The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Voll Blau]

21 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Apparently, the average salary for train drivers is £54k, which is more than specialist doctors' pay. I'm not convinced that train drivers' jobs require more skills than those of specialist doctors.

Why, have you done both jobs?

 

Plus, GPs earn more than £54k a year. Their average salary is £98k, according to this.

 

https://www.healthjobs.co.uk/blog/the-gp-salary--and--pay-guide/#average

[CosbehFox]

29 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Apparently, the average salary for train drivers is £54k, which is more than specialist doctors' pay. I'm not convinced that train drivers' jobs require more skills than those of specialist doctors.

Depends which strike we are discussing 

30th July - is the train drivers which is the first strike action they have taken - they are the union of ASLEF, my gut is given the day they have selected that they are much nearing to agreeing a deal 

 

27th July and the August strike action is RMT which affects workers of the railways, not the drivers. 

 

A quick google from me also says:-

If you're working as a specialty doctor you'll earn a basic salary of £50,373 to £78,759. If you are a specialist grade doctor you'll earn a basic salary of £80,693 to £91,584.

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

35 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Apparently, the average salary for train drivers is £54k, which is more than specialist doctors' pay. I'm not convinced that train drivers' jobs require more skills than those of specialist doctors.

There we go. Set one group of workers against another. Tory ploy as per usual

[Greg2607]

34 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Apparently, the average salary for train drivers is £54k, which is more than a specialist doctor's pay. I'm not convinced that train drivers' jobs require more skills than those of specialist doctors. 

you realise though that the strike isn't really about the pay increases for Train Drivers right?  it's also about the person in the ticket office earning £21,000 a year, or the Cleaner, or the stewards at the stations. 

 

We can't always debase a discussion around Pay Deals to the highest salary.  

 

In the current climate, with the cost escalating all over the place, I genuinely find it hard to see how someone on £20,000 - £25,000 per year, can afford to live, especially if they have a family. 

 

Everyone needs to give their head a wobble.  It isn't about the "i'm all right jack" mentality.  I personally don't want to see people around me suffering. going hungry. being freezing in winter.  This isn't a world we should be comfortable with. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, kenny said:

The other issue is that since Covid the trains are being used less. So as a result the cost to run them per journey is going up all the time which the RMT have no interest in.

 

If you can't rely on the trains to run then people will be less inclined to use them, so the RMT are damaging their own product. This will set public transport use back in this country and encourage people to rely on their cars.

 

 

Given how crowded trains can get, I suppose it was inevitable there'd be a downturn post-Covid. Given our supposed commitment to reduce carbon emissions, it would be good if both Govt and rail companies adopted measures to encourage greater investment and to cut fares. This happens in other countries, where rail is partly state-owned (fully state-owned sometimes) and/or public investment is made and/or companies don't expect such high profits and shareholder returns as The City demands.

 

I suppose some of the downturn is due to more home-working, but there has also been an increase in car usage, I think? If so, that's absurd - and a great time to encourage a switch back to rail given high petrol prices and memories of peak Covid fading.

 

I'm sure the RMT have an interest in their employers surviving or they'd lose their jobs, but they also have an interest in not having their pay cut, jobs lost through redundancy and working conditions shredded.

It's far from ideal to have strikes, I agree. But I'll ask you the same as I asked Nalis: if the RMT shouldn't be striking, what should they be doing? Accepting pay cuts, redundancies & poorer conditions?

 

[Foxdiamond]

19 minutes ago, kenny said:

The other issue is that since Covid the trains are being used less. So as a result the cost to run them per journey is going up all the time which the RMT have no interest in.

 

If you can't rely on the trains to run then people will be less inclined to use them, so the RMT are damaging their own product. This will set public transport use back in this country and encourage people to rely on their 

Make the tickets affordable and transparent pricing will help

[ealingfox]

39 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Apparently, the average salary for train drivers is £54k, which is more than specialist doctors' pay. I'm not convinced that train drivers' jobs require more skills than those of specialist doctors.

 

Maybe for the first year or two but then doctors earning power way outstrips that.

