Londoners don't want to drive buses

[455driver]

People's Quantitive Easing

Does that mean I can print my own money?

 

[LateThanNever]

Go Ahead own London General. For years, prior to its takeover by Go Ahead, Plymouth Citybus acted as an agent for LG in training drivers and allowing LG's own training vehicles to use their depot facilities at Milehouse. In the 1970s in particular London Transport found it hard to recruit drivers in West London due to the competition from Heathrow and in East London from Ford's, Dagenham. Prior to that, it was the West Indies that was a recruiting ground, facilitated by the Minister for Health, one J. Enoch Powell!

Absolutely amazed that this was never highlighted by the media/press! Mind you he was not racist, but just conscious of the problems immigration created.Never realised he had helped to create them!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That's rather unfair. Corbynomics is based on People's Quantitive Easing which will very much include your pension! As a primer (noting that NIB means National Investment (aka Infrastructure) Bank) see http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/30/corbynomics-four-weeks-on/

No, it was these Corbynomics (Economist 4th Aug) that I have some truck with...

The enthusiasm for Mr Corbyn seems driven by his economic policies, notably his opposition to austerity. His maths look shaky as has been pointed out by Jolyon Maugham; he thinks the 50% tax rate would raise £5 billion when £3.5 billion is the maximum even if one assumes there are no effects on behaviour from the higher tax rate.

And he assumes that £120 billion can be collected in higher taxes by eliminating evasion and avoidance when £34 billion is the theoretical maximum if one assumes, heroically, the government could collect all potential revenues (this "tax gap" has fallen, not risen, in recent years).

If you can't get the simple maths right, printing money (one way or another) hardly seems credible. Oh, and I'm not an accountant!

 

[LateThanNever]

Does that mean I can print my own money?

It doesn't mean you can but it does (very simply) mean that all of us, as part of the UK, can.
You can laugh (and I don't blame you)
but
no household prints its own money
yet UK sterling does
So the Thatcherism household economy was deluded. If the banks want money they have to put up with the way the government chooses to allow them to have it.
(We are no longer on the gold standard after all!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, it was these Corbynomics (Economist 4th Aug) that I have some truck with...

The enthusiasm for Mr Corbyn seems driven by his economic policies, notably his opposition to austerity. His maths look shaky as has been pointed out by Jolyon Maugham; he thinks the 50% tax rate would raise £5 billion when £3.5 billion is the maximum even if one assumes there are no effects on behaviour from the higher tax rate.

And he assumes that £120 billion can be collected in higher taxes by eliminating evasion and avoidance when £34 billion is the theoretical maximum if one assumes, heroically, the government could collect all potential revenues (this "tax gap" has fallen, not risen, in recent years).

If you can't get the simple maths right, printing money (one way or another) hardly seems credible. Oh, and I'm not an accountant!

Oh dear, and neither am I.
But does the Treasury print money? Does the Eurozone print money?
To all of those questions the answer is in the affirmative. So unlike Greece we are independant!
Government decides what money it wants to use for the urgent public purpose. It allows the private sector to use the rest. Anything the private sector decides not to use is then engaged by Government to get the nice-to-have public purpose done.
See also - as well as the link posted above- "Debunking Economics" by the Australian Economist, Steve Keen, one of the few to have anticipated the financial collappse of 2008, now at Kingston University UK. The economy is not, as I understand it, tax and spend, but spend and tax.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't mean you can but it does (very simply) mean that all of us, as part of the UK, can.
You can laugh (and I don't blame you)
but
no household prints its own money
yet UK sterling does
So the Thatcherism household economy was deluded. If the banks want money they have to put up with the way the government chooses to allow them to have it.
(We are no longer on the gold standard after all!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh dear, and neither am I.
But does the Treasury print money? Does the Eurozone print money?
To all of those questions the answer is in the affirmative. So unlike Greece we are independant!
Government decides what money it wants to use for the urgent public purpose. It allows the private sector to use the rest. Anything the private sector decides not to use is then engaged by Government to get the nice-to-have public purpose done.
See also - as well as the link posted above- "Debunking Economics" by the Australian Economist, Steve Keen, one of the few to have anticipated the financial collappse of 2008, now at Kingston University UK. The economy is not, as I understand it, tax and spend, but spend and tax.

