This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Kim’s driver training lgv training
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- Car insurance for new drivers
- international students using agents
- How fast do you progress up the pay scale? (NHS)
- Car insurance new drivers
- My dad is useless
- Consultants end pay dispute with government in England
- Used my sister's bus pass
- Do these so facial recognition
- Disabled Maintenance Loan; disability discrimination
- Car or motorbike/moped
- Unexpected gap year help
- Should nurses be paid more?
- Paramedics
- DSA assessment in two days! can I ask for this?
- Why are rents so high
- Driving accident
- Is doing Graduate Scheme after a Graduate Job worth it?
- Dreading next shift
Greedy train drivers refuse 24% pay rise
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bornblue
Except for the guards...
No, they are guaranteed redeployment.
Original post by Jammy Duel
The drivers of trains on Southern Rial have refused to accept a 24% pay rise over 4 years that would take their basic salary to over £60k. On turnout of 81% 62% of Aslef members voted to reject the pay package , this is a dispute separate to the driver only trains dispute.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/southern-rail-train-drivers-set-to-strike-despite-24-pay-rise-offer-pgcr82dlq
The question that has to be asked is: where is the outrage from the left? These are people who are already in the top 10% or so of the population (for single drivers they're in the top 5%) causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because a 24% pay increase is insufficient, ordinary people who are receiving far more modest pay increases, with the average nominal wage growth being 2%. The proposed pay package would have them earn more in one day than somebody on minimum wage would in a week. If this were bankers or politicians the left would be up in arms, instead they're silent.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/southern-rail-train-drivers-set-to-strike-despite-24-pay-rise-offer-pgcr82dlq
The question that has to be asked is: where is the outrage from the left? These are people who are already in the top 10% or so of the population (for single drivers they're in the top 5%) causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because a 24% pay increase is insufficient, ordinary people who are receiving far more modest pay increases, with the average nominal wage growth being 2%. The proposed pay package would have them earn more in one day than somebody on minimum wage would in a week. If this were bankers or politicians the left would be up in arms, instead they're silent.
The pay is already too high for a train driver never mind the 24% extra offered.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
The drivers of trains on Southern Rial have refused to accept a 24% pay rise over 4 years that would take their basic salary to over £60k. On turnout of 81% 62% of Aslef members voted to reject the pay package , this is a dispute separate to the driver only trains dispute.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/southern-rail-train-drivers-set-to-strike-despite-24-pay-rise-offer-pgcr82dlq
The question that has to be asked is: where is the outrage from the left? These are people who are already in the top 10% or so of the population (for single drivers they're in the top 5%) causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because a 24% pay increase is insufficient, ordinary people who are receiving far more modest pay increases, with the average nominal wage growth being 2%. The proposed pay package would have them earn more in one day than somebody on minimum wage would in a week. If this were bankers or politicians the left would be up in arms, instead they're silent.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/southern-rail-train-drivers-set-to-strike-despite-24-pay-rise-offer-pgcr82dlq
The question that has to be asked is: where is the outrage from the left? These are people who are already in the top 10% or so of the population (for single drivers they're in the top 5%) causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because a 24% pay increase is insufficient, ordinary people who are receiving far more modest pay increases, with the average nominal wage growth being 2%. The proposed pay package would have them earn more in one day than somebody on minimum wage would in a week. If this were bankers or politicians the left would be up in arms, instead they're silent.
Where is the outrage that there are trillionaires who do not even feature on the rich list?
Original post by Bornblue
I'm sure experts said Grenfell tower was safe too. Let's not make this mistake of putting profits ahead of the public safety.
I doubt you've ever supported industrial action by a union. When the majority of the workers back the strike, that is representation.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I doubt you've ever supported industrial action by a union. When the majority of the workers back the strike, that is representation.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Way to politicise a tragedy...given these bodies have examined 35 years of operation with I suspect billions of hours of use they're obviously able to get away with fake findings, aren't they?
The irony of all this is you complain about the railways for being super expensive because you're too incompetent to book efficiently, but at the same time want to keep the prices up with unnecessary jobs for the sake of jobs.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm thinking they can't really expect a 24% raise - probably they're trying to wreck the company running southern rail and get the government to nationalise it or appoint another company.
striking for a pay increase (however ridiculously inflated) is legal but striking to cause a political intervention isn't*
*probably, not a lawyer
striking for a pay increase (however ridiculously inflated) is legal but striking to cause a political intervention isn't*
*probably, not a lawyer
Original post by Jammy Duel
Way to politicise a tragedy...given these bodies have examined 35 years of operation with I suspect billions of hours of use they're obviously able to get away with fake findings, aren't they?
The irony of all this is you complain about the railways for being super expensive because you're too incompetent to book efficiently, but at the same time want to keep the prices up with unnecessary jobs for the sake of jobs.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The irony of all this is you complain about the railways for being super expensive because you're too incompetent to book efficiently, but at the same time want to keep the prices up with unnecessary jobs for the sake of jobs.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Politicising a tragedy? Hi pot, meet kettle.
