26% Pay increase? GTR drivers.

[HH]

This works out as 5.9% per year. The "economic climate" is one of rising inflation expectations. CPI in May was 2.9%, so even if this stayed constant, the real pay rise would be around 3% per year for the next 4 years. That doesn't seem that generous, given the extra responsibilities.

The climate is one where wages are falling behind CPI. Rail workers are still looking for rises above RPI, despite the fact that the arguments for this over the last few years, i.e. that fares revenue is increasing over RPI, is no longer true.

Moreover, the effect of the devaluation of the £ caused by the Brexit vote will soon have worked its way through the system, so inflation ought to fall (if you believe the government and opposition on Brexit).

By any measure except rail workers, the offer is very generous indeed. Even by normal rail increases it's a pretty good offer, money wise.

 

[DarloRich]

I notice the response the government are looking for is being played out here................

 

[HH]

That very much depends on what the changes to T&Cs are. Working as a driver is very different to working in an office 9-5. Things that the latter wouldn't think about become much more significant for a driver. For example, turn lengths, length of period in the cab, ability to change spare turns. It's already a chaotic life working flexible shifts, with days off being the only days you can be really sure of planning properly, so what seems unimportant to outsiders e.g. The company ability to move start and finish times, is massively important to shift workers. The TOCs are very quick to publicise overtime bans as if we have just refused to work an extra ten minutes rather than our actual days off, and now we even have an MP implying that we are expected to work a fifth day in return for overtime as a matter of course and that we are greedy for not doing so!

Walk in someone else's shoes before criticising them

Accept that things are never as simple as they first appear

NB I commuted to a 9-5 job for 15 years before becoming a driver so I well know the difference

You seem to have caught completely the wrong end of the stick:
1. I understand driver T&Cs very well; indeed I'm considered an expert on them.
2. I'm not criticising drivers; I have no idea where you got that idea from. I just said that they were lucky that they could afford to turn down such a generous pay offer. I don't think teachers, firemen and nurses (I know several of each), for example, would feel able to.

P.S. Before someone gets the other wrong end of the stick, I'm not advocating a race to the bottom; I'm sure everyone would like to be in the situation that they could reject pay increases if they came with the wrong strings attached, and it would be a better world if they could. However, in the real world, there are precious few who can.

 

[HH]

I notice the response the government are looking for is being played out here................

Please clarify. If you think I'm saying that the drivers should take the pay offer, then your comprehension skills need improving.

 

[DarloRich]

Please clarify. If you think I'm saying that the drivers should take the pay offer, then your comprehension skills need improving.

I haven't quoted your post or made any connection to you - i simply read through the thread and added my comments at the end in the usual fashion.

The plan of the government in all this is very clear - to try and ramp up pressure on union members by saying that they have rejected a massive pay rise and therefore must be evil, grasping, stupid and out to ruin your day

By extension you are supposed to consider them greedy especially when compared with your own minuscule or non existent pay-rise and join in the criticism of them. You should not look at why you are treated badly but be angry that others are able to hold out for better terms.

It is divide and conquer for the modern world based upon ignorance, selective reporting, envy, greed and credulity.

 

[Bromley boy]

I just said that they were lucky that they could afford to turn down such a generous pay offer.

Lucky they could afford to turn it down, or forced to turn it down as it has been inappropriately thrown into the mix to muddy the waters? Drivers' pay really has nothing to do with this dispute. As a self proclaimed "expert" on drivers' Ts and Cs, surely you must be well aware of this?

It strikes me drivers are damned either way. If they had accepted the pay increase they'd be greedy sell-outs. They've turned it down and the public at large now considers them "lucky they could afford to turn it down".

