Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[highdyke]

Amen to you sir!

I'd go further, to add that the rail unions are some of the best anywhere. Ask bus drivers what they get from theirs. They do the best they can, of course, but the railway is head and shoulders above. It's sad that the media would have you believe that is unacceptable in our wonderful modern society.

The railway is head and shoulders above the rest because they have the power to bring the job to a stand (which gets media attention) and they can't be replaced quickly/easily and work for monopolistic companies (There's no ready pool of train drivers, unlike truck and bus drivers). I can't think of any other group of workers like it, even firefights, teachers, the civil service and doctors don't have quite the same impact.

Forget everyone else, it doesn't matter if shop workers, web designers, engineers etc go on strike. There are other companies/workers out there that can come in and do the job and/or it doesn't reach the media.

Sure if someone is well connected or highly skilled you may be able to command a decent salary if there is demand.

For many students, what has happened is there are too many of them in most skill areas. Increasingly, the cost of a degree, outsrips any gain you get from it. Many people have seen their wages remain static, or they have dropped. Meanwhile rents and mortgages have gone up and up. Now some people, even highly educated people with lots of skills, are paying 50% toward keeping a roof over their head in some areas.

This is a problem across the western world.

The market is working, in the sense that developing countries are becoming much better off, but this can be at the expensive of especially generation X and Y.

Many people can no longer afford a house and a car.

Huge numbers of people are reliant on the railways, their wages are static, and the costs of using the system are going up and up. So it's not just the media, it's really not that simple.

 

[Carlisle]

I dont know how you can draw a conclusion over mass disruption all over the country by many different groups of workers in the 1970s, to a isolated one in one small part of the rail industry in the 21st century,
.

For 2 main reasons , firstly it demonstrates the stark realities of what can and does really happen when the balance of power between unions and management shifts from a healthy respect for one another to a relationship hugely weighted towards the union side , secondly many other TOCs Like Northern Merseyrail, GWR etc plan DOO or DCD in the fairly near future so we could potentially be facing far more strikes on huge swathes of the network

 

[BestWestern]

The railway is head and shoulders above the rest because they have the power to bring the job to a stand (which gets media attention) and they can't be replaced quickly/easily and work for monopolistic companies (There's no ready pool of train drivers, unlike truck and bus drivers). I can't think of any other group of workers like it, even firefights, teachers, the civil service and doctors don't have quite the same impact.

Forget everyone else, it doesn't matter if shop workers, web designers, engineers etc go on strike. There are other companies/workers out there that can come in and do the job and/or it doesn't reach the media.

Sure if someone is well connected or highly skilled you may be able to command a decent salary if there is demand.

For many students, what has happened is there are too many of them in most skill areas. Increasingly, the cost of a degree, outsrips any gain you get from it. Many people have seen their wages remain static, or they have dropped. Meanwhile rents and mortgages have gone up and up. Now some people, even highly educated people with lots of skills, are paying 50% toward keeping a roof over their head in some areas.

This is a problem across the western world.

The market is working, in the sense that developing countries are becoming much better off, but this can be at the expensive of especially generation X and Y.

Many people can no longer afford a house and a car.

Huge numbers of people are reliant on the railways, their wages are static, and the costs of using the system are going up and up. So it's not just the media, it's really not that simple.

And how are most of those people informed on what railway staff are earning? Most of us don't wear badges with last year's P60 on it. It is the media who provide selected information, add some opinion and spin, a good dose of company PR, and persuade the public of whatever it is that they end up thinking. It's hardly a new concept. The fact that the regular working person in Britain is increasingly being shat on does not mean those who are able to better defend themselves are wrong for doing so.

 

[LAX54]

And how are most of those people informed on what railway staff are earning? Most of us don't wear badges with last year's P60 on it. It is the media who provide selected information, add some opinion and spin, a good dose of company PR, and persuade the public of whatever it is that they end up thinking. It's hardly a new concept. The fact that the regular working person in Britain is increasingly being shat on does not mean those who are able to better defend themselves are wrong for doing so.

Was there not a quote in the National Press a few years ago during the Signallers strike quoting what some Signallers could earn? the figure being some silly figure, which turned out to be one signaller in a high grade box, who had done a hell of a lot of overtime in that year, that figure was released somehow and then taken as what a majority of staff earnt in a year !

