Why do so many people take ANY excuse to have a go at railway staff and Bob?

[RichmondCommu]

I believe the last industries to be that well organised were the coal industry, shipbuilding industry and british car industry, do you notice a pattern ?

Exactly, they screwed this country and now they want to do it again. I find it barely credible that some people in this country are asking me and millions of other to fund their private pensions! Would they fund mine? Of course they wouldn't so whats the difference?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I find it barely credible that some people in this country are asking me and millions of other to fund their private pensions!

Is that the bankers and politicians ?

 

[Schnellzug]

Rail is an essential public service that will exist for many years as a tried and tested technology, and is indeed a booming industry. Coal mining became unimportant as our reserves ran out and it became replaced with other forms of energy, some of which were imported. Shipbuilding was never an essential public service. The British car industry was never an essential public service either.

Claims that these industries are on a par with the rail industry are entirely fallacious, particularly with reference to unionisation "destroying" those industries.

Excuse me? Coal became unimportant? now... what do we need to import in enormous quantities to provide the electricity that we all demand (and which, if the enthusiasts for Electrification have their way, there'll be even more demand for if much more of the Railways are electrified..? That's right! And where do we import it from in vast quantities? Russia, China etc. So yes, there's no need to have a coal industry of our own, is there? We can rely on China, Russia etc to provide for all our needs. We can trust them. :roll:
And a Shipbuilding industry? Well, who needs Ships? Ridiculously old fashioned. Everyone flies everywhere these days. :roll:
um... how do you think all this Coal, all the goods we import from China, how do they get here? So once again we have to rely an industry that we have no control over: foreign ships, built in foreign lands. Does leaving everything in the hands of sometimes rather questionable foreign lands really seem sensible?

 

[whhistle]

Well, here's my take:


Train Drivers:
Yeah, I'd say you are paid a very good wage and I understand that when things are tough, that's when you earn your money, so to speak. I am not saying you are over paid, but I know many other people who would do well at the "Train Driver" role and would do so at half of what you're earning. That should worry you, but it won't because you have the mighty unions to protect you :P

What I despise is when I hear rumours that Train Drivers (as a collective, however, it may be individual companies / persons) want more money. You knew the salary when you took the job, if you don't like it, find another job or another way to cope.

Like I say, I know your job is stressful at times and the amount of knowledge you know is great, so I accept you are paid a lot, but if any driver thinks they are "hard done by", they should think again.

But hey, I don't like it that bankers and politicians get paid a lot of money. I don't think they serve our country very well. At least Train Drivers actually help the public!



Unions:
Maybe they were good in the 1960's but we've come a long way since then. I'd rather spend £190 a year on something more important, rather than protection for if the business does something drastic (unlikely).
People tell me they have Union support if you have been fired. It's likely you will have been fired for a very good reason as the railways, unless you have an actual enemy, it's pretty hard to be fired. If you were, I will always trust that the business has let you go for the right and proper reasons. In most cases, this is true as the person has done something deemed to be very wrong.

Unions make sure we get a pay rise I hear!
Not everyone deserves a pay rise. It's highly unlikely that companies will cut your wages, therefore (as said before) you knew the salary when you joined, so anything more than what you started on is a bonus surely?

I've survived without a Union and will continue to do so.
While there are other people willing to pay to get their pay rise, I'll take it for free thanks. It would be interesting to know how much people have paid in over the years and whether it has actually been of benefit to them.



Bob Crow:
Yes, I agree he does his job. But what I don't agree with is the bully tactics he uses, the fact he scrounges a council house and the fact his salary is over £100,000 a year.

Even the RMT Union rep I know hates him. So why support that union? Why not leave and join one that is more friendly? Because the railway is old fashioned in many aspects. Those guys who were in the unions in the 1960's? Yeah, it's those people who are telling the fresh young ones they need to be in it. It's a circle that won't be broken for a very long time.

Bob Crow appears to hold railway users to ransom. "If we don't get what we want, we'll strike!". What a moron. Suggesting the Tube will go on strike during the Olympics - WTF?! Our country is trying to do a good thing and he's there trying to ruin it. Again, the drivers knew the salary when signing up, anything extra should be a bonus.