 

[Cherry_Picker]

That's kind of the point isn't it? For years there have been people in the government and in the media who have tried to turn public opinion against train drivers saying that they are lazy and overpaid. Putting a £75k headline figure out there is an example of that because they know that people will read that figure and make their mind up on the spot about it, disregarding the fact that it requires a significant amount of overtime to achieve and a huge change in the terms, conditions and responsibilities a driver has to work under, all because it's part of a wider scheme to get rid of guards. Divide and conquer.

 

[Robertj21a]

The problem with a lot of this is that the general public may see little real benefit in having a guard on most services in the UK. They may well be aware that they are not used in sizeable parts of the world and a good many of the busiest UK trains have run without guards for many years.
In addition, the Unions seem to now expect public support for their cause when not long ago we were being told that they weren't bothered by any inconvenience caused to passengers as 'everybody hates Unions anyway'.

 

[otomous]

That's kind of the point isn't it? For years there have been people in the government and in the media who have tried to turn public opinion against train drivers saying that they are lazy and overpaid. Putting a £75k headline figure out there is an example of that because they know that people will read that figure and make their mind up on the spot about it, disregarding the fact that it requires a significant amount of overtime to achieve and a huge change in the terms, conditions and responsibilities a driver has to work under, all because it's part of a wider scheme to get rid of guards. Divide and conquer.

Not to mention the strong impression being given that we are getting a 25k pay rise overnight instead of 10k over four years!

 

[otomous]

You seem to have caught completely the wrong end of the stick:
1. I understand driver T&Cs very well; indeed I'm considered an expert on them.
2. I'm not criticising drivers; I have no idea where you got that idea from. I just said that they were lucky that they could afford to turn down such a generous pay offer. I don't think teachers, firemen and nurses (I know several of each), for example, would feel able to.

P.S. Before someone gets the other wrong end of the stick, I'm not advocating a race to the bottom; I'm sure everyone would like to be in the situation that they could reject pay increases if they came with the wrong strings attached, and it would be a better world if they could. However, in the real world, there are precious few who can.

I fear it's a problem of tone which can be difficult to make clear on the net. I understood what you meant.

Others on worse pay might not be so keen to accept a pay rise if it involved changes they were uncomfortable with. One of the overriding ripostes to our fears has been that DOO has been safe for years and some of us already do it, so what's the problem? The truth is DOO is a part of the job you accept without really understanding its nuances until you are out there and it is in a sense "too late" ie take it or leave it.

The dispute has brought all the fears that existing DOO drivers have bubbling to the surface - especially a recent tendency to try to blame the driver in the first instance for any incident - and that is partly why there is opposition to the extension of a system that people are not happy with yet. If indeed ever unless the legal backdrop alters.

Coupled with the immediate response of the big guns to insult and stir up public feeling against drivers and guards - involving all the big hitters - DFT, RSSB, RAIB and RDG - against the workforce who cannot easily access the media and have only the weapons of an overtime ban or a withdrawal of labour at their disposal to hit back.

Doesn't matter how well paid it is if you're in jail.

 

[ashworth]

Savings won't get reinvested. Investment decisions will occur in spite of any piecemeal savings made at the grass roots. Fares won't reduce either.

I would respectfully suggest poor pay in the past is no guide to what a job is worth. Are nurses to be poorly paid forever because that's what always happened despite their worth to society? Who is to say that drivers' pay is "ridiculously high" and can you tell me why you say "just" driving trains?

I'm not posting here to judge whether train drivers are paid at the correct level. I didn't really have any idea how much they were paid until I read this post. I can remember during the recent tube drivers dispute being quite surprised at how much they were paid. This is not because I seriously disagreed with the amount, it just took me by surprise because I'd never really thought about it.

My dad was a train driver, and I do know that for the responsibility he had his wages were appallingly low. He retired nearly 30 years ago and I know that in those days pay for jobs on the railway was very poor. He worked very long hours, with lots of overtime and very unsociable hours for many of his shifts, but without the overtime, earned barely enough to support his family.

