The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by limetang
it's £22.6k and for a doctor who is nowhere near done with their training


The 2016 contract change by Jeremy Hunt increased the basic salary to £26k (source: http://www.nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Documents/Pay%20and%20reward/FINAL%20Pay%20and%20Conditions%20Circular%20MD%2012017.pdf)

Secondly, the only point in a doctor's career where their basic salary is over 60k is when you become a consultant. To become a consultant you're looking at 5 years at uni, 2 years foundation training, 3 years core registrar training and then 6-8 years specialty registrar training. In summary, that's around 16years to become a consultant.

Now, compare that to the '240 hours in practical training and an additional 840 hours learning theory' required to become a southern rail train driver which takes 'over a year' to complete (source: www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/train-crew-recruitment/)

I'm not complaining for the sake of it. I think most people would argue the more skill, experience and responsibility your job requires, the greater salary your job deserves.
Original post by Bornblue
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.


Would you care to substantiate your claims that it is about safety, and I don't mean say, making it sound more complicated than it is "it is about safety because it is about safety" I mean prove to us that driver only operation is more dangerous then non driver only operation. I would suggest as a starting point that you highlight the errors in the ORR and RSSB reports.

In fact, the funny thing is that the ORR say that the procedures used for DOO are actually safer when leaving the platform than current practices unless the conductor is in a driving cab, i.e. they can stick their head out the window.

As for the "imaginary" cheap tickets, might I remind you that in the commons bar everybody who debates with you when you moan about how expensive the railways are manage to find tickets significantly cheaper than yours? Might I also remind you that there is this thing called a "return ticket" that gives you travel in both directions, often costing less than the European counterparts you obsess over on the basis that the Europeans generally charge double the price for a return whereas this tends not to be the case in the UK? Finally it seems you need reminding that the costs used are almost always after subsidies are included, and apparently it's a mental idea that the users of a service should be the ones to pay for it (btw, rail subsidies are in a way a regressive system, statistically the richer your are the more you benefit from them).

I'll wait for the record to jump back to "it's about safety".
Original post by Jammy Duel
Would you care to substantiate your claims that it is about safety, and I don't mean say, making it sound more complicated than it is "it is about safety because it is about safety" I mean prove to us that driver only operation is more dangerous then non driver only operation. I would suggest as a starting point that you highlight the errors in the ORR and RSSB reports.

In fact, the funny thing is that the ORR say that the procedures used for DOO are actually safer when leaving the platform than current practices unless the conductor is in a driving cab, i.e. they can stick their head out the window.

As for the "imaginary" cheap tickets, might I remind you that in the commons bar everybody who debates with you when you moan about how expensive the railways are manage to find tickets significantly cheaper than yours? Might I also remind you that there is this thing called a "return ticket" that gives you travel in both directions, often costing less than the European counterparts you obsess over on the basis that the Europeans generally charge double the price for a return whereas this tends not to be the case in the UK? Finally it seems you need reminding that the costs used are almost always after subsidies are included, and apparently it's a mental idea that the users of a service should be the ones to pay for it (btw, rail subsidies are in a way a regressive system, statistically the richer your are the more you benefit from them).

I'll wait for the record to jump back to "it's about safety".


Ah you dodge questions as per usual.

Care to explain how rejecting more money is greedy? What a bizarre concept of greed...
In that case the few bankers who rejected their bonuses must have been the greediest of all and those who accepted massive taxpayer bonuses must have been selfless?
How convenient.

As for the safety point, the question is about their motivation, not yours. If they deem it unsafe and refuse to take a pay rise because of it then on their behalf it is about safety, whether or not you agree with their assessment.

No, people in the commons bar do not find cheap tickets and if they do they tend to be at bizarre times and on days I was not seeking to travel. Again all across Europe the services are cheaper, faster and less crowded.

The Europeans do not charge double for a return and in fact offer similar discounted return tickets as we do...

Its an absolute disgrace that we allow our railways to be owned by corporations and foreign governments who profit off them rather than the British publish. You claim to be patriotic yet seem very keen on selling off a British assets, it's truly bizarre. Also the Taxpayer DOES pay for it here. We all do through taxation. The difference is that while we pay for it, corporations take the profits out of it and then charge us on top of it. We pay for it so why shouldn't we own it?

Why should the British people not own our railways? Why should we all not benefit from a better quality service and cheaper prices rather than allowing a corporation to charge huge amounts for tickets for profits?

