Discussion
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
johnfm said:
It isn't the 'workers voices' though in most cases. It is the 'union voices' on a mandate of a small percentage of the workforce.
In this case, indefensible strike action.
This again?In this case, indefensible strike action.
Is that 91% of the total membership and if not, do you happen to know what the % would be expressed in that way? Also what % of the total workforce... then the rest of us would know what the mandate actually was.
Union bods speaking of the all-night tube as the mayor's vanity project are a credit to their members.
"RMT members voted for strike with 92 per cent on an unknown turnout. Unite voted 70 per cent in favour on an 82 per cent turnout. Even Aslef – a self-described "moderate" rail union which has clashed with the RMT in the past – came down 98 per cent in favour, on a turnout of 81 per cent."
Du1point8 said:
Hackney said:
eccles said:
Harry H said:
Wouldn't it be great if we could sack the lot of em.
Apparently there's a couple of thousand Africans in Calais who are desperate to get into a tunnel and would now doubt do it for a quarter of the price.
I wonder if you'd feel the same if they said the same about your job?Apparently there's a couple of thousand Africans in Calais who are desperate to get into a tunnel and would now doubt do it for a quarter of the price.
blindswelledrat said:
THis thought process is so reliant on unrealistic factors as to be incorrect, if you don't mind me saying.
Who, anywhere, really lives near work? In rush hour I have observed that the suburbs of almost any town or city are an hours commute to the centre and millions of people do it daily.
Tube drivers get free transport and the links are so good that an hours commute from central London could be almost anywhere within 60 miles.
£50-£60k is a huge salary for something so relatively unskilled.
The thought process of "I feel sorry for them, £60k is not enough in London" is based on magic money that appears from nowhere. If we extrapolated that to everyone who works in London that really should be on £100k per year 'because that's what you need to live isn't it?" then all the nurses,tradesmen,teachers,policemen, firemen,ambulance drivers,paramedics, bus drivers, taxi drivers, waiters, admin people etc etc etc the money we would need is incalculable.
Despite this magic perception that you need £100k to live in London, quite literally millions of people live on a fraction of that amount. What makes tube drivers so special that their skills to salary ratio is so out-of-kilter with the rest of the economy, and indeed the world?
You misunderstand me.Who, anywhere, really lives near work? In rush hour I have observed that the suburbs of almost any town or city are an hours commute to the centre and millions of people do it daily.
Tube drivers get free transport and the links are so good that an hours commute from central London could be almost anywhere within 60 miles.
£50-£60k is a huge salary for something so relatively unskilled.
The thought process of "I feel sorry for them, £60k is not enough in London" is based on magic money that appears from nowhere. If we extrapolated that to everyone who works in London that really should be on £100k per year 'because that's what you need to live isn't it?" then all the nurses,tradesmen,teachers,policemen, firemen,ambulance drivers,paramedics, bus drivers, taxi drivers, waiters, admin people etc etc etc the money we would need is incalculable.
Despite this magic perception that you need £100k to live in London, quite literally millions of people live on a fraction of that amount. What makes tube drivers so special that their skills to salary ratio is so out-of-kilter with the rest of the economy, and indeed the world?
My point is not that tube drivers don't earn enough, but that the cost of living in London is to the point where even well paid people cannot afford to live there - not just in the prime areas but in an increasingly large part of the capital.
Successive governments have allowed prices to continue to rise with little regulation (look at the storm kicked up about naughty money funding much of the rise) and you end up with a situation such as the one we face now.
It also results in having a generation of children in London who are forced into living in squalid conditions, forcing them into a life of crime, destitution and all round unhappiness. I, the same as a lot of us on here, have been fortunate to have grown up in a nice, green little place where people drive Discoveries to Waitrose and live a life with little real concern. As I get older, it's becoming harder and harder to not recognise that there is a large proportion of society who are at completely the other end of spectrum and that things are only getting worse.
Where however I differ is that I do not believe the Conservatives make things any worse than they already are and strongly believe that Labour would take a lot of money from a lot of us to fund very little in the way of good.
Du1point8 said:
Havent a couple of drivers been fired for drinking or turning up drunk? Seem to remember there was some strikes to try to get them reinstated too.
No, the strike you are referring to was over the complete disregard, by LUL, of the drugs and alcohol testing procedures. The driver did not turn up 'drunk' but there was an indication he may of been over the limit for booking on for duty( the limit for drivers is 13mg for a breath test as opposed to 35 for car driving). As LUL basically balls up the test from beginning to end including losing the samples to allow retesting, the RMT called for industrial action. The case is currently with an employment tribunal.
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
johnfm said:
It isn't the 'workers voices' though in most cases. It is the 'union voices' on a mandate of a small percentage of the workforce.
In this case, indefensible strike action.
This again?In this case, indefensible strike action.
Is that 91% of the total membership and if not, do you happen to know what the % would be expressed in that way? Also what % of the total workforce... then the rest of us would know what the mandate actually was.
Union bods speaking of the all-night tube as the mayor's vanity project are a credit to their members.