Epilogue 1:
I do realise the cost of living has gone up in the past number of years. But this is the whole problem. Let's say Cadbury's workers want a pay rise, an extra £1 per hour. The company has to find that extra money from somewhere. Therefore the company puts prices up. Then, the workers find they are paying more for chocolate, and ask for another pay rise.

It's simply greed by shareholders and directors and it isn't going to get any better. In my opinion, while it may be individuals that are acting, it is them as a "collective" that are to blame. Those two people who shot themselves because they were in bad debt? All MP's and whoever the House of Lords people are have the blood on their hands. They could change things, but won't because it will mean they can't get away with paying a "best friend" cleaner £50,000 a year to clean their second home.


Epilogue 2:
On a side note to this, I was talking to a driver once who said everyone needed the Unions, because the company could say "right, starting Monday, you'll be working 100 miles away from where you live". The company isn't going to just do that as it would be of little benefit to them and hey, no company that I have worked for has ever done that, so the likelihood of it happening far outweighs the risks.

It was like the driver was against the company. Huh? I want to have a good working relationship with my company, not be working against it. He's happy to slate them at every chance he gets, yet he still takes £40,000 from them per year. Hypocritical no?

 

[SteveP29]

Coal mining became unimportant as our reserves ran out

errr, wasn't it published somewhere in the last year that there are an estimated 350 years worth of coal reserves below ground in the UK?

It is because of the claimed fact that it is ridiculously expensive to extract it that prevents the UK from having a coal mining industry today. That's why we import it, because it's cheaper.

And yes, I agree Scargill f***** the British coal mining industry by pursuing the strike for his own agenda, rather than for the collective welfare and benefit of the workers. How else could you explain that almost 30 years on from the strike, he still lives in his grace and favour home in London, paid for by the NCB.

 

[CosherB]

There are some amazingly naive views expressed on this thread. I know it's fashionable among lefties to blame Thatcher for everything from bad weather to world hunger, I suppose because it's easier than actually thinking what the real causes are.

Those dinosaur british industries of car making, shipbuilding, and coal mining committed suicide by being over-manned, badly managed, heavily unionised, and lacking investment in new plant. As a result, they were hopelessly innefficient. That didn't matter until the far east woke up and started manufacturing stuff to much higher quality standards than UK and at a much lower price. That killed those industries here, not Thatch. She just swept away the useless dead bodies of those industries, and got rid of the ridiculous union strength that was throttling the UK.

Are any of you old enough to remember UK when Labour (Callaghan) was chucked out by a disgruntled UK population? Nothing worked! Even the bodies of the dead went unburied, strikes were the norm, life was hell for ordinary folk, and UK was the laughing stock of Europe.

Thatch was far from correct in all she did (for one thing, she didn't like railways and wouldn't invest in public infrastructure) but she did the most important thing that needed doing - she turned UK around from being the dead man of Europe to being one of its leading powers.

As for rail unions and Bob, enjoy while you can. The ludicrous pay rises Bob has squeezed out of the TOCs (especially the rates drivers are now on compared to where they were 20 years ago in comparison to others) won't last because it's unsustainable. To some extent the TOCs have brought that on themselves by getting rid of a lot of drivers on privatisation, so the shortage means they are at a premium.

The UK can't go on paying that industry ever higher wages because Bob holds us to ransom while everyone else is effectively getting a pay cut. Take a look around you; pay in IT is about the same as it was 10 years ago becuase of globalisation (far east again), and the Euro-crisis shows that we cannot sustain our standard of living in the west. Look at Greece - been paying themselves far above what they can afford for decades and now the whole unsustainable edifice is tumbling. Spain will be next, then Italy... it's scary what might happen and UK will be very badly damaged whatever happens even though we are not in the Euro.

It's no good saying everyone else should get a strong union then we'd all be on high wages - that is a very juvenile view that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how finance works. Workers in UK can only get high wages if the country earns it by selling stuff or services to other countries, like we used to before the far east came onto the scene and did it cheaper!

