Pay justification

[Dave1987]

Unfortunately I dont get overtime just a basic salary, however I dont pay for my food (ration pack) or accommodation (tent, trench etc) when in overseas in Afghan etc, my pension is payable at 60 and is 1/3rd. I suppose I justify my wage of £40k by the lack of overtime payments, 1 years training at Sandhurst, responsible for 30 troops, facing the enemy etc etc. Not complaining as its my vocation just looking into a new career due to family etc.

Well I recommend you apply for a trainee driver position you certainly possess the qualities looked for by TOCs

 

[northwichcat]

Training is highly expensive and takes 12-18 month.

You could also argue 18 months funded by the employer isn't justification for a higher salary when there's other roles which require degrees taking 3 years+ which you have to fund yourself.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps the Army officer would like to justify why they get paid so much first?

There isn’t one posting on this thread.

 

[Darandio]

There isn’t one posting on this thread.

Ah, so an incendiary thread to get people to bite then. Seems it worked.

 

[edwin catflap]

Must be a popular name? And unfortunately your nose isnt working. Normandy Company SMC 902 RMAS 1990-1991, Officer number 535***

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah, so an incendiary thread to get people to bite then. Seems it worked.

Of course, he’s a lorry driver - just Google the username. He should be grateful he isn’t posting on ArRSe’s forums.

 

[Bromley boy]

You could also argue 18 months funded by the employer isn't justification for a higher salary when there's other roles which require degrees taking 3 years+ which you have to fund yourself.

The “justification”, if that’s the right word, is simply the economic reality that once an employer has invested money in training they will wish to retain that member of staff.

A degree is completely irrelevant to the role and as you point out has already been paid for by the applicant, not the employer, hence it makes no difference to the salary.

It’s also notable that these days degrees don’t command much of a premium, other than for specific professional roles where they are required.

 

[edwin catflap]

Well I recommend you apply for a trainee driver position you certainly possess the qualities looked for by TOCs

Hi I've applied to one but didn't get passed the first sift unfortunately

 

[AlterEgo]

Must be a popular name? And unfortunately your nose isnt working. Normandy Company SMC 902 RMAS 1990-1991, Officer number 535***

Edwin, I wasn’t born yesterday. You’re not in the Army; at least, not now, and not as an officer.

If you were commissioned in 1991 and claim to be in charge of 30 soldiers, this makes you a Lieutenant, a rank you achieve after two years’ time served and this is not a merit-based promotion. You reach Captain after a further (on average) two years based on time or tours served - this is also not a meritocratic promotion. Someone commissioned 26 years ago should be knocking around Lt Col or above if they’re still in the Army.

This notwithstanding, an army officer wouldn’t ask someone to “justify their salary”, and even if they did, they’d use proper punctuation, like full stops and not conflating “past” and “passed”.

The minute I saw your OP I thought “bus driver” and I wasn’t far wrong.

How else can one explain a user with the exact same username (a rather unique one too!) posting on truck forums about the job, or referring to themselves as an “ex squaddie” on another forum?

Why don’t you just be honest?

 

[DarloRich]

oh dear. bye!

 

[mpthomson]

Have a look at this thread and reconsider whether you really want to pursue your pound of flesh. >

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ry-of-a-rail-suicide-never-leaves-you.157018/

Not a valid comparison compared to soldiers up to Captain level, police constables, fire and ambulance service front line staff, all of whom either will see or have the potential to see incidents like that more frequently than a train driver and all of whom earn far less.

This, is of course, not to lessen the impact of an incident such as the thread describes on a driver or make a value judgement about a train driver's salary, but other professions see it a lot more for a lot less money.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You could also argue 18 months funded by the employer isn't justification for a higher salary when there's other roles which require degrees taking 3 years+ which you have to fund yourself.

Oh get a hint of jealousy? It should be pointed out that drivers are constantly monitored by management via random OTMR downloads, unannounced cab rides, secret rides either in the train or back cab, then there's the bi-annual rules exams, simulator day, so drivers are probably even more qualified to hold their positions and earn their money than what a lot of degree holders are. In fact we have several degree holders as drivers, who chucked an office career in for the security of a driving job.

And then of course as drivers we have to maintain our route & traction competencies on top of that was previously mentioned too, drivers really earn their crust when it's bad weather such as thick fog during the day, when you don't have any lighting or visible landmarks to guide you in and all you have is a bright white wall of nothing in front of you, thanks to the high intensity headlights that they've fitted to a lot of stock.

Most wouldn't have the balls to do what drivers do, especially in thick fog, with the leaves down either day or night.