I retired two years ago after 37 years as a Primary School Teacher and my final salary was just £37,000. That was at the top of the pay scale for a classroom teacher without responsibility of Deputy Headship etc., but as a classroom teacher I was responsible for the education and welfare of a class of 30 children aged just 6 or 7 years old. I know that I got good holidays and no unsocial hours but including work that I had to bring home I did regularly work up to 60 hours a week, and even more when it was Parents Evenings etc.

Whether it's right or wrong you can perhaps see why I was surprised at how much train drivers earn or could earn. I do not deny that it's a very responsible job and I'm not sure that I would want that responsibility.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Nice post otomous.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not posting here to judge whether train drivers are paid at the correct level. I didn't really have any idea how much they were paid until I read this post. I can remember during the recent tube drivers dispute being quite surprised at how much they were paid. This is not because I seriously disagreed with the amount, it just took me by surprise because I'd never really thought about it.

My dad was a train driver, and I do know that for the responsibility he had his wages were appallingly low. He retired nearly 30 years ago and I know that in those days pay for jobs on the railway was very poor. He worked very long hours, with lots of overtime and very unsociable hours for many of his shifts, but without the overtime, earned barely enough to support his family.

I retired two years ago after 37 years as a Primary School Teacher and my final salary was just £37,000. That was at the top of the pay scale for a classroom teacher without responsibility of Deputy Headship etc., but as a classroom teacher I was responsible for the education and welfare of a class of 30 children aged just 6 or 7 years old. I know that I got good holidays and no unsocial hours but including work that I had to bring home I did regularly work up to 60 hours a week, and even more when it was Parents Evenings etc.

Whether it's right or wrong you can perhaps see why I was surprised at how much train drivers earn or could earn. I do not deny that it's a very responsible job and I'm not sure that I would want that responsibility.

The problem with looking at what different jobs get paid is that all jobs have different levels of safety related roles and different requirement.

For instance, how much do you pay the engineers that design the roads that thousands (some times daily but often weekly) of mostly untrained (or possibly last trained several decades ago) people who may possibly even be illiterate (at least in English) and all the life complications that go with them?

Alternatively, what about those who drive tankers full of highly flammable liquids?

There are always people who will think that they are underpaid, and there will always be others that think those same people are overpaid.

 

[Sprinter153]

Chris Philp certainly likes to make the point that drivers are lazy and overpaid.

Personally I think his ill-informed, under-researched 'blogging' peppered with 'alternative facts' is the height of laziness and calls into question whether his salary of £74,000 is justified.

Of course, his is the party that has no magic money tree, except when palms need to be greased.

 

[HH]

Lucky they could afford to turn it down, or forced to turn it down as it has been inappropriately thrown into the mix to muddy the waters? Drivers' pay really has nothing to do with this dispute. As a self proclaimed "expert" on drivers' Ts and Cs, surely you must be well aware of this?

It strikes me drivers are damned either way. If they had accepted the pay increase they'd be greedy sell-outs. They've turned it down and the public at large now considers them "lucky they could afford to turn it down".

1. Nobody was forced to turn it down, just as they weren't forced to accept it. They chose to turn it down, as it is their right to do.

2. I never brought up the T&Cs (pay attention!), I was merely saying I understand them very well.

3. Get that chip off your shoulder. Thinking they're lucky they can afford to turn it down doesn't mean anyone's damning the drivers; it's just an observation that not many have that luxury (I am one of them, so it's not jealousy on my part).

 

[HH]

Coupled with the immediate response of the big guns to insult and stir up public feeling against drivers and guards - involving all the big hitters - DFT, RSSB, RAIB and RDG - against the workforce who cannot easily access the media and have only the weapons of an overtime ban or a withdrawal of labour at their disposal to hit back.

We knew what was in store from the moment we read about the Wilkinson speech in Croydon. Rather let the cat out of the bag. I suspect that there will be no peace until he departs.

 

[Bromley boy]

1. Nobody was forced to turn it down, just as they weren't forced to accept it. They chose to turn it down, as it is their right to do.

