BBC: Chris Grayling suggests future rail industry wage rises should be linked to lower CPI, not RPI

[virgintrain1]

Grayling's Passenger V Staff seems to be working. I have to say the last few days I have received so much confrontation as people being just incredibly rude to me, or is it just a coincidence?

 

[pt_mad]

Is it envy?
Or just that people think Train Drivers aren't worth £50k a year?

I don't really give a monkeys how much a Train Driver earns as even if they earned a quarter, my life wouldn't be any different. However I'd prefer nurses to earn 50k a year as I'd value them more than a Train Driver. Hence the undercurrent of hatred.
That and some Train Drivers thinking they're very important in life, and some even boast about how much they earn, giving other, much nicer drivers a bad name.

To some extent isn't it a case of supply and demand? In other words, if they advertised the job for 30k, would they (tocs) get the candidates they desire applying? Would they stay? You'd only need one operator to pay 10k more and surely all drivers would aim to go there?

... I do however suspect it reflects a wider sentiment the unions have expended their goodwill in the public eye fighting this battle over DOO. This expenditure of their political capital leaves them in a weaker position which is something papers like the telegraph can exploit.

I also feel that in terms of pay disparity, the railways could be seen as backwards by many, perhaps not so much within the wildly unequal standards of wider society, but in terms of disparity between employees within each company doing comparably responsible jobs. The pay gap between the more unionised jobs and those less organised labour is great which is not a good thing for the industry. Somebody also mentioned on this thread that, like the airlines, the lack of female drivers means the gender pay gap is likely chronic. I think that a flatter wage structure through the economy as a whole, never mind the rail industry, is more important and morally justifiable than theological arguments over whether RPI or CPI is the true yardstick by which to measure the religion of progress.

However the issue of DOO concerns guards, who are on just over the average wage in most cases. So what this has to do with people thinking rail staff are overpaid I don't know?

 

[The Ham]

So if you were in your mid 40's and were handed a fixed term contract for say 10 years so you would be out of a job at mid 50's you would accept it? There is no way I would. Retraining in your 50's is extremely problematic. I know many industries that would not even contemplate taking on new trainees in their 50's, why would they when they can have a fresh faced youngster out of education that they can have years of productive service out of? If I believed my profession is likely to disappear long term I would be looking to change career sooner rather than later especially if I would get no redundancy money from my current job.

Chances are it would be a slow creep, in that one or two TOC's would require some less drivers, and then a few less and then a few more TOC's with a few less drivers and so on.

In doing so chances are most would be lost via natural wastage and those which were pushed out from one TOC would probably move to one of the non impacted ones.

Older drivers would probably be kept on (as supermarkets have gone to more self service tills those in the supervisor roles appear to be the more experienced staff) with fixed term contracts being offered to new starters.

 

[baz962]

So if you were in your mid 40's and were handed a fixed term contract for say 10 years so you would be out of a job at mid 50's you would accept it? There is no way I would. Retraining in your 50's is extremely problematic. I know many industries that would not even contemplate taking on new trainees in their 50's, why would they when they can have a fresh faced youngster out of education that they can have years of productive service out of? If I believed my profession is likely to disappear long term I would be looking to change career sooner rather than later especially if I would get no redundancy money from my current job.

Absolutely I would. I started early this year as a trainee at 48. I still need to pass my final assessment , so no guarantee of even ten year's and have taken a chance anyway. If I lasted ten year's then go back to a job like my previous one that needed no training then I am still better off over that ten year's . Employed before I took this role , would be employed after the ten year's , even if a driving or warehouse job , with ten year's extra money saved or payed off a mortgage or whatever and pension boosted. It is a no lose as you can go back to your previous role.

 

[Class 170101]

The first article is also a bit disingenious anyway.

A driver basic of 10K should be around 19K according to the article if RPI had been followed. But it fails to take into account that drivers got enhancements on top of their basic salary for various things DOO, Night turns, finishing after midnight, starting before 05:00 and I am sure members could think of other things drivers got enhancements for. Many of these have been swept away and are now part of the basic pay, however as I far as I can see the article fails to mention this.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Well at least I managed to get a couple of minutes on Radio Four's "Any Answers" to get a kick in against what the Tory party inflicted on us twenty five years ago, that the answer is re-unification of the industry under railwayman management and that Grayling must be sacked. Full Stop - end of. Unfortunately I got on at twenty eight minutes past two so no time to develop an argument - merely barely enough to deliver a fast and damning statement.