I don't expect anything more than 'cos da market is always better tho' without a shred of evidence to support privatised rail systems are cheaper, faster less crowded and have higher approval ratings.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Ah you dodge questions as per usual.

Care to explain how rejecting more money is greedy? What a bizarre concept of greed...
In that case the few bankers who rejected their bonuses must have been the greediest of all and those who accepted massive taxpayer bonuses must have been selfless?
How convenient.

As for the safety point, the question is about their motivation, not yours. If they deem it unsafe and refuse to take a pay rise because of it then on their behalf it is about safety, whether or not you agree with their assessment.

No, people in the commons bar do not find cheap tickets and if they do they tend to be at bizarre times and on days I was not seeking to travel. Again all across Europe the services are cheaper, faster and less crowded.

The Europeans do not charge double for a return and in fact offer similar discounted return tickets as we do...

Its an absolute disgrace that we allow our railways to be owned by corporations and foreign governments who profit off them rather than the British publish. You claim to be patriotic yet seem very keen on selling off a British assets, it's truly bizarre. Also the Taxpayer DOES pay for it here. We all do through taxation. The difference is that while we pay for it, corporations take the profits out of it and then charge us on top of it. We pay for it so why shouldn't we own it?

Why should the British people not own our railways? Why should we all not benefit from a better quality service and cheaper prices rather than allowing a corporation to charge huge amounts for tickets for profits?

I don't expect anything more than 'cos da market is always better tho' without a shred of evidence to support privatised rail systems are cheaper, faster less crowded and have higher approval ratings.


Perhaps because normally when terms are refused in pay disputes it's because they're not good enough, or are you accusing the media at large of spreading fake news when they say this is not part of the DOO dispute?

Ah, so your proof is the unions say it's unsafe, and they never lie or have ulterior motives? Convincing...

Okay, so why stop at the railways, let's become more of a hermit than North Korea. Why should we import lamb and beef from New Zealand to the detriment of our own industry, or build nissans only for the profits to go abroad, let's reform British leyland and make their cars the only legal cars. But let's not be hypocritical, we need the government and all UK businesses to end any overseas activity and nationalise any that don't, because globalisation is evil.

Ooo, what's this? The net flow of cash between operators and the government is to the government? And it's more than the profits :redface: that damn government pushing prices up due to the subsidy structure.
1500362115541.jpg

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
If they deem it unsafe and refuse to take a pay rise because of it then on their behalf it is about safety, whether or not you agree with their assessment.


That's an interesting take on it. It does not, in truth, need to be about safety as long as they claim it is about safety, or to put it another way, as long as they say it is about safety it is about safety and we are not allowed to argue with that.

That sounds very totalitarian to me.

:toofunny:
Original post by Whiskey&Freedom
This is why we need to strip back employment law. With a successful Brexit I expect the Conservatives to seize the opportunity to make the labour market more flexible. We need to ban unions and make striking a sackable offensive.


Some gall to include the word freedom in your name then state that ^.
Original post by Good bloke
That's an interesting take on it. It does not, in truth, need to be about safety as long as they claim it is about safety, or to put it another way, as long as they say it is about safety it is about safety and we are not allowed to argue with that.

That sounds very totalitarian to me.

:toofunny:


Especially when it objectively isn't about safety because that's a different dispute being negotiated separately

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by k.russell
Some gall to include the word freedom in your name then state that ^.


It has everything to do with freedom. Employment legislation interferes in the market. Reduce it and markets become more free. Unions increase unemployment, reduce opportunity and limit individual bargaining. Criminalising them makes the individual more free.
Original post by Whiskey&Freedom
It has everything to do with freedom. Employment legislation interferes in the market. Reduce it and markets become more free. Unions increase unemployment, reduce opportunity and limit individual bargaining. Criminalising them makes the individual more free.


Well, I'm one of hers too but don't know that the Lady herself would take it that far...

Nah, we need Unions. Without them it would really all be left to the law of the jungle and all there is to worry about is the loony-left element in them.
Original post by Whiskey&Freedom
This is why we need to strip back employment law. With a successful Brexit I expect the Conservatives to seize the opportunity to make the labour market more flexible. We need to ban unions and make striking a sackable offensive.


You aren't serious?
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.