2. I never brought up the T&Cs (pay attention!), I was merely saying I understand them very well.

3. Get that chip off your shoulder. Thinking they're lucky they can afford to turn it down doesn't mean anyone's damning the drivers; it's just an observation that not many have that luxury (I am one of them, so it's not jealousy on my part).

1. Except that the drivers' pay negotiations have (I believe - perhaps someone closer to the dispute can correct me) been delayed by the dispute. The recently rejected offer has been cynically thrown into the ring by the TOC to generate precisely the kind of headlines it has indeed resulted in. In that sense the union has been forced to reject it to avoid sending out a rather negative political signal.

2. You didn't bring up Ts and Cs but you did declare yourself to be an "expert" on them. However you've also thrown in the usual spurious comparisons to nurses/teachers/firefighters etc. Which suggests, despite being a T's and C's "expert" you evidently can't grasp how driving trains for a living is a tad different from being a nurse or a fire fighter (or any other completely irrelevant, unrelated job you may care to name).

3. No chip on my shoulder. I have no skin in the game - I don't work for GTR. However I find it quite patronising to be told I should consider myself lucky to earn the salary I do. Shock horror, as it happens, I don't!

With everything the job entails, I earn every penny of what I'm paid. I know quite a few people who earn a great deal more than the average train driver. They don't consider themselves lucky for being paid the going rate for the job they do. Why should train drivers be any different?

 

[dcsprior]

The problem with looking at what different jobs get paid is that all jobs have different levels of safety related roles and different requirement.

[...]

There are always people who will think that they are underpaid, and there will always be others that think those same people are overpaid.

For most jobs, the rewards on offer depend mainly on:

1. What proportion of people could (with sufficient training) do the job. E.g. professional football may be something that only 1 in 100,000 people could do - even if you trained the other 99.999% of people, there'd not get to the required standard; whereas many skilled/professional jobs a reasonably high proportion (maybe 1 in 100 to 1 in 10) of people to do with training
2. How long it takes to train to do the job - both in terms of time in education above the statutory minimum, and time after entering the workplace to reach that level. E.g. my job (a mid-level one in IT) is one that typically people get to with 10 years of experience, or 5 years plus a degree (which still adds up to 10 years total)
3. Any factors that make the job unpleasant/unpopular. This would include unsocial hours, physical hard work, working away from home, dirty/hot/cold conditions, etc; or on the flip-side perceived glamour or a job being a route to a related better job.

As these factors dictate how many (capable) people are available to do the job.

I've never driven a train (or thought about it as a career) but if I was to guess I'd say that #2 isn't that significant - I think I've read here that the total training time is something like 2 years and the only paper qualifications needed before this are GCSE or equivalent? I've no idea how significant #1 is - for instance is there something about the concentration requirement that means only 1 in 1,000 people could do it? Or is it like driving a car in that with sufficient instruction around 1 in 2 people would be capable of it? The unsocial hours and responsibility when something goes wrong must make #3 an issue - but from what I've read here there are plenty of applicants for vacancies... so I'm guessing that either a large proportion of these applicants wouldn't be suitable (which comes back to #1) or that train driving is an oddity that deviates from the norm.

Even if it does deviate, that's not necessarily a bad thing!

 

[Bromley boy]

For most jobs, the rewards on offer depend mainly on:

1. What proportion of people could (with sufficient training) do the job. E.g. professional football may be something that only 1 in 100,000 people could do - even if you trained the other 99.999% of people, there'd not get to the required standard; whereas many skilled/professional jobs a reasonably high proportion (maybe 1 in 100 to 1 in 10) of people to do with training
2. How long it takes to train to do the job - both in terms of time in education above the statutory minimum, and time after entering the workplace to reach that level. E.g. my job (a mid-level one in IT) is one that typically people get to with 10 years of experience, or 5 years plus a degree (which still adds up to 10 years total)
3. Any factors that make the job unpleasant/unpopular. This would include unsocial hours, physical hard work, working away from home, dirty/hot/cold conditions, etc; or on the flip-side perceived glamour or a job being a route to a related better job.

