Telegraph: Staff Travel 'angers commuters'

[SS4]

In other words a newspaper takes a minor story and blows it out of proportion. That's a daily occurrence in news land.

 

[shedman]

Hang on a second guys... We've covered all bases except the quite simple 'tough t1t1es' one. Most people get perks and this is ours! What is failed to be highlighted (as someone has already) that my non railway friends can buy on the day tickets for, at times, less than my 75% rail staff discount. It's my chosen profession and I get the benefits, no one forced them to non railway employment. Who cares if it's subsidised by tax payees, isn't BA or BBC?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

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....

I'd be quite happy to swap the £200 or so I have saved this year (with my TOCNE priv pass) for the £77,000 a year that I think the priv pass could reasonably be worth* (approx. a 400% rise in my basic wage), but some might say that is a bit cheap. I wonder which 'the taxpayer' would be happier to fund? (not forgetting we'd now be sitting in their seat and refusing to move!)

I'd say the demands on 'the taxpayer' are less if we don't agree to remove that travel priviledge.

*Based on the cost difference for fares between Manchester and London at Peak time (365x£210=£76,650). The difference between 26x14 day ALRs and 26x14 day Priv ALRs is Approx. £13k, this is a bit low imo.

 

[Stewart]

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?

Much like bankers bonuses then.

 

[jon0844]

This has nothing to do with the MP scandal and to liken priv travel to it I find quite offensive.

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.

The MPs should be able to claim expenses that are purely tied to their job, and I don't have a problem with that. In the case of the scandal, they claimed for things that had nothing to do with work. That was fraud and it was quite right for the offenders to be jailed!

Fraud and a staff perk isn't in any way linked (unless rail staff are abusing their privs!)

 

[Juniper Driver]

Disappointed with The Telegraph,expected this sort of behaviour from The Sun.

 

[Minilad]

Much like bankers bonuses then.

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

 

[oattam09]

Fraud and a staff perk isn't in any way linked (unless rail staff are abusing their privs!)

Is this possible? Can you get a duck house with a priv?

 

[Caped Crusader]

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.

 

[Greenback]

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

Stewart is entitled to his opinion. But without evidence that is all that it is, despite statements that make it sound like an established fact. If Stewart has o such evidence, he should make it clear that he is merely stating what he thinks, rather than an incontrovertible truth.

I have no idea whether the Priv system does cost the taxpayer money. I don't know if any research has been done into it. But I would be interested to have a look at the figures and the methodology if any work has been done in this area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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 increased knowledge of rail staff due to their being able to use the rail system at privilege rates was put forward at the time of privatisation in an attempt to keep the BR system. As we know, this did not happen, but it is still a valid point in the debate.

As to how much revenue this actually adds through staff being able to recommend and persuade their friends and relation to use the train instead of other modes, I should imagine that is pretty difficult to quantify!

 

[313103]

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.

Stewart will not answer this, instead he will keep likening MPs expenses to rail staff priv cards.

What he fails to see and i think i put it in english is that if most staff did not have a priv card they wouldnt use the train full stop, therefore depriving TOCs of revenue and all the other retail outlets on stations also much needed revenue.

My mother and father couldnt afford to look after four kids and take us on a holiday every year, they also couldnt afford to travel by train, so we went on holiday by Eastern National Bus from Wood Green (a holiday then would be a few days at Southend). They one and only time we went on a intercity type train was going to Clacton. I only started using the train a lot more once i started on BR. If i had never got a job on the railway, the chances are i would never ever have traveled by train.

 

[GB]

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.

It is stupid and I don't agree with it. If you are made out of pocket you should be reimbursed.

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.

In all those examples (and many more I suspect) yes I would (and do) claim for what I am owed.

 

[Bon Accord]

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.

 

[Minilad]

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 ?
No trains run just for PRIV use so there are no direct costs of running trains.
The only area it would be hard to quantify is how much revenue is lost through PRIV travel, or indeed how much is gained.
I for one would do very little travelling if I had to pay. Preferring to use my car. So any fares I pay would be revenue.
But as usual in this country some people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing

 

[Clip]

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.

