NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Wages are rising much faster than prices, so the current tendency is for
the value of wages to be growing. And that's been true of Tube driver wages
for many years.


Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

Well, everyone probably feels they *need* more money, but Tube drivers are
very highly paid for their work.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:16:49 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:
A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

I agree about the lack of mobility of the rump of employees who aren't
C++ programmers, but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid
for their four day week.

Overpaid does not matter. Not only expenditure but committed expenditure
tend to increase with increasing income (for everybody). The only way
to reduce overpayment is with a long-term plan made up of very small
and carefully organised steps. Even then it might not work. In any case,
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On 2016-01-19, Recliner wrote:
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried
to cut driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate
these trains. LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know
they always cave in the end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs
to be changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary
disputes then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Wages are rising much faster than prices, so the current tendency is for
the value of wages to be growing. And that's been true of Tube driver wages
for many years.


Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

Well, everyone probably feels they *need* more money, but Tube drivers are
very highly paid for their work.

See my response to Roland, especially the last bit.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:16:49 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:
A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might
still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

I agree about the lack of mobility of the rump of employees who aren't
C++ programmers, but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid
for their four day week.

Overpaid does not matter. Not only expenditure but committed expenditure
tend to increase with increasing income (for everybody). The only way
to reduce overpayment is with a long-term plan made up of very small
and carefully organised steps. Even then it might not work. In any case,
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

I'm curious about why recruitment to LU train operator posts is limited to
existing staff? If the job is so difficult and hard to fill, why not open
recruitment to anyone who's interested?

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:16:49 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-19, d wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:43:48 +0100
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 11:06:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Doesn't surprise me. But can you imagine what would happen if LU tried to
cut
driver salaries or recruit new drivers on lower ones to operate these
trains.
LU have made a rod for their own backs - the RMT know they always cave in
the
end when faced with a strike.

Several strikes have happened, so that's not the reality.

Point is the drivers always get what they want in the end. The law needs to
be
changed so that if people go on strike for minor issues like salary disputes
then they can legally be sacked.

A salary dispute is not a minor issue. If you need more money you might

It is if you're already grossly overpaid for the skills the job requires.
I don't think sitting on your arse pressing the doors open/close and go button
every 2 minutes merits 50K, do you?

still be reasonably certain of being able to go elsewhere almost
immediately. Tube drivers (and enormous numbers of people in a wide
variety of jobs) not so much. And since the current tendency is for the
value of wages to be eroded, why wouldn't they need more money?

Inflation briefly went negative last year so I'm not sure why you think they
deserve a pay rise.

Note the deliberate use of "need" rather than "want".

There are plenty of professions who need a payrise - nurses paid bog all,
met policemen who can't afford to live in london and so on. Tube drivers are
not amongst them.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him. Perhaps Cameron can't be arsed with yet another greasy pole
climber nipping at his heals like Boris has done so is prepared to let Labour
win since the Mayor doesn't have much genuine power anyway.

--
Spud

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 09:39:22 on Wed, 20
Jan 2016, Robin9 remarked:

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona:

Independently minded on account of his wealth, keen on Parliamentary
reform. Re-elected in 2015 with a stonkingly increased majority.

--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.
--
Roland Perry

NTfL: usual suspects short-listed
 

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:10:25 +0100
Eric wrote:
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

Oh please. Even compared to driving a bus or a lorry I doubt the stress even
comes close, never mind other non transport related roles. How about they
try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis for less than those fat arsed drivers
get paid for pushing some buttons then letting the computer drive. What a
****ing joke.

--
Spud