As these factors dictate how many (capable) people are available to do the job.

I've never driven a train (or thought about it as a career) but if I was to guess I'd say that #2 isn't that significant - I think I've read here that the total training time is something like 2 years and the only paper qualifications needed before this are GCSE or equivalent? I've no idea how significant #1 is - for instance is there something about the concentration requirement that means only 1 in 1,000 people could do it? Or is it like driving a car in that with sufficient instruction around 1 in 2 people would be capable of it? The unsocial hours and responsibility when something goes wrong must make #3 an issue - but from what I've read here there are plenty of applicants for vacancies... so I'm guessing that either a large proportion of these applicants wouldn't be suitable (which comes back to #1) or that train driving is an oddity that deviates from the norm.

Even if it does deviate, that's not necessarily a bad thing!

Quite a few different economic theories are out there to explain why particular jobs pay what they do... none of which are provable or disprovable! Goldman Sachs has no shortage of applications for some of the best paying financial services jobs, whereas working as a cleaner pays appallingly considering the conditions and shifts involved. University lecturers are very badly paid considering their academic prowess, etc.

In broad terms I reckon train driving pays as it does because:

1. The supply of route and traction competent drivers is highly inelastic, in the sense that training takes 1year +. Even if a driver from a different TOC is recruited, they will require many months of route learning before they become productive. Also, there aren't that many qualified train drivers, with a decent safety record, around.

2. The supply of applicants who can pass the selection tests and successfully complete the training (as opposed to the number of initial applications) is very limited. Academic qualifications are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you can pass the selection tests and get through the training.

It so happens I have a degree and a professional qualification - totally irrelevant to the job and the recruitment process. As a driver I work alongside colleagues who have no academic qualifications, joined the railway at 16 and worked their way up. We all had to pass the same selection tests irrespective of what we did before.

3. The extremely unsocial hours and enormous responsibility of the job mean many of the people who are attracted to the role initially are quickly whittled down. There is also a surprisingly high number who are sacked\quit during training and a lot of sackings/removals from the grade amongst qualified drivers, even amongst those with many years' experience and those who have achieved high levels of promotion/attainment in prior (unrelated) roles.

Be in no doubt, the job is gruelling and the standards are high. If you've driven flawlessly for 20 years plus, but have a sudden spate of incidents, you'll be shown the door.

The job of being a train driver is so often seen as a cushy number - viewed from the perspective of someone who did a number of highly demanding, office-based professional jobs before joining the railway - it simply isn't!

 

[ComUtoR]

I've never driven a train (or thought about it as a career) but if I was to guess I'd say that #2 isn't that significant -

Little bit of a schoolboy error I think. It is very significant. Where you have a significance is that the TOC/Employer takes all of the cost. They provide the training and the end qualification, they take all of the risk from the failed candidates and pay salary, pension and NI contributions; as well as other typical employee costs. Other roles tend to have candidates where they are pre-qualified. They already have various qualifications so there is no training costs. They have ready made Employees. That is a very significant difference and very significant cost. As wages rise the cost increases as it is relative to the final salary.

I think I've read here that the total training time is something like 2 years and the only paper qualifications needed before this are GCSE or equivalent?

Many many jobs have vocational training. That includes Nurses...

I've no idea how significant #1 is - for instance is there something about the concentration requirement that means only 1 in 1,000 people could do it? Or is it like driving a car in that with sufficient instruction around 1 in 2 people would be capable of it?

