On Aug 5, 10:28*am, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:19:17 +0100

"Recliner" wrote:
Bob Crow may be odious, but he's certainly not an idiot. He's well paid,
probably popular with his members (for whom he delivers increased wages
and holidays on fine days when there's good sport on the telly) and is
possibly the best known trade unionist in Britain. I suppose he's the
communist equivalent of Michael O'Leary, who is also very successful in
what he sets out to do.

Bob Crowe isn't the only problem - the union "members" are too. Theres far
too many militant idiots who seem to think they deserve endless payrises
and unjustifiable conditions of work and constantly vote to go on strike.
Reality should be introduced into the rail industry with the idea of a job
for life firmly booted into touch. All new workers in the industry should
be hired on a rolling contract basis - no more permanent employment. And if
they cause trouble or don't want to do their jobs then the contract isn't
renewed and someone else from the 3 million unemployed in this country
takes their place.

And your proposal to get there from where we are now without having
months of 'no trains at all' is...?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
And your proposal to get there from where we are now without having
months of 'no trains at all' is...?

Don't know. I guess it depends how much fuss the unions would make about
non unionised contractors slowly replacing their members through natural
wastage when they retire or leave. There might even be some union members
who'd be happy to switch to contracting - as in other areas of work - the
contract rates were significantly higher than the permi rates. And once you
get to a certain percentage of contract staff you've got the unions over a
barrel.

B2003

wrote in message
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
And your proposal to get there from where we are now without having
months of 'no trains at all' is...?

Don't know. I guess it depends how much fuss the unions would make
about non unionised contractors slowly replacing their members
through natural wastage when they retire or leave. There might even
be some union members who'd be happy to switch to contracting - as in
other areas of work - the contract rates were significantly higher
than the permi rates. And once you get to a certain percentage of
contract staff you've got the unions over a barrel.

You usually need to do something more dramatic than that. Reagan dealt
with striking air traffic controllers by sacking them all, but US
aviation was disrupted for quite a while before they could be fully
replaced (air force controllers could only provide a partial, short-term
substitute). Murdoch defeated the Fleet Street printing unions, but he
had to build a complete new production plant in Wapping, and still had
battles with the unions for years. Thatcher dealt with the mining unions
by shutting down the pits.

I can't see how the railways could do anything like that these days.
Privatisation was meant to weaken the railway unions, and maybe it has
in parts, but train drivers still strike. However, at least we no longer
have nationwide rail strikes.

Recliner wrote:

Privatisation was meant to weaken the railway unions, and maybe it has
in parts, but train drivers still strike. However, at least we no longer
have nationwide rail strikes.

Arguably privatisation - or at least fragmentation - has actually made
drivers stronger, as they can play off the employers to get a good deal.
Driver training is time consuming and expensive, so at least in the
recent past poaching someone else's drivers through better pay or
conditions was worth doing.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:53:33 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

Recliner wrote:

Privatisation was meant to weaken the railway unions, and maybe it has
in parts, but train drivers still strike. However, at least we no longer
have nationwide rail strikes.

Arguably privatisation - or at least fragmentation - has actually made
drivers stronger, as they can play off the employers to get a good deal.
Driver training is time consuming and expensive, so at least in the
recent past poaching someone else's drivers through better pay or
conditions was worth doing.


Absolutely.

Drivers' pay leapt after privatisation because it was more expensive
to train up your own drivers than to poach someone else's. The result
was a lot of grossly overpaid train drivers.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job yet get paid much less,
typically only slightly more than half the wages of train drivers.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:02:36 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Drivers' pay leapt after privatisation because it was more expensive
to train up your own drivers than to poach someone else's. The result
was a lot of grossly overpaid train drivers.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job yet get paid much less,
typically only slightly more than half the wages of train drivers.

In most walks of life people are generally paid pro rata with the amount
of knowledge required to do the job properly, not by how difficult the
job is on a day to day basis. Bus drivers have a ****ty job compared to train
drivers but I suspect their knowledge of the vehicle is limited to driving
it whereas AFAIK train drivers are expected to be able to do minor servicing
and troubleshooting if theres a problem on a much more complex vehicle.

B2003

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:18:34 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:02:36 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Drivers' pay leapt after privatisation because it was more expensive
to train up your own drivers than to poach someone else's. The result
was a lot of grossly overpaid train drivers.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job yet get paid much less,
typically only slightly more than half the wages of train drivers.

In most walks of life people are generally paid pro rata with the amount
of knowledge required to do the job properly, not by how difficult the
job is on a day to day basis. Bus drivers have a ****ty job compared to train
drivers but I suspect their knowledge of the vehicle is limited to driving
it whereas AFAIK train drivers are expected to be able to do minor servicing
and troubleshooting if theres a problem on a much more complex vehicle.


Complete rubbish.

Bus drivers have a far more difficult job; they have to steer the
vehicle, take account of other traffic and also take fares. The train
driver has a very soft job; he only has to obey signals and the
timetable. The signals take care of all other traffic, leaving very
little decision making in the hands of the driver.

As for the "knowledge" required, there have been several train drivers
posting here over the years who are clearly of well below average
intelligence. They might be safe on a train, but I wouldn't trust
them to drive a bus, or any other road vehicle safely.