It is pathetic don't they understand that this will mean an increase in train tickets? oh wait they and their families and friends get to travel for free anyway.
Original post by Whiskey&Freedom
It has everything to do with freedom. Employment legislation interferes in the market. Reduce it and markets become more free. Unions increase unemployment, reduce opportunity and limit individual bargaining. Criminalising them makes the individual more free.


Individual freedom isn't equal to market freedom, totally free markets just open the door for the exploitation of people by corporations and businesses.
Original post by k.russell
Individual freedom isn't equal to market freedom, totally free markets just open the door for the exploitation of people by corporations and businesses.


And at the same time so many unions aren't interested in the betterment of their members unless they remain within the union while doing so, as evidenced by the insistence by the unions that redundant jobs are kept.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Perhaps because normally when terms are refused in pay disputes it's because they're not good enough, or are you accusing the media at large of spreading fake news when they say this is not part of the DOO dispute?

Ah, so your proof is the unions say it's unsafe, and they never lie or have ulterior motives? Convincing...

Okay, so why stop at the railways, let's become more of a hermit than North Korea. Why should we import lamb and beef from New Zealand to the detriment of our own industry, or build nissans only for the profits to go abroad, let's reform British leyland and make their cars the only legal cars. But let's not be hypocritical, we need the government and all UK businesses to end any overseas activity and nationalise any that don't, because globalisation is evil.

Ooo, what's this? The net flow of cash between operators and the government is to the government? And it's more than the profits :redface: that damn government pushing prices up due to the subsidy structure.
1500362115541.jpg

Posted from TSR Mobile


Sigh. I don't know why to expect any better from you.

Please answer the question. How is rejecting money greedy?

Ah also typical and unsurprising for you to suggest that nationalising the railways means we may as well become North Korea... So the leve of debate coming from you is 'either we remain as we are or become North Korea, no middle ground or nuance...'

Wait now you're defending globalisation? After strongly supporting Trump who came out strongly as an anti-globalist? After supporting Le Pen over Macron? After opposing freedom of movement and the 'liberal elites'. You're a bag of contradictions aren't you? Do you change your mind on globalisation daily? One minute you regard it as evil, the next you are its staunchest defender.
How can you possibly claim to support globalisation when you've backed two campaigns which had opposition to it as it's focal point?

Didn't you also say you were voting (or at least thinking of voting) UKIP at the last election? Another anti-globalist party...
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
That's an interesting take on it. It does not, in truth, need to be about safety as long as they claim it is about safety, or to put it another way, as long as they say it is about safety it is about safety and we are not allowed to argue with that.

That sounds very totalitarian to me.

:toofunny:

And again, you fail to answer.

Please tell me any industrial action you've supported?
Yup, Automate that ****.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
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.


On the grounds we should just train more of them and not have this issue, it's not like they need a degree in rocket science to do this.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
On the grounds we should just train more of them and not have this issue, it's not like they need a degree in rocket science to do this.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You don't need a degree in rocket science to do lots of well paid jobs.
Original post by Bornblue
Sigh. I don't know why to expect any better from you.

Please answer the question. How is rejecting money greedy?

Ah also typical and unsurprising for you to suggest that nationalising the railways means we may as well become North Korea... So the leve of debate coming from you is 'either we remain as we are or become North Korea, no middle ground or nuance...'

Wait now you're defending globalisation? After strongly supporting Trump who came out strongly as an anti-globalist? After supporting Le Pen over Macron? After opposing freedom of movement and the 'liberal elites'. You're a bag of contradictions aren't you? Do you change your mind on globalisation daily? One minute you regard it as evil, the next you are its staunchest defender.
How can you possibly claim to support globalisation when you've backed two campaigns which had opposition to it as it's focal point?

Didn't you also say you were voting (or at least thinking of voting) UKIP at the last election? Another anti-globalist party...


I did, funnily enough: rejecting pay and hours terms in a pay and hours dispute generally means they are not good enough. If in fact they only wanted, say, 10% they would be mad not to accept 24%. But once again you are certainly going to shout fake news, and I see you've stopped trying to claim you can't find cheap fares, interestingly enough I just did a little look around and found that advance fares are some of the cheapest in Europe, and that's before considering our archaic rules requiring returns for just £1 more than a single.

Posted from TSR Mobile
To be fair i think it could be an aspect of some danger money being included in that salary- people commiting suicide in front of a train has been on the up for the last 10 years are so, the job doesn't justify the salary but I know train drivers who have hit people and had 6 months plus off work on the sick for it.

Latest