 

It's besides the point anyway. We shouldn't be asking why train drivers use their collective bargaining power so much, we should be asking why others don't use their collective bargaining power more.

[kenny]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Given how crowded trains can get, I suppose it was inevitable there'd be a downturn post-Covid. Given our supposed commitment to reduce carbon emissions, it would be good if both Govt and rail companies adopted measures to encourage greater investment and to cut fares. This happens in other countries, where rail is partly state-owned (fully state-owned sometimes) and/or public investment is made and/or companies don't expect such high profits and shareholder returns as The City demands.

 

I suppose some of the downturn is due to more home-working, but there has also been an increase in car usage, I think? If so, that's absurd - and a great time to encourage a switch back to rail given high petrol prices and memories of peak Covid fading.

 

I'm sure the RMT have an interest in their employers surviving or they'd lose their jobs, but they also have an interest in not having their pay cut, jobs lost through redundancy and working conditions shredded.

It's far from ideal to have strikes, I agree. But I'll ask you the same as I asked Nalis: if the RMT shouldn't be striking, what should they be doing? Accepting pay cuts, redundancies & poorer conditions?

 

They should accept redundancies as the business model and technology changes. Its ridiculous and outdated to expect anything else.

 

From the outside their conditions seem good, better than can be expected in private sector. If they want more than they get then thats fine but it won't get my support.

 

I have come to accept the RMT striking. Let them crack on. Its a good job I am not in charge as I would leave them to striking, the WFH culture has meant that people are less bothered by them doing it.

 

But it also effects my decision making on transport options for the future and I know that I cannot rely on trains, but I can rely on my car.

 

@FoxdiamondYou are correct. No ****ing good if they are cheap but unreliable though.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, kenny said:

They should accept redundancies as the business model and technology changes. Its ridiculous and outdated to expect anything else.

 

From the outside their conditions seem good, better than can be expected in private sector. If they want more than they get then thats fine but it won't get my support.

 

I have come to accept the RMT striking. Let them crack on. Its a good job I am not in charge as I would leave them to striking, the WFH culture has meant that people are less bothered by them doing it.

 

But it also effects my decision making on transport options for the future and I know that I cannot rely on trains, but I can rely on my car.

 

@FoxdiamondYou are correct. No ****ing good if they are cheap but unreliable though.

 

I'm not following every detail of the dispute, but when I've heard the RMT mention redundancies I didn't get the impression they would rule out any redundancies ever - just that they'd want them minimized, staged and done preferably through voluntary redundancy with compensation etc. I've also specifically heard RMT spokespeople list technological changes they've already accepted and implemented.

 

Other posters have quoted examples of low pay in the rail industry, even if some are well paid. But I don't resent people getting decent pay for their work, anyway. Rather than resenting people who get a decent wage and seeking to "level down", we should improve poor pay wherever it is, so that millions are not struggling or even using food banks.

 

Another one mentioning "the private sector"......most RMT workers are employed in the private sector, aren't they, or has rail been fully nationalized without me noticing? 

 

As for reliability, this strike is a pain (including for me) but this is the first significant rail strike for many years, isn't it? Any unreliability has been more down to under-investment in favour of excess profits and bonuses.

 

Edited 15 July 2022 by Alf Bentley

[Greg2607]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not following every detail of the dispute, but when I've heard the RMT mention redundancies I didn't get the impression they would rule out any redundancies ever - just that they'd want them minimized, staged and done preferably through voluntary redundancy with compensation etc. I've also specifically heard RMT spokespeople list technological changes they've already accepted and implemented.

 

Other posters have quoted examples of low pay in the rail industry, even if some are well paid. But I don't resent people getting decent pay for their work, anyway. Rather than resenting people who get a decent wage and seeking to "level down", we should improve poor pay wherever it is, so that millions are not struggling or even using food banks.

 

Another one mentioning "the private sector"......most RMT workers are employed in the private sector, aren't they, or has rail been fully nationalized without me noticing? 

 

As for reliability, this strike is a pain (including for me) but this is the first significant rail strike for many years, isn't it? Any unreliability has been more down to under-investment in favour of excess profits and bonuses.