 

[SPADTrap]

Not a valid comparison compared to soldiers up to Captain level, police constables, fire and ambulance service front line staff, all of whom either will see or have the potential to see incidents like that more frequently than a train driver and all of whom earn far less

The difference is that the driver is there to witness it. Its not as easy to rationalise then. Cleaning up the aftermath is horrendous but feeling 'responsible' is a whole new layer of hell.

 

[SPADTrap]

Oh get a hint of jealousy? It should be pointed out that drivers are constantly monitored by management via random OTMR downloads, unannounced cab rides, secret rides either in the train or back cab, then there's the bi-annual rules exams, simulator day, so drivers are probably even more qualified to hold their positions and earn their money than what a lot of degree holders are. In fact we have several degree holders as drivers, who chucked an office career in for the security of a driving job.

And then of course as drivers we have to maintain our route & traction competencies on top of that was previously mentioned too, drivers really earn their crust when it's bad weather such as thick fog during the day, when you don't have any lighting or visible landmarks to guide you in and all you have is a bright white wall of nothing in front of you, thanks to the high intensity headlights that they've fitted to a lot of stock.

Most wouldn't have the balls to do what drivers do, especially in thick fog, with the leaves down either day or night.

Don't bite, we need to worry when our industry becomes like the aviation industry which of course is mostly self funded..having flown Bizjets before, we don't want that mentality on the Railways!

 

[IKB]

Hi I've applied to one but didn't get passed the first sift unfortunately

And there ladies and gentlemen is the reason for this pointless thread.

Don't let the green eyed monster eat you up. Keep trying.

 

[Master29]

Neither, an Army Officer

That being said anyone could mention the lions lead by donkeys argument in your case. What do you mean by disparity?

 

[skyhigh]

The difference is that the driver is there to witness it. Its not as easy to rationalise then. Cleaning up the aftermath is horrendous but feeling 'responsible' is a whole new layer of hell.

Not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I completely agree with this. When I was in the BTP, I went to five fatalities in less than a year - that's bad, but nothing compared to what drivers must have to deal with. I think they entirely deserve their pay.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why do Tyne and Wear get less?

For the same reasons why Eurostar get paid the most. Why constantly look down the wage ladder and not up ?

I have no aspirations to work for Eurostar. Although I would like to drive it just for the experience. I believe my salary is underpaid for the TOC I work for but I also believe my T&C's are better in some respects.

Relative to other TOC's I want much more and I think it would be deserved. Relative to other employment; I'm very happy indeed. I don't work overtime and that is because I am happy with my living standard and compared to where I grew up and where I used to work, the Railway has been a good and profitable employer.

I am not the highest paid of all my friends but I'm not the lowest. Of the few that get paid more than I. One worked for the NHS until recently and another works for local Government; both employers notorious for poor wages.

 

[northwichcat]

The “justification”, if that’s the right word, is simply the economic reality that once an employer has invested money in training they will wish to retain that member of staff.

A degree is completely irrelevant to the role and as you point out has already been paid for by the applicant, not the employer, hence it makes no difference to the salary.

It’s also notable that these days degrees don’t command much of a premium, other than for specific professional roles where they are required.

You have an interesting definition of economic reality.

If a role can't be done by someone who isn't qualified to bachelor degree level (or higher in some cases) than the salary should reflect that, whether the job advert says degree required or not. That is economic reality.

TOC employees enjoy the benefits of both public and private sector employment. The 'economic reality' of the railways is without huge government subsides there wouldn't be trainee drivers, there would be train driver apprentices earning something like £200 a week and coming away with a NVQ at the end of their 18 month apprenticeship period. At that stage they'd be offered a reasonable salary e.g. £25,000 per annum - enough to make a train driver a more attractive role than others but not so much it will prevent the TOC making a profit.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh get a hint of jealousy?

Or some people can't accept both sides of an argument. I can accept if you've invested in your employees that you want to keep them and there's many ways to doing that - not just high pay. I can also accept if applicants have spent their own time and money acquiring the relevant skills that you need to provide a job offer which isn't insulting to them - paying them less than people who apply for a trainee role and are yet to acquire the relevant skills would be insulting.

 

[ComUtoR]

You could also argue 18 months funded by the employer isn't justification for a higher salary when there's other roles which require degrees taking 3 years+ which you have to fund yourself.

At my TOC you are on a reduced wages in your first year of being productive as that is conditioned to be paying back your training costs. You are also on a lower training salary too.

 

[ComUtoR]

there would be train driver apprentices earning something like £200 a week and coming away with a NVQ at the end of their 18 month apprenticeship period.

I have a Train Driver NVQ. It didn't take 18 months.

 

[Bromley boy]

You have an interesting definition of economic reality.

If a role can't be done by someone who isn't qualified to bachelor degree level (or higher in some cases) than the salary should reflect that, whether the job advert says degree required or not. That is economic reality.