Fortunately there is a small cost here but it could be significant. It takes time and effort to employ new staff. A TOC HR department is generally quite extensive. #1 has a good/bad catch 22 situation. The failure rate is high. And I mean HIGH very worthy of bold and underline. It is also a very lengthy and involved process. There is a HUGE (meh italics worthy) queue out the door for applications and the rules of supply and demand should work but due to the failure rate it tips the scales. This is good employment with a decent salary and with a decent pensions and other employee benefits. There is a huge demand for the role. The high salary attracts staff. Historically this was a poorly paid job. Privatisation changed all of that. We must (cor, more word formats) remember that this is a private company doing what it can to attract employees. IF this was a job anyone could do then the wages would be much lower.

The unsocial hours and responsibility when something goes wrong must make #3 an issue - but from what I've read here there are plenty of applicants for vacancies... so I'm guessing that either a large proportion of these applicants wouldn't be suitable (which comes back to #1) or that train driving is an oddity that deviates from the norm.

Even if it does deviate, that's not necessarily a bad thing!

I agree. It does deviate from the norm. Not many roles have pretty much every single bonus/wage enhancement absorbed into the basic wage.

Unsocial hours - Yep
Weekends/Sundays - Yep
Bank Holidays - Yep
Shift Allowance - Yep
Overtime rates - Yep

So much has been absorbed into my basic rate now that I don't have any more enhancements. Lets face it, this job is ****. It is hard on the family and friends and shift work is proven to be very detrimental on your life expectancy as well as your marriage.

It also deviates because Market forces don't seem to apply. We have a high demand but still have to have a high salary to attract the appliants. It is also a job where you are restricted to an 'Nth degree' (Star Trek quote...) Other employments I have been in are very flexible. Train drivings is heavily restricted. Think lorry driving + tighter oversight. On a side note I checked my employment contract and we had to opt out of the working time directive !

We also work pretty much ever minute we are there. I book on and then every minute of my day is dictated by my diagram. I can't just pop to the loo when I want, nick a crafty fag break, get up and chill at the photocopier.. etc. I am working from the minute I step through the door. Ive worked may jobs over the years and being a Driver has been the absolute worst for any downtime. Even when I was 'working' 72hr weeks, I still had many hours sitting in my office with a cuppa on a ninja tea break. As a Driver, its becoming more and more rare to have any downtime and productivity is going through the roof.

Absolute, this job deviates from the norm.

 

[philthetube]

For most jobs, the rewards on offer depend mainly on:

1. What proportion of people could (with sufficient training) do the job. E.g. professional football may be something that only 1 in 100,000 people could do - even if you trained the other 99.999% of people, there'd not get to the required standard; whereas many skilled/professional jobs a reasonably high proportion (maybe 1 in 100 to 1 in 10) of people to do with training
2. How long it takes to train to do the job - both in terms of time in education above the statutory minimum, and time after entering the workplace to reach that level. E.g. my job (a mid-level one in IT) is one that typically people get to with 10 years of experience, or 5 years plus a degree (which still adds up to 10 years total)
3. Any factors that make the job unpleasant/unpopular. This would include unsocial hours, physical hard work, working away from home, dirty/hot/cold conditions, etc; or on the flip-side perceived glamour or a job being a route to a related better job.

As these factors dictate how many (capable) people are available to do the job.

I've never driven a train (or thought about it as a career) but if I was to guess I'd say that #2 isn't that significant - I think I've read here that the total training time is something like 2 years and the only paper qualifications needed before this are GCSE or equivalent? I've no idea how significant #1 is - for instance is there something about the concentration requirement that means only 1 in 1,000 people could do it? Or is it like driving a car in that with sufficient instruction around 1 in 2 people would be capable of it? The unsocial hours and responsibility when something goes wrong must make #3 an issue - but from what I've read here there are plenty of applicants for vacancies... so I'm guessing that either a large proportion of these applicants wouldn't be suitable (which comes back to #1) or that train driving is an oddity that deviates from the norm.

Even if it does deviate, that's not necessarily a bad thing!