It is possible for one group of workers (Rail, for instance) who are in a postion to hold others to ransom to get themselves good wage settlements - but that's at the expense of everyone else; a rail worker's pay rise is an IT person's or a shop worker's pay cut. The IT person can't of course hold their customers to ransome for more money as that customer will simply buy IT from abroad! That's the way the world works and is why we as a country can't over-pay ourselves (unless we over pay ourselves regardless, thus building up debt as Greece did).

Rail's customers are 'captive' but very angry at being taken to the cleaners by the rail industry. But it won't last. Politicians will begin to starve rail of subsidy (they'll have no other option as the money to 'just carry on' will not be there) and we'll see services cut and rail jobs lost, and there'll be no sympathy from the public.


Of course if Rail were a self-finacing business like, say, the Ford Motor Company, they could pay their workers as much as they want. But of course if they paid them too much they'd go bust and everyone would lose their jobs. That's the real world, and Rail is sheltered from it by public subsidy. But that's not a bottomless pit of money and the public purse is beginning to lose patience.

Like I said, enjoy it while you can.

 

[Tringonometry]

It was like the driver was against the company. Huh? I want to have a good working relationship with my company, not be working against it. He's happy to slate them at every chance he gets, yet he still takes £40,000 from them per year. Hypocritical no?

The thing to remember is that many drivers don't work for the company that employed them. The franchising system means that the most senior management grades are churned fairly regularly, but at the front end very little actually changes.

Almost inevitably, very swiftly after a regime change the incoming management will come into conflict with some or all of the workforce by trying to introduce some unwelcome change or other, often accompanied with a threat/promise - veiled or otherwise - to "sort the stroppy buggers out".

If you work for, say, Scottish Power, then you work for Scottish Power, not 'The Energy Sector'. If you drive trains for London Midland, then you work on 'The Railway', because London Midland - or whichever franchise - will most likely be gone *long* before you will.

That's the scenario from which the mindset you describe is derived.

 

[EM2]

Those dinosaur british industries of car making, shipbuilding, and coal mining committed suicide by being over-manned, badly managed, heavily unionised, and lacking investment in new plant. As a result, they were hopelessly innefficient.
...
Thatch was far from correct in all she did (for one thing, she didn't like railways and wouldn't invest in public infrastructure)

So, if she had invested in public infrastructure, the nationalised industries (BL, NCB, British Steel, British Shipbuilders) would have had new plant, would have more efficent working practices and could have employed less staff.
The Government could have made them much more efficient, without privatising them.

 

[Barn]

The thing to remember is that many drivers don't work for the company that employed them. The franchising system means that the most senior management grades are churned fairly regularly, but at the front end very little actually changes.

Almost inevitably, very swiftly after a regime change the incoming management will come into conflict with some or all of the workforce by trying to introduce some unwelcome change or other, often accompanied with a threat/promise - veiled or otherwise - to "sort the stroppy buggers out".

If you work for, say, Scottish Power, then you work for Scottish Power, not 'The Energy Sector'. If you drive trains for London Midland, then you work on 'The Railway', because London Midland - or whichever franchise - will most likely be gone *long* before you will.

That's the scenario from which the mindset you describe is derived.

That's what is so unbalanced about the railway. In every other part of the private sector, employees and their unions have a vested interest in their company's success. In the railway franchisees, a failed company just means a different colour tie next week.

 

[SS4]

It is possible for one group of workers (Rail, for instance) who are in a postion to hold others to ransom to get themselves good wage settlements - but that's at the expense of everyone else; a rail worker's pay rise is an IT person's or a shop worker's pay cut. The IT person can't of course hold their customers to ransome for more money as that customer will simply buy IT from abroad! That's the way the world works and is why we as a country can't over-pay ourselves (unless we over pay ourselves regardless, thus building up debt as Greece did).

Rail's customers are 'captive' but very angry at being taken to the cleaners by the rail industry. But it won't last. Politicians will begin to starve rail of subsidy (they'll have no other option as the money to 'just carry on' will not be there) and we'll see services cut and rail jobs lost, and there'll be no sympathy from the public.

