Mind The Pay Gap? Tube Drivers 'To Get £55k'

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I would disagree with you point about automatic trains, for example the Trains on the Victoria Line, Central Line, Jubilee Line have Automatic train operation and if there is one person on board, like on the DLR, as long as they are Unionised, they can (and they have) still strike

Also we need to change unions laws in favor of the workers and unions

Nothing a change to the law to allow unattended trains won't fix.

No we really don't need to change union laws to favour workers and unions, the point of the laws is to provide appropriate protections and a fair platform for both not to favour anyone.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Derek

Says the person who blames the latest economic woes on a leader who hasn't been in power for almost 20 years.

I'm no expert but I think there were recessions before 1980.

I am not just blaming Lady Thatcher for this mess alone, but Blair, Brown and pretty much all our Governments since 1945, if fact most of our economic problems originate from the fact we have not adapted well since the end of the British Empire

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Nothing a change to the law to allow unattended trains won't fix.

No we really don't need to change union laws to favour workers and unions, the point of the laws is to provide appropriate protections and a fair platform for both not to favour anyone.

So what will happen if a train crashes or bombed, it clear the laws against unions and for business is bad for employees and good for the rich.

To put it this way, who is going to defend you when you wage or pension is cut, you are made redundant or are unfairly sacked? Any ideas!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I am not just blaming Lady Thatcher for this mess alone, but Blair, Brown and pretty much all our Governments since 1945, if fact most of our economic problems originate from the fact we have not adapted well since the end of the British Empire

Again another big statement by you Alan.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I am not just blaming Lady Thatcher for this mess alone, but Blair, Brown and pretty much all our Governments since 1945, if fact most of our economic problems originate from the fact we have not adapted well since the end of the British Empire

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------



So what will happen if a train crashes or bombed, it clear the laws against unions and for business is bad for employees and good for the rich.

To put it this way, who is going to defend you when you wage or pension is cut, you are made redundant or are unfairly sacked? Any ideas!

Excellent conflation - you seem to be stating that only by allowing unions to make (imho) extremely unreasonable demands will they also be able to defend workers who are being treated unfairly.

You are Bob Crow, and I claim my five pounds....

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

So what will happen if a train crashes or bombed, it clear the laws against unions and for business is bad for employees and good for the rich.

To put it this way, who is going to defend you when you wage or pension is cut, you are made redundant or are unfairly sacked? Any ideas!

If a train crashes or is bombed it can be reached extremely quickly from outside. A driver isn't the panacea of care for the people on the train and if it crashes the chances are the driver is going to be the first victim anyway.

The laws in the UK regarding strikes and unions are far from the strictest in Europe however your posts here quite clearly give your viewpoint and put into context why you feel this way. Above you noted that the law should favour unions and employees which says all that needs to be said.

Regarding the other issues - if my wage is cut I get another job, if my pension is cut I get another job, if I'm made redundant I'm made redundant so must get another job, if I'm unfairly sacked I can take action due to the unfair dismissal process within the law. I'm not entitled to anything from my employer outside of their contractual obligations to me, it's a business arrangement, if the arrangement isn't to my satisfaction it's time to end it.

It's a somewhat different issue with the tube drivers obviously, they know they haven't a hope of getting a job with anywhere near the pay and conditions they have at the moment given their skill levels.

I have never 'done' unions. I do fine, but then I rely on myself to prove my value to employers and regard myself as an asset that provides value to my employer and that they should in return appropriately value me. As soon as I think they don't I go elsewhere.

just as a comparison ,Tyne and Wear metro train drivers earn a shade over £30k .The only qualifications they need are basic GCSE's .So mainline drivers will earn more and as per this thread LU drivers even more ,now as far as i know any profession paying this sort of wage needs a good degree or at the very least a professional qualification .I'm sure that professionals such as Ignitionet and others on this forum will feel somewhat agreived knowing that a basic GCSE will get you a job worth 50k when they spent years at colledge/university paying £1,000's to get a qualification that may not pay as much as a train driver

[Tezcatlipoca]

Too right. I wanted to drive trains as a kid... if only I had followed that dream, lol.

Originally Posted by martyh

just as a comparison ,Tyne and Wear metro train drivers earn a shade over £30k .The only qualifications they need are basic GCSE's .So mainline drivers will earn more and as per this thread LU drivers even more ,now as far as i know any profession paying this sort of wage needs a good degree or at the very least a professional qualification .I'm sure that professionals such as Ignitionet and others on this forum will feel somewhat agreived knowing that a basic GCSE will get you a job worth 50k when they spent years at colledge/university paying £1,000's to get a qualification that may not pay as much as a train driver

Exactly! And if I had known that tube drivers would get this sort of wage I needn't have arsed about getting the relevant teaching qualifications..

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

If a train crashes or is bombed it can be reached extremely quickly from outside. A driver isn't the panacea of care for the people on the train and if it crashes the chances are the driver is going to be the first victim anyway.

Although it's worth noting that the law requires that any train that goes to any stations that are underground has staff onboard. Essentially to manage the passengers in the event of an emergency. It doesn't, however, require a driver..

The government could change the law so that Union membership is banned for tube drivers though. It could be argued that any public transport drivers are important for the economy..

---------- Post added at 01:09 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Exactly! And if I had known that tube drivers would get this sort of wage I needn't have arsed about getting the relevant teaching qualifications..

It's actually rather disheartening to realise I earn less than the member of staff aboard my DLR train in the morning, yet I have a degree and he (or she) doesn't.

