London bus driver strike over pay?

[infobleep]

First of all, I'm no fan of the Borismaster and I've said before. It's a vanity project and solves a problem that no one knew existed. However, look at the sums involved...

The additional capital cost of the Borismaster is approx £60k per vehicle (so 600 vehicles over a 15 year life) this equates to about £2.2m a year. However, this is partially offset by them being bought by TfL so leasing costs are removed. The total figure for additional staff was estimated at £37m per year but that's for all 600. As we now know, many will instead operate as OPO anyway so that figure will be much reduced. Whichever way you slice it, it's a long way away from the £100m to bring parity to driver wages. So does the money come from an increase on fares?

Why is this acceptable? Well, it depends. Firstly, the cost of living (especially accommodation) varies across the capital. Secondly, these are headline figures on rates of pay.... what else is paid to represent take home pay? Surely if a driver is getting paid £3 per hour less then surely there would be an issue with retention? Why do you think Arriva can pay £9.30 and get staff if they can work elsewhere and get £3 an hour more?

My late father was both a TGWU shop steward and a bus driver. He worked at a depot where drivers got paid a lower rate than others in the same company. He'd have loved to have been paid more but he was realistic enough to know that, had that happened, the depot (which was predominantly rural operation with a reasonable amount of tendered work) would've been rendered uneconomic and would've closed.

Lastly, to compare with Deutsche Bahn is to fail to understand the complexities of German employment legislation. I work for a German business too, yet in the UK, we pay different rates of pay at different sites for essentially the same work.

To my mind, the scourge of retailers (and others) employing people of zero hours contracts is a more pressing priority.

Should we bring German employment legislation to this country?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

They money can come from Arriva London. If Metroline can make plenty of profit whilst paying their staff almost a third more than Arriva, it shows that the money is simply being lifted out of drivers' pockets and sent back to Germany. It's strange how, at management level, "sector benchmarking" is seen as a good thing, but on the shop floor it's something that can't possibly ever be achieved. What would the shareholders say?



"Shop workers" are not doing the same job. They may be doing similar jobs, but not the same.

Really? A person sitting on a till in Morrisons isn't doing the same job as one in Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's or Waitrose?

At the end of the day, all the London bus companies are advertising for drivers. There is nothing to stop drivers moving from one company to another, and if the differential is so large (over £7k p.a.) then you'd have wonder why drivers don't move. After all, it's not a large geographical area as you've identified!

Also, I don't believe that you've checked your figures. So, why not do so. Quite simple - find out the respective profit margins for Arriva's London ops and then CDG's, then apply that to the Arriva figures and you'll know what the differential is. Then prorate the £100m issue to the percentage of the capital's drivers. See what the difference is....

Basically, if Arriva are making bucketloads (and they're not) then it's not so much on the back of the staff's T&Cs. Never mind - don't let that get in the way of the revolution, brother!

I might add that Arriva do the old Starbucks and Google trick on their profits back to Germany - that I don't condone.

 

[Robertj21a]

They money can come from Arriva London. If Metroline can make plenty of profit whilst paying their staff almost a third more than Arriva, it shows that the money is simply being lifted out of drivers' pockets and sent back to Germany. It's strange how, at management level, "sector benchmarking" is seen as a good thing, but on the shop floor it's something that can't possibly ever be achieved. What would the shareholders say?

A nationwide pay rate is too wide a comparator group, the costs of living are much higher in the south east and most employers will pay London Weighting. However it is completely disgraceful that a bloke driving a big red TfL bus in London can see their wages differ by up to £100 a week depending on which contractor they end up working for- and when the routes change, TUPE doesn't protect them as much as people seem to think.

TfL manage to pay their tube drivers the same regardless of which route they work on. I really don't think the bus drivers are being unreasonable in asking for the same.

"Shop workers" are not doing the same job. They may be doing similar jobs, but not the same.

So, if it's 'completely disgraceful', why did those employees freely choose to work for that contractor ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Basically, if Arriva are making bucketloads (and they're not) then it's not so much on the back of the staff's T&Cs. Never mind - don't let that get in the way of the revolution, brother!

I might add that Arriva do the old Starbucks and Google trick on their profits back to Germany - that I don't condone.

As you point out, Arriva are doing the "Starbucks trick"- i.e. transfer the profits out of the country to a low-tax regime, allowing the losses to remain in the UK and attract a tax rebate.

