SS4
Established Member
In other words a newspaper takes a minor story and blows it out of proportion. That's a daily occurrence in news land.
PRIV cards are are provided in accordance with agreements made with staff as part of their contracts of employment. Why do you think it is acceptable to renege on those agreements? It is possible to negotiate them away but not without some sort of compensation that would certainly not reduce subsidy levels....
PRIV cards are are provided in accordance with agreements made with staff as part of their contracts of employment. Why do you think it is acceptable to renege on those agreements? It is possible to negotiate them away but not without some sort of compensation that would certainly not reduce subsidy levels. Are you also in favour of franchises being unable to pay any dividends?
Do you imagine that rail staff - or any public sector workers - are not hard-working taxpayers?
This has nothing to do with the MP scandal and to liken priv travel to it I find quite offensive.
Much like bankers bonuses then.
Fraud and a staff perk isn't in any way linked (unless rail staff are abusing their privs!)
You still haven't come up with any figures that prove PRIVs cost the taxpayer money. Any chance you can do that. If not maybe you should retract what you are saying
How about looking at it from another angle?
In my experience, my use of staff travel facilities has increased my ability to offer enhanced customer service as it has increased my actual knowledge of the network from personal use.
I can advise of best change points, routes and work arounds in times of disruption because I've been there, seen the stations, done the connections and can speak from personal experience.
Slightly better than just names on a map
Also I encourage friends and family to use the train on journeys they might have used the car for, arrange days out with fare paying friends and split the costs.
Before I worked on the railway I hadn't used a train for 10 years, now it's virtually every week for leisure purposes.
How about looking at it from another angle?
In my experience, my use of staff travel facilities has increased my ability to offer enhanced customer service as it has increased my actual knowledge of the network from personal use.
I can advise of best change points, routes and work arounds in times of disruption because I've been there, seen the stations, done the connections and can speak from personal experience.
Slightly better than just names on a map
Also I encourage friends and family to use the train on journeys they might have used the car for, arrange days out with fare paying friends and split the costs.
Before I worked on the railway I hadn't used a train for 10 years, now it's virtually every week for leisure purposes.
The only link is that, just like people moaning about staff of a company enjoying perks, there were many people who subsequently came out (not on this forum - in general!) and said MPs shouldn't be able to claim any expenses - which is equally stupid.
What company won't pay expenses? Would you work for one that didn't? Say you're asked to attend a seminar or exhibition and get lumped with the travel and accommodation bill? Or you're asked to work late on a project and need to stay over, or get a taxi home as the last train will have gone.
You still haven't come up with any figures that prove PRIVs cost the taxpayer money. Any chance you can do that. If not maybe you should retract what you are saying
In a similar sense, perhaps you would care to prove that PRIV's don't cost the Taxpayer money? Your case would be much stronger as a result.
In a similar sense, perhaps you would care to prove that PRIV's don't cost the Taxpayer money? Your case would be much stronger as a result.
Well I would suggest that the only direct costs the PRIV scheme have is the administration of the scheme. Would that be classed as coming out of taxpayers funds ?
Interesting thread this.
The trains are going anyway - would oyu prefer your subsidy to go towards half empty/the rest being advance purchase tickets only - or have the seats filled up by people who are paying just that little bit more - which should boost what the line makes and thus in the end show that the subsidy for that line can in fact be reduced?
In a similar sense, perhaps you would care to prove that PRIV's don't cost the Taxpayer money? Your case would be much stronger as a result.
But as usual in this country some people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing
I think it's fair to say that over the years he made a pretty decent profit out of the system viz money put in!
I thought it was usual for those making statements to have to 'prove' that they are correct, rather than those that disagree with the statements having to 'prove' that they are right?
For example, if I say that 'JFK was shot by a gunman on the grassy knoll', is it incumbent on me to produce evidence in support of that statement, or should the onus be on those who may wish to disagree to prove that this was not the case?
I think the only way it might possibly be quantifiable is (depending on the PRIV you have) working out how many discounted/free journeys could possibly be taken in a year, you'd still have a 'fag packet' figure though.
My dear old Grandfather retired from the railway in 1974 after 50 years service and was still alive until a couple of years ago - he expired at the fine old age of 98 and was still using his PRIV card and drawing his railway pension until his final year.
I think it's fair to say that over the years he made a pretty decent profit out of the system viz money put in!
Clip,
I didn't say I preferred anything, I was merely making the point that it's rather hypocritical to shout down "Stewart" for not providing evidence, when nobody else has/is prepared to provide evidence to back up their own opposing views.
That is what would happen in a court of law, but this is not court of law, it is a debate (ish) - therefore I'd expect both sides to substantiate their own point of view, rather than acting like delinquent schoolchildren and shouting down anyone who dares oppose them.
Much like bankers bonuses then.
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.
You still haven't come up with any figures that prove PRIVs cost the taxpayer money. Any chance you can do that. If not maybe you should retract what you are saying