 

[BestWestern]

Was there not a quote in the National Press a few years ago during the Signallers strike quoting what some Signallers could earn? the figure being some silly figure, which turned out to be one signaller in a high grade box, who had done a hell of a lot of overtime in that year, that figure was released somehow and then taken as what a majority of staff earnt in a year !

Very probably!

Everybody on the railway earns twice as much as you do, kicks your dog and enjoys your wife while you're not looking, according to the media

 

[Bromley boy]

And how are most of those people informed on what railway staff are earning? Most of us don't wear badges with last year's P60 on it. It is the media who provide selected information, add some opinion and spin, a good dose of company PR, and persuade the public of whatever it is that they end up thinking. It's hardly a new concept. The fact that the regular working person in Britain is increasingly being shat on does not mean those who are able to better defend themselves are wrong for doing so.

This is the crux of the problem. The "race to the bottom" argument. The argument against high (relatively speaking) pay for drivers is often that nurse/firefighter[insert random irrelevant job] should not be paid less than train drivers.

Perhaps these groups are underpaid but that is not, in itself, an argument for why a group of completely unrelated rail staff should be paid less!

A great many people in today's working world are frustrated by lack of job security, low pay, high housing costs and hate using the railways which take them to these jobs, therefore it's easy to vent resentment and anger at rail staff.

What is also overlooked is that high fares are a product of government policy to shift more of the cost of rail travel onto those who use it (fare payers) rather than the tax payer at large. This is different in Europe where the tax payer shoulders more of the burden and fares are lower.

 

[highdyke]

And how are most of those people informed on what railway staff are earning? Most of us don't wear badges with last year's P60 on it. It is the media who provide selected information, add some opinion and spin, a good dose of company PR, and persuade the public of whatever it is that they end up thinking. It's hardly a new concept. The fact that the regular working person in Britain is increasingly being shat on does not mean those who are able to better defend themselves are wrong for doing so.

There is a number of sources of info, including Union websites, ONS and so on.

Most of the public are sophisticated enough not just to believe everything they read in the Sun/Daily Mail/Press releases delete as appropriate. There is spin from both sides frankly.

The tabloid left wing press have even published basic wages, putting drivers just below Barristers and Judges. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995 Maybe this is why Union nonense about the struggling working class falls these days on deaf ears.

While people are not wrong to defend themselves, neither side is going to win any popularity contests here. In the end this is buggering up a lot of people's lives for a cause that is marginal at best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is also overlooked is that high fares are a product of government policy to shift more of the cost of rail travel onto those who use it (fare payers) rather than the tax payer at large. This is different in Europe where the tax payer shoulders more of the burden and fares are lower.

As an alternative many groups will argue why should we subsidise the railway (that carries 3% of journeys and 8% of passenger mileage, that many only use one or twice a year to the tune of £5-6bn) and not say, up nurses wages, build more roads, strengthen our armed forces. Some may point to high wages and good conditions, and no lack of demand to do that job.

There of of course reasons to subsidise that railway in terms of positive externalities (though many other industries also have these and are not subsidised) and access to jobs. One of the biggest barriers to people that can't afford cars, is getting about to and from work and leisure.

On the other hand, many are being priced off rail, especially on low and moderate wages.

These are the alternative arguments people often overlook. Some people may feel the government (and Tories in particular) are against them, but there is a much wider picture.

 

[Bromley boy]

There is a number of sources of info, including Union websites, ONS and so on.

Most of the public are sophisticated enough not just to believe everything they read in the Sun/Daily Mail/Press releases delete as appropriate. There is spin from both sides frankly.

The tabloid left wing press have even published basic wages, putting drivers just below Barristers and Judges. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995 Maybe this is why Union nonense about the struggling working class falls these days on deaf ears.

While people are not wrong to defend themselves, neither side is going to win any popularity contests here. In the end this is buggering up a lot of people's lives for a cause that is marginal at best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As an alternative many groups will argue why should we subsidise the railway (that carries 3% of journeys and 8% of passenger mileage, that many only use one or twice a year to the tune of £5-6bn) and not say, up nurses wages, build more roads, strengthen our armed forces. Some may point to high wages and good conditions, and no lack of demand to do that job.

There of of course reasons to subsidise that railway in terms of positive externalities (though many other industries also have these and are not subsidised) and access to jobs. One of the biggest barriers to people that can't afford cars, is getting about to and from work and leisure.

On the other hand, many are being priced off rail, especially on low and moderate wages.