2 is very significant, the entire cost of training is borne by the toc, there is no input by the education system and the company gains nothing productive from the driver while training.

If staff remain on average years after training then 33% of ti e worked will have been spent learning the job, although wages are less when training there ore many other expenses for the company, trainers, buildings etc. This results in over 50% of the costs of that driver.

If the same driver stays 40 years then those costs become 5% of working life.

I know that this is a simplification and there is ongoing training etc but these numbers will be close enough to make the point.

 

[djsmith200]

What was the settlement for thameslinkand GN?

 

[tsr]

On a side note I checked my employment contract and we had to opt out of the working time directive !

...

Absolute, this job deviates from the norm.

I completely agree with the overwhelming majority of what you're saying, having "been there, done that" in a couple of similar occupations, as you can imagine from some of the stuff I post on here.

However, on a technical note, although lots of TOCs seem to put huge pressure on people to opt out of the working time directive, I don't believe it is technically compulsory. Indeed, I was strongly pressurised to do so a few years back - and didn't, and it hasn't caused any rostering issues. There was one particular (and particularly tough) week at work once when I queried it, and it proved irrelevant anyway.

Generally, from a TOC perspective, the working time directive is far less severe than companies' self-imposed rostering rules, and as a result it seems to get far less attention, and probably rightly so. Generally, this legislation seems to be predominantly about long-term unsustainable rostering requirements, such as long-term overall hours, which in terms of pure totals of working hours, the world of passenger train crew tends not to feature.

All that being said, there are a thousand and one reasons for which many TOCS can fire you in what can be a fairly nail-biting year-or-so's probation - and not doing as you're told to accommodate the roster might be amongst the effective "any reasons whatsoever" that can be put forward.

 

[HH]

1. Except that the drivers' pay negotiations have (I believe - perhaps someone closer to the dispute can correct me) been delayed by the dispute. The recently rejected offer has been cynically thrown into the ring by the TOC to generate precisely the kind of headlines it has indeed resulted in. In that sense the union has been forced to reject it to avoid sending out a rather negative political signal.

2. You didn't bring up Ts and Cs but you did declare yourself to be an "expert" on them. However you've also thrown in the usual spurious comparisons to nurses/teachers/firefighters etc. Which suggests, despite being a T's and C's "expert" you evidently can't grasp how driving trains for a living is a tad different from being a nurse or a fire fighter (or any other completely irrelevant, unrelated job you may care to name).

3. No chip on my shoulder. I have no skin in the game - I don't work for GTR. However I find it quite patronising to be told I should consider myself lucky to earn the salary I do. Shock horror, as it happens, I don't!

With everything the job entails, I earn every penny of what I'm paid. I know quite a few people who earn a great deal more than the average train driver. They don't consider themselves lucky for being paid the going rate for the job they do. Why should train drivers be any different?

1. Pay negotiations are always delayed. I agree that the pay offer threatened to muddy the waters. I never said it should have been accepted; indeed I intimated the opposite.

2. I never mentioned nurse's or firemen with regard to T&Cs, just as examples of people who would find it hard to say no to such a pay offer; but I think that it's you who are blithely unaware of the work patterns they have, if you think drivers have it worse. The jobs are reasonably comparable in many ways, including responsibility for people's lives. And, before you start trying to put words in my mouth again, that doesn't mean that I think drivers are paid too much; I will admit to thinking that nurses are paid too little, however.

3. Not working for GTR is irrelevant. You claimed that drivers were damned whether they accepted the offer or not, whereas no-one has been damning them. Why so defensive?

 

[HH]

I completely agree with the overwhelming majority of what you're saying, having "been there, done that" in a couple of similar occupations, as you can imagine from some of the stuff I post on here.

However, on a technical note, although lots of TOCs seem to put huge pressure on people to opt out of the working time directive, I don't believe it is technically compulsory. Indeed, I was strongly pressurised to do so a few years back - and didn't, and it hasn't caused any rostering issues. There was one particular (and particularly tough) week at work once when I queried it, and it proved irrelevant anyway.

