-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RMT argument to protect the role of guard
- Thread starter railuserhudds
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
im sure there are alot of workers who take a lunch break in the middle of the night,if they are working 12 hour nights on a 35 hour week does that mean they only work 3 days per week? Also if on annualised hour's so not getting paid overtime what happen's when they do all there hours do they stop work,not get paid for what they do or get paid overtime for all hours.
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 4,999
I'd give you plenty for FirstGroup & TPE - but to be fair, Northern have (so far) steered fairly clear of doing anything describeable as utterly stupid & greedy.
What I don't understand is why on the one hand the unions fight DOO and ticket office closures or loss of ticket staff (which isn't a bad thing IMHO) and on the other hand they demand higher wages and better conditions. Surely they realise that one is driving the other? One of the biggest costs on the railway is the people that run it so by demanding more money (certainly more money above inflation at any rate) they're hastening the TOCs and governments desire to reduce costs to compensate, the best way being removing staff.
There is only a limited pot of money for the railway. The government has made it clear they wish to spend less on the day to day running of the railway, the TOCs already make very little profit (relative to their income) and the passengers already pay through the nose for rail travel in many cases. So I wonder why do the Unions seemingly not realise that this is a zero sum game that's being played? As they drive up staffing costs the government and the TOCs are going to push back by trying to reduce the numbers of staff needed to make the railway work and in the long run they'll probably be successful at doing it.
There is only a limited pot of money for the railway. The government has made it clear they wish to spend less on the day to day running of the railway, the TOCs already make very little profit (relative to their income) and the passengers already pay through the nose for rail travel in many cases. So I wonder why do the Unions seemingly not realise that this is a zero sum game that's being played? As they drive up staffing costs the government and the TOCs are going to push back by trying to reduce the numbers of staff needed to make the railway work and in the long run they'll probably be successful at doing it.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
This is the last time I will air my views on this forum as I am so sick of the anti-staff threads contained on here
This article is 4 years old and times have changed
I'll let you all have a go using ammo from a 4 year old article, I will no longer play a part in it, I have always respected enthusiasts, helped them given advice etc. etc. but it seems a small core here want to destroy what made the railway great, your choice I don't have the strength to argue any longer, you are just not worth it.
To the other 75% who at the least have respect for Traincrew etc. and I have had some very good debates with
Its been a pleasure
ANG signing off
This article is 4 years old and times have changed
I'll let you all have a go using ammo from a 4 year old article, I will no longer play a part in it, I have always respected enthusiasts, helped them given advice etc. etc. but it seems a small core here want to destroy what made the railway great, your choice I don't have the strength to argue any longer, you are just not worth it.
To the other 75% who at the least have respect for Traincrew etc. and I have had some very good debates with
Its been a pleasure
ANG signing off
So unions should be above being challenged by passengers?
Is it actual staff bashing here though, or just a different perspective being taken as a personal attack?
Sometimes the non rail staff get honked off too with the attitudes of those that do work on the railway. I think that anyone posting here that has a job that is actually really easy and overpaid is probably in the minority, but you wouldn't think so from reading the threads here. Just because the non-rail staff here aren't bitching about their overworked underpaid professional lives doesn't mean we have it easy, but when we do want a payrise or face the prospect of redundancy, we won't ruin your travel plans or interfere with your ability to get to work and earn our livelihoods.
Yes, we're rail enthusiasts, but that doesn't make us automatically sympathetic to every gripe of your average guard or ticket inspector or whatever. We know its hard, we know the pay is crap, but welcome to working life, its the same for everyone.
And as rail enthusiasts, we're also taxpayers and passengers, we will have opinions on matters not motivated by protecting our own jobs. We will want to discuss things like DOO, driverless trains or the time some guard overcharged us, doesn't mean we want to see everyone out of a job and hate all staff, but any such topics are seen as personal attacks on specific individuals and that their very job is endangered by the existence of the thread and their continued employment is dependent on the outcome of the discussion. Its not, its just a different point of view.
