You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Still needs an 'operator' though dun't it?And what would they be, then?
Sorry, but as someone not expert in the operation of passenger tube trains, I don't know such things and they aren't at all 'obvious' to me....
The 'operator' sits in a control room and is not a driver as such. One operator can control lots of trains.
The 'obvious' reason is that an automated train line means less jobs for the Union's members thus they campaign against it. Exactly like the luddites in the 18th centurys bashing up the mills.
They should automate the lot, it'd be more reliable, cost less, and wouldn't allow the capital to be held to ransom at a whim.
"The 'obvious' reason is that an automated train line means less jobs for the Union's members thus they campaign against it. Exactly like the luddites in the 18th centurys bashing up the mills."
So the union is campaigning against something that would put its members out of a job? Isn't that what they are there for?
BTW - you need to read up on the luddites.
randomjeremy - Member
At risk of playing devil's advocate, £50k a year working in London isn't that much, considering they spend all day cooped up with little to no natural daylight and are responsible for the lives of thousands of passengers.
It is quite a bit, considering that London weighting for most jobs is in the order of £3 - £4 k isn't it?
So if your job is outsourced to China to cut costs, presumably you won't mind? It's supply and demand, after all.
India. What should I do about it? I'm trying to improve my skills to make myself worth employing, is there a better approach?
The 'obvious' reason is that an automated train line means less jobs for the Union's members thus they campaign against it.
Oh does it? So each train no longer needs a Human Being sat in it making sure all the systems work perfectly then? Do the systems work perfectly? Do they never fail? What happens when something unexpected happens, like a person on the line, or terrorist alert etc? And can one operator really be so super-aware they can cope with multiple unexpected incidents at once?
They should automate the lot, it'd be more reliable, cost less
Ok, so you've got the evidence to support this claim I take it then?
[i]they have been saying that for 30 years, it would cost billions upon billions and will not happen for at least 50 years. Due to costs and safety issues.[/i]
I'm fairly confident that Lift Attendants used to say much the same 🙂
"India. What should I do about it? I'm trying to improve my skills to make myself worth employing, is there a better approach?"
So you're quite happy with the race to the bottom? Say you re-train, get another job, and that job is outsourced too. What then?
So the union is campaigning against something that would put its members out of a job? Isn't that what they are there for?BTW - you need to read up on the luddites.
Technically they don't have a job on the Victoria line at present - it doesn't have 'drivers' (or at least doesn't - I can't seem to find out if they won their campaign).
What have I missed about the Luddites? Bunch of people stuck who protested (by destroying mechanised looms) against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution. Same thing expect the mechanised looms are the automated trains, the method of destruction is a striking workforce, and the industrial revolution is the modern world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
[i]Oh does it? So each train no longer needs a Human Being sat in it making sure all the systems work perfectly then? Do the systems work perfectly? Do they never fail? What happens when something unexpected happens, like a person on the line, or terrorist alert etc? And can one operator really be so super-aware they can cope with multiple unexpected incidents at once?[/i]
I'd stay clear of lifts then 😉
they have been saying that for 30 years, it would cost billions upon billions and will not happen for at least 50 years. Due to costs and safety issues.I'm fairly confident that Lift Attendants used to say much the same
to ill to argue with you, but ur wrong
I will. Healthy fit people use the stairs... 😉
What have I missed about the Luddites? Bunch of people stuck who protested (by destroying mechanised looms) against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution. Same thing expect the mechanised looms are the automated trains, the method of destruction is a striking workforce, and the industrial revolution is the modern world.
The luddites were protesting about the loss of a way of life, and given the changes that the industrial revolution brought for the average working person (death from disease or accident by the age of 35)they had a point. Intolerable working conditions were the reason that unions were formed.
The common portrayal of them as backward is well wide of the mark.
So you're quite happy with the race to the bottom? Say you re-train, get another job, and that job is outsourced too. What then?
I can hardly blame a client who thinks they can save money by going to an Indian consultancy, I have to show that if they pay more for me they're getting something extra.
I can hardly blame a client who thinks they can save money by going to an Indian consultancy, I have to show that if they pay more for me they're getting something extra.
Then you're in a weaker market position than the tube drivers.
The common portrayal of them as backward is well wide of the mark.
What part of:
Bunch of people who protested (by destroying mechanised looms) against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution.
Isn't factually correct? You can put on whatever social spin on it you want. I suspect you have a somewhat rose tinted view of what life was like prior to the industrial revolution as well...
