Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is is it possible to quantify when this was please?
As far as I can see looking at the Companies House accounts, Lothian Buses Ltd - the group company - has made no more than around £8m profit since at least 2014, and in 2019 made a loss of the same amount, never mind the Covid-led loss of £12m in 2020.
Generally that is a margin of 2%, which is not enough to sustain the company in the long term - and most of that is being paid out in dividends to the (public sector) shareholders.
As Geordie Driver sums it up, buses ain't sexy, and the public sector appears to have no desire to subsidise transport in the longer term, beyond any statutory duty to do so. Everyone is already struggling with fewer passengers, add to that higher wages and there will be still fewer services and fewer jobs.
£14.67 basic with various rates up to £23.22 for weekend overtime after 3 years service for me (not disclosing conditions, holiday pay etc but generous), pay (at least the basic) needs to be much closer to this across the whole of the UK. Stagecoach in South Wales are barely above minimum wage, how they expect to attract any drivers I do not know.
£14.67 basic with various rates up to £23.22 for weekend overtime after 3 years service for me (not disclosing conditions, holiday pay etc but generous), pay (at least the basic) needs to be much closer to this across the whole of the UK. Stagecoach in South Wales are barely above minimum wage, how they expect to attract any drivers I do not know.
Equality of pay is not something you’ll ever find at First Bus in general, the company likes that it can save money by paying drivers less to begin with depending on length of service.
Lets say your employed for 1 year after training then leave for what ever reason, likely because you won’t have a personal life, anyways within that 1 year another driver is on £13ph verses you on £11ph, where is the incentive to even begin with, drivers who arrive already qualified are on £12ph.
More than 1300 First Bus Glasgow drivers are set to receive an inflation busting pay rise over the next two years. Unite drivers across Glasgow accepted the latest pay offer after months of negotiations, and previously rejected offers. The new pay deal over two years delivers:
www.unitetheunion.org
You need to be there 2 years before gaining the top rate and that’s from October this year of £13ph, also provided that the company hasn’t got the better of you before the 2 years comes around where’s the financial incentive for you to stick around for 2 years whilst being treated like a 2nd class citizen.
Importantly the culture within the industry needs to change.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
First Glasgow's combine profit margin ending 2020 was £12.6m.
Not long before that Lothian Buses had made around £16m profit.
Enough profit is necessary to buy new vehicles for example but certainly a little more of this can be sacrificed to up the benefit to there front line.
This is why privatisation does not work.
Even with COVID on the scene bus firms have been kept by the tax payer quite handomly.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It can't keep up or it will be the eventual end of the industry, not in its entirety but it won't be attractive, it already isnt.
Is is it possible to quantify when this was please?
As far as I can see looking at the Companies House accounts, Lothian Buses Ltd - the group company - has made no more than around £8m profit since at least 2014, and in 2019 made a loss of the same amount, never mind the Covid-led loss of £12m in 2020.
Generally that is a margin of 2%, which is not enough to sustain the company in the long term - and most of that is being paid out in dividends to the (public sector) shareholders.
As Geordie Driver sums it up, buses ain't sexy, and the public sector appears to have no desire to subsidise transport in the longer term, beyond any statutory duty to do so. Everyone is already struggling with fewer passengers, add to that higher wages and there will be still fewer services and fewer jobs.
On a side note, this is why I am not a great fan of municipal ownership, there is no difference here compared with the profiteering at private firms, not really, Edinburgh city council is only the scrounge in this problem like many shareholders at Stagecoach or First.
However, the lower margins not just because of those dividends to Edinburgh Council are also likely down to what Lothian Buses spends its money on, engineering, the quality of its depots, vehicles & extra specification on those vehicles, paying an overtime rate for drivers on top of there standard £12.08 an hour(and all drivers once qualified are on this from the get-go), a single fare of £1.80 in Edinburgh verses the similar/increased single fares in Glasgow City of £1.80 or mostly £2.65, with the higher of those two single fares being the most purchased due to most people travelling a further distance than the £1.80 would permit, day tickets of £4.40 at Lothian or £4.90 at First Glasgow.
Two single journeys paid on a Lothian bus currently amounts to £3.60, an equivalent two-trip ticket purchased on the app-only in Glasgow as of today? £4.50.
Lothian Buses likely does have higher operating costs but at the point of use they provide an overall better package and importantly better reliability.