Sometimes the non rail staff get honked off too with the attitudes of those that do work on the railway. I think that anyone posting here that has a job that is actually really easy and overpaid is probably in the minority, but you wouldn't think so from reading the threads here. Just because the non-rail staff here aren't bitching about their overworked underpaid professional lives doesn't mean we have it easy, but when we do want a payrise or face the prospect of redundancy, we won't ruin your travel plans or interfere with your ability to get to work and earn our livelihoods.
Yes, we're rail enthusiasts, but that doesn't make us automatically sympathetic to every gripe of your average guard or ticket inspector or whatever. We know its hard, we know the pay is crap, but welcome to working life, its the same for everyone.
And as rail enthusiasts, we're also taxpayers and passengers, we will have opinions on matters not motivated by protecting our own jobs. We will want to discuss things like DOO, driverless trains or the time some guard overcharged us, doesn't mean we want to see everyone out of a job and hate all staff, but any such topics are seen as personal attacks on specific individuals and that their very job is endangered by the existence of the thread and their continued employment is dependent on the outcome of the discussion. Its not, its just a different point of view.
313103
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,595
I dont think that me on a 36 hr week, on £26,444.00 salary, with no unrestricted free travel (all staff travel is taxed anyway so it is partially paid for), yes a final salary pension but what will that be worth when i retire in 15 years?, various other perks (enlighten me as i dont know of any and ive been on the railways 33 years), you are right though we dont have to work our Sundays and they are not in because London Overground management do not want it in and the probable reason for that is because we are only a short term solution.
I live in a tiny 1 bedroom flat with no chance of moving either short term or long term,with a quarter of my salary going on rent, another 6% on council tax, another 5% going on energy bills, the list is endless. lOf course the other threat that is always hanging over my head is Driver Only Operation. Because who is to say what will happen to my job and numerous others when all the tourists from the olympics have long gone. It will all return to the dark days of Silverlink with no member of staff visible and the reason why ..............COST!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I get a oyster card on the basis i work for a TFL company, I also get a BR staff pass which allows me 16 free trips, the term free is used loosely as i pay tax on it. This year the Germans have decided that staff who work in the Arriva group of rail companies get reciprocal travel arrangements.
All staff employed after 1994 only get free travel for the company on which they work. All staff employed on Freight companies get NO free travel unless they were ex BR, my reduced travel is not allowed on any open access operator.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can you find me any evidence of staff other then drivers earning salaries upto £35,000. The most i have ever earned in a year before tax is £27,500.
Before people start throwing their toys out the pram surrounding yet another RMT/Union thread I believe people who work in the rail industry really need to understand the travelling publics perception.
Yes people should get a decent pay rise, but when people who pay your wages are seeing fare rises at such a high level without getting a pay rise them self or even being under threat of losing their own jobs they are obviously going to be annoyed when they see the rail industry getting pay rises above what they themselves are getting and if not then threatening to prevent them from getting to work if their demands are not met.
Its a very sensitive subject out there and one that will never go away.
Yes people should get a decent pay rise, but when people who pay your wages are seeing fare rises at such a high level without getting a pay rise them self or even being under threat of losing their own jobs they are obviously going to be annoyed when they see the rail industry getting pay rises above what they themselves are getting and if not then threatening to prevent them from getting to work if their demands are not met.
Its a very sensitive subject out there and one that will never go away.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
The problems with threads like this is that there are a large number of posters that seem to think that rail workers should be pleased to have a job at all, and are unemployable in any other industry.
I work with on-train staff who include qualified nurses, ex policemen, professional soldiers (and sailors and RAF), prison officers, managers for major national and international companies, publicans, miners, paramedics, social workers, professional pilots, airline crews, engineers, chefs, hairdressers, teachers and more. They have more qualifications than I can think of, off the top of my head they include BA's BSc's, MA's, City & Guilds, RGN's, and everything in between.
What they bring to the railway is not only a large variety of life experience and knowledge from other walks of life, but the sort of attitude and ability that costs a large amount of money to have and more importantly, retain.
Now, all of these people have bills to pay - if rail wages don't appear attractive enough to retain them, they will move on to other industries, or go back to those they came from.