By the way the Economist Article was, I think, rather heavily criticised for being less than robust http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...ist-reporting-misinformation-and-fairy-tales/

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

By the way the Economist Article was, I think, rather heavily criticised for being less than robust http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...ist-reporting-misinformation-and-fairy-tales/

Debunked by Richard Murphy FCA of Tax Research UK in his paper for the Public and Commercial Services Union whose General Secretary is Mark Serwotka.....

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap2014Full.pdf

Now, I'm not saying that writing a paper financed by a union so left wing that it's not affiliated to the Labour Party may have influenced their thoughts......

In fact, it was the Economist that was highlighting Mr Corbyn's figures that were actually based on Murphy's calcs. So, who's debunking who?

 

[Robertj21a]

.
To get at least part-way back to the earlier issue about GoAhead, I don't really understand why the point was raised about their shareholders. If any operator wins a TfL contract for 5/7 years then they need to have evidenced that they have sufficient capital to comply with it - quite apart from the physical buses, garages, drivers etc etc.

If it's not GoAhead, it could well, nowadays, be Stagecoach, RATP, Abellio, Metroline, Arriva etc - they also have UK shareholders, or are owned by foreign companies. I doubt that many smaller operators could manage a *major* TfL contract, so what is the solution ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The shareholding- and who holds it- is relevant when others are stating that the taxpayer should fund wage rises because Go Ahead (or whoever) "can't afford it" as they "have to make money". The main person who's making money out of Go Ahead is the widow of the bloke who got a state asset on the cheap; what "investment" she brings is not clear. And it's the same with Stagecoach and with First; the people who bought cheap assets off the state are making a killing, but there's "no money" for anyone else.

The obvious solution- reversing the disastrous fire sale of state bus companies- would be a start; tube drivers and staff, despite the recent industrial bother, are looked after because they're not beholden to the profit motive of the kleptocrats.

Of course, if someone wants to explain why someone should get £2m a year dividends because of a quirk of history, and why that money shouldn't go to the people doing the grafting, I'm all ears.

Not sure what Corbyn has to do with owt?

 

[me123]

We now have an Eastern European driver on our route and I wanted to say he's no different to any other, but so far he's hit the centre of a roundabout and clipped the kerb, nearly smashed into a car and slammed his brakes on so much a woman went flying and hit a pole, and due to a problem with another bus, had no idea if he had a radio or how to use it.

Obviously the last problem is down to poor training, but why wouldn't he have asked?

Of course, poor driving ability has nothing to do with ethnicity, does it? I've been on plenty of buses driven by Eastern European drivers who have driven competently. I've also been on buses driven by Scottish drivers where I've been much more concerned - indeed, on one occasion, I left the bus early over fears for my own safety.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, poor driving ability has nothing to do with ethnicity, does it? I've been on plenty of buses driven by Eastern European drivers who have driven competently. I've also been on buses driven by Scottish drivers where I've been much more concerned - indeed, on one occasion, I left the bus early over fears for my own safety.

Indeed, poor driving is poor driving and should not be tolerated, whoever it is from.

 

[Robertj21a]

The shareholding- and who holds it- is relevant when others are stating that the taxpayer should fund wage rises because Go Ahead (or whoever) "can't afford it" as they "have to make money". The main person who's making money out of Go Ahead is the widow of the bloke who got a state asset on the cheap; what "investment" she brings is not clear. And it's the same with Stagecoach and with First; the people who bought cheap assets off the state are making a killing, but there's "no money" for anyone else.

The obvious solution- reversing the disastrous fire sale of state bus companies- would be a start; tube drivers and staff, despite the recent industrial bother, are looked after because they're not beholden to the profit motive of the kleptocrats.