Then you're in a weaker market position than the tube drivers.
No its called a competitive market. Collective bargaining is nothing short of a cartel and I really cannot stand the stench of entitlement form unions.
You wan't something extra? Well prove that your worth it, show how you can add value to your customer. All of this me first attitude is as bad as the bankers!
So it's about who's strongest? I hope the army never use their strength to try and get a payrise, though that's against the law; is that fair?
All of this me first attitude is as bad as the bankers!
*Blue touch paper lit....*
You wan't something extra? Well prove that your worth it, show how you can add value to your customer. All of this me first attitude is as bad as the bankers!
As unions do collectivve bargaining it means no one doing the same job as you gets more, You dislike this and suggest it is better that people dont do this but just get something better for themsleves. You then bemoan the me first attitude.
You have not thought this through have you.
Why not go and sit down , calm down then come back and try and post a coherent argument?
Wunundred! 😀
Interesting that none of the questions I've asked have been effectively answered....
Poor showing today from the Tory Boys. Speshly considering the likes of TJ and Ernie aren't even here yet!
Well prove that your worth it, show how you can add value to your customer.
Interesting. Occasionally a 'customer' tells me I'm not paid enough, but what they are really saying is that they would like to see certain members of the medical profession more adequately compensated and a fairer distribution of payment within the NHS.
What do you suggest? Maybe I should collect 'thankyou cards' and present myself to my Chief Executive and demand more money as I'm obviously deserving of more money than those on the Nationally negotiated pay deal.
Collective bargaining does not constitute a cartel and despite not being a huge union fan, it is the only way that certain workers can maintain decent working conditions.
Isn't factually correct? You can put on whatever social spin on it you want. I suspect you have a somewhat rose tinted view of what life was like prior to the industrial revolution as well...
You're going off on a tangent. If you really can't see that comparing the tube drivers to the luddites is a daft analogy, I can't help you.
Rubbish!
What I'm saying is that yes you go out and get a better deal for yourself but crucially the difference is how you go about this. If you can show that you add value (and in this respect where unions agree to update working practices it can be a good thing). So if you can do something more efficiently then its a win, win situation.
However in this case the union really is as bad as bankers. At the end of the day its about lining their pockets with no thoughts to the end user, i.e. customer.
So it's about who's strongest? I hope the army never use their strength to try and get a payrise, though that's against the law; is that fair?
You mean is it fair that the army can't strike? I don't think it's fair, but those are the terms and conditions you sign up to when you join. Likewise, the tube drivers sign up to a contract that recognises collective bargaining and the right to withdraw labour.
life was shit before the industrial revolution the idea that it was amazing came from Peter Gaskill, he was a Muppet! Marx read lots of his stuff, hence why his book was also crap.
ou wan't something extra? Well prove that your worth it, show how you can add value to your customer. All of this me first attitude is as bad as the bankers!
I consistently score highly in appraisals, and am generally well regarded by my employer. I don't get paid any more than if I did the bare minimum, because my job is graded. Therefore, the only way to get a pay increase is through collective bargaining.
(Before anyone says "get another job", I'm not complaining.)
You're going off on a tangent. If you really can't see that comparing the tube drivers to the luddites is a daft analogy, I can't help you.
What's daft about it?
Luddites - campaigned against superior technology taking their jobs.
Tube drivers - campigned against superior technology taking their jobs.
the unions customers are the members who [according to you] now have a good wage deal they dont deserve. Surely they have delivered to their customers and I assume you still advocate this.
perhaps the union bosses have earned a pay rise?
Luddites - campaigned against superior technology taking their jobs.
did you study history at Mcdonalds university of the ill informed ?
Luddites - campaigned against the loss of their entire way of life.
Tube drivers - campigned against technology taking their jobs, that may or may not be superior.
That's why it's a daft analogy.
There shoudl basiaclly be two principles in assessing pay either collectively or individually.
If your in the same job you need to maintain your standard of living. Hence your looking for an increase of RPI. Thats the base line, however it is governed by affordability and hance your annual adjustment may be above or below RPI. As I've mentioned earlier this will generally be RPI with a negative adjustment in geneeral as the nation is heavilly indebted and the economy is not growing. I.E. wages need to be sustainable (not a concept readily recogised by the RMT).
The only other way you will get a raise is by promotion or doing more for less (i.e. working longer hours).