 

Less of a pain for me.  I live in North West Leicestershire.  We don't have a rail service.

[Foxdiamond]

22 minutes ago, kenny said:

They should accept redundancies as the business model and technology changes. Its ridiculous and outdated to expect anything else.

 

From the outside their conditions seem good, better than can be expected in private sector. If they want more than they get then thats fine but it won't get my support.

 

I have come to accept the RMT striking. Let them crack on. Its a good job I am not in charge as I would leave them to striking, the WFH culture has meant that people are less bothered by them doing it.

 

But it also effects my decision making on transport options for the future and I know that I cannot rely on trains, but I can rely on my car.

 

@FoxdiamondYou are correct. No ****ing good if they are cheap but unreliable though.

The government has to take responsibility. It is not all down to the RMT. Why are our fares so high compared to other countries 

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

The government has to take responsibility. It is not all down to the RMT. Why are our fares so high compared to other countries 

It’s called paying for layers and layers of unproductive management or middlemen in supply chains and it exists across our entire economy 

 

of course if you strip it out then the economy will fall apart. However, with numbers in the workforce dropping we need to make sure that the doers retain their positions and those that don’t lose theirs through natural waste. 

[kenny]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not following every detail of the dispute, but when I've heard the RMT mention redundancies I didn't get the impression they would rule out any redundancies ever - just that they'd want them minimized, staged and done preferably through voluntary redundancy with compensation etc. I've also specifically heard RMT spokespeople list technological changes they've already accepted and implemented.

 

Other posters have quoted examples of low pay in the rail industry, even if some are well paid. But I don't resent people getting decent pay for their work, anyway. Rather than resenting people who get a decent wage and seeking to "level down", we should improve poor pay wherever it is, so that millions are not struggling or even using food banks.

 

Another one mentioning "the private sector"......most RMT workers are employed in the private sector, aren't they, or has rail been fully nationalized without me noticing? 

 

As for reliability, this strike is a pain (including for me) but this is the first significant rail strike for many years, isn't it? Any unreliability has been more down to under-investment in favour of excess profits and bonuses.

 

Ive said many times, the only way for society to improve the issues with pay and worker shortages is automation. As far as I can see the RMT would be out there burning the mills.

 

I know the train companies are private, but they behave like public sector bodies and are paid for by the taxpayer. Since Virgin trains went (which offered a considerably better service!!!) we don't have a choice which train company we use, so it is a closed market in that sense. Plus, if they perform poorly and they aren't used, they are bailed out with public funds anyway, so there is no incentive to be a good service.

 

The starting salaries offered by EMR seem reasonable to me and are higher than many graduates earn as a starting wage (without the £50k loans!). For instance the starting salary for a train host is £22.5k.

 

I don't want people earning low salaries either but there has to be an incentive to be well qualified or people may not bother.

 

 

[kenny]

24 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

The government has to take responsibility. It is not all down to the RMT. Why are our fares so high compared to other countries 

Agreed. 

 

The whole business model doesn't work for anyone.

[Foxdiamond]

8 minutes ago, kenny said:

Ive said many times, the only way for society to improve the issues with pay and worker shortages is automation. As far as I can see the RMT would be out there burning the mills.

 

I know the train companies are private, but they behave like public sector bodies and are paid for by the taxpayer. Since Virgin trains went (which offered a considerably better service!!!) we don't have a choice which train company we use, so it is a closed market in that sense. Plus, if they perform poorly and they aren't used, they are bailed out with public funds anyway, so there is no incentive to be a good service.

 

The starting salaries offered by EMR seem reasonable to me and are higher than many graduates earn as a starting wage (without the £50k loans!). For instance the starting salary for a train host is £22.5k.

 

I don't want people earning low salaries either but there has to be an incentive to be well qualified or people may not bother.

 

 

So more and more profit for the shareholders coming from the public purse yet the workers are expected to put up with lower pay in real terms and just accept anything management throw at them. A race to the bottom

[Foxdiamond]

Just now, kenny said:

Agreed. 

 

The whole business model doesn't work for anyone.

Yet the Tories told us that this was the answer.