Of course, if someone wants to explain why someone should get £2m a year dividends because of a quirk of history, and why that money shouldn't go to the people doing the grafting, I'm all ears.

Not sure what Corbyn has to do with owt?

Unless your history books are quite different to everyone else's I think you will find that nobody bought cheap assets off the state. Any assets were bought at a price that was viewed as right and proper at that time. As with any purchase, if someone is astute enough to realise the potential that could be realised from their (not insignificant) financial outlay then I'm sure they should be applauded, not criticised.

Any PLC only survives if the shareholders are prepared to leave their capital invested with them. Would you leave your savings with any organisation that didn't give you a fair return ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Some experts believe that the National Bus Company was undersold to the tune of £300m, which in today's prices would be a smudge under £800m.

http://www.grahamstevenson.me.uk/in...view=article&id=773:british-bus-deregulatiion

In addition to this, the management buyouts were leveraged, secured against the company and with repayments coming from the company not the pockets of the managers. So people like Ballinger and Moyes bought Northern General with Northern General's money, not their own, yet their heirs get to keep the spoils as a "reward" for their "investment". Yeah right.

It's a great trick if you can pull it off, but let's not pretend it is anything other than legalised larceny.

 

[LateThanNever]

Debunked by Richard Murphy FCA of Tax Research UK in his paper for the Public and Commercial Services Union whose General Secretary is Mark Serwotka.....

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PCSTaxGap2014Full.pdf

Now, I'm not saying that writing a paper financed by a union so left wing that it's not affiliated to the Labour Party may have influenced their thoughts......

In fact, it was the Economist that was highlighting Mr Corbyn's figures that were actually based on Murphy's calcs. So, who's debunking who?

But the evidence is the important bit, not who it's written for!
If Adolf Hitler said that 2+2 equalled 4 would you feel obliged to disagree with him?
(In fact Corbyn has said that only £20bn of the uncollected tax is likely to be collectable and that, only after giving HMRC additional resources. )

 

[Robertj21a]

Some experts believe that the National Bus Company was undersold to the tune of £300m, which in today's prices would be a smudge under £800m.

http://www.grahamstevenson.me.uk/in...view=article&id=773:british-bus-deregulatiion

In addition to this, the management buyouts were leveraged, secured against the company and with repayments coming from the company not the pockets of the managers. So people like Ballinger and Moyes bought Northern General with Northern General's money, not their own, yet their heirs get to keep the spoils as a "reward" for their "investment". Yeah right.

It's a great trick if you can pull it off, but let's not pretend it is anything other than legalised larceny.

I'm sure some 'experts' can say whatever they like - the same as other 'experts' will disagree. Not sure that takes us any further forward.

You may not like (rather obviously) those who have the foresight, and skills, to pursue profitable ventures - but many of us applaud them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You may not like (rather obviously) those who have the foresight, and skills, to pursue profitable ventures

There's nothing wrong with setting up a business from scratch and making a shedload of cash because of your hard work.

There's plenty wrong with buying a state asset at a huge undervalue using the profits from that state asset to pay for it and then trying to claim it is a "profitable venture" due to your brilliance.

I can sometimes have a grudging respect for Souter and Gloag because they started Stagecoach by themselves, and not as a "management buyout" of an existing profitable company, but they're about it. The only talent the likes of Lockhead and Moyes had was in having no scruples and being in the right place at the right time.

And I now expect to see some wibble about how terrible the National Bus Company were. And they might have been in the early 80s but that's because, as any fule kno, Governments intent on giving state assets to their cronies tend to try and run a state asset down first. See late-80s BR and early-90s London Underground for further details.

ETA: As for the wibble about Corbyn, it depends if one reads what he said or what the headline writers wish he said: https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/639012133217419264

 

[glbotu]

According to what they tell me on Dutch forums, there isn't that much of a gulf between bus and train drivers pay over there. Bus drivers get paid substantially more there compared to the UK but train drivers less.

They also pay notably more taxes in the Netherlands than we do. It's something along the lines of a flat 50% for everyone.