Its simply not sustainable to assumme that every year you will get an RPI + +ve adjustment every year (or indeed anything). That is the reality of the world.
If it was not for collective bargaining, these efficiencies would never benefit anyone other than management or shareholders.So if you can do something more efficiently then its a win, win situation.
Interesting that none of the questions I've asked have been effectively answered....
Without knowing how much you earn, and how many lives you are responsible for I can't ascertain whether you are worthy of effective answers for your questions.
If you could provide those along with a list of the questions you want answered I'll see what I can do 😀
the unions customers are the members who [according to you] now have a good wage deal they dont deserve. Surely they have delivered to their customers and I assume you still advocate this.
perhaps the union bosses have earned a pay rise?
wrt to their members yes they have done well! If members wish to increase their renumeration I have no difficulty with this. I doub't that members would wish their fees to go up however!
Its simply not sustainable to assumme that every year you will get an RPI + +ve adjustment every year (or indeed anything). That is the reality of the world.
Back in the real world, most of the public sector has had a pay freeze for 2-3 years now. In real terms, that means something like an 8% cut. If only the rest of us had a union as effective as the RMT!
ts simply not sustainable to assumme that every year you will get an RPI + +ve adjustment every year (or indeed anything). That is the reality of the world.
I assume you will be telling business to aim for zero growth then?
If you could provide those along with a list of the questions you want answered I'll see what I can do
The questions have already bin asked, sunshine. Go back, have a read, have a think, then give it a go.
Go on, off you go, there's a good lad.
Oh, and I earn less than a tube driver, and am responsible for less people's lives. 🙂
Not that my earnings or responsibilities are relevant to this, as I'm not someone claiming Tube Drivers 'earn too much'.
My wife and I are both Nurses and our 'customers' must be a lying bunch of *****.
To our faces they tell us how wonderful we are and that we are not paid enough.
Behind our backs they come on STW and say we're overpaid, overpensioned and underworked. 🙂
I assume you will be telling business to aim for zero growth then?
Sorry? I don't understand.
As I've said it basically comes down to affordability. A company doing well and growing strongly can afford RPI + +ve adjustments.
If you killed a few more off, you might not get so much bad feedback ......dangerousbeans - Member
My wife and I are both Nurses and our 'customers' must be a lying bunch of *****.To our faces they tell us how wonderful we are and that we are not paid enough.
Behind our backs they come on STW and say we're overpaid, overpensioned and underworked.
I'm working on it.
Elfin, I note you've been fairly selective about the history of union power...
Why no mention of union members threatening to strike if black bus conductors were employed in the '50's?
Z11
It's fair to say that unions have not always been paragons of virtue but I reckon that overall the majority of us are much better off because of them.
If I really believed that employers would not slowly march us back to the bad old days of exploitation then I would call for union disbandment tomorrow.
However I am not that trusting.
As I've said it basically comes down to affordability. A company doing well and growing strongly can afford RPI + +ve adjustments.
And what about socially useful work that doesn't generate a profit? The people who educate us, transport us and care for us?
How should their pay be worked out?
Not aware of that Z-11. Got any info on it?
All I can find online is something about the Bristol Omnibus Company refusing to hire black workers, and the TGWU not challenging this.
The questions have already bin asked, sunshine. Go back, have a read, have a think, then give it a go.Go on, off you go, there's a good lad.
Is the answer to the first one Elephant?
And what about socially useful work that doesn't generate a profit? The people who educate us, transport us and care for us?How should their pay be worked out?
Affordability comes from the state of the nations finances. Many public sector workers did very well during the boom years. The only difference between public and private is the affordability cycles are not alwways matched.
Affordability comes from the state of the nations finances. Many public sector workers did very well during the boom years. The only difference between public and private is the affordability cycles are not alwways matched.
So you believe that public sector pay should be linked to the performance of the private sector (which governs the state's finances?) How does that square with your notion that pay should be related to your value to your employer?
Affordability comes from the state of the nations finances. Many public sector workers did very well during the boom years
You mean that many public sector workers did very well out of the Labour party's borrowing splurge, most of which was spent on their own little client state of the union members. Unions which in turn funded the Labour party. Oh, what a merry little dance......
You mean that many public sector workers did very well out of the Labour party's borrowing splurge, most of which was spent on their own little client state of the union members. Unions which in turn funded the Labour party. Oh, what a merry little dance......
I suggest you look at the average borrowings by the preceding conservative government. Clue: they were higher.