[weller54]

Penny is going to get shafted isn't she!?...

Have this real horrible feeling that Truss is going to be PM 🤬!!...

... Take your time and let that thought sink in.

[kenny]

16 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Yet the Tories told us that this was the answer.

This could have been reversed under Blair and wasn't.

 

The previous model was a hideous mess as well.

[kenny]

18 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

So more and more profit for the shareholders coming from the public purse yet the workers are expected to put up with lower pay in real terms and just accept anything management throw at them. A race to the bottom

As per my post. The pay seems reasonable to me.

 

I assume that the 'management' are also on strike as they will also be members of the RMT and whatever they are 'throwing' can only be thrown with permission from the union.

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, kenny said:

This could have been reversed under Blair and wasn't.

 

The previous model was a hideous mess as well.

We seem determined not to learn from other countries 

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

We seem determined not to learn from other countries 

Having used it in many other countries, the quality varies from generally worse to slightly better.

 

Its nearly always much cheaper than here however as well as being more reliable.

 

I am sure that the RMT have plenty of solutions for the train operators that will allow them to both raise salaries and reduce fares, whilst improving the service. Lets hope that they are listened to.

[Foxdiamond]

24 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Penny is going to get shafted isn't she!?...

Have this real horrible feeling that Truss is going to be PM 🤬!!...

... Take your time and let that thought sink in.

I feel nausea 

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

Having used it in many other countries, the quality varies from generally worse to slightly better.

 

Its nearly always much cheaper than here however as well as being more reliable.

 

I am sure that the RMT have plenty of solutions for the train operators that will allow them to both raise salaries and reduce fares, whilst improving the service. Lets hope that they are listened to.

Does the union have to provide all the answers. By management I do of course mean the train operators and the shower we call the government 

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, kenny said:

I know the train companies are private, but they behave like public sector bodies and are paid for by the taxpayer. Since Virgin trains went (which offered a considerably better service!!!) we don't have a choice which train company we use, so it is a closed market in that sense. Plus, if they perform poorly and they aren't used, they are bailed out with public funds anyway, so there is no incentive to be a good service.

 

 

I should partly correct what I was saying earlier about RMT members mainly being in the private sector. While the train operating companies (and ferries) are mainly private sector, Network Rail has some strange sort of semi-detached public sector status and gets a large part of its funding from govt, even if some is from commercial contracts with the train operating companies etc. A few operating companies have been temporarily taken back into public ownership when they've failed, but the current govt has a policy of returning them to private ownership whenever it can. 

 

In my defence, I was trying to answer posts while also doing a bit of work, trying to get my daughter out of bed and off her gadgets and dealing with texts from my Forest-supporting mate who's on a fortnight off, which he is mainly devoting to trying to wind me up with texts about all the signings Forest are making! 

 

But, except when they fail and are taken over, the train operating companies aren't paid for by the taxpayer, are they? They sometimes get subsidies, but they also pay the taxpayer for franchises and get most of their money from the travelling public, as I understand it.

 

You're lucky if you ever had a choice of train companies wherever you live. Most train-operating companies effectively have a monopoly over their franchise areas, don't they? From Leicester to London, there's only EMR, isn't there? Similar on lots of cross-country routes, though there are at least 2 of them doing the Leicester-Nottingham run. That's part of the (practical, not ideological) argument for keeping rail in the public sector - it largely lends itself to monopoly service, not competition, unless you count competition with cars, coaches and planes.....either public ownership or much more effective regulation than we've had to protect customer and taxpayer interests from abuse by effective monopolistic private corporations. Of course, Tory ideology denigrates regulation as state meddling and believes that free markets and competition are inevitably more efficient - even though plenty of non-Left economists would say that's not true for natural monopolies.

 

 

[LVFox]

38 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Penny is going to get shafted isn't she!?...

Have this real horrible feeling that Truss is going to be PM 🤬!!...

... Take your time and let that thought sink in.

Truss could easily get shown up in those TV Debates and Badenoch comes through as the right wing candidate.

Badenoch is probably the clearest communicator left in this, expect her to impress tonight - although I do think Truss still makes final two.