I know that a large number of the enthusiasts on here would do the job for nothing (or think they would), witness the number that spend their spare time working on heritage railways, or hanging around on platforms / on trains. But that doesn't pay the bills, and there is a big difference between going for a "bash" once a month, or spending a sunny summer afternoon on the local heritage line, and working a Cardiff Valleys train on a cold winter evening taking verbal and physical abuse from the ****ed-up passengers who are on their way home from the night out and think the railway is there to provide them with a free taxi service - and then turn up twelve hours later to do it all over again.
Railway staff are there to earn an living and pay their bills. If a more attractive job comes along, most of them would go to it. If the wages and conditions are reduced to an extent that other jobs outside the industry with less hassle and stress are available with equal terms and conditions, a lot would go to do that.
If wages are not paid to attract and retain staff of a high calibre, what will the railway end up with working in the front-line services, and how will it affect the passengers journey, especially when things go wrong and what is required is staff who can think on their feet, take control, and make decisions?
Just one more point I would like to make to the non-rail members of the forum. To give you a reality check, or two - you make up a tiny proportion of the people we deal with day in and day out, and another unpleasant truth you have to face up to is that 99% of rail staff don't read this type of forum, are not even aware of their existence, and really don't give a flying f*** about your opinion.
I work with on-train staff who include qualified nurses, ex policemen, professional soldiers (and sailors and RAF), prison officers, managers for major national and international companies, publicans, miners, paramedics, social workers, professional pilots, airline crews, engineers, chefs, hairdressers, teachers and more. They have more qualifications than I can think of, off the top of my head they include BA's BSc's, MA's, City & Guilds, RGN's, and everything in between.
What they bring to the railway is not only a large variety of life experience and knowledge from other walks of life, but the sort of attitude and ability that costs a large amount of money to have and more importantly, retain.
Now, all of these people have bills to pay - if rail wages don't appear attractive enough to retain them, they will move on to other industries, or go back to those they came from.
I know that a large number of the enthusiasts on here would do the job for nothing (or think they would), witness the number that spend their spare time working on heritage railways, or hanging around on platforms / on trains. But that doesn't pay the bills, and there is a big difference between going for a "bash" once a month, or spending a sunny summer afternoon on the local heritage line, and working a Cardiff Valleys train on a cold winter evening taking verbal and physical abuse from the ****ed-up passengers who are on their way home from the night out and think the railway is there to provide them with a free taxi service - and then turn up twelve hours later to do it all over again.
Railway staff are there to earn an living and pay their bills. If a more attractive job comes along, most of them would go to it. If the wages and conditions are reduced to an extent that other jobs outside the industry with less hassle and stress are available with equal terms and conditions, a lot would go to do that.
If wages are not paid to attract and retain staff of a high calibre, what will the railway end up with working in the front-line services, and how will it affect the passengers journey, especially when things go wrong and what is required is staff who can think on their feet, take control, and make decisions?
Just one more point I would like to make to the non-rail members of the forum. To give you a reality check, or two - you make up a tiny proportion of the people we deal with day in and day out, and another unpleasant truth you have to face up to is that 99% of rail staff don't read this type of forum, are not even aware of their existence, and really don't give a flying f*** about your opinion.
And that last paragraph here by a usually impeccable poster with a respectful attitude for both staff and 'normals' demonstrates why rail staff usually come out of these discussions red faced.
The rest of your post is clearly well thought out, and I agree with your sentiments.
The only thing I would add to impress is one that another poster has already tried to above. I can't speak for everyone clearly, but we're not stupid on here. There are academics, bankers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, IT professionals, advertising consultants... And those are only the ones I personally know. In these discussions railstaff who feel they are being personally attacked even when it is just open floor debating resort to talking down to others, and it does them no favours.
We all come to discuss something we are interested in, let's keep the discussion respectful as everyone is entitled to their opinion, contrary to your last sentence in your post.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
And offering no apology. A lot of posters on here need to realise that rail-staff in the real world are not waiting with baited breath to know what some anonymous person in an internet forum thinks about their terms and conditions.