But with companies , doesn't the different pay depend on TUPE aswell.
Example Go North West , some driver could be on First Manchester pay, others on Go Ahead pay ?
But with companies , doesn't the different pay depend on TUPE aswell.
Example Go North West , some driver could be on First Manchester pay, others on Go Ahead pay ?
The various Stagecoach South Wales depots have different pay and T&C's and negotiate separately. This presumably dates back to before Stagecoach acquired them from their municipal or private owners in the years after deregulation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On a side note, this is why I am not a great fan of municipal ownership, there is no difference here compared with the profiteering at private firms, not really, Edinburgh city council is only the scrounge in this problem like many shareholders at Stagecoach or First.
The various Stagecoach South Wales depots have different pay and T&C's and negotiate separately. This presumably dates back to before Stagecoach acquired them from their municipal or private owners in the years after deregulation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you're not in favour of public or private ownership how about a co-operative where workers are the owners and pay themselves out of the profits?
If you have municipal ownership your finding that the local authorities in charge are piggy backing off of those funds.
equally, if it was to be owned by the workers you’d have them financially stripping the company for there own good, most drivers don’t really care about the people using those services on the street.
generally speaking in Scotland my view is that if municipal or even private ownership is to be sought then our government should legislate to protect the bus service under that type of ownership, meaning local authorities or private owners who own the local bus service utilise those buses for the areas citizens but not for there own financial gain.
I’d have wanted to see Edinburgh City Council say that the previous £6m for example that they’ve taken could’ve paid for electric buses instead of using it for purposes which quite frankly don’t seem to have benefitted or protected the local bus service in any way.
Legislative control over this public service goes no where near far enough especially in a nation where there is threats of Low Emission Zones, workplace parking charges etc etc
The control over what drivers should be legally required to be paid is part of that idea of more control by our government.
The various Stagecoach South Wales depots have different pay and T&C's and negotiate separately. This presumably dates back to before Stagecoach acquired them from their municipal or private owners in the years after deregulation.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's normal Stagecoach practice to negotiate by depot level as opposed to company level. That way they divide and rule amongst their union officials and depots.
A 'national' pay rate is good in theory but in practice will result in drivers being paid well above the going rate for their work - and somewhere else that national rate wouldn't be in line with the cost of living there, so there'd be a shortage of staff. If you think about the cost of living in Barnsley, compared to Guildford you'll see what I mean about the differences in living costs. You'd have a fully staffed depot in Barnsley and no services running in Guildford because they don't pay enough to live on. So, you need a pay rate which reflects the cost of living in the area, and which reflects the high level of responsibility involved with the job.
The bus industry really does have to revisit the terms and conditions it offers to the people it employs. Drivers have had enough of working 40-45 hours a week, being paid for 39, being told when to take their holidays, being told to work overtime, or having to work overtime to make ends meet. Having to deal with black boxes in the cab reporting back how the vehicle is driven. Those same black boxes being used as a weapon against the driver. CCTV monitoring of everything you do. I could go on.
For the responsibility involved, there are many other jobs available in the workplace which pay better. I can't imagine a salaried office worker accepting the above conditions.
It's one reason I've never driven buses for a large operation - I've seen how poorly the drivers are treated. Instead I work for a small operator driving special needs schools contracts. Obviously there are pros and cons in that work. I don't have a boss continually on my case, I have a regular vehicle, the same passengers and I know when I'm taking time off work. These children behave better than normal school children so I don't have much to contend with when it comes to bad behaviour.
There are some really good bus operators out there. There the ones who don't have a shortage of drivers, don't need to advertise vacancies and treat their staff properly. We're now seeing the consequence of treating drivers poorly - they're not liking it so they're leaving, like they've been told to do for years. You reap what you sow.
If you have municipal ownership your finding that the local authorities in charge are piggy backing off of those funds.
equally, if it was to be owned by the workers you’d have them financially stripping the company for there own good, most drivers don’t really care about the people using those services on the street.
Why would national Government do anything different to local Government?
Drivers might care more about passengers if they could see a direct relationship between how many they carried and the money in their wage packet at the end of the week. Compare John Lewis with Sports Direct or Primark.