Interesting thread this.

And Ill proudly state that my priv doesnt cost the taxpayer anything. In fact if anything I generate extra cash for the services i use frequently when i go to football.

Now we all know when the fixtures are bar sky moving them and for saturday trains i always get the same one up to Newcastle and the same one back - which is generally the last one out.

Now I could by advance singles for each leg of this journey - and i know many of the london based fans do just this - but i dont. I actually buy a priv just for that little bit of extra flexibility - should i have something i need to get back for - early shift next day/whatever.

So by using the priv I actually spend an awful lot more money on my journey then a leisure non staff traveller would as they always get advance singles. So where have i cost money? Or do you think I have generated more money then they wouldve got for the same journey i took using advances?

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?

 

[Bon Accord]

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 ?

I think the only way it might possibly be quantifiable (depending on the PRIV you have) is working out how many discounted/free journeys could possibly be taken in a year - such a figure would be very much in the 'fag packet' league 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!

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?

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.

 

[Greenback]

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.

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?

 

[Mintona]

You can't prove a negative.

 

[Greenback]

But as usual in this country some people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing

So true it hurts!

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!

Some people make a lot more use of their Pivs than others. When I had one I used it a lot to explore the South Coast at 75% off, and for free travel home to see my family.

Without the Priv facilities I would not have gone home half as much, and I would not have explored the South at all.

The question is whether the money I spent on days out when I had a rest day is more than I would have spent on infrequent train trips home at the old supersaver rate. I rather suspect I actually spent rather more byw ay of my Priv than I otherwise would have. Having it certainly encouraged me to use the train more than I otherwise would have.

But not everyone is the same. Other Priv holders did not use their facilities at all, and others again used them only sparingly.

 

[Bon Accord]

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?

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.

 

[Minilad]

I don't have safeguarded benefits so any travel not on my own TOC I have to pay for.
I get free travel on XC but that is a benefit tied into my renumeration package.

I would estimate I spend probably around £1000 a year on PRIV tickets. Mainly rovers. If I didn't have PRIV I simply wouldn't buy them.
I do take advantage of free travel on XC though but would be hard to say what revenue they lose by this as once again if I didn't have free travel I would drive pretty much everywhere

 

[Clip]

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.

But he is the one that it is claiming it costs the taxpayer money. If your stating something as a fact then you should be able to back up what you say with proper facts.

As to your first point - people with boxes get 16 IIRC. so take that from 363 leaves you with 347.

Then you would have to work out roughly how many days per year that people work then add on their holidays and you should be left with the number of days that people have left to actually use their priv on - as your not allowed to use it to travel to work.

I think I worked it out at about 83. Now realistically, not everyone who works on the railway and who has a priv is a train geek who likes travelling on them nor will use them so you can count them out really - Id say tops 5 days out that 83 at a guess.

And even for those train geeks who love to ride the rails there is no way that they will do so in such a way that they would be using their priv for 83 days a year - more like 20. And for long distance journeys id say most of them would buy advances for those trips so cut that down to 10.

So thats ten trips per year for some at 75% of the full fare that people are using. and thats not everyone on the railway. Thats not even everyone who has a priv - so the only cost i can see is the one of administration.

Though im guessing anyone with access to Lennon could tell you how many priv trips are used on their line per year which would let you know the real cost - I would but im still on holiday for another 2 weeks.

At least im thinking about working it out rather then stating my opinion as fact and not backing it up.

 

[sprite]

I have a PRIV as a dependant, I used a box dated the 30th both on that day and yesterday (it's valid for "50" hours, 10pm on the 29th through to Midnight on the 31st iirc) to shuttle between Leeds and Manchester with my younger brother. On the return leg it was on a 185, we sat in the tip up seats in the vestibule knowing how busy these trains always got so we were out of the way. At Huddersfield and then again at Dewsbury, a wheelchair user boarded and both times we got up and moved to another set of tip up seats out of the area set aside for them.
[Note: Initially we were sat oposite each other, then both moved to one side of the train then moved completey out of the wheelchair zone to opposite the loo without any prompting etc.]