They REJECTED a pay rise because of concerns of public safety. Is that comprehensible to you? Yet apparently now REJECTING a pay rise is an example of being greedy...
That must mean when workers accept big pay rises to take their mind off safety concerns it must be selfless?
After all the definition of greed is turning down more money isn't it? and again, our trains are more expensive, slower and more crowded than any of the nationalised systems in Europe. They are 20% more expensive than the next highest.
Apparently though everything's fine and the only problem is people not booking imaginary cheap tickets rather than the joke of a rail system itself.
Let's be clear, the only reason you oppose rail nationalisation is because it goes against your ideology of 'market is always best doe init', even when there is strong evidence that the state can run a particular service better on all accounts.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
because of concerns of public safety.
You talk of broken records, yet you keep repeating the union's false mantra about safety.
The same system is used with no extra safety problems in plenty of places in Britain and Europe, and has been for an extraordinary period of 35 years on the equally crowded Bedford to St Pancras line. All of these implementations had to be agreed to by the unions or they could never have been implemented. How can the unions agree it is safe elsewhere but not here?
Where are the safety issues? Where is your evidence of such issues? I have challenged you to produce it and been met by silence. If you cannot produce it then stop claiming there are safety issues.
Original post by Good bloke
You talk of broken records, yet you keep repeating the union's false mantra about safety.
The same system is used with no extra safety problems in plenty of places in Britain and Europe, and has been for an extraordinary period of 35 years on the equally crowded Bedford to St Pancras line. All of these implementations had to be agreed to by the unions or they could never have been implemented. How can the unions agree it is safe elsewhere but not here?
Where are the safety issues? Where is your evidence of such issues? I have challenged you to produce it and been met by silence. If you.
The same system is used with no extra safety problems in plenty of places in Britain and Europe, and has been for an extraordinary period of 35 years on the equally crowded Bedford to St Pancras line. All of these implementations had to be agreed to by the unions or they could never have been implemented. How can the unions agree it is safe elsewhere but not here?
Where are the safety issues? Where is your evidence of such issues? I have challenged you to produce it and been met by silence. If you.
Broken record?😂😂😂
Says the person who scaremongers about the 1970s in every other post... Because apparently alllowing workers to be represented is so intolerable to the political right.
I trust the people who run the trains to know more about safety than you do. You seem to want to be waiting for a trargedy to occur before we take action... That was a great approach recently wasn't it?
Let's be clear you know nothing of train safety. This is all a thinly veiled attempt for you to attack unions.
I'm guessing you never use the rail network In question but you seem bizarrely keen that they should get rid of the guards there...
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
I trust the people who run the trains to know more about safety than you do.
I trust the people who run the trains to know more about safety than you do.
I suppose the best thing to do if you have no evidence is to insult those questioning you, eh?
The train safety bodies (the real experts), the unions (you know, the ones who are trying to wrest political control) and the railway companies (who have a vested interest in travel being safe), who are all involved in making sure the railways are safe, have all approved single man trains, and they have been running for 35 years without problem.
Where is the evidence of safety issues?
Original post by Bornblue
I'm guessing you never use the rail network In question
I'm guessing you never use the rail network In question
You are invariably wrong when you guess at what I think and do, and this occasion is true to form.
Original post by paul514
The pay is already too high for a train driver never mind the 24% extra offered.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
On what grounds?
There is no such thing as economic justice. It's all just supply and demand. I don't see how workers who are unionised in a sector that can easily bring a lot of the economy to a stand still if they strike demanding more pay is any different from a capitalist selling their goods at any price they can get away with.
Until we live in a society built around the principles of everyone according to his needs, everyone according to his ability, then you can start complaining about overpaid train drivers. But last time I checked you were not a socialist.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
You are invariably wrong when you guess at what I think and do, and this occasion is true to form.
Well done, you made a post without scaremongering about the 1970s.
Please do tell me one industrial action case you've supported?
Original post by Good bloke
I suppose the best thing to do if you have no evidence is to insult those questioning you, eh?
The train safety bodies (the real experts), the unions (you know, the ones who are trying to wrest political control) and the railway companies (who have a vested interest in travel being safe), who are all involved in making sure the railways are safe, have all approved single man trains, and they have been running for 35 years without problem.
Where is the evidence of safety issues?
The train safety bodies (the real experts), the unions (you know, the ones who are trying to wrest political control) and the railway companies (who have a vested interest in travel being safe), who are all involved in making sure the railways are safe, have all approved single man trains, and they have been running for 35 years without problem.
Where is the evidence of safety issues?
Sigh. Yet again you turn this into a proxy for an anti union attack.
Each line is different, each case is different and those who operate the reigns have deemed it unsafe. Of course though we should ignore safety concerns if they're polticially inconvenient.