 

[Dave1987]

Absolutely I would. I started early this year as a trainee at 48. I still need to pass my final assessment , so no guarantee of even ten year's and have taken a chance anyway. If I lasted ten year's then go back to a job like my previous one that needed no training then I am still better off over that ten year's . Employed before I took this role , would be employed after the ten year's , even if a driving or warehouse job , with ten year's extra money saved or payed off a mortgage or whatever and pension boosted. It is a no lose as you can go back to your previous role.

What if your previous role does not exist anymore? What if train driving is all you have known? As a trainee at 48 I think the only thing you really have to worry about is your pension provision as you will not get very long in the RPS. There are some who the railways are all they have known so you cannot use your personal situation as an example for everyone else. Good luck to you with your pass out. I would not be worried about it anyway despite the envy and hatred towards the driving grade on here we will be around a while yet despite the desperation of some for us to be made redundant.

 

[baz962]

What if your previous role does not exist anymore? What if train driving is all you have known? As a trainee at 48 I think the only thing you really have to worry about is your pension provision as you will not get very long in the RPS. There are some who the railways are all they have known so you cannot use your personal situation as an example for everyone else. Good luck to you with your pass out. I would not be worried about it anyway despite the envy and hatred towards the driving grade on here we will be around a while yet despite the desperation of some for us to be made redundant.

I was not meaning just my situation , and if a person doesn't know anything else because they have only known the railway , then surely that is a moot point as they are not giving the role up as they are already in it. If they are anything other than a driver then they could go back to their old role. If the old role had gone then they still have not lost anything as they would of lost it anyway. Most other jobs , such as guard , platform staff etc , could get another job outside the railway with comparable money , as their role would have gone anyway wether they went to a driving grade or not. Anyway my point was more that although some like yourself would not , plenty would. There must be plenty of people in min wage or dead end jobs that would only gain for that ten year's , and have nothing to lose. Anyway thank you for the good luck wishes , appreciate it.

 

[HH]

If your referring to tasks like cleaning and maintenance etc we already have continuous remote monitoring of train performance, pre assembled components exchanged at set intervals, and much cleaning is outsourced anyway (allready saving money) so its difficult to see scope for much further automation or efficiencies in those areas, except in the very long term when robots have become advanced/affordable enough to carry out these type of functions

If I was you would be right, although there is more that could be done on cleaning and maintenance. The bigger gains are to be made on stations though - paper tickets will be phased out quite quickly and with that the need for people selling tickets. Gatelines can be controlled remotely and I know at least one group that are looking at removing dispatch duties from platform staff. And then there's all those back office jobs that are slowly being replaced. I think we've already passed the peak levels of railway employment - except maybe on ScotRail.

 

[Dave1987]

If I was you would be right, although there is more that could be done on cleaning and maintenance. The bigger gains are to be made on stations though - paper tickets will be phased out quite quickly and with that the need for people selling tickets. Gatelines can be controlled remotely and I know at least one group that are looking at removing dispatch duties from platform staff. And then there's all those back office jobs that are slowly being replaced. I think we've already passed the peak levels of railway employment - except maybe on ScotRail.

We are all told that technology will enhance the wages of workers through "enhanced productivity", yet even though in a supermarket with 'self service tills' one assistant can supervise multiple tills I'm pretty certain that the supermarket is not paying the assistant any more for doing so, rather the supermarket is enhancing it's profits. So even though the demise of virtually all staff on the railway is being plotted it seems that this is merely to control wage costs rather than enhance the wages. Considering the railways are a pretty major employer the scope for major job losses seems to be quite likely within the coming years. These new jobs to be created to replace the ones being automated had better start making an appearance soon eh!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We are all told that technology will enhance the wages of workers through "enhanced productivity", yet even though in a supermarket with 'self service tills' one assistant can supervise multiple tills I'm pretty certain that the supermarket is not paying the assistant any more for doing so, rather the supermarket is enhancing it's profits.

I'm not sure that we're told that technology will enhance wages directly. Not in the sense a company saying 'we have technology so we'll give everyone an immediate wage increase' - obviously that doesn't really happen. It's more a case of, over time, technology enhances our overall standard of living. The evidence for that would appear to be irrefutable (unless anyone wants to argue that the wages of the average 18th century farm labourer were able to provide just as good a standard of living as a an average labourer today?) In fact, you don't even need to go that far back in time. Just compare most people's standard of living today with most people's standard of living in - say - the 1970s. The difference is going to be almost entirely due to better technology today.

I also very much doubt that, in a competitive environment, self service tills really add to a supermarket's profits. Rather, what they will do is allow the supermarket to reduce its costs, and thereby slightly reduce the prices of some food that it sells (or, equivalently, not increase the food prices as much if wholesale prices or any other costs rise. That makes everyone who uses that supermarket as a customer slightly better off.