CDG and Arriva both have around 19% market share, only bettered by Go-Ahead with about 24%. Immediately before DB took over both Arriva and CDG were making 6-8% profit. Arriva and CDG's market share has remained constant, as has CDG's margin. Arriva's margin has somehow dropped to -2%. This is according to TfL papers. I don't have a good enough knowledge of German to work through DB's website.

Now either Arriva's management are quite spectacularly incompetent, managing to turn an 8% profit into a 2% loss in five years, or the headline profit margin isn't entirely accurate as to how much money DB are making. The appearance of £40m a year "administration costs"- which conveniently is about what they used to make in profit- gives us a clue as to what's more likely.

In any case, we're back to the same point: if CDG can make 6% margin and pay their drivers £12 an hour, why can't Arriva?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Should we bring German employment legislation to this country?

We would need to change so much.... not least our approach to work on all levels

 

[RT4038]

As the London bus driver market is very competitive, there cannot be such large variances in total driver renumeration - you cannot just look at the hourly rates but must look at the terms and conditions as well. (Paid breaks or unpaid breaks etc etc.).

 

[notadriver]

Top rates of pay are very good but aren't shown in any charts. I believe they can exceed £15 an hour. But they are virtually unattainable by new drivers due to companies making that rate available after 8 years service. All new drivers and even qualified pcv holders must go onto starter rates and stay on them for some years. This has effectively brought the average hourly rate down and that is what I believe the strikes are all about. Also if what I've heard is true they are quick to discipline and sack long serving drivers on those higher rates of pay. This further reduces the wage bill.

Why are londons bus drivers treated seemingly treated so badly compared with tube workers (not just tube drivers) ? Surely an existing and experienced pcv licence holder is a valuable commodity ?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As you point out, Arriva are doing the "Starbucks trick"- i.e. transfer the profits out of the country to a low-tax regime, allowing the losses to remain in the UK and attract a tax rebate.

CDG and Arriva both have around 19% market share, only bettered by Go-Ahead with about 24%. Immediately before DB took over both Arriva and CDG were making 6-8% profit. Arriva and CDG's market share has remained constant, as has CDG's margin. Arriva's margin has somehow dropped to -2%. This is according to TfL papers. I don't have a good enough knowledge of German to work through DB's website.

Now either Arriva's management are quite spectacularly incompetent, managing to turn an 8% profit into a 2% loss in five years, or the headline profit margin isn't entirely accurate as to how much money DB are making. The appearance of £40m a year "administration costs"- which conveniently is about what they used to make in profit- gives us a clue as to what's more likely.

In any case, we're back to the same point: if CDG can make 6% margin and pay their drivers £12 an hour, why can't Arriva?

Because quite simply, Unite aren't telling the full picture. For pity's sake, do some maths....

If 19% of London's drivers are Arriva, that's 4750 drivers. £3 per hour x 40 hrs per week x 52 weeks x 4750 = £29.6m. That's basically the operating profit for Arriva London.

Are Unite seriously wanting people to believe that ALL their profit is through underpaying their drivers by such a margin? And in a competitive labour market, how do they have any drivers?

Whilst headline rates may grab the attention, the truth is that pay is made up of different components and the actual take home is not as different as Unite would have you believe.

 

[infobleep]

Next two bus strikes postponed.

The Unite union wants to set up a forum with all of the bus companies to discuss how it can end pay disparities and improve working conditions.

Transport for London says it continues to urge the union and bus companies to meet individually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31409831

I wonder how setting up a forum would compare to meeting companies individually? I think a forum could be a good way forward to resolve the issues.

Assuming the BBC isn't selectively quoting, perhaps TFL disagree with this approach. The only reasons I can think of as to why TFL would want unite to meet each company individually is that it might drive up costs and/or they think it might lead to agreed prices across companies which might be against EU law. If the latter perhaps TFL are being good citizens and trying to stop illegal practices from happening.

There may be other reasons instead of or as well as those. This all assume TFL only want unite to talk to companies individually as the BBC are reporting.

 

[Robertj21a]

I still think that, on this occasion, the union is wasting their time (and pay for their striking members). The *basic* pay rates for drivers in London certainly varies quite significantly but the numerous different T's and C's applied by each operator result in the final remuneration being not so very much different.

Drivers are free to work for the operator that best meets their requirements. They are also free to leave at any time, whether or not they stay a bus driver with a different operator. How much more individual freedom can a driver get !

 

[notadriver]

I still think that, on this occasion, the union is wasting their time (and pay for their striking members). The *basic* pay rates for drivers in London certainly varies quite significantly but the numerous different T's and C's applied by each operator result in the final remuneration being not so very much different.



