slimsid2000 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 It seems that the people who always get forgotten in cases like this are the most important people of all - the customers; without whom First would not have a business and the drivers would not have a job. It is the customers who always come off worst in bus strikes by being inconvenienced by the strike and then having to fund the pay rise with higher fares. A double whammy! Personally I think the drivers should be given a more generous pay settlement but only in exchange for signing a no strike aggreement and on the strike understanding that it is not funded by fare rises. This deal should be offered to each driver individually and not to the union as a whole. Hopefully enough drivers will accept to either prevent a strike or at least mitigate its effects. If this does not happen the company should have enough backbone to ride out any strike (possibly bringing in driver from outside) and starve the drivers back to work. This should hopefully be a deterant to any future strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kookie Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Is this the same forum that slated bus drivers several weeks ago? I was behind them then and I'm still behind them now. Go for it, drivers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimsid2000 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Many of the people who will be most effected by any bus strike are going to be on a lower income than the drivers themselves. The people who use buses most are those on low incomes such as pensioners and those on benefits. One more point. I have noticed how many bus drivers seem to smoke (EVEN ON BUSES WHERE THEY KNOW THEY SHOULD NOT). Perhaps if they gave up their wages would go a lot further. As a life long non-smoker I certainly don't waste my money on fags and quite honestly have little sympathy for those who do and then come crying poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royjames Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Smoking drivers has got nothing to do with this proposed strike,you are going off point here. But is it not possible for the parties to take the dispute to arbritation along the line of ACAS or something. If the parties are sure of their case then woul'd this not be worth the attempt. One more thing you can be pretty sure that any increase will be funded by a increase in the fares,then we will see if the public are so inclined to back the strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Can't believe we are still paying such a big price for deregulation after all these years. I'd be happy to pay another 5p on my fare if it meant that the drivers got a better standard of living, but i'd be even happier if the shareholders and upper management took less of a slice of the pie and spread the wealth a little. Good luck to the drivers. They deserve more money, especially as they now do two peoples jobs, not one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimsid2000 Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Originally posted by Snook Can't believe we are still paying such a big price for deregulation after all these years. I'd be happy to pay another 5p on my fare if it meant that the drivers got a better standard of living, but i'd be even happier if the shareholders and upper management took less of a slice of the pie and spread the wealth a little. Good luck to the drivers. They deserve more money, especially as they now do two peoples jobs, not one. You may be glad of deregulation if there is a strike. At least the trams and yorkshire Terrier buses will still run. In the old days a bus strike ment that there was no public transport at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 In the old days i wouldn't have been paying £1.10 to go three stops and the drivers wouldn't be insulted with such low wages. They didn't have to worry about being polite to the public all day either and getting abuse if they didn't smile, they just had to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royjames Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Dont forget in the old days the buses were subsidised from the old rates system,so although your fares were small you were still paying out for the service via the rates. This led to the situation where the well off ,those who did not use public transport very much having to subsidise those who were less well off ,but used the bus more. Now you can argue whether that was right or wrong,I personally think those who are better off shoul'd support those less fortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 The drivers have to look after themselves, just like everyone else. If they didn't strike now (ACAS cannot help, it needs both side to talk, and the only weapon the drivers have is strike), then 1st have won, the pitiful payrise goes through, more drivers leave and the service continues to deteriate. If they are given a more generous payrise then they won't strike. No silly agreement is needed, and why should the union accept the company going to individual drivers. Without the union each one can be easily broken to accept whatever pittance is offered. Or did you mean a 'no strike ever again' agreement, patently stupid as they give up their one point of leverage for a 1 off reasonable payrise??? I'm glad to see that you are completely confused. You'd like the drivers to be given a fair wage, but are behind 1st in breaking the strike and thus never having to offer a decent payrise again? Which is it, who do you support? Originally posted by slimsid2000 It seems that the people who always get forgotten in cases like this are the most important people of all - the customers; without whom First would not have a business and the drivers would not have a job. It is the customers who always come off worst in bus strikes by being inconvenienced by the strike and then having to fund the pay rise with higher fares. A double whammy! Personally I think the drivers should be given a more generous pay settlement but only in exchange for signing a no strike aggreement and on the strike understanding that it is not funded by fare rises. This deal should be offered to each driver individually and not to the union as a whole. Hopefully enough drivers will accept to either prevent a strike or at least mitigate its effects. If this does not happen the company should have enough backbone to ride out any strike (possibly bringing in driver from outside) and starve the drivers back to work. This should hopefully be a deterant to any future strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverknight Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I think what most people are saying is that if First wants to call its self a leading player in the provision of public transport(bus & Rail) in the UK then then all sides want a fair deal.... customers want upto date fleets of buses/trains, to travel at a fair price,shareholders given a reasonable return and that staff pay and terms and conditions for working at First are the Best in the industry. If all of these where in place no one would be at boiling point and trying to score points.It may be a good job that First was not awarded the New Northern rail franchise and that the Yorkshire Traction Group bought out Yorkshire Terrier/Sheffield Omnibus/Andrews and provide a service in the Sheffield area. A few years ago First were trying to get a foothold in Barnsley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.