 

[Rapidash]

Crikey. You wait for one race related thread, and two turn up at once!

Stagecoach around where I am employs people from all over the place. My particular favorite is the mad rastafarian who just grins at people who get argy with him.

The eastern Europeans tend to be a damn sight less snarky than the rest though, and I have yet to have any communication issues.

 

[Robertj21a]

There's nothing wrong with setting up a business from scratch and making a shedload of cash because of your hard work.

There's plenty wrong with buying a state asset at a huge undervalue using the profits from that state asset to pay for it and then trying to claim it is a "profitable venture" due to your brilliance.

I can sometimes have a grudging respect for Souter and Gloag because they started Stagecoach by themselves, and not as a "management buyout" of an existing profitable company, but they're about it. The only talent the likes of Lockhead and Moyes had was in having no scruples and being in the right place at the right time.

And I now expect to see some wibble about how terrible the National Bus Company were. And they might have been in the early 80s but that's because, as any fule kno, Governments intent on giving state assets to their cronies tend to try and run a state asset down first. See late-80s BR and early-90s London Underground for further details.

ETA: As for the wibble about Corbyn, it depends if one reads what he said or what the headline writers wish he said: https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/639012133217419264

Dear Arctic,

I really do feel that you should have a lie down !. All this ranting and raving won't be doing you any good. It's all history now, so whether you like it, agree with it, or detest it there's really not a lot any of us can do about it.

 

[Antman]

Did that programme feature Go-Ahead? The kind of statement made by Go-Ahead is usually used by employers who pay low wages and want to keep those wages low by employing people from other countries who are prepared to work for them. I'd suggest it has little to do with Londoners not wanting to drive buses and far more to do with Go-Ahead not wanting to employ them so they can keep their wages as low as possible.

You've hit the nail on the head and Go Ahead aren't the only ones at it!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There's nothing wrong with setting up a business from scratch and making a shedload of cash because of your hard work.

There's plenty wrong with buying a state asset at a huge undervalue using the profits from that state asset to pay for it and then trying to claim it is a "profitable venture" due to your brilliance.

I can sometimes have a grudging respect for Souter and Gloag because they started Stagecoach by themselves, and not as a "management buyout" of an existing profitable company, but they're about it. The only talent the likes of Lockhead and Moyes had was in having no scruples and being in the right place at the right time.

And I now expect to see some wibble about how terrible the National Bus Company were. And they might have been in the early 80s but that's because, as any fule kno, Governments intent on giving state assets to their cronies tend to try and run a state asset down first. See late-80s BR and early-90s London Underground for further details.

ETA: As for the wibble about Corbyn, it depends if one reads what he said or what the headline writers wish he said: https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/639012133217419264

Arctic Troll –I see what you did there And how old were you at the time? What do you actually know (rather than reading what you want to believe)?

I ask as you certainly don’t seem to know the facts and you’ve got your chronology all wrong. Now, let’s look at “wibble about how terrible the National Bus Company were. And they might have been in the early 80s but that's because, as any fule kno, Governments intent on giving state assets to their cronies tend to try and run a state asset down first. “

The NBC was created in 1969 as a consequence of the 1968 Transport Act and one of the first issues it had was the debt it inherited from the purchase and nationalisation of the BET operations. However, it was apparent that the NBC was not a healthy operation and was haemorrhaging money throughout the 1970’s. Its travails spanned both Labour and Tory governments. However, the change began with the 1976 economic crisis (which led to the 1977 bailout from the IMF).

This led to the Viable Network Project and its later manifestations of MAP schemes where large service cuts, fleet reductions and depot closures

“Faced with problems of high inflation and dwindling passenger numbers, the Midland Red Omnibus Company Limited (MROC) commissioned their Viable Network Project (VNP) in 1976, as a joint programme in conjunction with National Bus Company (NBC) Consultancy Services and independent consultants Colin Buchanan and Partners. The aim of the project was to identify passenger travel patterns and requirements, and optimise route networks to accommodate these requirements using the minimum amount of vehicles. Under the project, the company developed new route networks using computer analysis of extensive data gathered from passenger surveys, vehicle mileage figures and revenue generated.”