Unlike the Torries Flashy who remain completely objective in their policies which are for the great good of all and are in no way influenced by their funders in any way.
So you believe that public sector pay should be linked to the performance of the private sector (which governs the state's finances?) How does that square with your notion that pay should be related to your value to your employer?
No.
What I said was that affordability for the public sector is linked to the nations finances, nothing to do with the private sector. I was merely noting that the private sector cycles are not always the same. For example construction was booming well into the recession but is unlikely to pick up for some time.
Do keep up.
Flash you are like a lady bird guide to politics for the right wing
Could you remind us whether your wonderful party of choice agreed to match their spending plans before the recession.
Jeesus everything is very simple for you and very one sided.
No.What I said was that affordability for the public sector is linked to the nations finances, nothing to do with the private sector. I was merely noting that the private sector cycles are not always the same. For example construction was booming well into the recession but is unlikely to pick up for some time.
Do keep up.
You argue that public sector affordability is linked to nation's finances. Private sector largely responsible for nation's finances. Therefore private sector governs affordability of public sector pay. This means that public sector pay is not linked to the performance of its employees, contrary to your assertion.
I can try for fewer syllables if you still don't get it.
Flash you are like a lady bird guide to politics for the right wing
Ladybird? 😆 showing your age there JY.
Surely these days it would be 'Right Wing Politics For Dummies'. 😉
Lets be honest you do not get it!
Performance is seperate to annual adjustments, it has to be. Performance/promotion pay is not linked to affordability (well in theory) annual adjustments are!
You mean that many public sector workers did very well out of the Labour party's borrowing splurge, most of which was spent on their own little client state of the union members. Unions which in turn funded the Labour party. Oh, what a merry little dance......
Oh no, a little bit more cash goes to ordinary workers - how awful and corrupt. While of course you are quite happy for the Tories to bend over backwards for their already vastly rich chums in the city, as long as they cough up.
The influence of the City over the Conservatives has been laid bare by new research showing that more than half of the Tory party's donations since the general election have come from individuals and businesses working in finance.Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed more than a quarter of all the Tories' private donations – which this year poured in at a rate equal to £1m a month – the study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found.
The figures show an increase in the proportion of party funds coming from the financial sector, raising fears that the City's financial influence over the Tories is on the rise as key pieces of legislation are discussed by the coalition government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations
I was flabbergasted to discover in Saturdays papers that over half the Tory parties funding came directly from the City. Who'd have thunk it eh?
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with the Vickers report's recommendations being kicked into the long grass by Gideon, never to see the light of day.
Business as usual instead then is it?
Great! What could possibly go wrong?
So should i get more pay if less people die when i'm working OR less pay if I manage to kill most of them?
The influence of the unions over Labour is as bad as the influence of "big business" over the Conservative party. Neither is healthy, that's pretty obvious. One difference is that "big business" generates revenue, the public sector spends that revenue. As such, there needs to be responsibility on that spend. I don't think the RMT take that in to account at all.
I was flabbergasted to discover in Saturdays papers that over half the Tory parties funding came directly from the City. Who'd have thunk it eh?
Not only that but if you pay 50 grand or more you get to join the 'leader's group'
The Leader’s Group is the premier supporter Group of the Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches.
It's all very democratic unlike the evil trade unions and their 'elections' and 'ballots'.
The influence of the unions over Labour is as bad as the influence of "big business" over the Conservative party. Neither is healthy, that's pretty obvious. One difference is that "big business" generates revenue, the public sector spends that revenue. As such, there needs to be responsibility on that spend. I don't think the RMT take that in to account at all.
Another difference is that the Unions represent the interests of ordinary workers and are democratic and accountable. Whereas the 'leader's group' is an unelected, unaccountable group of rich people representing their own interests and trying to make themselves even richer.
The influence of the unions over Labour is as bad as the influence of "big business" over the Conservative party. Neither is healthy, that's pretty obvious. One difference is that [s]"big business" generates revenue, the public sector spends that revenue[/s] one I support is not as bad as the one you support. In fact its ace
obvisoulsy the private sector gets nothing from healthy educated individuals able to travel by road to the workplace, Infrastructure spend doe snot aid business as they do it all for us.
Its a mixed economy and once more you look at your favourite "half" to form a HALF- arsed opinion.Is this really what a private education produces?
The influence of the unions over Labour is as bad as the influence of "big business" over the Conservative party.