Drivers are free to work for the operator that best meets their requirements. They are also free to leave at any time, whether or not they stay a bus driver with a different operator. How much more individual freedom can a driver get !

But if they leave the company they are working for and join another they will then be stuck on a starter rate of pay lower than what they were on previously and stay on that for some years. The starter rates of pay have dropped. For some reason bus drivers don't seem to have a lot of bargaining ability with their skill set.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But if they leave the company they are working for and join another they will then be stuck on a starter rate of pay lower than what they were on previously and stay on that for some years. The starter rates of pay have dropped. For some reason bus drivers don't seem to have a lot of bargaining ability with their skill set.

So you're saying that a driver with Arriva on the theoretical £9.30 per hour could get a job with ComfortDelgro (Metroline) and be on less as a new starter despite the headline figure of £12.30 per hour?

It both highlights Unite's point (differences in pay and the individual components) but also the inherent problem in their claims in that they garner headlines but that the truth is somewhat different!

 

[notadriver]

I think a new driver on a low rate may benefit from Metroline's starter rate if it is indeed 12.30 an hour but a senior driver on or near the top rate would have to go on starter rates and lose out as apparently PCV licenses, cpcs and experience don't count for much. I know of several companies such as Lothian and one or two others who expressly don't recruit experienced drivers. Crazy.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think a new driver on a low rate may benefit from Metroline's starter rate if it is indeed 12.30 an hour but a senior driver on or near the top rate would have to go on starter rates and lose out as apparently PCV licenses, cpcs and experience don't count for much. I know of several companies such as Lothian and one or two others who expressly don't recruit experienced drivers. Crazy.

Bus drivers with significant experience may not be what some operators view (nowadays) as the main requirement. Quite a few place much more emphasis on customer-facing skills. Their point is that you can usually train someone to become a good bus driver whereas they believe it is much more difficult to train someone to handle the public in an appropriate manner.

 

[Antman]

Bus drivers with significant experience may not be what some operators view (nowadays) as the main requirement. Quite a few place much more emphasis on customer-facing skills. Their point is that you can usually train someone to become a good bus driver whereas they believe it is much more difficult to train someone to handle the public in an appropriate manner.

There is very little inter action between drivers and passengers these days in London with almost everybody having an oystercard.

I'm not suprised that the strike has fizzled out, I suspect Unite are just looking for a fight with Boris Johnson who of course has no control over their pay and conditions.

 

[notadriver]

There is very little inter action between drivers and passengers these days in London with almost everybody having an oystercard.

I'm not suprised that the strike has fizzled out, I suspect Unite are just looking for a fight with Boris Johnson who of course has no control over their pay and conditions.

I can't believe what little effect the strike has had on bringing management to at least promise talks to improve rates of pay and terms and conditions. So many buses were out of action affecting a lot of people during the two strikes. Yet workers on the tiny DLR threaten to strike and its called off (as obviously management agreed to talks). Whats going on now?

 

[Robertj21a]

I can't believe what little effect the strike has had on bringing management to at least promise talks to improve rates of pay and terms and conditions. So many buses were out of action affecting a lot of people during the two strikes. Yet workers on the tiny DLR threaten to strike and its called off (as obviously management agreed to talks). Whats going on now?

The bus strike was never likely to have any real effect on management. They have already agreed long term tenders with TfL, so can't do very much unless TfL pays out more (where from ?)

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The bus strike was never likely to have any real effect on management. They have already agreed long term tenders with TfL, so can't do very much unless TfL pays out more (where from ?)

Management could always try a radical idea.. thin the profit margin on the contract... as an aside any bus company who says it can't afford a pay rise is lying through it's back teeth... there are 2 major costs for a bus operator... staff and fuel... and the cost of fuel has plummetted over the last few months... how about passing on some of that windfall to the people who the companies need to make their profits?

as usual we're all in it together... just that some are more in it than others!

 

[Robertj21a]

Management could always try a radical idea.. thin the profit margin on the contract... as an aside any bus company who says it can't afford a pay rise is lying through it's back teeth... there are 2 major costs for a bus operator... staff and fuel... and the cost of fuel has plummetted over the last few months... how about passing on some of that windfall to the people who the companies need to make their profits?

as usual we're all in it together... just that some are more in it than others!

Many operators hedge much of their fuel costs for months/years in advance, so the recent drop in prices won't have yet filtered through.