Or how the public sector is paying for financial irresponsibility by bankers. The only difference is unions pay Labour and bankers pay Tories so only the former is mentioned

Railway workers take industrial action because their terms and conditions are being unfairly changed by the company, often without consultation and often it's only strike threat that will make management take notice of the Untermenschen beneath them

 

[EM2]

That's what is so unbalanced about the railway. In every other part of the private sector, employees and their unions have a vested interest in their company's success. In the railway franchisees, a failed company just means a different colour tie next week.

A friend of mine works in IT Support. He has sat in the same building, at the same desk, for seven years. He has worked for four different companies...

 

[lookingforit35]

Casting politics aside, it is fair comment to say that Bob Crow does have something of a reputation for calling for industrial action rather often.

Whether the reputation is deserved or not is a matter of opinion. Some may feel he is a raving marxist firebrand, others may feel he is protecting his union members' rights. But either way, it's possibly not hugely helpful for the leader of any modern organisation to have a reputation for being dogmatic. The modern world changes and it's useful to be flexible to reflect this.

For example, most politicians seem scared to change their views in case they are accused of "doing a u-turn" or "being wrong". Actually, the ability to reflect and change is a pretty useful skill.

 

[CosherB]

So, if she had invested in public infrastructure, the nationalised industries (BL, NCB, British Steel, British Shipbuilders) would have had new plant, would have more efficent working practices and could have employed less staff.
The Government could have made them much more efficient, without privatising them.

By investing in public infrastructure I had in mind things like spending North Sea oil revenue on things like elecrifying the railways, putting in tram systems in all major cities, and road improvements. She did none of that, and that was her blind spot.

The government (any government) is not good at running businesses and shouldn't be doing it. Look how the likes of British Airways and BT have morphed from inefficient, lazy, uncompetitive, inward-looking public bodies to successful vibrant companies once privatised.

Remember when it took 6 months to get a phone installed? And you had to rent it from BT, the lines were noisy and crackly, and the 'service' was expensive. Our company produced IT equipment that in the States was connected directly to the phone lines for data communication; in UK only GPO kit could be connected to the phone lines. We had to hire massive boxes from GPO at great expense to couple our kit to the phone lines - these were early modems and were technically miles behind what the IT industry was producing.

The government should not be in the business of running airlines, making cars, building ships, or running the country's telecomms. That isn't what governments are for, so as you'd expect they are rubbish at it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or how the public sector is paying for financial irresponsibility by bankers. The only difference is unions pay Labour and bankers pay Tories so only the former is mentioned

Not quite. The public sector is paying for the finacial incompetance of Gordon Brown. The bankers caused a problem (mainly because Gordon effectively de-regulated them which was a stupid thing to do) but the real problem in UK is the differnece between what we earn and what we spend - the deficit.

Prior to Gordon we lived within our means, spending no more than we earned. Gordon started spending like there was no tomorrow because he really thought the financial bubble would just keep getting bigger to pay for it ("no more boom and bust" he said, the twit!). Well, the bubble did burst as they always do (promted by the banking crisis but if that hadn't happened it'd have burst anyway as bubbles always do) and we were left with 2 things:

1) A massive deficit (excess spend over income)

2) As a result of (1), a massive debt.

We still have the debt, and we still have a deficit allbeit a smaller one than Labour left. But as we still have a deficit the debt is still growing. This has to stop. So the governement has to spend less. So the public sector which reached 46% of of our total spend under Gordon has to be reduced to the levels it was at before he went on his mad spending spree.

The private sector of course is paying an even bigger price, with static wages, demolision of their pensions, and rapidly rising unemployment. Don't think it's just the public sector that Gordon's legacy is stiffing.

Times is tough and about to get a heck of a lot tougher. We have the double whammy - world recession in the west brought about by globalisation (China nicking our jobs, if you like) and a massive overspend to pay back. Some of the Euro countries have been even more spendthift than us - Greece, Spain, Italy. That will almost certainly cause the crash of the Euro at least as we know it, and the waves of that crash will seriously further damage UK. Hold on tight - it's about to get very rough!

 

[anthony263]

errr, wasn't it published somewhere in the last year that there are an estimated 350 years worth of coal reserves below ground in the UK?

It is because of the claimed fact that it is ridiculously expensive to extract it that prevents the UK from having a coal mining industry today. That's why we import it, because it's cheaper.