When people on here start saying what they do for a living and how much they get paid so I can offer an opinion on what they do and if they offer value for money to society, then I might start accepting their random (and in some case vitriolic) comments on how I and my colleagues are overpaid and lucky to have a job at all.
However, there is one thing that all these professions have in common. They get paid to do their day job, and they all seek to maximise their pay and conditions, both by individually negotiating, and having professional organisations to negotiate on their behalf.
Why should staff who work in the rail industry not do the same? And an inability for staff in some areas of the economy to negotiate effectively due to whatever constraints they have is not a reason for others not to do so.
When people on here start saying what they do for a living and how much they get paid so I can offer an opinion on what they do and if they offer value for money to society, then I might start accepting their random (and in some case vitriolic) comments on how I and my colleagues are overpaid and lucky to have a job at all.
and there are also some very self-important self-centred windbags who think the world hangs on their opinion. Telling them that it doesn't in words of one syllable is necessary, if not for their good (as it doesn't get through to them anyway), but is essential to keep the site in balance.
Well, I have met members of all these professions, and worked with a lot of them in a variety of situations. Some I would say were very intelligent and some I would not trust to sit right way up on a lavatory without written instructions. Some were principled and had personal integrity. Some were crooked and venial.
However, there is one thing that all these professions have in common. They get paid to do their day job, and they all seek to maximise their pay and conditions, both by individually negotiating, and having professional organisations to negotiate on their behalf.
Why should staff who work in the rail industry not do the same? And an inability for staff in some areas of the economy to negotiate effectively due to whatever constraints they have is not a reason for others not to do so.
Last edited:
Well, quite, but generally most rail enthusiasts appreciate the difficulties and importance of the guard's role, whereas I suspect a sizeable proportion of the wider public put guards in the same category as 'jumped up traffic wardens' and don't have much respect for the profession. If a random survey was undertaken of people on the street to pick whether health care professionals or guards should get a pay rise, the outcome probably wouldn't surprise anyone. That's why I don't think having a go at rail enthusiasts (whether intentional or not) is the right tactic for gaining support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think having a guard onboard does improve the travelling environment, although it depends on what is meant by 'safety'. From the perspective of train running safety (i.e. to provide vital help in emergencies e.t.c), yes it certainly does make sense to have a guard, but I wouldn't rely on any member of on-train staff to protect passengers against unruly behaviour, assaults and other crime. They aren't police officers or security guards at the end of the day.
Last edited:
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
Well, a sizable proportion of the population would say that they have respect for health professionals, but would not be willing for their income tax to go up by 1p to fund a pay-rise for the NHS either.
The point I am making is that the opinion of posters on here, good, bad or indifferent doesn't either matter or impact very much one way or the other on the vast majority of rail staff. Indeed, if any of my colleagues knew I even read this site, let alone posted on here, i would be viewed as even odder than they think I already am.
I mean think about it, how many people in the UK work for the railway, and how many regular posters are there on this site that work for the railway?
There are regular threads of the "indignant of Tumbridge Wells" type on this forum about rail staff, and the same posters appear, and we get slagged off for our terms, conditions, wages and attitudes. They are getting more frequent (on the back of McNulty), and posts like the one that started this thread quoting a four year-old article are just rabble-rousing. Priggish comments on this thread like
coming from somebody who, for all I know could either be working for a nationalised bank or sitting at home on benefits I am paying for don't help.
And regarding your comments about rail enthusiasts understanding the Guards role, if you mean like this
, well all I can say is with friends like this, who needs enemy's. According to that particular enthusiast, we are guards or whatever, and he obviously doesn't have the slightest clue about the job. However, like many others, it doesn't stop him expressing a forceful opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have been assaulted myself, as have may of my colleagues, getting involved in such incidents to protect passengers. When such situations arise, many of us feel we have a moral obligation to become involved, and passengers on a train have an expectation that we will become involved. You are right that we are not police or security guards, and we are not trained or equipped to intervene in such situations. However, this has not stopped us doing so in the past, or doing so again in the future. Or would you rather that we didn't as it is outside our role?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I have always enjoyed your past input on the different sub forums and it does seem a "tad" out of character for you to make the stated wording and sentiments in the ending (as stated above) to the above final part of quite a long posting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I for one have always valued your views expressed on the forum and noting your Manchester Area connection, I will certainly miss your future input.