Why should a company that entered into a binding contract be expected to pay out more than was envisaged at the outset ?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Many operators hedge much of their fuel costs for months/years in advance, so the recent drop in prices won't have yet filtered through.

Why should a company that entered into a binding contract be expected to pay out more than was envisaged at the outset ?

simply because any responsible company would enter into a contract with an expectation that costs will rise over the lifetime of the contract and therefore factor that into the price they quote. There is simply no excuse for bus companies saying they have no spare cash to pay for a wage increase when they make profit margins in double figures and pay out huge dividends to shareholders. Seeing as though it is the drivers that enable them to make that profit why should they not share in the rewards?

As an aside I recently worked out that if driver's wages had kept pace with inflation and living costs since deregulation in 1986 then the average hourly rate would now be about £18/hr so it could be argued that drivers are striking purely to get what they should be getting.

Bus drivers are constantly being told they are "professionals"... how many doctors or lawyers do you know that are willing to work for £10-12/hr?

 

[Robertj21a]

simply because any responsible company would enter into a contract with an expectation that costs will rise over the lifetime of the contract and therefore factor that into the price they quote. There is simply no excuse for bus companies saying they have no spare cash to pay for a wage increase when they make profit margins in double figures and pay out huge dividends to shareholders. Seeing as though it is the drivers that enable them to make that profit why should they not share in the rewards?

As an aside I recently worked out that if driver's wages had kept pace with inflation and living costs since deregulation in 1986 then the average hourly rate would now be about £18/hr so it could be argued that drivers are striking purely to get what they should be getting.

Bus drivers are constantly being told they are "professionals"... how many doctors or lawyers do you know that are willing to work for £10-12/hr?

I don't have any problem with bus drivers in general, across the UK, being paid more. I've always felt that they are significantly underpaid.

Of course all companies will factor in a small allowance for factors outside their control over, say, a 5-tear contract, but you appear to be suggesting that they just blindly agree to all pay whatever is the highest rate going. Perhaps you are not aware that bus driver's pay in London is not so very different, regardless of operator - if it was there would be significant shortages in some companies. What may be a low basic pay in any one company is balanced out by different T's and C's (shift pay, overtime pay, rest day working etc).

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I don't have any problem with bus drivers in general, across the UK, being paid more. I've always felt that they are significantly underpaid.

Of course all companies will factor in a small allowance for factors outside their control over, say, a 5-tear contract, but you appear to be suggesting that they just blindly agree to all pay whatever is the highest rate going. Perhaps you are not aware that bus driver's pay in London is not so very different, regardless of operator - if it was there would be significant shortages in some companies. What may be a low basic pay in any one company is balanced out by different T's and C's (shift pay, overtime pay, rest day working etc).

No I just suggest that ALL bus drivers are paid what they are worth and as I stated, by my calculations that is approxiamately £18/hr. As I also stated the major groups have a profit margin in double figures so they can hardly plead poverty. Bus drivers are the ones who make the profit for the companies... why shouldn't they have a FAIR share of the profits?

Remember a bus driver has a very responsible job that they have to do in very difficult circumstances, yet despite being "professionals" the average driver with a wife and 2 children would be entitled to benefits such as working tax/ family tax credits. As I asked before... how many lawyers doctors etc are in that position? we'll count them on the fingers of no hands shall we?

 

[Robertj21a]

No I just suggest that ALL bus drivers are paid what they are worth and as I stated, by my calculations that is approxiamately £18/hr. As I also stated the major groups have a profit margin in double figures so they can hardly plead poverty. Bus drivers are the ones who make the profit for the companies... why shouldn't they have a FAIR share of the profits?

Remember a bus driver has a very responsible job that they have to do in very difficult circumstances, yet despite being "professionals" the average driver with a wife and 2 children would be entitled to benefits such as working tax/ family tax credits. As I asked before... how many lawyers doctors etc are in that position? we'll count them on the fingers of no hands shall we?

I've already stated my view which is that bus drivers in general are underpaid. That's not to say that they are likely to receive pay up to the level of a doctor, lawyer etc as those professions have required many years of study before they can begin to qualify for a well paid position. Lots of people have very responsible jobs, so bus drivers are not especially unique.

If the bus driver's pay was exceptionally bad then the bus companies wouldn't be able to recruit - there are many other jobs available and everyone is free to work where they please.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

No I just suggest that ALL bus drivers are paid what they are worth and as I stated, by my calculations that is approxiamately £18/hr. As I also stated the major groups have a profit margin in double figures so they can hardly plead poverty. Bus drivers are the ones who make the profit for the companies... why shouldn't they have a FAIR share of the profits?

