[MovedGoalPosts]

Which is better - a driver sat in his cab who is unable to do anything but call for assistance on a radio or other communication system if there is a reported passenger incident, or if the train is automated, a member of staff who can be mobile for the entire train length and able to both patrol and respond to incidents? Since trains are currently one person operated, I suspect the latter could be of more benefit to passengers?

Underground staff currently enjoy quite a good salary package. That is due to their overall strength of numbers and that many jobs, especially those of drivers, do take some time to become properly skilled. Whilst many of us would think it perhaps easy to drive a train, it is not that easy for an employer to "grab someone off the street" to replace other staff. Thus the unions do have a relative stranglehold. One does have to reflect that some of their shift patterns can become antisocial, and that first and last train type roles may make getting to or from work difficult.

It does appear to me that the relative salary level is already too high relative to other jobs. The tube driver is a skilled person, even if that skill isn't easily transferable to another job. That is the same for many people. It is wrong to argue that those, who include me, who have degrees and other professions, are automatically entitled to better salaries. I can only earn what I do based on what the public are prepared to pay for my services, and currently that isn't much, despite the fact that as a professional I effectively have a trade union, or more correctly a professional body who are supposedly promoting my profession.

This shouldn't be about whether someone get's triple pay or whatever time off benefits for working on a certain day. The real principle here seems to be that a deal was negotiated and agreed a few years ago to include bank holiday working, and now a union it trying to turn it's back on that and so far seem to be succeeding.