The conditions you describe are considerably worse than those working on the railway. There is no reason they should be. At the bare minimum all time at work should be paid for. I believe in a 35 hour working week (that is all time at work) currently bus drivers working 40 hours might actually be at work for 55 hours because ‘spreadovers’ still exist.
A 35 hour week of 4 days (8.75 hours average) coupled with a decent £15/hour rate of pay would make the bus driver role far more appealing.
It would be interesting to know how much wages could be increased if all this cash went into a pay rise, anyone got figures on how many hours are worked at these companies.
Two reasons, strong unions and training time, if it took 2 years to train a bus driver wages would have to be much higher to stopp staff turnover.
It would be interesting to know how much wages could be increased if all this cash went into a pay rise, anyone got figures on how many hours are worked at these companies.
Well, if you have 1300 drivers all on a fixed £12ph/40hr week, the weekly pay for each would be, before deductions = £480pw or £24,960 annually(£401.20pw after tax/NI)
£24,960 x 1300 drivers per year equates to a wage bill of £32,448,000m for the company.
Now after that wage bill is paid the company still retains a £12.6m profit, if that profit is divided amongst those 1300 drivers annual is what your asking I presume each drivers annual salary increases to £34,652 or the equivalency of £666.38pw before deductions(£523.88pw after tax/NI)
If your salary is £34,652 based on a 40hr week, your hourly rate would’ve been increased from 12ph to £16.65ph if that profit margin was used to to so.
Higher wages are all well and good but as a bus company has to replace buses or other equipment how do you do this if you’ve no profit margin to invest.
Wages may be a concern and I only intended it to be a discussion of course, but in reality a 12ph wage is still 26.4% more than a 23yr old would earn on minimum wage of £9.50, the percentage gap is even great for those younger than 23.
In my view only, £450pw take home is good for a bus driver provided that a better work-life balance was there, it currently isn’t.
Except it doesn't. Employers have to add on National Insurance and pension contributions, so the cost of employing someone is typically getting on for 20% more than they are paid in wages.
From the Companies House accounts, First Glasgow No.1 employed 1142 drivers, and No. 2 545. Maintenance and traffic for each was 278 and 81; administration 49 and 9. The overall cost of employing these staff was close on £66m, of which social security costs and pensions cost £8.2m, which I'd say is a bit on the low side - indeed, First looks to have been taking a bit of a pension holiday in 2020, as costs were around £3.5m less than in 2019.
The bus industry really does have to revisit the terms and conditions it offers to the people it employs. Drivers have had enough of working 40-45 hours a week, being paid for 39, being told when to take their holidays, being told to work overtime, or having to work overtime to make ends meet. Having to deal with black boxes in the cab reporting back how the vehicle is driven. Those same black boxes being used as a weapon against the driver. CCTV monitoring of everything you do. I could go on.
For the responsibility involved, there are many other jobs available in the workplace which pay better. I can't imagine a salaried office worker accepting the above conditions.
The bus industry (as in Local public bus services) cannot afford to revisit the terms and conditions it offers to the people it employs. There is no money. So, if it can't get staff, it will just shrink and shrink, and it will be in a position of staff shortage, which it has 'enjoyed' (on and off depending on the general employment conditions in the country) since the early 50s. Of course, as it shrinks, more and more people will have to turn to the taxi / uber industry for their journeys, that doyen of compliance and good terms and conditions. What these people won't do is pay fares (and taxes for subsidies) for bus drivers to be paid the sort of terms and conditions described.
Except it doesn't. Employers have to add on National Insurance and pension contributions, so the cost of employing someone is typically getting on for 20% more than they are paid in wages.
From the Companies House accounts, First Glasgow No.1 employed 1142 drivers, and No. 2 545. Maintenance and traffic for each was 278 and 81; administration 49 and 9. The overall cost of employing these staff was close on £66m, of which social security costs and pensions cost £8.2m, which I'd say is a bit on the low side - indeed, First looks to have been taking a bit of a pension holiday in 2020, as costs were around £3.5m less than in 2019.
Of course, but most drivers or other employees would not be aware of these hidden costs to the business unless they go researching them.
Maintenance costs are bound to take a reduction given First Groups dedication to electrifying their fleet, Electricity costs despite the increases to energy will also bring down their fuel bill.
There is no way to know what percentage of that wage bill and other costs relating to wages is given to what employees.