Yes, you read it correctly. The slimming of the NBC had begun in 1976 (during the Callaghan era) and continued throughout the period up to 1980. Another example to just highlight the relevant timescale

In 1978, the government of the day, faced with falling passenger numbers, came up with a scheme called the "Market Analysis Project". The bus going public was consulted, via detailed questionnaires, about their bus service requirements, local authorities were also consulted. This information was processed by NBC's computer company. Hants & Dorset's conclusion was to split the company into twelve operational areas, marketed under seven local identities.

So whilst falling (just) into the Thatcher period, the H&D cuts were planned in the preceding years and were anywhere around 20% of the fleet viz:
Venturebus was introduced on 2nd September 1979, in the Basingstoke area. The vehicle requirement was reduced from 52 to 40.
Antonbus was introduced on 4th November 1979, in the Andover area. The vehicle requirement was reduced from 28 to 21.
Wiltsway was introduced on 6th January 1980, in the Salisbury and Wiltshire area, including Fordingbridge. The vehicle requirement was reduced from 96 to 78.

The idea that the Tories began some sort of running down of the NBC and that everything was peachy beforehand is totally wrong. In the South, the changes were more noticeable as the MAP identities were identifiable but don’t think that such rationalisation didn’t take place elsewhere as it most certainly did.

I’m not a Tory and would never consider voting for them but by the same token, I don’t believe in some sort of Stalinist airbrushing of history.

As for the sell-off of the NBC, it’s very easy to be wise after the event.

Firstly, if this was some sort of one way bet where individuals and organisations couldn’t lose, why on the open market wasn’t there a hand over fist rush to get this apparent bargain? Remember that whilst some of the businesses were desirable, some were not and they struggled to get them away – Pilgrim Coaches anyone? Lincolnshire Road Car? London Country NE?

So why was this the case? On a macro level, there was the wider economic picture of the time. Black Monday happened in the middle of the sales process. Base rates were anywhere between 8 and 15%. Whilst the economic markets actually recovered relatively quickly, people didn’t know that at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.

On a more localised level, look at the facts. This was an industry that had gone through the biggest upheaval in 50 years and no-one knew what was going to happen. There were areas where on-street competition was cut-throat such as Sheffield and Glasgow. Not only does that affect investment plans, it also dissuades people from entering the race. Also, the NBC firms had the risk of a much higher cost base with legacy TCEs including pensions etc. The picture was very uncertain.

Also, were these apparent pots of gold? As is a matter of record, many subsidiaries had lost money over the years and even getting them to breakeven was a struggle. I guess this is where you’re talking about the “running down the asset”. The Thatcher government had told the companies to leave within their means (which is what a business is supposed to do) in readiness for privatisation.

However, the reality was that the raft of new buses that had entered NBC fleets in the late 1970s because they were half price (the new bus grant subsidy) allied to the reductions from MAP and similar schemes meant that companies didn’t need to buy as many vehicles anyway. United were withdrawing their first VRs at 12 years of age. Northern were withdrawing Nationals when only 9 years old in 1982. United were scrapping Bristol LHs at the age of 7.

Was the NBC sold off for less than its value? No, as it was only what the market was prepared to pay? Some view of it being worth £x or y million is not even close to being valid.

You can hold whatever views you want but please let such views detract from the facts of what actually happened. If you want me to further your education, please feel free to PM me

 

[radamfi]

If NBC values were depressed because of the fear that they would suffer intense competition, would a better sale price be obtained had tendering had occurred rather than deregulation? Can we compare it to the break up and subsequent privatisation of London Buses?