 

[pt_mad]

and I know at least one group that are looking at removing dispatch duties from platform staff.

What is meant by one group? One group of tocs? Who?

 

[the sniper]

To some extent isn't it a case of supply and demand? In other words, if they advertised the job for 30k, would they (tocs) get the candidates they desire applying? Would they stay? You'd only need one operator to pay 10k more and surely all drivers would aim to go there?

I took less of a difference in pay than that to see the exodus from London Midland to Cross Country in the early 2010s, which brought the former to its knees in 2012. LM Drivers pay took a big jump after that without selling any conditions of any great worth.

 

[SPADTrap]

That and some Train Drivers thinking they're very important in life, and some even boast about how much they earn, giving other, much nicer drivers a bad name.

I prescribe one box of life to be taken once immediately, side affects include worrying about things of actual importance and relevance to you, oh and the possibility of being happy.

 

[whhistle]

You start issuing a fixed term contract to someone in their 40's, saying were are planning to automate you out of a job within the next decade... But they will still have a family to provide for, maybe a mortgage still to pay and probably won't be able to retire.

And at least we now know you have a certain hatred against train drivers. I'm sure whatever you line of work is many people have a certain hatred against that.

You're not thinking as a business would but allowing emotions to get in the way.
Why would you tell a candidate for a position that you're going to automate their job? IF questioned, you'd say business needs or some other excuse given these days. However, you also fail to realise kids/young adults these days don't care for a long career in the same industry like people did in the 60s, 60s and 70s.

If you have a fixed term contract for a long time, you have time to prepare for it to end.

I don't have a "certain" hatred towards drivers, more a hatred to certain drivers!

 

[pt_mad]

Assuming they won't get another job and pay tax through that, clearly.
So much math, it's not even worth trying to work out.

The guy is right, in the future, Train Driving will be automated. Sooner than perhaps many people will realise.

I'll be surprised if TOCs don't start introducing long fixed term contracts in between 10 and 20 years time so at the end of the contract, no redundancy payments required.
I mean, let's face it, Supermarkets are introducing more and more self-checkouts and havnig more and more delivery vans.

Put aside emotion and look at cold facts and it's a prime industry for automation.



Is it envy?
Or just that people think Train Drivers aren't worth £50k a year?

I don't really give a monkeys how much a Train Driver earns as even if they earned a quarter, my life wouldn't be any different. However I'd prefer nurses to earn 50k a year as I'd value them more than a Train Driver. Hence the undercurrent of hatred.
That and some Train Drivers thinking they're very important in life, and some even boast about how much they earn, giving other, much nicer drivers a bad name.

An extreme example of this, though is actors.
In the very olden days, they were court jesters, lowest of the low. And now look what a few hundred years has done to their wages!

Surely any industry has people in it who think they're important and boast? Especially when there's any more than 50 workers in the job. Law of averages says they'll be some showoffs, some loud people, some quiet people, some with lots of confidence and some with not so much. Plenty of managers across many industries who also think they're important. Likewise politicians.
It's not contained to any one industry.

 

[Dave1987]

You're not thinking as a business would but allowing emotions to get in the way.
Why would you tell a candidate for a position that you're going to automate their job? IF questioned, you'd say business needs or some other excuse given these days. However, you also fail to realise kids/young adults these days don't care for a long career in the same industry like people did in the 60s, 60s and 70s.

If you have a fixed term contract for a long time, you have time to prepare for it to end.

I don't have a "certain" hatred towards drivers, more a hatred to certain drivers!

I am well aware of the ruthlessness of business. It is the callous attitude towards other people lives and livelihoods that does not endear people towards the ruthlessness of business. Like I said I’m sure plenty of people have a hatred of your line of work.

 

[Dave1987]

Surely any industry has people in it who think they're important and boast? Especially when there's any more than 50 workers in the job. Law of averages says they'll be some showoffs, some loud people, some quiet people, some with lots of confidence and some with not so much. Plenty of managers across many industries who also think they're important. Likewise politicians.
It's not contained to any one industry.

Indeed their are many many people who swagger around and consider themselves the better of others. Many of them wearing expensive suits.

 

[The Ham]

I am well aware of the ruthlessness of business. It is the callous attitude towards other people lives and livelihoods that does not endear people towards the ruthlessness of business. Like I said I’m sure plenty of people have a hatred of your line of work.