If the cost of employee wages, for example is 30% on £11ph, 40% on £12.35 & the remaining 30% on £13ph, what would the company have to sacrifice for 100% to be on the same £13ph, that is a cost they could afford.
Of course, but most drivers or other employees would not be aware of these hidden costs to the business unless they go researching them.
Maintenance costs are bound to take a reduction given First Groups dedication to electrifying their fleet, Electricity costs despite the increases to energy will also bring down their fuel bill.
There is no way to know what percentage of that wage bill and other costs relating to wages is given to what employees.
But then most drivers or other employees don't go making mathematical calculations about their employers paybill and their profit margin without doing some research either! You'll learn a lot on here.
Maintenance costs are bound to take a reduction given First Groups dedication to electrifying their fleet, Electricity costs despite the increases to energy will also bring down their fuel bill.
But then most drivers or other employees don't go making mathematical calculations about their employers paybill and their profit margin without doing some research either! You'll learn a lot on here.
You've got to be joking! Don't expect any reduction in cost due to electric buses. If anything, budget 15% more.
No more than the employees and customers of Tesco / Amazon / corner shop / <insert business name here> do it. How many customers would rather lower prices or more lossmaking services than better employee benefits? Lots, I suspect.
Take a good look at what happens to businesses that do not pay adequate returns to their shareholders. They wither and die. Is that what you want for your company?
No more than the employees and customers of Tesco / Amazon / corner shop / <insert business name here> do it. How many customers would rather lower prices or more lossmaking services than better employee benefits? Lots, I suspect.
Take a good look at what happens to businesses that do not pay adequate returns to their shareholders. They wither and die. Is that what you want for your company?
I do have have access to a bus service when it shows up, if it shows up.
I don't regularly use the bus because the train is cheaper for me, it's that simple.
I'm not a shareholder but I have driven buses along with the other front line for years with all the big operators in Scotland, a few of the smaller ones.
As a driver pay affects me directly as does thousands of others..
After a few weeks at least of chaos while the vehicles and other assets were repossessed by the owners or sold by the administrators and then leased or bought and made ready for service with new operators who'd won the tenders by starting afresh without all the pre-existing terms and conditions.
It matters not whether it is private or state run, if there are not adequate returns to pay for the capital employed it is eventual bankruptcy or state subsidies. There is not much appetite for state subsidies to pay for staff terms and conditions.
Sadly, I doubt it is the view of many that buses are an 'important & necessary public service'. Unlike say the water and electricity suppliers, nowadays a majority of people do not use buses, and of those who do, many wish they didn't have to. Consequently their appetite to subsidise anything but a skeleton provision is probably just not there. Bus workers are not in a good position, apart from possibly the larger cities.
It matters not whether it is private or state run, if there are not adequate returns to pay for the capital employed it is eventual bankruptcy or state subsidies. There is not much appetite for state subsidies to pay for staff terms and conditions.
Just saying but the Scottish government seem to have an appetite for nationalisation of bus services as part of there ambitions in being “green”, that’s good enough for me as a long term prospect.
Because car ownership has became the ultimate in convenience, However, it will be challenged in Years to come, Low Emission Zones & proposed workplace parking charges are only the tip of the iceberg, irregardless of where the objections come from, if it was even good enough for people to choose a cheaper car or even no car many moons ago why can’t that be a way forward for us, therefore helping to financially protect a local bus service, helping to subsidies consistent lower fares on buses as well as protecting 1000s of bus driver jobs across the country.
and of those who do, many wish they didn't have to. Consequently their appetite to subsidise anything but a skeleton provision is probably just not there. Bus workers are not in a good position, apart from possibly the larger cities.
Bus drivers aren’t in good sighting by the public at all, often being treated poorly to outright distain by a few members of the public or even motorists.
The industry could be doing with less operators and the workload of services required consolidated to fewer nationalised operations.
It matters not whether it is private or state run, if there are not adequate returns to pay for the capital employed it is eventual bankruptcy or state subsidies. There is not much appetite for state subsidies to pay for staff terms and conditions.
Sadly, I doubt it is the view of many that buses are an 'important & necessary public service'. Unlike say the water and electricity suppliers, nowadays a majority of people do not use buses, and of those who do, many wish they didn't have to. Consequently their appetite to subsidise anything but a skeleton provision is probably just not there. Bus workers are not in a good position, apart from possibly the larger cities.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