Your hypocrisy shines through. 'Take back control' you shouted during the EU referendum. Not for workers though, they're not allowed to take back control for some reason.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I don't see how workers who are unionised in a sector that can easily bring a lot of the economy to a stand still if they strike demanding more pay is any different from a capitalist selling their goods at any price they can get away with.
Until we live in a society built around the principles of everyone according to his needs, everyone according to his ability, then you can start complaining about overpaid train drivers. But last time I checked you were not a socialist.
Until we live in a society built around the principles of everyone according to his needs, everyone according to his ability, then you can start complaining about overpaid train drivers. But last time I checked you were not a socialist.
Workers with the power to cause massive social disruption have to be watched and kept under control, to make sure they don't abuse such power to the point of blackmail. Some people can see good and bad in union relations but it really serves no purpose to be blind in one eye, the unions are there to serve the interests of their leadership, then the fee-paying members and do not have the national interest among their priorities. By definition.
It has been through the blackmailing of society that tube and train drivers have ended up earning so much, it's not because there is a shortage of applicants. The 'safety' card is the umbrella, of course they wouldn't admit it is all about money. But it is, they will end up accepting the implementation of the driver-only policy if enough money is offered to them and they want even more than being offered now. Then the safety concerns will disappear, 'we have had assurances from SR that public safety will not be compromised' and all that lark...
Original post by Bornblue
Each line is different, each case is different and those who operate the reigns have deemed it unsafe. .
Each line is different, each case is different and those who operate the reigns have deemed it unsafe. .
I take it you mean trains, and that they have been deemed safe by those who operate them, as is the case, with unions and drivers agreeing in all cases up until now.
How is each case different? Are the trains significantly different? The platforms? The cameras? Perhaps the public is different?
Are those of 35 years ago so much more amenable to one man trains than those built for the modern age?
Do tell.
And, please, hurry that safety data along.
Original post by Jammy Duel
The drivers of trains on Southern Rial have refused to accept a 24% pay rise over 4 years that would take their basic salary to over £60k. On turnout of 81% 62% of Aslef members voted to reject the pay package , this is a dispute separate to the driver only trains dispute.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/southern-rail-train-drivers-set-to-strike-despite-24-pay-rise-offer-pgcr82dlq
The question that has to be asked is: where is the outrage from the left? These are people who are already in the top 10% or so of the population (for single drivers they're in the top 5%) causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because a 24% pay increase is insufficient, ordinary people who are receiving far more modest pay increases, with the average nominal wage growth being 2%. The proposed pay package would have them earn more in one day than somebody on minimum wage would in a week. If this were bankers or politicians the left would be up in arms, instead they're silent.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/southern-rail-train-drivers-set-to-strike-despite-24-pay-rise-offer-pgcr82dlq
The question that has to be asked is: where is the outrage from the left? These are people who are already in the top 10% or so of the population (for single drivers they're in the top 5%) causing disruption to hundreds of thousands of ordinary people because a 24% pay increase is insufficient, ordinary people who are receiving far more modest pay increases, with the average nominal wage growth being 2%. The proposed pay package would have them earn more in one day than somebody on minimum wage would in a week. If this were bankers or politicians the left would be up in arms, instead they're silent.
Greed is good.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by milkm4n
Basic salary to £60k while the basic salary for junior doctors is £26k? Can someone please justify what makes train driving more lucrative than becoming a doctor?
A train driver? Are you crazy? Its like becoming an engineer. Anyways, these are £60k salaries for driver with probably 10-15 years experience.
Original post by HabibSyed
A train driver? Are you crazy? Its like becoming an engineer. Anyways, these are £60k salaries for driver with probably 10-15 years experience.
That didn't answer the original question. If we accept a train driver is worth their salary, why is a junior doctor worth less? The simple answer is that it's not supply and demand, they have no trouble recruiting train drivers but we have a shortfall of all healthcare professionals. The simple answer is the good will of public sector workers are exploited. The doctors conscience will compel them not to strike for a prolonged period, and when they did pay was only a partial factor, unsafe working conditions were the primary consideration so it was still with patients interests at heart.
I haven't seen a train driver vacancy for a while, I'm pretty sure it was £38k +massive benefits like free rail travel for you and your family. Plus all training provided.
Original post by milkm4n
Basic salary to £60k while the basic salary for junior doctors is £26k? Can someone please justify what makes train driving more lucrative than becoming a doctor?
it's £22.6k and for a doctor who is nowhere near done with their training
Related discussions
- Kim’s driver training lgv training
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- Car insurance for new drivers
- international students using agents
- How fast do you progress up the pay scale? (NHS)
- Car insurance new drivers
- My dad is useless
- Consultants end pay dispute with government in England
- Used my sister's bus pass
- Do these so facial recognition
- Disabled Maintenance Loan; disability discrimination
- Car or motorbike/moped
- Unexpected gap year help
- Should nurses be paid more?
- Paramedics
- DSA assessment in two days! can I ask for this?
- Why are rents so high
- Driving accident
- Is doing Graduate Scheme after a Graduate Job worth it?
- Dreading next shift
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