It would appear that you've had some bad experiences with employers, which is unfortunate. A lot of employers that I've been fortunate to be involved in have been fairly caring, for the simple reason that finding good staff is hard and recruiting new staff is costly. As such it's often better to be accommodating to those existing staff you have.

As an example an advert on a newspaper can easily cost over £700 (which probably wouldn't get you many good quality applications), if you have to give a week off compassionate leave it would be less than that.

 

[Dave1987]

It would appear that you've had some bad experiences with employers, which is unfortunate. A lot of employers that I've been fortunate to be involved in have been fairly caring, for the simple reason that finding good staff is hard and recruiting new staff is costly. As such it's often better to be accommodating to those existing staff you have.

As an example an advert on a newspaper can easily cost over £700 (which probably wouldn't get you many good quality applications), if you have to give a week off compassionate leave it would be less than that.

I 100% wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[pt_mad]

You're not thinking as a business would but allowing emotions to get in the way.

A business is not a robot. It doesn't have a brain. There are people doing the thinking, and presumably these people have lives, mortgages, bills, rents and families to pay for too? Or are they as ruthless with their own loved ones?
Who doesn't have emotions? And it's people who make these business decisions not robots.

There's too much of this economy economy business first at the moment hence why Corbyn is where he is and growing in popularity with socialist views. Because for ten years since the credit crunch we were spun austerity for a better tomorrow and so we could keep as many in work as possible. Yet at the end of the day the business first agenda seems to have gone from 'saving the economy for the good of the population', I.e. keeping business going for the sake of retaining good jobs, to a ruthless business first tax avoidance cost cutting agenda with an increased amount of low quality jobs with little security. However, executives wish to retain their quality employment conditions

 

[whhistle]

Like I said I’m sure plenty of people have a hatred of your line of work.

A kids TV presenter?
Kids love me. Parents love me. No hate here :P

A business is not a robot. It doesn't have a brain. There are people doing the thinking, and presumably these people have lives, mortgages, bills, rents and families to pay for too? Or are they as ruthless with their own loved ones?
Who doesn't have emotions? And it's people who make these business decisions not robots.

No, but in this day and age, businesses think it's the end of the world if they didn't make more profit the following year.

Shareholders are the worst thing to happen to any business as their greed puts pressure on company bosses... hence we have the present situation with businesses over estimating their profits.

The old phrase, "it's not personal, just business" is a killer.

Admittedly, many companies are moving away from that sort of approach to employment but you can't keep someone employed just because you like them, or they have a young family. If someone doesn't then it wades into discrimination; just because someone is a single guy, doesn't mean they don't need the job any more or less than someone who has just had twins and their elderly parent has just been evicted.

We may as well sack all train drivers and give their jobs to the homeless, so those with not much money can get themselves sorted - after all, the homeless probably need a train driving job rather than a train driver!

 

[pt_mad]

A kids TV presenter?
Kids love me. Parents love me. No hate here :P



No, but in this day and age, businesses think it's the end of the world if they didn't make more profit the following year.

Shareholders are the worst thing to happen to any business as their greed puts pressure on company bosses... hence we have the present situation with businesses over estimating their profits.

The old phrase, "it's not personal, just business" is a killer.

Admittedly, many companies are moving away from that sort of approach to employment but you can't keep someone employed just because you like them, or they have a young family. If someone doesn't then it wades into discrimination; just because someone is a single guy, doesn't mean they don't need the job any more or less than someone who has just had twins and their elderly parent has just been evicted.

We may as well sack all train drivers and give their jobs to the homeless, so those with not much money can get themselves sorted - after all, the homeless probably need a train driving job rather than a train driver!

But we're not talking about who is more worthy of the job over someone else. We're talking about retaining current jobs, and Ts and Cs where the role is obviously needed or could be kept if it weren't for over cost cutting or wanting conditions to deteriorate.

Either way I can see the government having a real task on their hands if they're serious about this. Whether an act of parliament could order private companies to limit the pay rises of its employees I don't know. Or whether they could impose this on only rail workers, and not bus drivers for example would be interesting.
If it went to ballot to members of the rail unions whether they wish to take industrial action over such a proposal, could it lead to a national strike over a potential imposed cap to pay rises?

Even more interestingly, why is it that LNER (or East Coast when it was previously under public ownership) don't impose low rises and pay caps on their staff? Especially if the government are calling the shots. As they seem to impose low rises on NHS workers.

 

[HH]

Governments could specify anything they wanted in the contractual Franchise Agreement, but I doubt that they have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the flak.

So what they're clearly trying to do is change public opinion in the mistaken belief that it will become easier at some unspecified time in the future.