These are the alternative arguments people often overlook. Some people may feel the government (and Tories in particular) are against them, but there is a much wider picture.

The arguments around the extent to which rail should be subsidised are all valid. My beef is how rail staff wages are often angrily (and wrongly) cited as the reason fares are high. The rail funding model in the U.K. is ultimately a political choice. If a European style model was used and fares where lower, but non-rail using tax payers bore a higher share of the burden, I doubt wages would be seen as an issue.

Wages are but one part of the cost of running the railways, and if people do not agree with the high fares produced by the current model, rather than blaming staff wages, I would argue they should vote for a party who would change it (whether such a party exists is another issue!).

It's also true that the queue of people wishing to do rail jobs is long. However, this in itself does nothing to suppress wages. Using drivers as an example, the market for qualified, experienced drivers with a strong safety record is very small - as evidenced by the fact TOCs are forced to take on trainee drivers at far greater costs than hiring qualified drivers. The market of drivers competent on the routes and traction of a particular TOC is smaller still and is limited to their current cohort of drivers(!) so even if qualified drivers are recruited from other TOCs, a great deal of time and expense is incurred getting them qualified to drive.

At a trainee level the queue stretchs into thousands per vacancy, but many of these applications fall by the wayside by failing to pass aptitude tests, being weeded out during the training program for failure to pass exams or train handling. Thousands of applicants for a job does not necessarily equal that many who can DO the job!

It is also a fallacy to assume that large numbers of applicants for a job means that lower wages can be offered. Corporate law firms/investment banks/consultancies pay extremely high salaries, yet have queues of graduates stretching around the block to try to join them! Most jobs will pay a certain salary commensurate to the job concerned. If they receive many applicants, they will pick the best of these rather than reducing the salary offered. Therefore high salaries = a larger pool of candidates and (hopefully) a higher calibre of person eventually hired.

 

[Carlisle]

The arguments around the extent to which rail should be subsidised are all valid. My beef is how rail staff wages are often angrily (and wrongly) cited as the reason fares are high. The rail funding model in the U.K. is ultimately a political choice. If a European style model was used and fares where lower, but non-rail using tax payers bore a higher share of the burden, I doubt wages would be seen as an issue.

Wages are but one part of the cost of running the railways, and if people do not agree with the high fares produced by the current model, rather than blaming staff wages, I would argue they should vote for a party who would change it (whether such a party exists is another issue!).

It's also true that the queue of people wishing to do rail jobs is long. However, this in itself does nothing to suppress wages. Using drivers as an example, the market for qualified, experienced drivers with a strong safety record is very small - as evidenced by the fact TOCs are forced to take on trainee drivers at far greater costs than hiring qualified drivers. The market of drivers competent on the routes and traction of a particular TOC is smaller still and is limited to their current cohort of drivers(!) so even if qualified drivers are recruited from other TOCs, a great deal of time and expense is incurred getting them qualified to drive.

At a trainee level the queue stretchs into thousands per vacancy, but many of these applications fall by the wayside by failing to pass aptitude tests, being weeded out during the training program for failure to pass exams or train handling. Thousands of applicants for a job does not necessarily equal that many who can DO the job!

It is also a fallacy to assume that large numbers of applicants for a job means that lower wages can be offered. Corporate law firms/investment banks/consultancies pay extremely high salaries, yet have queues of graduates stretching around the block to try to join them! Most jobs will pay a certain salary commensurate to the job concerned. If they receive many applicants, they will pick the best of these rather than reducing the salary offered. Therefore high salaries = a larger pool of candidates and (hopefully) a higher calibre of person eventually hired.

So the sum of your argument is there's simply nothing we can do other than pay up what's demanded, shut up and get on with it

 

[highdyke]

The arguments around the extent to which rail should be subsidised are all valid. My beef is how rail staff wages are often angrily (and wrongly) cited as the reason fares are high. The rail funding model in the U.K. is ultimately a political choice. If a European style model was used and fares where lower, but non-rail using tax payers bore a higher share of the burden, I doubt wages would be seen as an issue.

Wages are but one part of the cost of running the railways, and if people do not agree with the high fares produced by the current model, rather than blaming staff wages, I would argue they should vote for a party who would change it (whether such a party exists is another issue!).