I will echo the above. Most of us feel obliged to do what we can to resolve problems on board OUR trains. I have also been assaulted whilst trying to protect innocent members of the public from thugs in the past. Thankfully I didn't come off too badly as I can look after myself within reason, but there are many guards who have gotten pretty badly hurt and as a result some of them felt the job was no longer for them and left the industry altogether.
It's easy for management to tell us to walk away and stay in the cab, but the reality is most of us would not be able to sleep at night if we did not intervene in some of the situations we come across.
For example, I once had a drunk male with a loaded hand gun on board (reported to me by another passenger). Now I could easily have gone back to my cab, made a phonecall to report the matter and then have stayed there in safety. Idiotically (some would say), after making the necessary phonecalls, I then approached the male and sat there talking to him for an hour whilst a armed response was arranged, mentally prepared with the possibility of attempting to restrain him should the need arise. Why? Well I simply feel I have a moral responsibility for my passengers' safety whilst they are on my train. Most other colleagues I know would have done exactly the same. Unfortunately in this day and age it is pretty normal to come across passengers openly carrying knives on trains, and coming across firearms is also far more regular than you'd think.
As people above have said. Workers in other industries should try and improve their working conditions and perks rather than try and drag ours down to their level.
CarterUSM
Established Member
I'm joining you, this place is a joke .
Schnellzug
Established Member
Why is there rather a lot of ranting about Enthusiasts in this thread? I'd have thought that Enthusiasts would on the whole be sympathetic towards Rail staff; I'd have though that it was the general Public, and particularly the Media, that might not be so. Why are Enthusiasts the target of ire?
OK that's good that the former BR workers kept the old perk and the new workers have a more appropriate perk for a privatised industry.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
No it ISN'T good as it creates a divide and resentment among the workforce. I think the majority of staff would prefer their respective unions to argue the point than just accept someone else's view as to whether they deserve or are entitled to anything.
No, if rail staff are prepared to intervene in such situations, then that's absolutely commendable. It obviously depends on the exact situation, but say there was a fight that got out of hand, which I have seen happen, and the guard was a fairly petite lady (hardly rare now) it's not reasonable to expect physical intervention by the guard without the help of others (calling for police/security or others on the train, but look where that can lead - e.g. the "Big Man" case).
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
As I said, certain posters (by all means not not all) on this and other threads need a reality check.
If a statement of fact offends anybody, I'm not apologising for it, it's up to them to deal with the information that their opinion may not be as important as they think.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
Judging by many repsondents on here and the frenzied media attacks on 'greedy' rail staff it is what many would like to see.
Last edited:
There's different types of divides though.
Both Northern and TPE have a mixture of former FNW staff and former ATN staff. If one was higher paid than the other and it's stayed that way then it wouldn't be good.
In the case of former BR staff getting an extra incentive then that could be seen as rewarding them for their 18+ years of service to the railways. Although I accept that in 10 years time 18+ will read as 28+ so will seem unfair to some of the longer serving employees who didn't work under BR.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
Enthusiasts are not a problem. The problem is the hard core of posters on here who have an attitude that:
1. I would do the job for nothing so rail staff should as well, and / or
2. I know all about the railway, and certainly a lot more than anybody who actually does the job.
They come out with what can only be described as fantasy threads (for example, just look at how many threads there are telling us a better way to run railcards), ignoring the day to day reality (and openness to abuse) of the schemes they propose, and anybody from the industry who disagrees with them is a "dinosaur".
Apart from anything else, most of the rail staff who post on here (that I am aware of) are pretty low down the food chain, (but at our level we DO have to do the hardest job on the railway - dealing with passengers and keeping it all moving), and are not the ones to address about these issues. However, we are experienced enough to point out flaws.
Another issue posters on here have to remember is that they are used to dealing with rail staff face to face who may be biting their lip when listening to the ranting of the passenger, as in uniform and at work, it is an employee-customer relationship.