On the plus side, I have a more interesting job.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Although it's worth noting that the law requires that any train that goes to any stations that are underground has staff onboard. Essentially to manage the passengers in the event of an emergency. It doesn't, however, require a driver..

The government could change the law so that Union membership is banned for tube drivers though. It could be argued that any public transport drivers are important for the economy..

---------- Post added at 01:09 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------



It's actually rather disheartening to realise I earn less than the member of staff aboard my DLR train in the morning, yet I have a degree and he (or she) doesn't.

On the plus side, I have a more interesting job.

Oh I think I could cope with a boring job for the wages tube drivers receive.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

If a train crashes or is bombed it can be reached extremely quickly from outside. A driver isn't the panacea of care for the people on the train and if it crashes the chances are the driver is going to be the first victim anyway.

The laws in the UK regarding strikes and unions are far from the strictest in Europe however your posts here quite clearly give your viewpoint and put into context why you feel this way. Above you noted that the law should favour unions and employees which says all that needs to be said.

Regarding the other issues - if my wage is cut I get another job, if my pension is cut I get another job, if I'm made redundant I'm made redundant so must get another job, if I'm unfairly sacked I can take action due to the unfair dismissal process within the law. I'm not entitled to anything from my employer outside of their contractual obligations to me, it's a business arrangement, if the arrangement isn't to my satisfaction it's time to end it.

It's a somewhat different issue with the tube drivers obviously, they know they haven't a hope of getting a job with anywhere near the pay and conditions they have at the moment given their skill levels.

I have never 'done' unions. I do fine, but then I rely on myself to prove my value to employers and regard myself as an asset that provides value to my employer and that they should in return appropriately value me. As soon as I think they don't I go elsewhere.

So, if you didn't think that your employer "appropriately valued" you you would simply "go elsewhere" by withdrawing your goodwill and leaving their employ rather than try to negotiate your worth?

Ironically that makes you considerably more militant than those union members whose you are trying to berate in this thread.

Clearly your stated position somewhat undermines your argument vis a vis the supposed selfish actions / industrial action / negotiations by tube drivers in relation to their job security / pay / perceived worth.

Marty, Stuart & Maggy - you appear to be venting angst on the basis that you feel somehow hard done by because according to yourselves there are no tube drivers who have degrees / comparable degrees or that degrees obtained by others are undervalued by comparison. Where have you got this information from?

Take a leaf from Iggy's book and act on a self centred basis by withdrawing your labour with no consideration for anyone else or, alternatively, join a union and negotiate - and if needs be strike - to get what you think you're worth.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Marty & Maggy - you both appear to be venting angst on the basis that you feel hard done by because according to yourselves there are no tube drivers who have degrees or that degrees obtained by others are undervalued by comparison. Where have you got this information from?

Actually, I said almost the same. I have to admit, I didn't mean to imply that no tube drivers have degrees. Some possibly do. However, I'd wager the bulk of them don't..

[RB2004]

Driver less trains are entirely the way forward. And are safe! I was watching a documentary on Singapore metro system.

It's so advanced that all the trains sit in the depot at the beginning of the day. No driver or person required to operate them..

The signaller clicks a button all the interior cabin lighting lights up and train drives itself to get cleaned, then heads straight out onto the track ready for morning service.

Then at the end of the day if the train is due for maintenance without being told it will drive itself to the maintenance depot for servicing, same if it develops a fault train will terminate at next station then drive itself to the maintenance depot, and then another train comes out to replace it. Requires no attendants, no drivers as it is all automated far more advanced than the dlr even.. At night they even have trains that come out to clean the tunnels. Anything requiring manual intervention is done by the signallers

[Pierre]

I too also find it bemusing why people think that because they have a degree, they should automatically be on a certain pay level above , so called, unskilled workers.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

So, if you didn't think that your employer "appropriately valued" you you would simply "go elsewhere" by withdrawing your goodwill and leaving their employ rather than try to negotiate your worth?

I do not see anything in my post indicating that this would be a first course of action, I described it as a business arrangement which of course runs both ways and involves appropriate negotiation.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Ironically that makes you considerably more militant than those union members whose you are trying to berate in this thread.

Clearly your stated position somewhat undermines your argument vis a vis the supposed selfish actions / industrial action / negotiations by tube drivers in relation to their job security / pay / perceived worth.

Not really. I don't threaten to leave nor withdraw my labour unless I get what I want. I don't hold anyone to ransom, I simply do what I do with every other business arrangement, keep it to my satisfaction or find an alternative one.

I don't work for the sake of 'goodwill' I work for pounds sterling.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Take a leaf from Iggy's book and act on a self centred basis by withdrawing your labour with no consideration for anyone else or, alternatively, join a union and negotiate - and if needs be strike - to get what you think you're worth.

You seem to suggest I have some obligation to stay with an employer? I'm amused that you offer joining a union and if needs be striking as an alternative to acting on a self centred basis. One is a single person's actions, that person has a notice period and can be replaced with someone who is potentially more productive and a better fit as they'll be happier, yes it's inconvenient. The other is an entire group who can, at a vote, withdraw their labour whenever it causes maximum harm to the employer on relatively little notice and cannot be replaced. Both are, of course, self-centred, however I would question their relative impact on the employer and who has 'no consideration for anyone else'.

I would hardly equate threatening to withdraw labour if not receiving what is demanded with changing jobs for a better deal. Surely that's just being a participant in the labour market? What's so wrong or militant about that?