It's also true that the queue of people wishing to do rail jobs is long. However, this in itself does nothing to suppress wages. Using drivers as an example, the market for qualified, experienced drivers with a strong safety record is very small - as evidenced by the fact TOCs are forced to take on trainee drivers at far greater costs than hiring qualified drivers. The market of drivers competent on the routes and traction of a particular TOC is smaller still and is limited to their current cohort of drivers(!) so even if qualified drivers are recruited from other TOCs, a great deal of time and expense is incurred getting them qualified to drive.

At a trainee level the queue stretchs into thousands per vacancy, but many of these applications fall by the wayside by failing to pass aptitude tests, being weeded out during the training program for failure to pass exams or train handling. Thousands of applicants for a job does not necessarily equal that many who can DO the job!

It is also a fallacy to assume that large numbers of applicants for a job means that lower wages can be offered. Corporate law firms/investment banks/consultancies pay extremely high salaries, yet have queues of graduates stretching around the block to try to join them! Most jobs will pay a certain salary commensurate to the job concerned. If they receive many applicants, they will pick the best of these rather than reducing the salary offered. Therefore high salaries = a larger pool of candidates and (hopefully) a higher calibre of person eventually hired.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/2708/rvfm-aecom-further-research-feb2011.pdf

 

[Bromley boy]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995

This is indeed interesting. I'd be interested to know the average used - I suspect it's mean rather than modal. There is an enormous disparity in earnings in most of these professions.

A great many barristers earn substantially less than £40k, particularly the criminal bar. The average will be distorted upwards by the relatively few QC's at the commercial bar commanding £millions per year.

Similarly with solicitors, a good friend of mine earns circa £30k as an experienced family solicitor. Senior partners at magic circle law firms comfortably take home £1m+

The figure for airline pilots seems high - certainly correct for a senior first officer at BA (captains on substantially more). Less so for people at more junior ends of the profession and in smaller airlines (eg senior captains at flybe earn around £60k. First officers in the £20s).

Train drivers are unusual in that there is far less disparity. Most qualified drivers earn around the same level nationwide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So the sum of your argument is there's simply nothing we can do other than pay up what's demanded, shut up and get on with it

Who is "we"? Maybe reread the first bit of my comment about how the railway is funded.

 

[highdyke]

Tells you here. All in the Government ASHE and SOC tables published annually.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...nualsurveyofhoursandearnings/previousReleases

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/423732/codes_of_practice_april_2015.pdf

 

[Bromley boy]

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/2708/rvfm-aecom-further-research-feb2011.pdf

This looks interesting. I will digest and post my thoughts however the sun is out, it's a rest day and I'm off for a few beers

 

[Robertj21a]

Surely both disputes revolved around saftey so nothing wrong with conflating the two as the saftey regulations are the same for both I believe.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

But you can't just cherry pick the two that suit - there's also those trains that have run as DOO for very many years already.

 

[nom de guerre]

Was there not a quote in the National Press a few years ago during the Signallers strike quoting what some Signallers could earn? the figure being some silly figure, which turned out to be one signaller in a high grade box, who had done a hell of a lot of overtime in that year, that figure was released somehow and then taken as what a majority of staff earnt in a year !

Like this, you mean?

 

[Carlisle]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995

Who is "we"? Maybe reread the first bit of my comment about how the railway is funded.

I was referring to the fare paying passengers, ok we can debate whether drivers wages are statistically where they should be or not but ultimately it'll be illegal and/or practically impossible to cut wages anyway even if we decide they're too high, so the efficiencies DFT are attempting to introduce on operators like southern are the only realistic way of making any progress in that direction without going for re nationalisation ,service cuts or route closures

 

[infobleep]

But you can't just cherry pick the two that suit - there's also those trains that have run as DOO for very many years already.

I don't deny DOO has existed for many years but both companies work to the same saftey regulations and the RMT and concerned about saftey going forward across both companies!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't deny DOO has existed for many years but both companies work to the same saftey regulations and the RMT and concerned about saftey going forward across both companies!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The same safety regulations which say that DOO is safe, right?

This is going around in circles....

 

[Bromley boy]

I was referring to the fare paying passengers, ok we can debate whether drivers wages are statistically where they should be or not but ultimately it'll be illegal and/or practically impossible to cut wages anyway even if we decide they're too high, so the efficiencies DFT are attempting to introduce on operators like southern are the only realistic way of making any progress in that direction without going for re nationalisation ,service cuts or route closures

As I say, re read the first part of my comment about fares...