Also, was break-up of the NBC subsidiaries necessary, especially if tendering was done instead of deregulation? Obviously there was consolidation into big groups within a decade. We even had the bizarre situation of, say, Cityline and Badgerline coming under the same ownership within a few years of privatisation. The Dutch equivalent of NBC continued as a state company after nationwide tendering, but was privatised as one company without being broken up. As far as I can see, it doesn't seem to adversely affect competition for tenders. Transdev Veolia have both lost and gained franchises.

Privatisation and tendering doesn't necessarily mean poor wages for staff, as can be seen by British trains and Dutch buses. It is up to the regulator to enforce minimum service standards. If TfL required higher driving standards than they do now, the operators would have to pay more than they do now simply to attract the right calibre of staff.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If NBC values were depressed because of the fear that they would suffer intense competition, would a better sale price be obtained had tendering had occurred rather than deregulation? Can we compare it to the break up and subsequent privatisation of London Buses?

Also, was break-up of the NBC subsidiaries necessary, especially if tendering was done instead of deregulation? Obviously there was consolidation into big groups within a decade. We even had the bizarre situation of, say, Cityline and Badgerline coming under the same ownership within a few years of privatisation. The Dutch equivalent of NBC continued as a state company after nationwide tendering, but was privatised as one company without being broken up. As far as I can see, it doesn't seem to adversely affect competition for tenders. Transdev Veolia have both lost and gained franchises.

Privatisation and tendering doesn't necessarily mean poor wages for staff, as can be seen by British trains and Dutch buses. It is up to the regulator to enforce minimum service standards. If TfL required higher driving standards than they do now, the operators would have to pay more than they do now simply to attract the right calibre of staff.

Well, I can't deny that had the deregulation not taken place then the uncertainty wouldn't have been there. Undoubtedly, the sale proceeds would've been higher and the impact on bus manufacturing would've been lessened. However, again I look to putting this in context. The NBC had been a drain on the taxpayer for years so the view was probably that they were happy to get rid.

However, the splitting up of companies was supposed to assist sale(as well as making them more responsive to local needs). It does ignore the law of duopoly as many a business student will know! Consolidation was always going to happen - I'm sure Nick Ridley knew that.

Fact is that deregulation was supposed to deliver savings (which it did). It was supposed to improve quality via a virtuous circle. Aside from Oxford, tough to argue that. Instead, it's taken years for the industry to stabilise and focus on quality. Bus companies are now a lot more customer focussed than they were.

However, to answer your question on franchising, we will never know. Appreciate that's not much of an answer! As for paying drivers more, that would be great. My late father was a driver for over 30 years in Tilling/NBC/private eras so I know what it's like (albeit secondhand) and I am very sympathetic. However, it's who will pay? The idea that firms will do this for nothing is frankly unrealistic - so it's either farebox or via govt funding.

Oh, and I don't trust Osborne one bit!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

However, the splitting up of companies was supposed to assist sale(as well as making them more responsive to local needs). It does ignore the law of duopoly as many a business student will know! Consolidation was always going to happen - I'm sure Nick Ridley knew that.

It is a well reported fact that Nicholas Ridley was so ideoligically motivated that he just couldn't see that.. he truly did believe that by opening up to the "market forces" then services would be provided by smaller and smaller companies... remember he had to be leaned on hard to stop privatisation from being on a depot by depot basis.

Fact is that deregulation was supposed to deliver savings (which it did). It was supposed to improve quality via a virtuous circle. Aside from Oxford, tough to argue that. Instead, it's taken years for the industry to stabilise and focus on quality. Bus companies are now a lot more customer focussed than they were.

The only way that deregulation was supposed to make savings was by driving standards down to the lowest common denominator... which it certainly did... by the time I got my PSV in 1995 starting rates were little higher than what could be earned by cleaners... thankfully at that point (probably driven by chronic staff shortages) management finally saw the error of that approach!

As for paying drivers more, that would be great. My late father was a driver for over 30 years in Tilling/NBC/private eras so I know what it's like (albeit secondhand) and I am very sympathetic. However, it's who will pay? The idea that firms will do this for nothing is frankly unrealistic - so it's either farebox or via govt funding.