And yes, I agree Scargill f***** the British coal mining industry by pursuing the strike for his own agenda, rather than for the collective welfare and benefit of the workers. How else could you explain that almost 30 years on from the strike, he still lives in his grace and favour home in London, paid for by the NCB.

True, although I read somehwere that the UK had at least 500 years worth of coal reserves left. I think one of the main problems is the cost of extracting that coal.

With global demand for energy, oil etc increasing I think we could see the coal industry in the UK really pick up again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By investing in public infrastructure I had in mind things like spending North Sea oil revenue on things like elecrifying the railways, putting in tram systems in all major cities, and road improvements. She did none of that, and that was her blind spot.

The government (any government) is not good at running businesses and shouldn't be doing it. Look how the likes of British Airways and BT have morphed from inefficient, lazy, uncompetitive, inward-looking public bodies to successful vibrant companies once privatised.

Remember when it took 6 months to get a phone installed? And you had to rent it from BT, the lines were noisy and crackly, and the 'service' was expensive. Our company produced IT equipment that in the States was connected directly to the phone lines for data communication; in UK only GPO kit could be connected to the phone lines. We had to hire massive boxes from GPO at great expense to couple our kit to the phone lines - these were early modems and were technically miles behind what the IT industry was producing.

The government should not be in the business of running airlines, making cars, building ships, or running the country's telecomms. That isn't what governments are for, so as you'd expect they are rubbish at it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not quite. The public sector is paying for the finacial incompetance of Gordon Brown. The bankers caused a problem (mainly because Gordon effectively de-regulated them which was a stupid thing to do) but the real problem in UK is the differnece between what we earn and what we spend - the deficit.

Prior to Gordon we lived within our means, spending no more than we earned. Gordon started spending like there was no tomorrow because he really thought the financial bubble would just keep getting bigger to pay for it ("no more boom and bust" he said, the twit!). Well, the bubble did burst as they always do (promted by the banking crisis but if that hadn't happened it'd have burst anyway as bubbles always do) and we were left with 2 things:

1) A massive deficit (excess spend over income)

2) As a result of (1), a massive debt.

We still have the debt, and we still have a deficit allbeit a smaller one than Labour left. But as we still have a deficit the debt is still growing. This has to stop. So the governement has to spend less. So the public sector which reached 46% of of our total spend under Gordon has to be reduced to the levels it was at before he went on his mad spending spree.

The private sector of course is paying an even bigger price, with static wages, demolision of their pensions, and rapidly rising unemployment. Don't think it's just the public sector that Gordon's legacy is stiffing.

Times is tough and about to get a heck of a lot tougher. We have the double whammy - world recession in the west brought about by globalisation (China nicking our jobs, if you like) and a massive overspend to pay back. Some of the Euro countries have been even more spendthift than us - Greece, Spain, Italy. That will almost certainly cause the crash of the Euro at least as we know it, and the waves of that crash will seriously further damage UK. Hold on tight - it's about to get very rough!

I agree with what you have just said.

I have praise for the government for what they are doing, I know the plan the chancellor has for reducing the UK's debt will have to be changed slightly but I do think that the problem now can be laid at the doors of the EU for not sorting out the debt crisis in greece etc much sooner.

As for job's in the uk I dont think exporting jobs to China etc is helping the UK and other western countries as people will have far less money to spend so that means companies will find less people buying their products/services.



As for the public sector unions, I know a lot are going on strike on the 30th however I think there is some resentment from those in the private sector about people working in the publci sector demanding more pay,higher pensions etc when everyone else is struggling.

I know a few drivers at Cardiff bus are supposed to be going on strike on the 30th which will cause some disruption however I know of 1 or 2 drivers who have said they will work as normal.



I do think things are going to get tougher over the next year or 2 although I think the UK will emerge from this economic mess in a much better state than a lot of other countires such as France Italy etc.

I think a lot of the pblic do need to wake up and realise they can just blame the bankers etc for all the debt after all the bankers were not the ones spending people's credit cards etc It was a greed which has caused this country to get into the mess it is in and it will take time to sort it out even though it will be painful.