I'm intrigued to know, what do you do for a living? Are your wages "statistically where they should be"?!

The rest of your comment I simply can't understand, and reads like an illiterate child has written it, frankly.

 

[BestWestern]

Like this, you mean?

As accurately representative as the accompanying picture of a pair of Slammer sets...

 

[Robertj21a]

I don't deny DOO has existed for many years but both companies work to the same saftey regulations and the RMT and concerned about saftey going forward across both companies!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Safety regulations should, overall, be there to protect the staff, passengers and the general public. RMT (or any union) is only really part of the approval process.

Individual companies '.......working to the same safety regulations........' are equally only a small part of the bigger picture. The main point is that the bigger picture includes the essentially key fact that DOO was approved many years ago and is still an improved method of operation.

I know that, as others have said, we are just going round in circles. The fact that there has been DOO for a long time has been debated on here hundreds of times but, in my view, remains the main stumbling block that needs to be overcome by any union.

 

[BRblue]

Why do we have to have the argument "safe" or "unsafe"?
Railway safety is achieved by having many layers of safety... it is similar to the Swiss cheese model. The more layers you have in place, the less chance you have of something going wrong.
The simple fact here is that a few layers are being taken away, and each time you remove a layer the risk increases. The question is at what point do the scales tip from safe to unsafe?
Many of you state "DOO has been around for many years with no problems" whilst this may be true... it does not mean that rolling it out across a much bigger area would be as successful.
Every route is different and has different issues... rolling stock, stations, passenger numbers, passenger mentality, signal sighting, service density etc,etc. What works well in one area may not work very well in another.
Do I want to see DOO operation and the guards safety critical role removed?... NO.
Do I want to see those extra layers of safety remain in place?... YES.
But that is just my opinion and everyone is entitled to one... there is no right or wrong, safe or unsafe argument here... just peoples opinions of what may or may not happen.
From a personal point of view I hope common sense prevails and those extra layers of safety are kept in place... if not, only time will tell what effect it will have on the overall safety of the railway.
The expansion of DOO operation in this country is in my opinion likely to happen, and unfortunately it is likely to cause many more disputes and probably bitter ones at that.
The railway is constantly evolving and new innovations change the way we have to work, my grade has been the subject of many changes but these changes have to be implemented in the correct way.
In trying to bulldoze these changes through all GTR/the DFT have done is destroy industrial relations and staff morale, which has in turn made life for the fare paying passenger, of which I am one... intolerable.

 

[infobleep]

The same safety regulations which say that DOO is safe, right?

This is going around in circles....

Well if it's so safe then Scotrail should be getting rid of their guards and following Govia's example as they are just wasting Scottish Taxpayers money. I assume only Scottish taxpayers pay for their railways and not tax payers from any other part of the union.

Personally I agree with the RMT who say it's not safe. I can't say whether it's safe myself as I'm no expert but then thousands of us vote in elections and referendums and are we experts when we do? Most of us are not and certainly not me but I still vote.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Radio 4 at 0900 this morning carries a programme on current Southern passenger misery.

Passengers are the people that one contributor on this website once referred to as "collateral damage".

 

[highdyke]

Well if it's so safe then Scotrail should be getting rid of their guards and following Govia's example as they are just wasting Scottish Taxpayers money. I assume only Scottish taxpayers pay for their railways and not tax payers from any other part of the union.

Personally I agree with the RMT who say it's not safe. I can't say whether I 's safe myself as I'm no expert but then thousands of us vote in elections a d referendums and are we experts when we do? Most of us are not and certainly not me but I still vote.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

That's a whole can of worms, the Scottish government are prepared to subsidise Scotland considerably more than in England, as they do other things such as education and so on. 75% of ticket costs overall are covered by the public purse, there's good reasons for that. Let's not get into the Barnett formula or Highland depopulation and so on!

Many lines in Scotland are not suitable for DOO (AB, Tokenless Block, RETB very common in some areas, I'd list them but lets keep it simple). Even the TCB areas have some interesting power feeding arrangements, for example Aviemore.

The central belt and Glasgow suburban system is most suitable, but then there's the Strathcycle manning agreement.

Very different railway, massively different geography, whole different government and a big bunch of politics. I'm cynical enough to suggest the Scottish suggestions are to show the Westminster government up.