TOC employees enjoy the benefits of both public and private sector employment. The 'economic reality' of the railways is without huge government subsides there wouldn't be trainee drivers, there would be train driver apprentices earning something like £200 a week and coming away with a NVQ at the end of their 18 month apprenticeship period. At that stage they'd be offered a reasonable salary e.g. £25,000 per annum - enough to make a train driver a more attractive role than others but not so much it will prevent the TOC making a profit.

It’s not a definition of economic reality, it is economic reality. TOCs are not going to pay any more or less for a driver depending on whether or not they have a degree.

Very, very few jobs “can’t be done by someone who isn’t qualified to [X] degree level”. Having a degree often has little bearing on the salary offered for most jobs these days, in any case. Airline pilots aren’t required to have degrees and I doubt you offer your plumber a higher hourly rate based on his academic qualifications.

Now that you mention it the true “economic reality” of the railways is that, without government subsidies, there wouldn’t be any railway at all which would pretty much eliminate the south east of England in terms of economic activity.

Fixating on the salary of one grade seems most irrational. Since when have train driver salaries prevented TOCs making a profit? And what on earth do you think qualifies you to determine what a “reasonable” salary for being a train driver is?

What do you do, and how much do you earn?

 

[Bromley boy]

I have a Train Driver NVQ. It didn't take 18 months.

I don’t have one and I don’t want one.

I must say these strike me as a bit of a waste of time and an unnecessary gimmick. So long are you are competent according to network rail standards what does having an NVQ add?!

 

[Essan]

This is one of the problems with society - everyone tries to compare their income with someone else who gets paid more ...... and as a consequence no-one is ever happy. Someone will always earn more ....

Why not ignore what other people earn and just compare your income with what you actually need. If you earn enough for your own needs*, and maybe with a bit to spare, you are well off, regardless of what anyone else earns.

* everyone's needs are different. And, of course, you do also need to learn the difference between need and want - you might want to be a billionaire, but you don't need to.

 

[coxxy]

Of course, he’s a lorry driver - just Google the username. He should be grateful he isn’t posting on ArRSe’s forums.

Ooo do I get a prize.

 

[ComUtoR]

what does having an NVQ add?!

Dude, according to some. Having a qualification means I can get paid more.

Seriously though, it has some merit. The sheer fact that I have one shows that I have made some effort within my role and sought to 'better' myself. A question asked in some interviews is to show where you have applied yourself and gained a qualification over a set period of time. Getting the NVQ will show that.

The NVQ also adds to my CV. Any new employer can look at that and have the confidence that I have met a national standard, rather than just my TOC standard. It also helps if I was to be promoted. Having that NVQ may place me slightly ahead of another candidate, not by much but it will help. It also leads to the higher levels too.

I certainly see a benefit of having it.

 

[Darandio]

I don’t have one and I don’t want one.

I must say these strike me as a bit of a waste of time and an unnecessary gimmick. So long are you are competent according to network rail standards what does having an NVQ add?!

Has to be said that you are going with form. I've seen this in many years of working in recruitment, those who don't have an NVQ often look down on those who do.

 

[al78]

This is one of the problems with society - everyone tries to compare their income with someone else who gets paid more ...... and as a consequence no-one is ever happy. Someone will always earn more ....

I think it is more that some people have an opinion on how easy or difficult someones job is despite being clueless as to what that job involves*. If that someone else gets paid more than them they think it is unreasonable. Unfortunately people do love to make all sorts of assertions about subjects they are clueless about, and once an opinion is formed, it is set in concrete forever, and no amount of rational argument will persuade them that their precious opinion might be wrong. It is as though admitting they are wrong somehow destroys their entire credibility as a person forever.

I agree that comparing yourself to someone else is pointless, you are not them and have no idea what their life is like behind closed doors. If you have enough for the essentials plus a bit extra for luxuries and saving for the future then that is all you really need.

*People who are clueless about something are often unaware of their own ignorance, because to know what is correct and incorrect requires knowledge and competence, which they don't have.

 

[Bromley boy]

Dude, according to some. Having a qualification means I can get paid more.

Seriously though, it has some merit. The sheer fact that I have one shows that I have made some effort within my role and sought to 'better' myself. A question asked in some interviews is to show where you have applied yourself and gained a qualification over a set period of time. Getting the NVQ will show that.

The NVQ also adds to my CV. Any new employer can look at that and have the confidence that I have met a national standard, rather than just my TOC standard. It also helps if I was to be promoted. Having that NVQ may place me slightly ahead of another candidate, not by much but it will help. It also leads to the higher levels too.

I certainly see a benefit of having it.

If they pay me for doing it I will bite their hand off .

I see where you’re coming from here, and there’s certainly nothing to lose by doing something that is offered, but do you think it would add more to a CV than (say) a period spent instructing or allowing trainees to “shadow”?