Remember a bus driver has a very responsible job that they have to do in very difficult circumstances, yet despite being "professionals" the average driver with a wife and 2 children would be entitled to benefits such as working tax/ family tax credits. As I asked before... how many lawyers doctors etc are in that position? we'll count them on the fingers of no hands shall we?

TL - I think all of us would love to receive such a pay deal. The same argument could be made for care assistants and nurses.

However, I did some more fag packet maths. For CDG, the extra cost for £18/hr is about double the profit of the business. In London, which many will tell us is the way forward in terms of the regulatory environment, firms make only about 10%.

In short, the money isn't there within operators profit margins.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

TL - I think all of us would love to receive such a pay deal. The same argument could be made for care assistants and nurses.

However, I did some more fag packet maths. For CDG, the extra cost for £18/hr is about double the profit of the business. In London, which many will tell us is the way forward in terms of the regulatory environment, firms make only about 10%.

In short, the money isn't there within operators profit margins.

How I worked that figure out was to take the average rate of pay in 1986 and then uprate it at the same rate as prices in general have gone up in the past 29 years (approxiamately tripled) hence £18/hr.

you state that the companies do not have the money.... but how much would be saved by the government by not having to pay in work benefits?

As an aside the Conservatives have always been against the minimum wage claiming that it would increase wage costs and cost jobs... they have also spent the last 4 1/2 years saying there is no money for wage increases...

now with an election looming David Cameron is pleading with bosses to give everyone a wage increase.

It's strange how bosses always claim there is no money to pay drivers more while giving themselves huge pay rises... do Brian Souter et al really need another 2 or 3 million in the bank?

while I don't realistically expect drivers to suddenly have their wages doubled I do think the current rates are way below what the drivers are worth.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How I worked that figure out was to take the average rate of pay in 1986 and then uprate it at the same rate as prices in general have gone up in the past 29 years (approxiamately tripled) hence £18/hr.

you state that the companies do not have the money.... but how much would be saved by the government by not having to pay in work benefits?

As an aside the Conservatives have always been against the minimum wage claiming that it would increase wage costs and cost jobs... they have also spent the last 4 1/2 years saying there is no money for wage increases...

now with an election looming David Cameron is pleading with bosses to give everyone a wage increase.

It's strange how bosses always claim there is no money to pay drivers more while giving themselves huge pay rises... do Brian Souter et al really need another 2 or 3 million in the bank?

while I don't realistically expect drivers to suddenly have their wages doubled I do think the current rates are way below what the drivers are worth.

As I said before, there's a lot of deserving cases. A nurse gets paid an average £25k - are they not more important than bus drivers? Or the care assistants in nursing homes that look after our elderly relatives? And if you think the government (of any description) are going to intervene, then I think you're being optimistic.

For me, the scourge of zero hours contracts in the hospitality sector (hardly one of the sectors to be affected by international competition) is far more insidious

 

[Busaholic]

I've refrained from quoting from John Aldridge's column 'LOOK IN ON LONDON' in Buses magazine while it was still the current issue, but now it's a month old, and as it brings a new perspective to the argument and one I wasn't personally aware of, here it is in part;-

'When drivers choose not to change companies' (heading)
'Over the years I have talked to many drivers on routes where the operator will shortly change. Many seem not all that bothered, including a fair proportion of older ones. It therefore came as a surprise to hear of a couple of groups of Arriva drivers who had opted to stay with the company and been allowed to.
Such a decision can also provide a headache for the new operators. In November Arriva's Enfield garage-operated route 192 passed to Go-Ahead, while Metroline took over Arriva's Palmers Green-operated route 34. The drivers who opted to stay with Arriva apparently considered it one of the better London operators with better conditions of service. The stay-put factor for the 192 was particularly high with only 10 drivers out of a route requirement of 40 moving to Go-Ahead.'

We've seen from previous postings that the 'headline' hourly rate for Arriva drivers is considerably less than for the other two companies so the above makes particularly interesting reading. It also implies, however, that in many circumstances drivers do not have too much say in remaining with a particular company if another company takes over a contract for a route or routes, and if they are not prepared to move then they could be out of a job. In these circumstances, I can quite see why universal rates of pay might appeal to a significant proportion of drivers and is unlikely to disappear as an issue anytime soon.

