Telegraph: Staff Travel 'angers commuters'

[Juniper Driver]

What a load of balls. I think we all deserve it. Mcdonalds ((and others)) employees get staff discount so what's the problem?

As well as MP's,I dont buy these rags amymore as they all talk Bo55ock5.

Another perk of the job,finding papers on the train,if you call that a perk with reporting like this.

 

[wintonian]

Tory government, tory mouthpiece. Make up your own mind

Now (PPERA) the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act prevents me from showing any political bias.

However bb21 as always I respect your opinion.

 

[Stewart]

The clear difference between the likes of Tesco and McDonalds offering perks is that they aren't receiving massive state subsidy. As completely private, profitable organisations, they can do what they wish to find suitable staff. Where companies are getting public funding, they should be more restricted as it's the hard-working taxpayer who is paying for all these cheap fares.

 

[142094]

Where companies are getting public funding, they should be more restricted as it's the hard-working taxpayer who is paying for all these cheap fares.

Seeing as the fare increases over recent years are to shift the balance from the taxpayer to the traveller, I hardly think so.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Have you seen what the BBC (paid for by the license fee) offer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/careers/why-join-us/rewards

 

[nedchester]

Well I used to get priv as a dependant many years ago but don't get it now.

I have no problem with people working for (or retired from) the railways getting priv. I would go as far as to say that it's a shame that the same benefits are not offered to new staff as used to be offered under BR.

Oh and perhaps the Telegraph could see that staff who work for the railways in Europe also get perks. So what!!

 

[87015]

Priv (well, new entry) is a waste of time anyway, FIP is where the real benefits are...

 

[Aictos]

Alternatively, at a lower, more newspaper-friendly level, why not highlight instead the scandalous cost of providing free bus travel to pensioners nationwide, a needless, unfair and plainly unsustainable scheme which is crippling both local authorities and small bus operators alike right across the country, and which affects not just users of the service but the wider taxpayer as well. I see no problem with pensioners paying half fare as they did before, this still represents a fair deal. Of course, the fact that papers might risk offending their readership has nothing to do with the direction of their storytelling....

I quite agree, what's wrong with pensioners paying half fare on the buses, if they go into places of interest they just pay for a discounted ticket which is usually half fare.

There used to be restrictions on the free travel provided by Stagecoach in Peterborough as the buses in the peaks were and still are at times full and standing - even if the restrictions were lifted at 09:00, you still got some boarding at 06:50 making the service late as well as full and standing.

 

[blacknight]

Be more of a news story if it read commuters happy with rail travel. Maybe instead of morning Suduko try some basic maths.
Is price of weekly season ticket equal to 7 times price of S.O.R ticket if No:-
Shock horror front page story for Daily Mirror Fat Cat Tory Bankers in Receipt of Subsidised Rail Travel
Least Railway staff work for a living & pay taxes you Eton Toff's

 

[Minilad]

The clear difference between the likes of Tesco and McDonalds offering perks is that they aren't receiving massive state subsidy. As completely private, profitable organisations, they can do what they wish to find suitable staff. Where companies are getting public funding, they should be more restricted as it's the hard-working taxpayer who is paying for all these cheap fares.

I get New entrant PRIV as I missed out on being safeguarded by about 6 months.
Am I not a hardworking taxpayer too ?
Oh and for your information in a lot of cases, long distance mainly, it is cheaper to buy an advance ticket or saver than it is to use PRIV.
Don't forget too that a lot of staff travel benefits have been part of pay deals so couldn't just be stopped without a lot of renegotiation

 

[CosherB]

I think the real story here isn't the free travel for rail workers, it's the appalling levels of fare increases for passengers. This makes rail's effectively captive customers (they can't go elsewhere for their train travel, like they can for their newspapers and daily shopping) very angry indeed.

Rail privs are just a target for them to lash out at in an expression of that anger.

 

[Minilad]

I think the real story here isn't the free travel for rail workers, it's the appalling levels of fare increases for passengers. This makes rail's effectively captive customers (they can't go elsewhere for their train travel, like they can for their newspapers and daily shopping) very angry indeed.

Rail privs are just a target for them to lash out at in an expression of that anger.

Maybe air travellers who have to put up with air fare rises could direct anger at the free and reduced travel airline staff get

 

[WestCoast]

Maybe air travellers who have to put up with air fare rises could direct anger at the free and reduced travel airline staff get

There is more real direct competition in the airline market, shopping around as it were, is not so easy with the railways. Unless of course your journey is Birmingham to London or so on.
This should have nothing to do with staff travel though! This is a non-issue really.....