I have also used a box to travel to Cornwall, 7 and a bit hours on a voyager but becuase I could do it free my girlfriend was able to come too as I payed half her ticket. Otherwise neither of us would have gone. On this trip I did have a seat reservation but offered it up when the service got busy on the way as I knew that the other person had most likely paid for a ticket wheras I hadn't.

I use my PRIV discount alot too and even though I have paid for a ticket (and in some passengers eyes a seat) I offer it up to other passengers becuase I know its the right thing to do, plus standing doesn't really bother me.

I will be loosing my PRIV soon as I am not staff but a dependant,and I know I will greatly miss it. However I won't stop traveling by rail becuase I don't have it anymore, I will still use rail as my prefered method of travel becuase it genuinley is. Without my PRIV benifits I would likely do as many people I know do and catch NatEx and Megabus everywhere instead and in the future most likely stick to what I know and use them.

 

[Greenback]

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.

It is hardly a debate when one side merely makes statements and is unable to support those statements with facts. there is then very little for the opposing view to respond to, other than making similar statements. Debate is more than simply repeating statements and telling those that disagree to prove their case instead. That is a a classic example of where the argument is being lost, yet the proponents cannot accept it.

I hope you will agree that those who support the idea that Priv's are not a drain on the public purse have put forward reasons why they think this. Even if much of this is circumstantial, it does constitute far more than simply stating 'Privs increase subsidies'.

I hope also that I have made it clear that I don't KNOW that Priv's are not a drain on the taxpayer, and that I have not shouted anyone down. All I have done is ask if there is any supporting evidence, which, if produced can be accepted or challenged. Either way it will mvoe the discussion forward.

 

[Seacook]

Much like bankers bonuses then.

Yes. Much like bonuses that are paid as a contractual obligation (not just to bankers). Many are tied to performance or profit targets but guaranteed bonuses are not, and are paid unconditionally. I disagree with the idea of bonuses being paid merely for turning up, but the principle of a contract being binding on all sides is not something I am keen on being breached.

 

[66526]

The railway made a lot more money out of me when I had a priv (dependant) than what they do now!

 

[gordonthemoron]

I never used all 16 boxes

 

[Darandio]

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.

I find it outrageous that anyone would find it outrageous, given the circumstances. It's already been mentioned that this privelege stems from the days when the majority of railway workers were working for buttons.

As an example, my father is 80 next year, he retired 16 years ago aged 63. He gave 42 years service to the railway, joining the gang at Ferryhill immediately after his national service. Naturally, he gets his pass every year with x amount of boxes but although he has no car and has never driven, he only uses half a dozen at best.

As the wages were so bad for a flat week, (everything was still cash in hand with a pay packet, even in the early/mid 90's! ) he literally had no choice but to have his name down for every Saturday night, just to make ends meet. So not only do you walk many miles per day for 5 days with very little reward, you then have to completely mess your weekend recovery time up just to put food on the table.

When early retirement was offered, he took it, he was absolutely worn out, all those years had taken their toll on him physically and mentally. The initial payout was fairly substantial, but again nothing like what would be received these days, I have been involved with people who have retired since from other professions who received more for little over 10 years service. We then have the railway pension which amounts to very little and when coupled with the state pension, he still struggles, nothing has changed.

When he retired in the mid 90's, it was staggering to him to find that 3 years later when I started work, I earned more than his flat week as a button marker in a clothing factory!! :roll:

So, after 42 years of service, a pittance in wages leaving him constantly struggling which continues to this day due to little in the way of pensions, why the hell should he have this one final perk taken away from him? Obviously, for some, there is a difference in generation here, wages are far better now and many will have absolutely no idea of the state of play in those days but someone please give me a good reason.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Respect to your dad m8

nuff said

 

[Juniper Driver]

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

I rarely use my priv now...I even paid full fare for a rail journey recently as I was in uniform and was using another TOC (staying with friends) so I couldn't use my SWT pass either.I still want my priv pass though.

Never used all twenty boxes,lucky of I use five now.