 

[ComUtoR]

Many lines in Scotland are not suitable for DOO (AB, Tokenless Block, RETB very common in some areas, I'd list them but lets keep it simple). Even the TCB areas have some interesting power feeding arrangements, for example Aviemore.

Too many other posters here use the argument that DOO is safe, ergo, can be used everywhere. Scotland has the Strathclyde Agreement, so everyone else can have something similar.

Many lines in the COUNTRY are not suitable for DOO. DOO is NOT one size fits all.

 

[highdyke]

No it's not a one size fits all, it's all tied up with a whole bunch of stuff, signalling systems being one of them. There are certain requirements of DOO.

The Southern dispute is about lines meet those requirements the unions have said no. That's the nub of the issue. Customer service, flexibility and productivity being Southern's argument, where 40% of services already run DOO.

In the past ASLEF have made strikes towards productivity with DOO on freight, passenger services and trains travelling over 100/110mph, in return for higher pay.

The signalling grade has done the same, for example West Mids signalling centre is replacing tens of locations. Those locations replaced 100s of locations, some had box boys and lamp men. Today a job that was once done by maybe 1000 or more per shift is now done by numbers in the low 20s, per shift.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetewgroup/16196764606/

Is it less safe? The stats say no. Though there have been plenty of arguments over the years that disagree.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnj3 There's the radio 4 programme Paul mentioned.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I agree but only to a point. The purpose of the union became much more than jobs. I learned, before I started the railway, that without someone to protect the industry you are working in. Your rights as an employee and your workplace conditions can be sacrificed at the drop of a hat without any oversight. Management can literally do anything they want without penalty.

I worked many years in retail. Zero hour contracts are rife and they can be seriously abused. Personally I see the good in them but many places really do use them to both abuse staffing levels and as a mechanic to avoid those little things. Like pensions, sick pay, holiday pay, in work benefits, overtime rates etc. I saw the industry make changes to employment contracts specifically to screw staff over and I saw the decline of any real employment rights. It became a shut up and do what your told place to work. If you don't like it, leave. I should know. I was Management.

I have friends in other industries where they are non unionised and the number of complaints about working practices, safety shortcuts, bullying culture, lack of equality, and no pay rises in X years. They have no union, and Management do what they wish.

I discovered unions a few years back in another employment. I found that I was treated differently. The place I worked was more rules bound, my contract wasn't broken just because, My working hours came down (or at least became more fixed) and the equipment I used was safer and actually worked for a change.

Then I joined the Railway. Ho Le Fuk. A union that worked alongside Management. A union that worked with the industry safety bodies. A union that helped reduce incidents. A union that protected the entire workforce (one rule for all, not just members). A union who helped push the industry forwards. You know what. For the first time in my employment life I actually got a regular pay rise. I have still been asked to compromise safety rules but I can be resolute in a firm no because I know the union has my back. Management still push and still fight for reduction in conditions and still try to circumvent employment law, but the union is preventing them.

Unions are more than jobs.

Yup. In my company, it's the same. The joint union committee and management work together, safety campaigns are joint with the union and the company, we have had a pay rise every year, there have been no redundancies since 2005 and the workforce is on the whole motivated and happy to work for the company.

Some parts of management still try it on and the unions deal with that.

I've been with the company 10 years now. I have no desire to go to somewhere where there is no union recognition.

 

[Carlisle]

As I say, re read the first part of my comment about fares...

I'm intrigued to know, what do you do for a living? Are your wages "statistically where they should be"?!

The rest of your comment I simply can't understand, and reads like an illiterate child has written it, frankly.

Yes I'd say my wages are probably about average for the job I do , aside from that your post seems rather pointless, do you really know as much as you appear to think you do ?

 

[Bromley boy]

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/2708/rvfm-aecom-further-research-feb2011.pdf

Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this paints the UK rail industry in a pretty favourable light. Productivity in the UK (train KM by employee) compares favourably with the rest of Europe, and the only rail staff who earn more than "average" wages are drivers, as well they might for the enormous levels of responsibility involved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I'd say my wages are probably about average for the job I do , aside from that your post seems pointless, do you actually know as much as you appear to think you do ?

The last paragraph of my last reply to you was unnecessarily harsh - so apologies for that (put it down to the lateness of the hour ).

Aside from that, I hope you can see my point. Rail staff wages are a constant whipping boy in the UK, and for no good reason. People would do better to focus on bettering their own careers and earnings before criticising others, particularly when they generally have little idea of the nature of the job involved.