 

[Greenback]

It is a non issue. Of course the Telegraph wants to try and put the blame for the fare rises on someone other than the elected government. Rail staff travel fits the bill for them, no matter how little the scheme actually costs in reality.

 

[CosherB]

Maybe air travellers who have to put up with air fare rises could direct anger at the free and reduced travel airline staff get

They probably do, but they can always go and fly with a different airline - vote with their feet. Many airlines these days don't have reduced staff travel and even those that do have downgraded it in recent years to cut costs.

The rail passenger (especially the London commuter) doesn't have that option even on the privatised railway, which is why they get angry not at cheap travel for rail workers, but at being bled dry in fare increases when they have no practical alternative way of getting to work.

But I think it's not the cheap staff travel that's the real cause of their anger (that's just a handy target), it's the unavoidable mugging they get when they are hit with steep fare increases they can't avoid.

 

[Minilad]

There is more direct competition in the airline market, shopping around as it were, is not so easy with the railways. Unless of course your journey is Birmingham to London or so on.
This should have nothing to do with staff travel though! This is a non-issue really.....

My point exactly. It's a non issue that I really doubt many rail users are actually frothing at the mouth about. Just as I don't froth at the mouth when I have to pay more for a flight.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They probably do, but they can always go and fly with a different airline - vote with their feet. Many airlines these days don't have reduced staff travel and even those that do have downgraded it in recent years to cut costs.

The rail passenger (especially the London commuter) doesn't have that option even on the privatised railway, which is why they get angry not at cheap travel for rail workers, but at being bled dry in fare increases when they have no practical alternative way of getting to work.

But I think it's not the cheap staff travel that's the real cause of their anger (that's just a handy target), it's the unavoidable mugging they get when they are hit with steep fare increases they can't avoid.

Well I don't as I recognise it's a staff benefit and good luck to them.
Most people can't fly with a different airline though. Except maybe people in London.
From regional airports there isn't the same amount of choice. Unless you fly from an airport many miles away which wouldn't always make things cheaper.
I agree on the fare rise issue though. I can understand anger at that

 

[richa2002]

From Careers@Telegraph:

"All Telegraph employees receive a competitive salary and bonus scheme (where applicable). We also offer a generous benefits package which includes: Bupa Healthcare, Pension, 25 days Holiday (rising to 30 days after first three years of service), Life Assurance and Personal Health Insurance. In addition to the above core benefits we also offer the following non-contractual benefits to employees: In-house GP, Physiotherapists, In-house Masseuse, In-house Gym and onsite Studio Classes, Employee Assistance Programme, Dental Care Scheme, Bikes to Work Scheme, and Season Ticket Loans.


Pot, Kettle, Black?

Hardly comparable. The Telegraph are a private organisation who can spend their money however they wish. The railways however receive substantial state subsidy so will naturally attract more scrutiny as they are spending our money. I agree this is a bit of a non-story but don't try and pretend your comparison is relevant.

 

[175001]

I nearly spat out my corn flakes reading it.....oh wait, no, I don't read that toilet paper.

 

[ApAp]

I work for Sky and so I get free Sky TV and broadband.

I don't see the problem with any company offering benefits to their employees.

 

[amcluesent]

I used to work for a travel agent and we got 'airline discount 60' tickets, or 60% off. Of course, if there was an overbooking you got bumped off and left to it, not just having to stand for a few stops.

PLUS that benefit ceased when I left the company, it wasn't 'for life'. These privs are all sweeteners from the days when the unions held the country to ransom and BR management capitulated to aslef etc. and the railwayman's spanish practices.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I used to work for BR and my staff travel privileges ceased when I left

 

[Greenback]

I work for Sky and so I get free Sky TV and broadband.

I don't see the problem with any company offering benefits to their employees.

Ah ha, so it's your fault Sky has put it's prices up!

I used to work for a travel agent and we got 'airline discount 60' tickets, or 60% off. Of course, if there was an overbooking you got bumped off

PLUS that benefit ceased when I left the company, it wasn't 'for life'.

Under BR if anyone left the industry through resignation or dismissal they lost their Priv facilities. This is still the case, so it isn;t always for life, and never has been.

 

[EWS 58038]

Fares go up by 13%... well, blame the monkeys in Marsham street for that, not rail staff who do their up most to keep the system running. And guess what.. I work for NS and enjoy free staff travel in the UK as well. So, next Monday make sure not to travel between Manchester Airport and Leeds... and Leeds - York or Leeds Donny (need to visit some signal boxes I think)

 

[harz99]

The main anger is at the 82,000 mostly former BR workers who have passes for life who may have retired 20 or more years ago, that kind of staff benefit (worth potentially thousands a year) is whats considered outrageous. In an age where final salary pensions or six digit wages have become politically unacceptable these kind of benefits for life are bound to draw attention.