 

[SS4]

True, although I read somehwere that the UK had at least 500 years worth of coal reserves left. I think one of the main problems is the cost of extracting that coal.

With global demand for energy, oil etc increasing I think we could see the coal industry in the UK really pick up again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree with what you have just said.

I have praise for the government for what they are doing, I know the plan the chancellor has for reducing the UK's debt will have to be changed slightly but I do think that the problem now can be laid at the doors of the EU for not sorting out the debt crisis in greece etc much sooner.

Does Osbourne have any economic qualifications? Even I can see what will happen to the public money ploughed into creating new private sector jobs - straight into the CEO's Swiss bank account! Better to invest in infrastructure.

I also agree we need to cut the deficit but to do so with a Robin Hood tax whereby those who profited most from boom contribute most during the bust.

As for the public sector unions, I know a lot are going on strike on the 30th however I think there is some resentment from those in the private sector about people working in the publci sector demanding more pay,higher pensions etc when everyone else is struggling.

It's a shame the media is being this divisive over public sector. All the workers should join forces to protect their interests. I am not suggesting a workers' revolution but the public sector are going on strike because the government wants to cut their pensions while making them pay in more (contrary to their contract) without negotiation.

I do think things are going to get tougher over the next year or 2 although I think the UK will emerge from this economic mess in a much better state than a lot of other countires such as France Italy etc.

I think a lot of the pblic do need to wake up and realise they can just blame the bankers etc for all the debt after all the bankers were not the ones spending people's credit cards etc It was a greed which has caused this country to get into the mess it is in and it will take time to sort it out even though it will be painful.

I've noticed that nobody likes to blame the rating agencies who are infallible and their self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

[anthony263]

Does Osbourne have any economic qualifications? Even I can see what will happen to the public money ploughed into creating new private sector jobs - straight into the CEO's Swiss bank account! Better to invest in infrastructure.

I also agree we need to cut the deficit but to do so with a Robin Hood tax whereby those who profited most from boom contribute most during the bust.




It's a shame the media is being this divisive over public sector. All the workers should join forces to protect their interests. I am not suggesting a workers' revolution but the public sector are going on strike because the government wants to cut their pensions while making them pay in more (contrary to their contract) without negotiation.




I've noticed that nobody likes to blame the rating agencies who are infallible and their self-fulfilling prophecies.

Ow I do put some blame on them., and I think all these money markets are not helping the situation.

I think all the interest countries are paying on the debts are not helping the situation but are actually making things worse for those countries.

A robin hood tax is a good idea, but again you have the potential problem of these banks etc just moving their head offices from London to places such as Hogn Kong etc leaving a lot of people working in the city of london out of work.

 

[Greenback]

The way that the financial system works is the main problem. I don;t think we cna even call it capitalism now; it is about as far removed from the traditional idea of capitalism (in the 19th Century) as Marxism is from the CBI.

 

[tirphil]

A few posters in this thread seem to be under the impression that Bob Crowe (RMT) represents train drivers. That is incorrect. Most train drivers are members of ASLEF. ASLEF and the RMT are like Celtic and Rangers or Hearts and Hibs. Not friendy at all.

 

[curly42]

A few of the postings on this thread are proof positive that some forum members would be better served by remaining quiet,rather than spouting some of the rubbish that they have.
No,I wont give examples - they should be self-evident.

 

[CosherB]

The way that the financial system works is the main problem. I don;t think we cna even call it capitalism now; it is about as far removed from the traditional idea of capitalism (in the 19th Century) as Marxism is from the CBI.

I agree. We live in interesting (not to say scary) times.

 

[313103]

A few of the postings on this thread are proof positive that some forum members would be better served by remaining quiet,rather than spouting some of the rubbish that they have.
No,I wont give examples - they should be self-evident.

That is quite interesting, i was thinking the same thing. The thing is, is that it all depends which side of the political spectrum your in.

Most people like myself on the left would disagree with the anti union, anti OLD Labour, anti Bob, its the trade unions fault we are in this mess and never the people that run companies and the tories are whiter then white. Then there are others who will always say the unions are bad thing and that in 2011 we dont need them anymore, they will also say it is NEW Labours fault that we are in this mess, Bob and his ilk are dinosaurs.