2 points... I have worked out that if wages had kept pace with where they were when deregulation/ privatisation took place then bus drivers would be on between £18 and £25 per hour... a truly PROFESSIONAL wage.

secondly... radical idea... why can't owners/ shareholders take a lower cut of the profits? after all if it weren't for the drivers there would be no profits... as usual in this country the people who do the donkey work get paid a pittance (in some cases barely enough to live on- remember many companies only pay minimum wage!) while those that sit on their fat behinds rake it in!

I know of one instance where a company sold a route and the drivers had to transfer to the new company and take a SEVENTEEN PER CENT pay cut to keep their jobs.... would YOU take such a cut for doing EXACTLY the same job? I don't think there's a single manager/ owner in this country that would!

Bus drivers are always being told they are professional drivers... so pay a professional wage.... maybe then you get the right calibre of staff and customer complaints go down.... and more customers.... virtuous circle.. as my dad used to say... if you pay peanuts you get monkeys!

 

[radamfi]

secondly... radical idea... why can't owners/ shareholders take a lower cut of the profits? after all if it weren't for the drivers there would be no profits... as usual in this country the people who do the donkey work get paid a pittance (in some cases barely enough to live on- remember many companies only pay minimum wage!) while those that sit on their fat behinds rake it in!

Is there a capitalist country where owners don't get the lion's share of profits? If there is no profit, the would be no incentive for anyone to own a business.

In most industries, the market has forced employers to pay well above the minimum wage. The minimum wage is about £13K but lots of people earn over £20K.

I reckon most people reading this associate privatisation and tendering with right-wing, neo-liberal countries, but actually privatisation in public transport is very widespread in the socialist, high tax Nordic countries whereas in lower taxed continental western Europe and North America, you are more likely to get state owned public transport. The Nordic social model has high taxation, high public spending and a free-market economy as essential components.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is a well reported fact that Nicholas Ridley was so ideoligically motivated that he just couldn't see that.. he truly did believe that by opening up to the "market forces" then services would be provided by smaller and smaller companies... remember he had to be leaned on hard to stop privatisation from being on a depot by depot basis.



The only way that deregulation was supposed to make savings was by driving standards down to the lowest common denominator... which it certainly did... by the time I got my PSV in 1995 starting rates were little higher than what could be earned by cleaners... thankfully at that point (probably driven by chronic staff shortages) management finally saw the error of that approach!



2 points... I have worked out that if wages had kept pace with where they were when deregulation/ privatisation took place then bus drivers would be on between £18 and £25 per hour... a truly PROFESSIONAL wage.

secondly... radical idea... why can't owners/ shareholders take a lower cut of the profits? after all if it weren't for the drivers there would be no profits... as usual in this country the people who do the donkey work get paid a pittance (in some cases barely enough to live on- remember many companies only pay minimum wage!) while those that sit on their fat behinds rake it in!

I know of one instance where a company sold a route and the drivers had to transfer to the new company and take a SEVENTEEN PER CENT pay cut to keep their jobs.... would YOU take such a cut for doing EXACTLY the same job? I don't think there's a single manager/ owner in this country that would!

Bus drivers are always being told they are professional drivers... so pay a professional wage.... maybe then you get the right calibre of staff and customer complaints go down.... and more customers.... virtuous circle.. as my dad used to say... if you pay peanuts you get monkeys!

£18 would've been £8.79 in 1986. I assure you that my late father wasn't on that as an hourly rate as an NBC driver (on a conventional rota and with 20+ years service as well). Nowhere near.

Also, with the "radical idea", profits for London companies are comparable with what firms make around the world. I mentioned ComfortDelGro and RATP as examples. Are you expecting them to work for nothing?

You can't get something for nothing. If you want to pay drivers more, it comes from the farebox or from central govt (directly or via TfL).

 

[455driver]

When i started on the buses I was on £2.66 an hour once qualified, that was in 1986.