 

[CatfordCat]

My understanding of the position (and I'm not a lawyer) is that where a route changes operator, then those drivers who have worked mainly on that route within the past X amount of time are entitled to transfer on TUPE rules to the new operator, on their existing pay, terms and conditions of employment.

I understand that the 'losing' operator (if they have enough vacancies) may offer continued employment to all the drivers concerned - it then becomes each driver's choice. The losing operator is under no obligation to do this, and can't pick and choose who they will invite to stay on. Likewise, the 'winning' operator can't choose which drivers to take on.

Broadly, drivers don't have a lot of choice in the matter, although there is some case law if a move of location has been so distant it's been 'unreasonable' then it can become a redundancy situation.

Drivers may prefer to stay put with existing operator for a whole host of reasons - familiarity, ease of travel to / from work (possibly more of a consideration when you work odd shifts), canteen and social facilities and so on. and some bus workers even still feel a sense of loyalty...

One thing that is a bone of contention is that most operators now have pay rates where you don't reach the top level of pay until you've got (say) 5 years' service in. While most operators make progression a bit quicker to existing PCV holders, it still means that if a driver gets TUPE'd out to new operator (and if there isn't the choice at the time), then if his old operator does subsequently have vacancies, then he'd be on a lower 'new starter' rate (and at the bottom of the 'seniority' ladder) if he went back to the old company.

Headline rates of pay are only one part of the deal. Some operators have a relatively low basic rate but enhanced rates for 'unsocial hours' (e.g. early morning / late evening / Saturday / Sundays), others have an all inclusive rate.

Then there's how breaks are dealt with - this can vary from paying 'time on duty' only to paying 'sign on to sign off inclusive' and a few variations in between.

 

[Robertj21a]

My understanding of the position (and I'm not a lawyer) is that where a route changes operator, then those drivers who have worked mainly on that route within the past X amount of time are entitled to transfer on TUPE rules to the new operator, on their existing pay, terms and conditions of employment.

I understand that the 'losing' operator (if they have enough vacancies) may offer continued employment to all the drivers concerned - it then becomes each driver's choice. The losing operator is under no obligation to do this, and can't pick and choose who they will invite to stay on. Likewise, the 'winning' operator can't choose which drivers to take on.

Broadly, drivers don't have a lot of choice in the matter, although there is some case law if a move of location has been so distant it's been 'unreasonable' then it can become a redundancy situation.

Drivers may prefer to stay put with existing operator for a whole host of reasons - familiarity, ease of travel to / from work (possibly more of a consideration when you work odd shifts), canteen and social facilities and so on. and some bus workers even still feel a sense of loyalty...

One thing that is a bone of contention is that most operators now have pay rates where you don't reach the top level of pay until you've got (say) 5 years' service in. While most operators make progression a bit quicker to existing PCV holders, it still means that if a driver gets TUPE'd out to new operator (and if there isn't the choice at the time), then if his old operator does subsequently have vacancies, then he'd be on a lower 'new starter' rate (and at the bottom of the 'seniority' ladder) if he went back to the old company.

Headline rates of pay are only one part of the deal. Some operators have a relatively low basic rate but enhanced rates for 'unsocial hours' (e.g. early morning / late evening / Saturday / Sundays), others have an all inclusive rate.

Then there's how breaks are dealt with - this can vary from paying 'time on duty' only to paying 'sign on to sign off inclusive' and a few variations in between.

Hence why the strikes are not going to work and are just wasting pay for union members. The range of T's and C's is enormous, but the end result is that, currently, overall remuneration is not all that different.

In the much longer term, the basic pay could become more standardised if TfL started including more conditions in new tenders.

 

[Busaholic]

Hence why the strikes are not going to work and are just wasting pay for union members. The range of T's and C's is enormous, but the end result is that, currently, overall remuneration is not all that different.

In the much longer term, the basic pay could become more standardised if TfL started including more conditions in new tenders.

If Labour win the next mayoral election the pressure will be ramped up and is likely to secure some extra conditions in contracts I would have thought. One basic hourly rate for all drivers though would be resisted by not only those drivers with 'seniority' but by Inner London garages cpmparing their driving day to those at some outer London sheds. I can imagine a driver at Brixton or Bow not being happy that a driver at Orpington or Potters Bar should receive the same basic pay, and tensions within individual companies (e.g. Brixton v Croydon or Bow v Romford.) No doubt I will be told I am wrong and all is blissful harmony among the brother/sisterhood!