Circa 25k people went on strike; of them circa 10k are union members and of them circa 8.5k voted for strike action.
So we had a large turnout in the 90's % and high support for strike action but the unions only have a membership of around 40% of staff.
MrBarry123 said:
My point is not that tube drivers don't earn enough, but that the cost of living in London is to the point where even well paid people cannot afford to live there - not just in the prime areas but in an increasingly large part of the capital.
Successive governments have allowed prices to continue to rise with little regulation (look at the storm kicked up about naughty money funding much of the rise) and you end up with a situation such as the one we face now.
To me, those comments are more about the cost of housing in London than the cost of living. It may be difficult for a wannabe tube driver in Hull to move to the capital, get appointed and trained and and buy their ideal home, but that's not the point. If tube drivers are already based in London then given the median gross annual wage for people working there (inner London) is £34,473 the wage of a tube driver is certainly adequate. A newly-qualified tube driver starts on over £49k. This may rise after five years to between £50k and £60k. Successive governments have allowed prices to continue to rise with little regulation (look at the storm kicked up about naughty money funding much of the rise) and you end up with a situation such as the one we face now.
MrBarry123 said:
You misunderstand me.
Where however I differ is that I do not believe the Conservatives make things any worse than they already are and strongly believe that Labour would take a lot of money from a lot of us to fund very little in the way of good.
I did understand you, and I agree with quite a lot of what you said.Where however I differ is that I do not believe the Conservatives make things any worse than they already are and strongly believe that Labour would take a lot of money from a lot of us to fund very little in the way of good.
I just honestly see that is irrelevant to the tube strikes and the tube workers.
The people you describe living in increasingly squalid conditions are categorically NOT families with a £50k+ main breadwinner.
It is also not the case the country suddenly has far more s
t areas to live in than it had 40 years ago. Contrary to your assertion I would *guess* that the poorest people now are far better off than 40 years ago. The cost-of-living hasn't changed that except for in a small percentage of places.johnfm said:
Simply open up tube driving applications to all. TFL will have to set salary and conditions at a rate where people are prepared to accept it for the demands of the job. If they pay £30k and 25 days/year leave the labour market will decide if that is worth the demanding sitting down and lever pulling. If nobody applies (because other industries/employers pay more for similar unskilled work) then TFL must offer more until they can attract labour.
This a bizillion times ^^^Eventually Boris or his successor may feel it necessary to do a Reagan. Unlike the US air traffic controllers in the 1980s though, the tube drivers are likely to find themselves permanently replaced by machines rather than just being forced onto new contacts. Their antics are just hastening their own extinction. It is madness.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 5th August 13:08
blindswelledrat said:
As an aside, if TFL wanted to tackle this once and for all - what are the laws about getting rid of the current workforce?
COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
Yay!, back to Victorian times! Bet you'd love it if they decided to do that with your job!COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
blindswelledrat said:
As an aside, if TFL wanted to tackle this once and for all - what are the laws about getting rid of the current workforce?
COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
I don't think TFL could do that. But if TFL closed and sold it's main asset to another company...say Considerate United Networked Transport System Ltd, they would probably be able to hire people at a fair salary...COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
johnfm said:
Hackney said:
johnfm said:
It isn't the 'workers voices' though in most cases. It is the 'union voices' on a mandate of a small percentage of the workforce.
In this case, indefensible strike action.
This again?In this case, indefensible strike action.
Why should the majority of a workforce suffer for the actions of a minority? If a workforce is going to walk off a job, there should be curbs on a militant minority causing the other workers grief - not to mention other effects of indefensible strike action.
eccles said:
blindswelledrat said:
As an aside, if TFL wanted to tackle this once and for all - what are the laws about getting rid of the current workforce?
COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
Yay!, back to Victorian times! Bet you'd love it if they decided to do that with your job!COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
Your point may yet carry some relevance bearing in mind the make-believe prehistoric dinosaur context.
eccles said:
Yay!, back to Victorian times! Bet you'd love it if they decided to do that with your job!
I get the feeling that these sort of comments are generated normally by people in unions themselves. I agree with the post after your comment, don't like it then find another job....not hold a City and millions to ransomeccles said:
blindswelledrat said:
As an aside, if TFL wanted to tackle this once and for all - what are the laws about getting rid of the current workforce?
COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
Yay!, back to Victorian times! Bet you'd love it if they decided to do that with your job!COuld they legally say that as of next January a tube worker's salary is £30k and that all employees are welcome to keep their job or accept redundancy?
You think contractors are never told near renewal "your day rate is cut, like it or lump it"?
eccles said:
HRL said:
I wouldn't love it but I'd do what most of us would do if unhappy at work, find another job.
Most of us? Care to qualify that staement, or have you just made that up?If you don't like your job, find another one. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, well, for everyone else at least.
HRL said:
eccles said:
HRL said:
I wouldn't love it but I'd do what most of us would do if unhappy at work, find another job.
Most of us? Care to qualify that staement, or have you just made that up?If you don't like your job, find another one. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, well, for everyone else at least.
You say 'most'I don't agree. I say back it up with some facts.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff