Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that. Capacity could be improved in Wales with more rolling stock but we don't have it. And if things were different there probably would be lower wages in the long term. But they aren't and until things change the situation will continue.
-
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!
The real facts behind the ATW potential strike please
- Thread starter FrozenPoints
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that. Capacity could be improved in Wales with more rolling stock but we don't have it. And if things were different there probably would be lower wages in the long term. But they aren't and until things change the situation will continue.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
chuckles1066
Member
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 361
No, they will simply think "Jeez, I can't believe those militant idiots got sacked from a cushy job with a handsome salary"
No, they will employ people who drive trains when management want trains to be driven.
Please elaborate as to why my arguments are "flawed".
And remember you're talking to someone who has had the misfortune of having to crave the indulgences of HMG for the princely sum of £65.45 a week.
Hint: you won't win.
If you've got a job, get on with it. No-one is twisting your arm to stay there, if you don't like it, leave.
Ain't rocket science unless you believe you're entitled to that job.
Sorry if I have missed something but are we talking about the same job training here ie Drivers?
It takes alot longer than 4 weeks to train someone, hell, it takes around 3 months just to complete the class room work assuming you even get to that stage. IF you get through school and pass the requiste assessments and tests you then have to pass your traction. Its then on to the train/brake handling that takes at least 200-225 hours (more depending on the individual) and then you have route learning ontop which can take several months in itself.
Oh, and the 200-225 hrs quoted is actual "in the seat" time, not total diagram lengths. You may have a diagram that is 8 hours long but will only be driving for 3-4 hours.
Regarding the BA strike, I never said there were any winners. I was just pointing out that its not as easy to get rid of a bunch of staff as some people think.
This is clearly going round in circles!
Oh, do try to keep up. Where but in your tiny mind did I post that you are a driver? Driving isn't rocket science, but I suspect it requires an intellect a tad above yours.
Last edited by a moderator:
CarterUSM
Established Member
I'm sure it has been tried to be sorted in an adult manner before now Captain, but i'd argue that taking legal industrial action is also adult like, though we'll have to agree to disagree on that i'm sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually, compared to other industries , you are probably correct! I feel it is the way it should be elsewhere too, sticking up for oneself seems to have gone out of fashion.
I've answered why your argument is flawed already. Ask yourself why, 20 years after the railway was privatised, are TOC's still recruiting drivers on 40-50k when there are 2.5 million unemployed when there have always been staff queueing up for the jobs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You have criticised me for my greed on a thread about drivers striking. I am not a driver and not striking for more money, so yes you have. Anyway, as you said earlier, once you resort to insults you have lost the argument. Touché
Last edited:
CarterUSM
Established Member
Far too pessimistic Metroland, i know it isn't a mass generalisation (or is it?) but as you well know, many staff are proud to provide the service that they do. I'm sure you did yourself. Bigger picture? Some staff will care, many won't, but you'd be surprised how much current TOC's actually attempt to feed this to employees , mine does for sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok, so it takes a month to train me rather than two weeks.
You're splitting hairs.
The 30% training me aren't the 70% who will soon be unemployed so I'm not a threat to them.
I was trying to maintain an impartial stance in this matter but I'm starting to form the opinion that there's an element of militancy here
You are correct to a degree there, but others would refer to it as, for want of a better expression, solidarity, togetherness , or brotherly love!
Far too pessimistic Metroland, i know it isn't a mass generalisation (or is it?) but as you well know, many staff are proud to provide the service that they do. I'm sure you did yourself. Bigger picture? Some staff will care, many won't, but you'd be surprised how much current TOC's actually attempt to feed this to employees , mine does for sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You are correct to a degree there, but others would refer to it as, for want of a better expression, solidarity, togetherness , or brotherly love!
If he/she wants to use negative terms let them get on with it. They don't know all the facts and basically would be happy to do the jobs people are being paid £8, £10, £15, £20, £30 or more, for peanuts. He or she is happy to see others thrown out of jobs so that they can do them for much less, which to my mind is far more selfish than those he or she is criticising on this thread simply because they want the choice of one day a week to be able to have a day off if necessary, and not have their salary eroded further when passengers are paying more, subsidies increasing and profits rising.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Well, if YOU DON'T CARE why are you here dribbling all over this thread?
Or is it just a difficult question?
notadriver
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,737
So may I ask the question again particularly to Chuckles1066, Captain Speaking and Metroland - if Train Guard and Driver jobs were open to all, do you think the wages and conditions for those jobs would go down to those similar to what bus drivers have to endure or remain the same - like with Airline Pilots who seem to be able to maintain a very high salary?
Crikey, read what I've posted, or is THAT too difficult?
Just for you, Flamingo, here it is again: I like trains and train travel, so I do not want to see the UK rail system robbed of funding and going into decline because public and government opinion is turned against it by greedy staff getting ludicrous pay rises in a protected industry that is NOT performing!
When the rest of UK is suffering job losses and unprecented hardship, what's happening on the railways is unsustainable. And you might note that I'm far from the only non-railwayman on here to say that.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Just to put some perspective on the "anyone can do it" mentality, here are the figures for one depot that had 11 vacancies - they advertised Guard jobs, and had over 80 applications. 40 of them were rejected on the strength of their applications, 45 failed the psychometric assessment process (which is to national standards), and of the remaining four one failed the interview, and one failed the medical.
So that was two people who were deemed able to do the job, out of 80 applicants.
Drivers jobs have an even higher failure rate.
Of course, if you want just anybody who needs a job driving or responsible for safety of your train, then employ people at random off the dole queues. There are millions out there, you are right.
So that was two people who were deemed able to do the job, out of 80 applicants.
Drivers jobs have an even higher failure rate.
Of course, if you want just anybody who needs a job driving or responsible for safety of your train, then employ people at random off the dole queues. There are millions out there, you are right.
Flamingo, you demonstrate ignorance with every post. Out of all the 'off the street' applicants for a job, including all of life's misfits, one in forty were good enough to be employed? It must have been a pretty undemanding job spec!
So what's your point?
So what's your point?
CarterUSM
Established Member
These threads generally end up like this! We had our Airdrie-Bathgate DOO dispute last year and it was more or less the same form. I don't mind listening to the other side, I may not agree, but they do have some fair points. Circles though, definitely!
merlodlliw
Established Member
Only 80 applications for 11 vacancies is low by todays standard, I know of firms having over 100 applications for one vacancy, also it depends on what sifting system is used, desperate times for jobs.
Bob
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Ahhhhh, now I get it. You are a spotter ("I like trains") who wants to travel for nothing ("and train travel")!
If you want to do something about the system being robbed of funding, start looking into some of the going's on at Network Rail, which take a significantly larger proportion of the running costs than Sunday overtime.
If it's the job losses and "unprecedented hardship" start writing to your MP to say that you disagree with the job cuts and hardship that is happening in the public sector as a result of the recessionary policies being adopted by the current Government composed of two minority governments which are implementing policies that were not on the manifesto of either party.
Note for you - commuters travelling are by definition travelling to a job. Leisure travel is more affordable that ever on train with planning (which, if you are on a restricted budget has to be done), and may also be deemed to be unnecessary therefore optional.
I don't know where you are getting the "not performing" bit from. Passenger numbers are higher than ever (in the middle of a recession), and passenger satisfaction surveys are coming back at increasing levels as well. Performance figures are also at target (for my neck of the woods, anyway).
Your main argument seems to be that rail staff are overpaid for the job they do.
Are you prepared to work for the minimum wage, just so that Joe Public can travel from London to Cardiff for £1 less on their ticket?
I'm not. I don't see why you think I should.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That was 85 internal applicants, about 6 years ago before the bust.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's all right, we have worked out that anyone can do your job once they figure out which end of the broom to hold.
Last edited:
Flamingo, you do yourself no favours by posting tosh such as this.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
I see you haven't answered any of the points I raised. Or any of the difficult questions raised by any other rail staff.
I repeat, why should I or my colleagues work for minimum wage (which I am sure you also think is to high) just so that you can travel from Cardiff to London for less than £10 per ticket?
If you are so concerned about hardship and recession, why are you not spending this time e-mailing MP's to tell them of your discontent?
And what industry do you work in, so we can do realistic comparisons with the examples you are giving? You keep quoting your experience - let us know what that background is that gives you the authority to make such comparisons.
I repeat, why should I or my colleagues work for minimum wage (which I am sure you also think is to high) just so that you can travel from Cardiff to London for less than £10 per ticket?
If you are so concerned about hardship and recession, why are you not spending this time e-mailing MP's to tell them of your discontent?
And what industry do you work in, so we can do realistic comparisons with the examples you are giving? You keep quoting your experience - let us know what that background is that gives you the authority to make such comparisons.
What a silly comment, you do your cause no favours. Nor do the comments about minimum wages etc
If the market was opened up (and there are several technical and cultural barriers to this right now) then wages are decided on supply and demand, and ability to do the job. It might be the wages or higher, or lower.
There is nothing actually particularly special about these jobs, they are certainly within the capability of anyone that could obtain a HGV, bus or pilots license, and below most graduate jobs. Some people will not be up to it, others will. The point is, because the TOCs only recruit internally and there is no ready pool of staff to take over, either working for the same company or an alternate one, the TOCs have little room for manoeuvre. This is an important point.
It may be of no interest to many on the state of finances and they may feel protected from job cuts and pay freezes, and we may not be able to convince you of any need to restraint, or even care about the bigger picture. That is your prerogative, but ultimately, especially in Wales, you have far more to lose than we have. We just care about the railways, it's your livelihood with few transferable skills.
Only time will tell how things will eventually play out, but costs will have to be cut, this is now almost inescapable fact, so if staff are not prepared to take cuts, they need to find imaginative ways, working with their managers of becoming far more productive in order to reduce the cost per train-km, which has actually gone up since the mid 1990s in real terms substantially.
That is factually incorrect. I was recruited externally as were most of my colleagues, from other industries and other employers, off the street, and went through the required training. ATW recruited trainee guards and drivers 'off the street' in the past 12 months to the wages you feel are so excessive.
Also those who feel wages in Wales should be lower.... ATW employ hundreds of people at Crewe, Chester and Shrewsbury. Unless I have missed something these are not in Wales
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
Cost cutting will be required in the railway. This will have to start with Network Rail. People like you (and that other armchair expert) complaining over overtime payments and T&C of drivers in one TOC whilst ignoring the largest "operation" on the island in relation to the running of the railways is like arguing over the position of the deckchairs on the Titanic.
The TOC's are shareholding companies. They are in it to make a profit. One strand of their profit-making is to try and increase productivity and pay the minimum wage costs they can. If everybody in ATW took a 10% pay-cut in the morning, do you honestly think that ATW or DB would say to Westminster "That's OK, we'll pay back 10% of the subsidy"
All of which is getting off the point. The position at the moment, 15 years after privatisation, is that the law of supply and demand means that there is not enough drivers. That means that they can command high wages.
If ATW wanted to change this, they could hire and train new drivers, and could have dome for the past six years but that costs money and investment, away from their shareholders dividends.
If ATW are not prepared to do that, they can bitch and moan all they want, but the solution is in their hands.
They can either pay the ones they have enough to keep them, or train new ones. Either way they have to make a commercial decision what they want to spend the money on.
Just for clarity it means recruited by the HR dept of AWT, not via an third party agency, such as in coach or truck driving, for example. Nor can other companies run trains in place of ATW, which isn't the case in most other forms of transport.
I haven't said the wages should be higher or lower, I've said, overall, the railway must get more cost effective (whether that be NR, the TOCs, suppliers etc) in order to maintain investment. It may be more has to be done for less, but the overriding point you seem to want to make, is this should be fought through industrial action and the economic realities not taken into account. You don't have that option because the money has run out, and if costs are not cut, the network will be reduced. This is government policy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not recruiting enough drivers is just as reckless, if costs are being forced up through bad management that is equally a public scandal.
Last edited:
O L Leigh
Established Member
That's a situation of the TOC's own creation. They don't have to recruit solely from internal sources, although many choose to do so.
I believe you and I covered this adequately last night.
Savings on the wage bill by whatever means are pointless under the current franchising and funding regime. I don't disagree that it should fall into the remit of a wider programme of reform, but tinkering with things around the edges won't bring the results desired. The point surely is to bring the cost of the railways down to a level acceptable to both the taxpayer and the passenger, and that won't happen unless both the TOC's and the DfT fall under the same scrutiny.
O L Leigh
DavidBusDriver
Member
I always fail to see why people are so incensed by people wanting to fight hard and retain conditions they have worked EXTREMELY hard for, whether under BR or, like myself, undergoing training 'off the street'.
I ask you all this... if you were in the ATW Drivers' shoes, and really put yourself there, would YOU be willing to give up what you work, and have worked, hard for?
Yes I am in the privileged position of being a trainee driver, and hope I make it to qualified, knowing that I will be well remunerated for what is a very mentally demanding job, a lot more so than people do realise. And, being an ex-bus driver, I maybe do agree that the pay scales SHOULD be more comparable - but by means of raising the bus drivers pay and conditions, the things you had to put up with in that job, well, thats for another discussion!
You may not like what I have to say, because I am 'in the grade' making your fares 'so so high'... but are staff wages the real inefficiency or cost on the railway?
I ask you all this... if you were in the ATW Drivers' shoes, and really put yourself there, would YOU be willing to give up what you work, and have worked, hard for?
Yes I am in the privileged position of being a trainee driver, and hope I make it to qualified, knowing that I will be well remunerated for what is a very mentally demanding job, a lot more so than people do realise. And, being an ex-bus driver, I maybe do agree that the pay scales SHOULD be more comparable - but by means of raising the bus drivers pay and conditions, the things you had to put up with in that job, well, thats for another discussion!
You may not like what I have to say, because I am 'in the grade' making your fares 'so so high'... but are staff wages the real inefficiency or cost on the railway?
I don't see what point you are trying to make. You can't get a job with most coach or bus companies through an agency either. Yes you could take a PCV license privately, and I accept you can't go away and get a train drivers ticket independently. I still don't really get what you are saying. If it is that 'well that is one major reason why wages are so high because there is no competition' then in many respects you are stating something we would all agree on. I still don't really understand why members restating this over and over on here really proves anything else?
This is factually incorrect. Firstly the dispute is over two key issues. One that drivers at ATW have seen their wages slip way behind many other TOC's despite ATW making very decent profits. Secondly the blackmailing of staff with 'either sign up to something you didn't have to when we recruited you' ie "you must work your Sundays which may be whenever we decide they are" or don't and don't get a pay rise at all for two years and slip further behind other companies.
Now I am not unsympathetic to those who say 'well go and work for Virgin/Northern/London Midland then'. However the argument that ATW can't afford the rise is factually incorrect. The franchise is set up for inflationary pay rises and other TOC's are doing so. If the system was changed then that would be a different ball game, but whilst the system remains as it is then yes I do feel if the choice is higher than budgetted salaries for the top men, higher than planned profits and higher than expected dividends for shareholders, (and these are the 'economic realities' here) then I do sympathise with staff wanting what was supposed to be their part of the deal. It is correct the money is coming from higher fares and subsidies, but as has been stated earlier, as things stand any real terms cut in pay goes to bolster already high profits, not to cut fares or taxes.
Many drivers are saying 'we would be happy with a lower rise we just want some dialogue over the Sundays with a way forward that suits both sides' but the company will not budge. I am sure (as I have talked to a lot of them) that a majority would accept LESS money and once again (it has been an issue for several years) let ATW take the money in the budget for the wages and add it to the profits, but do not want a committment to work Sundays that has no detailed agreement on the terms in place and which does not allow occasional limited opt-outs for an important family and personal issues on occasional Sundays they are booked to work.
Last edited:
I think the points others and myself are making are very simple.
Firstly, whether you like it or not, the money has run out. Costs have to be cut, the industry has been told this or else, and NR is in danger of being broken up among many other things. Pay settlements have to take into account productivity agreements, you can not be expected to be rewarded exactly the same. Not because other posters are jealous, want to reduce people to sweat shop conditions, because there is no more money.. Fares can only go up so much, before there is a fall in passengers people either switch to other forms of travel, or not travel at all. Regional railways like ATW have been identified as some of the biggest drain of all.
Next, I don't see what other companies pay and conditions have anything to do with it. Different companies have different conditions and demands, local arrangements and costs of living. Moreover, in almost all other industries, you cannot expect to earn the same in every company: Pilots, truck drivers, web designers, telecomms technicians, gas fitters, builders etc are all on different rates of pay.
Next, whether ATW are making profits really isn't much to do with the staff, unless there is some sort of profit sharing agreement. In fact all the TOCs make wafer thin profits, barely enough to attract any private sector investment (which means more tax take), and in a case like ATW, they are wholly supported by the tax payer, else they would collapse.
Finally, a lot of the industrial muscle is because of the nature of the labour supply market. Because people cannot be replaced very easily, they can obtain high wages. I don't make any particular judgement about that, other than to say, in other transport concerns, because of licensing and a more open market, there wouldn't be the luxury.
In conclusion, I do not support this strike because of the long term interest.
I won't be repeating myself again, if you don't understand my points this time, too bad.
Firstly, whether you like it or not, the money has run out. Costs have to be cut, the industry has been told this or else, and NR is in danger of being broken up among many other things. Pay settlements have to take into account productivity agreements, you can not be expected to be rewarded exactly the same. Not because other posters are jealous, want to reduce people to sweat shop conditions, because there is no more money.. Fares can only go up so much, before there is a fall in passengers people either switch to other forms of travel, or not travel at all. Regional railways like ATW have been identified as some of the biggest drain of all.
Next, I don't see what other companies pay and conditions have anything to do with it. Different companies have different conditions and demands, local arrangements and costs of living. Moreover, in almost all other industries, you cannot expect to earn the same in every company: Pilots, truck drivers, web designers, telecomms technicians, gas fitters, builders etc are all on different rates of pay.
Next, whether ATW are making profits really isn't much to do with the staff, unless there is some sort of profit sharing agreement. In fact all the TOCs make wafer thin profits, barely enough to attract any private sector investment (which means more tax take), and in a case like ATW, they are wholly supported by the tax payer, else they would collapse.
Finally, a lot of the industrial muscle is because of the nature of the labour supply market. Because people cannot be replaced very easily, they can obtain high wages. I don't make any particular judgement about that, other than to say, in other transport concerns, because of licensing and a more open market, there wouldn't be the luxury.
In conclusion, I do not support this strike because of the long term interest.
I won't be repeating myself again, if you don't understand my points this time, too bad.
Last edited:
The problem is your points are over simple and don't actually hold up to scrutiny. The railway will always be supported by the taxpayer, therefore your comparisons with commercial operations (those in which if you don't make a profit your company folds and everyone loses their jobs) are not comparing like with like.
If we are to try to agree on something, lets try "the country is in huge debt and needs to cut costs". Ok. Now the only way the railway will cut costs will be to be a major restructure in how it is funded and subsidised. Until this time the franchises have set subsidies and funding. Whilst my company continues to make good profits and receive the funding from taxpayers to pay me and my colleagues then I feel that funding should indeed pay their wages or be returned, not used to bolster profits that are already over those budgetted for. If you can't agree that funds from the taxpayer that are pre-determined and calculated for pay should be paid or returned then please say so loud and clear.
Fares can indeed only go up so far but despite rising fares the number of passengers continue to rise. So again your argument - whilst in this case literally factually correct - does not reflect the current situation and the likelihood that fares, and passenger numbers, will continue to rise for quite some time.
It is your prerogative to not support the strike, but really whether you support it or not is completely irrelevent. There will never be 100% support for any strike - the drivers themselves only voted 70% in favour so even around a third of them don't support it either.
Last edited:
Will they? I suggest when you get some spare time, have a read of this
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/railvaluemoneystudyscopingreport.pdf
I'm glad you are confident people will keep travelling when fares keep going up, or you think that's morally right given the pressure on family budgets and other external factors.
I will do. I can guarantee what I have said is correct though: that they will always need subsidy. If the government really intend to run only a railway that requires nil subsidy then that will never happen unless the network is decimated. If so I hope they invest in the roads and I hope you guys who want this and will cheer if we lost our jobs because of that have cars and deep pockets to run them.
I didn't say anything about fare rises being morally right, did I? I also agreed with you that eventually the point will be reached where it becomes unsustainable. You seem to move the goalposts every time I point out your arguments are not valid. Just a thought: have you bought a bus ticket lately or worked out how much filling a car fuel tank costs compared to say 3 years ago. Do the sums, then you might understand that while fares are going up, people continue to travel - because running a car would cost them more.
Last edited:
- Status