Im In agreement with your message, however what i think are people who have spouted off rubbish, maybe intirely different to yours.

 

[CosherB]

31103, can you give us some cogent argument to support what you post please, not just rhetoric? Cogent argument means analysing the situation and thinking about it logically and putting forward a case to support your point of view, a point of view that others can then challenge if they wish with their own cogent case. That's how discussion works and how it remains a civilised process, whichever side of the political spectrum you are on. We can learn from discussion as we get to see the reasons why people hold the views they do; we learn nothing from rhetoric.

 

[313103]

31103, can you give us some cogent argument to support what you post please, not just rhetoric? Cogent argument means analysing the situation and thinking about it logically and putting forward a case to support your point of view, a point of view that others can then challenge if they wish with their own cogent case. That's how discussion works and how it remains a civilised process, whichever side of the political spectrum you are on. We can learn from discussion as we get to see the reasons why people hold the views they do; we learn nothing from rhetoric.

Waste of time really Captain, you will either shoot it down in flames out of hand, or rip it apart bit by tiny bit. No matter what i would say or do it aint going to change your mind or opioion. We have been here before Captain so it is best to agree to disagree. As i dont want a your right and im wrong argument persisting through the thread and therefore sidetracking what the OP originally posted.

I do know cogent argument is by the way so no need for the schoolboy lessons please.

 

[CosherB]

Your choice fella, but of course without supporting argument your rhetoric is valueless. I can only shoot you down if your argument is not sustainable. If my arguments are flawed (which they may be - it's only my opinion after all), you can shoot me down; level playing field. But if you know it's not an argument you can support (and it seems you can't, or presumably you would do so), why post it on the thread?

Look back in the thread; it's civilised! Cogent argument works!

 

[HH]

Bob? Oh, Bob Crowe, possibly the UK's last remaining Marxist Trotskyist.

Corrected.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Most people like myself on the left would disagree with the anti union, anti OLD Labour, anti Bob, its the trade unions fault we are in this mess and never the people that run companies and the Tories are whiter then white. Then there are others who will always say the unions are bad thing and that in 2011 we don't need them anymore, they will also say it is NEW Labours fault that we are in this mess, Bob and his ilk are dinosaurs.

I think that Bob Crowe knows the value of being a high-profile figure. He will not be bothered at all by any comments made by him nationally, as all publicity is good publicity. Derek Hatton and Arthur Scargill also were past masters at the use of media coverage to keep their profiles raised. I think you should give these people the credit for their knowledge of how to play the media to the best advantage for themselves.

 

[Metroland]

I tend to see it from both sides. In general, I support unions, rights at work and so on as long as its responsibly done. One of the downsides of aggressive capitalism, is under certain circumstances it is very much a race to the bottom for many workers, while those at the top cream off the profits.

The way some of the right wing press demonise much of the public sector as lazy, under-worked, overpaid etc is nothing short of a disgrace. It's not quite as simplistic as saying 'these people do not create growth', because taking education and transport, for example, economic growth would be severely stunted by lack of decent infrastructure and an ignorant population. Some services will never be commercial, and if you are reducing wages at the bottom, and putting people on short term contracts, the safety net is fairly essential in a civilised society. It's not to say some services cannot be in the private sector, but in the case of many (like education and healthcare) that's fine if you can afford to pay for it, or have the opportunities to earn that sort of salary. Most people do not. Moreover as we have seen, healthcare in the private sector, can be far more expensive, especially comparing the US system with the UK one.

Having said all of this, the problem the railways have is one of perception. And indeed, the public perception can be way out of line with the reality. For example, the notion that all trains run late, when 90-95% run on time, a higher percentage than other timetabled transport. The railways are unsafe, when they are now, pretty much the safest form of travel. And the old adage about the railways are simple to run (because the argument goes trains are 1d, road travel is 2d and aviation is 3d) which tends to be the unqualified opinion of people that don't really know what they are talking about. Even enthusiasts have little perception of the dynamic nature of the railway, and how the efforts of so many people doing their job 100% correctly need to interlock together to produce a safe and punctual service. Nor do they appreciate the shear quantity of rules, regulations and safety requirements needed for 100s or 1000s of tons of metal running around on a fixed network at sometimes high speeds.