Well as one of these retired former BR employees who, together with my wife, gets 14 free boxes (for those unsure of the term a box is a free travel pass valid for two consecutive days) each year plus priv tickets at 25% of the appropriate Anytime fare I am pleased to say I do make good use of the perks.

Yes, the free travel element is probably worth around £1500 each to us based on comparing our usage rate with the cheapest public advance fares for those journeys, so not exactly thousands a year.

I only use a box where to buy priv or public advance fares would cost in excess of £25 a day - that is the minimum value I put on them. So the perk is worth an estimated £300 - £1500 per year to us. Again not exactly thousands a year for each individual.

I live in a location which gives me access to three types of 3 in 7 or 4 in 8 day rover tickets, the best value of which works out at £15 for 4 days or £3.66 a day. We buy around 20 of these a year and travel extensively in the areas covered (and beyond if we can link with other similar rovers). So you could argue that the taxpayer is subsidising our travel by 20x£45 or £900 a year.

However, this is a spurious argument as if we had to pay the full going rate we simply would not travel in this way, and instead of the TOCs receiving 25% of the normal fare they would get 100% of nothing! I would use my car or bus pass, or simply travel less.

The plain simple fact is that in the BR days referred to, the perks offered were part compensation for the poor wages, and thus poor pensions railwaymen of all grades received. In retirement we are simply receiving what we were entitled to as a result of our contracted employment. People should remember that the shift patterns and long hours many staff worked did not allow for much use of travel perks when actually working for BR!

 

[jon0844]

I don't have a problem with the perks but do still think it was a valid story, that the paper cocked up by giving its own slant/opinion. They should report the news and do it in a balanced way.

It was a NEWS story and NOT an opinion piece. I also think that the attempt at balance by quoting ATOC as saying it's protected in law was to make it sound like the industry was even more arrogant than it is (!) and potentially quoted out of context, or they asked the wrong questions. That's shoddy reporting, and what I'd expect of the Daily Mail.

ATOC may be clueless at times, but they could have easily explained the point that many (perhaps even the majority of) jobs offer perks. I wonder if ATOC did say that and it was ignored, or they were misled?

 

[PaulHarding150]

Tory government, tory mouthpiece. Make up your own mind

Not the first newspaper (on the right or left) to have run a piece like this and it won't be the last

 

[Greenback]

I don't have a problem with the perks but do still think it was a valid story, that the paper cocked up by giving its own slant/opinion. They should report the news and do it in a balanced way.

It was a NEWS story and NOT an opinion piece. I also think that the attempt at balance by quoting ATOC as saying it's protected in law was to make it sound like the industry was even more arrogant than it is (!) and potentially quoted out of context, or they asked the wrong questions. That's shoddy reporting, and what I'd expect of the Daily Mail.

ATOC may be clueless at times, but they could have easily explained the point that many (perhaps even the majority of) jobs offer perks. I wonder if ATOC did say that and it was ignored, or they were misled?

I'm not sure that there is a news story in there anywhere. I don't think it's news that there are benefits in most jobs, whether it be a company car, private medical insurance, interest free season ticket/ bicycle loans, subsidised meals, clothing or travel concessions.

I don't think it's news to say that fares will be going up. The government announced it's intentions to raise the amount that fares are allowed to go up as long ago as last year.

I don't think it's news that travellers don't like fares increases. It might be if it wa sbacked up by reporting how individuals felt, and how it would affect them, but the 'story' doesn't do this.

In my opinion it is entirely an opinion piece masquerading as news. And it is intended to deflect anger at fares rises away from government policy and on to ATOC and rail employees.

 

[Mex]

work for Sky you get free full package Sky TV etc etc.

Having subscribed to Sky in the past I wouldn't call that a perk.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My thoughts on this aren't even printable. All I can say is almost every job has a perk somewhere along the way. I suggest whichever ****e journalist that wrote that piece learns to deal with that fact....

They know their readership and "all the right buttons to push" when writing pieces like this one. What section of this paper does Harrison Jones normally write for ?

I suppose "Offended of Orpington" and similar readers will be writing to the editor in full support of the writer of this. :roll:

 

[PaulHarding150]

Having subscribed to Sky in the past I wouldn't call that a perk.

Lots of people could easily say the same thing about a day out on an overclouded 30+yr old diesel train that has a top speed of 90