 

[Robertj21a]

secondly... radical idea... why can't owners/ shareholders take a lower cut of the profits? after all if it weren't for the drivers there would be no profits... as usual in this country the people who do the donkey work get paid a pittance (in some cases barely enough to live on- remember many companies only pay minimum wage!) while those that sit on their fat behinds rake it in!

How would you get shareholders to take lower profits ? - if they can get a better return on their investment they simply go elsewhere and the company collapses. If you had put your own savings in an account and they then said they would halve the return to you, wouldn't you look elsewhere ?

I do totally agree that bus driver wages are often too low and don't represent a fair reward for the effort and risks. However, all the time that operators can still recruit sufficient staff then it's unlikely to change - the usual supply and demand.

 

[the101]

£18 would've been £8.79 in 1986. I assure you that my late father wasn't on that as an hourly rate as an NBC driver (on a conventional rota and with 20+ years service as well). Nowhere near.

Quite, drivers around here were on about three quid an hour when deregulation took place. The local outfit then advertised for minibus drivers at a rate below that for a number of years after.

Methinks someone is attempting to rewrite history.

As for people not wanting to drive buses in London for a tenner and change an hour nowadays, who on earth can blame them?

 

[notadriver]

I've been trying to find salaries for Dutch bus drivers with no success. I've seen a train driver vacancy advertised for just over 3000 euro per month which is roughly equivalent to the UK. Any other links for salaries in Europe would be most welcome.

 

[radamfi]

I've been trying to find salaries for Dutch bus drivers with no success.

Seems less than I was lead to believe. Search for "buschauffeur vacature" or "chauffeur openbaar vervoer vacature".

https://www.randstad.nl/vacatures/1643197/buschauffeur-lijndienst-stadsdienst

shows a rate of 12.50 euros per hour, which is just over £9 at current exchange rates, although of course the pound is quite strong against the euro at the moment. Interestingly though the advert is for 21-27 year olds and is for just 32 hours a week. Maybe experienced drivers get more.

http://financieel.infonu.nl/geld/29017-wat-verdient-een.html compares wages for different jobs and it says an bus driver gets an average €2,748 and a maximum of €3,295.

http://www.watverdient.com/wat-verdient-een-buschauffeur/ says a beginner gets €1,800 a month and with experience €2,500.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, the splitting up of companies was supposed to assist sale(as well as making them more responsive to local needs). It does ignore the law of duopoly as many a business student will know! Consolidation was always going to happen - I'm sure Nick Ridley knew that.

What Ridley truly believed we'll never know, but his public pronouncements were that "market forces" would create smaller and smaller companies all fighting each other and driving standards up and prices down.

Of course what actually happened here in Newcastle is that the PTE bus company got flogged to its managers (using leverage) who then made a killing when Brian Souter came calling. And Stagecoach's version of "responding to local needs" in Newcastle is to demand Nexus make the daytime 32/32A route (as well as some early and late runs on routes like the 22 and 38) tendered as it was "unprofitable", only to register it commercially (meaning the tender costs went down the swannee) when another company won the tender.

And that's before we even start to think about the anti-competitive practices of Go Ahead (ooh, them again) in Ashington in an attempt to force Arriva out of Hexham.

Fact is that deregulation was supposed to deliver savings (which it did). It was supposed to improve quality via a virtuous circle. Aside from Oxford, tough to argue that. Instead, it's taken years for the industry to stabilise and focus on quality. Bus companies are now a lot more customer focussed than they were.

I think the savings were dubious, and quality improvements very much depend on the local setting. I generally think bus operations are improving where there is some level of competition, either from other bus companies (e.g. Carlisle) or the private car (e.g. Northumberland-Newcastle services) or, as in Tyne and Wear, the companies finally pulling their finger out due to the threat of a Quality Contract.

But in other areas- Hemel Hempstead being a great example- the monopoly of one operator is leaving the network as a shambles that's dying on its feet.

How would you get shareholders to take lower profits ? - if they can get a better return on their investment they simply go elsewhere and the company collapses.

Shareholders providing capital investment simply doesn't happen any more.