On here, they are no longer customers, we are no longer employees. When we are on here, my colleagues and I am not being paid to smile and nod at listening to total bollix. Some posters seem to find having to take it as well as give it a tad disconcerting.
Really? I've never seen anyone say that!
I think most people will accept there are issues with tickets, service frequency, use of rolling stock etc. This is a rail forum so it seems an appropriate place to discuss such issues. People are always going to suggest something that's better from their prospective which may not be better from another prospective.
As a customer of a shop, the railway or anything else I don't generally have a go at someone who is in a customer service role when things go wrong if I'm aware it's something out of their control.
As an example if I'm unhappy with the state of a train that turns up I'm aware that the guard would be able to see it for his or her self so there and possibly would have already had passengers complaining about it so there isn't any point in me mentioning it to the guard.
On the other hand if ticket office staff try to sell me the wrong ticket by their error then it is something I need to mention.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,810
Certain things about this thread make me curious.
- It was the first and only post by the OP
- They picked an old quote (over four years old, I believe), to show the union that represents on-train staff in a poor light, and be extension, the guards role.
- This is on the back of several threads where the guards role has been discussed at length, and also at a time when McNulty is claiming that the guards (amongst other staffs) role is superfluous.
- Unlike other staff's role (platform and ticket office for example), the guards role is probably going to be the hardest to remove, as it is the most obviously absent.
Very few passengers are going to notice a missing member of platform staff, or an extra shut ticket window, or the barriers opening later or closing earlier. They won't know that a platform that used to have two dispatch staff now has one, or none. They WILL notice that nobody is going through the train on a regular basis (although a lot of passengers will see an ATE instead of a guard and not know the difference).
What is the agenda behind this post, I wonder, and how many more like it are we going to see, as the role of those who support the proposals in McNulty now is to try and persuade public opinion that all rail-staff are lazy, overpaid and unnecessary. As the Guard (with his safety-critical role) is the hardest target, then that is the rock that will need most chipping away.
Anyway, I think that I will leave this thread (and site) for now. I have said all that I feel I need to on the subject, if other posters want to discuss the issues further (or just bitch about lazy overpaid rail staff), then crack on.
Amongst others, I don't feel the need to listen any more.
- It was the first and only post by the OP
- They picked an old quote (over four years old, I believe), to show the union that represents on-train staff in a poor light, and be extension, the guards role.
- This is on the back of several threads where the guards role has been discussed at length, and also at a time when McNulty is claiming that the guards (amongst other staffs) role is superfluous.
- Unlike other staff's role (platform and ticket office for example), the guards role is probably going to be the hardest to remove, as it is the most obviously absent.
Very few passengers are going to notice a missing member of platform staff, or an extra shut ticket window, or the barriers opening later or closing earlier. They won't know that a platform that used to have two dispatch staff now has one, or none. They WILL notice that nobody is going through the train on a regular basis (although a lot of passengers will see an ATE instead of a guard and not know the difference).
What is the agenda behind this post, I wonder, and how many more like it are we going to see, as the role of those who support the proposals in McNulty now is to try and persuade public opinion that all rail-staff are lazy, overpaid and unnecessary. As the Guard (with his safety-critical role) is the hardest target, then that is the rock that will need most chipping away.
Anyway, I think that I will leave this thread (and site) for now. I have said all that I feel I need to on the subject, if other posters want to discuss the issues further (or just bitch about lazy overpaid rail staff), then crack on.
Amongst others, I don't feel the need to listen any more.
Ascot
Established Member
I do support the guards role and yes it is a cushy number for the pay if you like that sort of work, I certainly wouldn't like to do 4am Sunday shifts. I've always supported the grafting grade jobs as they keep the world spinning (let's face it, railways on strike causes havoc) but don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I agree with the working for free comment, people do that job for a living without the need to be threatened by cheap labour.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with the working for free comment, people do that job for a living without the need to be threatened by cheap labour.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I find it very strange that a new member should choose to make their first post such an old story. I'm disappointed that the thread has continued for so long. I would have hoped that people would have been a bit more suspicious of the OP's identity and motive, and not taken the bait.
- Status