13 hours ago, El Cid said:

Your use of the word 'blackmail' suggests that you do not believe in a free market economy.

Are we blackmailed when we fill up our cars or choose our energy provider?

The railways are a monopoly and a subsidised one at that, they are effectively a public service, particularly when we are all being implored to use public transport "to save the planet". It is a completely different scenario.

Edited by Chekhov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.