Nevertheless it can also be argued that most railway staff these days receive fairly good numeration. With most drivers now early 5 times the minimum wage or twice the mean average salary, in some cases on a basic wage. Most customer facing staff like station staff and guards earning fairly good wages as well.

If the RMT/ASLEF have a PR problem it's almost certainly down the willingness to strike coupled with levels of salaries. When someone on 4 or 5 times the minimum wage talks about workers rights, this doesn't tend to go down very well with the majority that are on less wages and are genuinely struggling. As it's been pointed out, the railway is not, for a number of reasons, 100% commercial. Therefore, the argument goes, why should railway people be subsidised more than say teachers, nurses and other essential skilled public workers. And what about those at the bottom, who are struggling to make ends meet? Especially as many of them will be struggling to cope with high rail fares?

Yes, again, there is a perception about the high cost of fares, in some cases this is fair: Such as the cost of walk on travel in the peak, sometimes it is unfair, for example many people compare the cost of petrol v the train fare and wrongly argue the cost of fuel is the real cost of the journey.

Many people also see railway workers in a privileged position. Most workers could not strike in the same way, because they would simply be replaced by a ready stream of labour. This is the case throughout most of the rest of the transport sector.

So why do some enthusiasts have little sympathy? Well surprising as it many seem, some people, especially those in campaign groups trying to protect services, do actually really care about the existence of the network and the success of the railway. In some cases more so than the people whose livelihoods depends on it. The railways attract an enormous amount of loyalty from their followers, to a degree seen little elsewhere.

With high costs (and yes it's not all down to staff costs) currently threatening the existence of sleeper services and intercity service services (north of the border), as many as many schemes such as the northern hub, or reopening schemes, it is of great concern to see the ardent inflexibility of the unions.

The railways are not in a bubble, there are many other competing forms of travel, and many other competing needs for public funds. The unions will simply either price the railway out of the market, or the workers themselves -for example on London underground where it is proposed to replaced all drivers with train attendants similar to the DLR.

The unions may not care about public perception or winning the argument for going on strike. Various people whole work for the industry may tell the public it is none of their business, or they are just jealous. But don't be surprised, in the two way world of the internet that people make their own mind up. If they are not persuaded that workers are worth X most people will generally not be supportive and the unions need to go on a charm offensive to persuade people why they are worth it. Sticking two fingers up regardless and striking in those circumstances rarely wins support.

 

[CosherB]

Well said Metro. I particularly agree with your point about those of us who do not work in the industry but who are frequent users of, and enjoy using, trains.

I would hate to see our railway facing service cuts and line closures and reduced investment because unions think they can use their undoubted power to stick two fingers up to the rest of us. That can only end badly, not least for rail workers.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Well said Metro. I particularly agree with your point about those of us who do not work in the industry but who are frequent users of, and enjoy using, trains.

I would hate to see our railway facing service cuts and line closures and reduced investment because unions think they can use their undoubted power to stick two fingers up to the rest of us. That can only end badly, not least for rail workers.

The main problem for staff other than Drivers is that while Drivers get more and more we tend to get less and less (the joys of percentage wage increases etc.), Not that I believe that Drivers don't deserve the majority of their wage because I do but it can be a kick in the nuts not just to the public but other staff when Drivers in some areas are on 40-50k when other Traincrew with a heck of alot of Safety responsibilities but also customer service etc are sub 24k and we have to rely on overtime and commision to bump it up so to speak but regardless of that I feel that ASLE&F are reaching the limits of what they can get for their members as the pot will soon run dry and everyone below the driving grade will suffer for it.

 

[HH]

It's true that while drivers are on a very high wage compared to others in similar employ, the rest of the staff are on nothing special, and some groups are paid quite poorly, e.g. cleaners and catering staff.

Train maintenance staff, conductors and ticket office staff are doing OK though, when you factor in the benefits like free travel, final salary pension, etc. That drivers do better does not mean that they are underpaid.