Tube drivers paid extra £1800 not to strike during Olympics

[Mario149]

Du1point8 said:

There is a difference between what a market is willing to pay and blackmail to get a bonus.

This^^

If TFL were to raise bus fare prices over the Olympics and give the drivers a percentage cut, while I would be unhappy, I would agree that it's the market at work.

ETA: anyway, I refuse to get to worked up about it as it doesn't affect me anymore. I gave up using the bus/tube on a regular basis 6 months ago because it was so sh!t. If it's less than 2 miles, I walk, if it's more, I take the motorbike. I use PT in London maaaaaybe once a week now

Edited by Mario149 on Monday 11th June 12:53

[wiggy001]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought all of central London's buses were pre-pay ie you have to purchase your fare from a machine before boarding (or have an Oyster/travelcard).

So what, exactly, will this "extra work" consist of?

Surely if it is longer shifts etc then they will be paid for the extra hours worked?

They may work more shifts (and get paid for it) but their shifts certainly won't be any harder than usual because of the Olympics.

Greed is the reason for this, nothing more.

[XCP]

In the same way that the price of sandwiches and hotel rooms will increase too? Is that not greed?

[Du1point8]

XCP said:

In the same way that the price of sandwiches and hotel rooms will increase too? Is that not greed?

Greed maybe and servicing demands at market rate.

If they can only produce so much or only have so many rooms and the demand is great, then market forces apply.

If you deliver a public service and are not doing anything more than normal, I fail to see why you can demand more money.

Bus takes 80 passengers, normally you have 40, during olympics you have 80, you are still driving the same bus, its not suddenly a different job or you have to do any more... why should you get paid more?

waiter in hotel has 40 people on normal shift, now has 80 people, they have to do double the work to keep them all happy and served, hence can ask for more money as compensation for the times its busy.

tube driver sits in tube and drives tube... suddenly the amount of people they have is double, what difference is there to their normal job? Do they have to get out and push cause its heavier? Do they have to check everyones tickets? whats different?

[iphonedyou]

Du1point8 said:

There is a difference between what a market is willing to pay and blackmail to get a bonus.

If someone increases the price of hotel/booze/food, then fine, for a public service to demand something for doing their normal job and having more people on a bus... no!!

If they have to work more shifts no doubt they will be compensated, but to simply say pay us more or we will fk up the olympics for you is not what a union should be doing.

To be fair, it's not entirely public sector. Their operating revenue is circa £5 billion.

[Du1point8]

iphonedyou said:

Du1point8 said:

There is a difference between what a market is willing to pay and blackmail to get a bonus.

If someone increases the price of hotel/booze/food, then fine, for a public service to demand something for doing their normal job and having more people on a bus... no!!

If they have to work more shifts no doubt they will be compensated, but to simply say pay us more or we will fk up the olympics for you is not what a union should be doing.

To be fair, it's not entirely public sector. Their operating revenue is circa £5 billion.

no mention of public sector by me... just public service..

[iphonedyou]

Du1point8 said:

no mention of public sector by me... just public service..

Very true!

[TTwiggy]

I must admit that I've only scanned this topic, but it smacks, once again, of the usual PH default that admires people taking advantage of a free market, when those people are high-paid white collar workers (bankers, CEOs etc) but despises the same attitude from blue-collar workers.

[turbobloke]

London buses and tubes are tightly regulated, they're not even close to free markets.

[AV12]

iphonedyou said:

I start work for TfL in September.

It will be a sad day, handing in my PH membership.

In North Greenwich? I would think the travel benefits would be fine..

[mph1977]

turbobloke said:

London buses and tubes are tightly regulated, they're not even close to free markets.

the tube is never going to be a free market due tothe very high frequency much of it runs at, but TfL especially under Red Ken Mayorship took bus travel in london back to pre-deregulation days ...

[iphonedyou]

AV12 said:

In North Greenwich? I would think the travel benefits would be fine..

No I'm at Green Park. But yeah, the travel benefits are unparalleled.

[anonymous-user]

Do bus drivers demand a bonus payment whilst Tubes drivers/signalmen/maintenance crews are on strike? Their passengers loads and stress levels would also be significantly increased surely??

[crankedup]

XCP said:

crankedup said:

Seen the price of a sandwich that will be touted by a selected and restricted group of private outlets? Not allowed to bring your own grub in either, so if that's not profiteering! Is it as bad as a group of workers demanding a pay increase during the period for no other reason than 'because they can', well yes it is. England the land of free markets, usually.

This is the point I have been trying to make.

Indeed, now if those food retail outlets were in genuine open competition, which they are not, they see the ideal opportunity to hike the prices to an market which has no choice other than don't eat or drink today. That is taking advantage of a closed shop and no way related to the fundamental principles enshrined in the U.K. providing open competition. Are the private sector any less greedy for cash than any other sector as a group or individual, of course not. If I had a sandwich bar within the Olympic village would I sell at the highest price I could get away with, yes I suppose I would.