Is it balls. One lot are all about the rights of workers and 'ordinary people' and the importance of democracy, the other lot are all about power and influence being gained through wealth, and maintaining that status quo.
The thing that most sticks in the throat of Tories about someone like Bob Crow, is that he has achieved a position of power and influence based on his own meritorious rise through the ranks of a trade union, something the Tories despise (unions tend to damage the rich's ability to make even more money at the expense of their workers).
He hasn't achieved his position because he went to the right schools, or was in the right club, or because daddy had the right connections. He's just the son of a toilet cleaner, who's done good for himself and commands the respect from many people as a result. An oik who's risen out of the gutter. A constant thorn in the side of capitalists.
Our society needs more people like Bob Crow, and less people like David Cameron.
the other lot are all about power and influence being gained through wealth, and maintaining that status quo
Some might argue that some of the unions (or some of the reps at least) aren't so different 😉
Our society needs more people like Bob Crow, and less people like David Cameron.
Very true though I'd argue that you could replace DC's name with a significant number of politicians. probably the entire cabinets on all sides.
Fair point Clubber. The current Labour lot are a mostly shower of shit too.
TBH I'm trying but I can't off the top of my head think of one senior politician from any of the parties that it wouldn't apply to...
Anyone note that the Tories announced that you'll have to pay to take your employer to a tribunal now? Or that you only accrue the right to do so once you've been continuously employed for 24 months (instead of 12)?
Imagine what they'd do if there were no unions!
i liked the way the Tory audience applauded the announcements like it is a good thing your employer can be more unreasonable for longer without risk.
One wonders why they need this protection if they are just nice to people.
Its good to know George has not taken his eye away from the big issues.
The current Labour lot are a mostly shower of shit too.
Isn't that the crux of the problem nowadays, career politicians, little difference in ideology (if they actually have one) and virtually no experience pf life outside of institutions, whether that be school, uni or parliament. Waaaay too many snotty nosed ex public schoolboys too on all sides.
IMO they should make the minimum age for MP's 35+ and they must have worked in a non-political environment for at least 5 years prior to standing.
Does anyone here really want to be on a tube train driven by a thick numpty?
No but they end up driving buses instead
If only the rest of us had a [s]union as effective as the RMT[/s] job where we could hold the country to ransom!
FTFY
If only the rest of us had a [s]union as effective as the RMT[/s] job where we could hold [b]a small part of[/b] the country to ransom!
FTFBOY. 😛
Ewan... I can say with absolute certainty that the Victoria Line trains have drivers, both the old ones and the brand spanking new ones. I had a small part in the build of the new Victoria Line trains, and spent a lot of hours testing them up and down the Victoria Line itself.
clubber - MemberTBH I'm trying but I can't off the top of my head think of one senior politician from any of the parties that it wouldn't apply to...
Caroline Lucas?
should have said any of the main parties 😉
I know discussion has moved on but thought I'd add that I know a tube driver who lives next door to my sister. His opinion on his pay is that "It's f****** ridiculous, but if they are crazy enough to pay it, I'd be crazy not to take it!" Fair enough I guess! By coincidence my sister earns exactly that wage - she is number 2 in the immunology and tissue matching dept at Guys (if you have an organ transplant in London or your new organ has come from there, her sweaty little mitts have probably been all over it!). Had to have a first class biomedical science degree, a masters, further professional qualifications, line manages 7 people, runs the sub-dept budget of £2m, works some pretty unsociable hours, has quite a bit of stress at times of transplants and obviously if she gets it wrong properly balls up someone's life. I guess she is just a mug.
Funkynick, found my source - from Christian Wolmar's 'The Subterranean Railway'
The Victoria line is pioneering in one key respect: the trains are driven automatically from a control centre. The person at the front is really a guard with the ability to make emergency stops.
Is my book wrong?
did you study history at Mcdonalds university of the ill informed ?
jumpupanddown /ranos - What part of my statement was incorrect? Seriously? Explain it to me... Choosing to see history through a leftist 'working class hero' squint doesn't change reality. The luddites were against technological change that has without doubt changed the world for the better. Removing drivers from the tube driving equation would make them more reliable and stop millions being held to ransom by a few individuals.
Yawn....
If only we could remove bankers and replace their sorry greedy pin-striped arses with technology eh? - might stop the world being completely ****ed by a few individuals.
£48K?
If they've negotiated that salary, then **** it, fair dues to them.