[crankedup]

Du1point8 said:

wolves_wanderer said:

XCP said:

crankedup said:

Seen the price of a sandwich that will be touted by a selected and restricted group of private outlets? Not allowed to bring your own grub in either, so if that's not profiteering! Is it as bad as a group of workers demanding a pay increase during the period for no other reason than 'because they can', well yes it is. England the land of free markets, usually.

This is the point I have been trying to make.

Because feudalism reigns supreme here. Our betters are allowed and encouraged to charge what the market will stand or vote each other payrises with the collective blessings of PH raining down and garlands in the street. God forbid however, if a prole tries to do the same.

There is a difference between what a market is willing to pay and blackmail to get a bonus.

If someone increases the price of hotel/booze/food, then fine, for a public service to demand something for doing their normal job and having more people on a bus... no!!

If they have to work more shifts no doubt they will be compensated, but to simply say pay us more or we will fk up the olympics for you is not what a union should be doing.

Unfortunately the sandwich thing is a closed market shop with no competition, not a free market.

[crankedup]

XCP said:

In the same way that the price of sandwiches and hotel rooms will increase too? Is that not greed?

True, fortunately people have seen the greed of some hoteliers and are boycotting these establishments. Same as a bad egg sandwich will be boycotted owing to over inflated pricing, it leaves a rotten smell

[Mario149]

TTwiggy said:

I must admit that I've only scanned this topic

I think you need to read it rather than scan it. Main point of contention that I can see is that some people think that the following is logical and fair:

a) I will do extra work and be remunerated extra as per my existing (presumably Union negotiated) deals/work contract
b) despite (a), I want even more money for no extra work on top of that stipulated in (a)
c) if (b) does not happen, I will go on strike

And for what it's worth, I've seen a lot of white collar (e.g. banker) criticism on PH so to think that blue collar workers are being singled out is not correct

[TTwiggy]

Mario149 said:

TTwiggy said:

I must admit that I've only scanned this topic

I think you need to read it rather than scan it. Main point of contention that I can see is that some people think that the following is logical and fair:

a) I will do extra work and be remunerated extra as per my existing (presumably Union negotiated) deals/work contract
b) despite (a), I want even more money for no extra work on top of that stipulated in (a)
c) if (b) does not happen, I will go on strike

And for what it's worth, I've seen a lot of white collar (e.g. banker) criticism on PH so to think that blue collar workers are being singled out is not correct

Well, as nobody really knows the genuine impact that the Olympics will have on underground travel, it's impossible to say if they will have 'more' work (I accept that one man can only drive one train, as per usual, but it's likely to be a rather more stressful environment than on a normal work day).

Striking may be abhorent to many, but it's a strong weapon, and if you have it in your arsenal, you'd be mad not to make use of it, or at least threaten its use.

Yes, there has been (some) criticism of bankers on here, but it's quickly shouted down with cries of 'jealously' and 'ignorance of the facts'...

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

it's likely to be a rather more stressful environment than on a normal work day

As mentioned previously, the expectation for mass transit should be travelling at capacity with anything less demanding seen as a bonus, rather than capacity travel seen as something special and worthy of extra pay simply for doing the job that the routes and vehicles were designed for.

More passengers giving rise to more trains or buses and more overtime where network capacity permits, fine, but expecting more pay for just doing the job at a time when the capital can be held to ransom goes beyond taking the psss.

[Du1point8]

TTwiggy said:

Mario149 said:

TTwiggy said:

I must admit that I've only scanned this topic

I think you need to read it rather than scan it. Main point of contention that I can see is that some people think that the following is logical and fair:

a) I will do extra work and be remunerated extra as per my existing (presumably Union negotiated) deals/work contract
b) despite (a), I want even more money for no extra work on top of that stipulated in (a)
c) if (b) does not happen, I will go on strike

And for what it's worth, I've seen a lot of white collar (e.g. banker) criticism on PH so to think that blue collar workers are being singled out is not correct

Well, as nobody really knows the genuine impact that the Olympics will have on underground travel, it's impossible to say if they will have 'more' work (I accept that one man can only drive one train, as per usual, but it's likely to be a rather more stressful environment than on a normal work day).

Striking may be abhorent to many, but it's a strong weapon, and if you have it in your arsenal, you'd be mad not to make use of it, or at least threaten its use.

Yes, there has been (some) criticism of bankers on here, but it's quickly shouted down with cries of 'jealously' and 'ignorance of the facts'...

No matter what you say, blackmail is not a weapon that should ever be used.

I understand if wages were below average or safety is an issue due to old equipment, then strike... but to turn around and say pay us more for doing the same thing we always do because if you don't we will stop working for the olympics... no discussion, just straight out pay up or else is not what a union is there for.

If unions keep on doing this I can quite happily see them been taken apart with public backing.