Generally, from a TOC perspective, the working time directive is far less severe than companies' self-imposed rostering rules, and as a result it seems to get far less attention, and probably rightly so. Generally, this legislation seems to be predominantly about long-term unsustainable rostering requirements, such as long-term overall hours, which in terms of pure totals of working hours, the world of passenger train crew tends not to feature.

All that being said, there are a thousand and one reasons for which many TOCS can fire you in what can be a fairly nail-biting year-or-so's probation - and not doing as you're told to accommodate the roster might be amongst the effective "any reasons whatsoever" that can be put forward.

AFAIK all rail staff are asked to opt out. You cannot be forced to do so, but there is often pressure I agree. TBH it's generally done as a defensive measure, i.e. just in case you end up breaking the hours one week, rather than that they want everyone to work long hours every week.

Legally these days, you are on probation for two years unless your contract says otherwise. And you don't have to have any particular reason, as long as it's not some form of discrimination. Still, in my experience, TOCs don't go around looking to fire people, especially drivers.

 

[HH]

For most jobs, the rewards on offer depend mainly on:

1. What proportion of people could (with sufficient training) do the job. E.g. professional football may be something that only 1 in 100,000 people could do - even if you trained the other 99.999% of people, there'd not get to the required standard; whereas many skilled/professional jobs a reasonably high proportion (maybe 1 in 100 to 1 in 10) of people to do with training
2. How long it takes to train to do the job - both in terms of time in education above the statutory minimum, and time after entering the workplace to reach that level. E.g. my job (a mid-level one in IT) is one that typically people get to with 10 years of experience, or 5 years plus a degree (which still adds up to 10 years total)
3. Any factors that make the job unpleasant/unpopular. This would include unsocial hours, physical hard work, working away from home, dirty/hot/cold conditions, etc; or on the flip-side perceived glamour or a job being a route to a related better job.

I'll give my take on these factors; not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with what others have written, but I possibly have a different perspective.

#1 is actually pretty important. Firstly because a lot of people are rejected and secondly because the process itself is quite long, involved and expensive (I have to differ with ComUtor on this). You might sift through 200 applicants to get a dozen trainees, and that sifting requires medical tests, psychometric tests, interviews (drivers need very good sight and hearing, excellent concentration and they must be happy to work on their own in a small cab); when you add in the cost of management time the usual figure given is £10k a trainee (i.e. several hundred pounds per tested applicant). This sifting was developed over time and appears quite effective (of course no-one knows how many 'false negatives' there are, but the positives generally work out).

This expensive first stage is partly because #2 is also long and expensive, so that you want to cut down on failures. If failure rates were higher then you would need to train more people, because you don't want to end up with a bunch of failures and therefore no drivers.

Others have mentioned the downsides to the job, but it should be noted that T&Cs vary from TOC to TOC, e.g. some have to work Sundays, but at others it's purely voluntary. Some it's part of the working week, at others it's overtime. What is common to all is that you work unsocial hours on a shift pattern.

There is another factor, not on your list. And that is the effect that industrial action can have. Without drivers you can't run trains. One of the reasons for driver's pay having increased so much under privatisation is that TOCs have low profit margins and high incomes, so that losing just a couple of days revenue can wipe out their profit. Government never seems to worry so much about lost revenue...

 

[ComUtoR]

#1 is actually pretty important. Firstly because a lot of people are rejected and secondly because the process itself is quite long, involved and expensive (I have to differ with ComUtor on this).

In what way do you differ ? Long and high failure rate... sounds the same to me.

There is another factor, not on your list. And that is the effect that industrial action can have. Without drivers you can't run trains. One of the reasons for driver's pay having increased so much under privatisation is that TOCs have low profit margins and high incomes, so that losing just a couple of days revenue can wipe out their profit. Government never seems to worry so much about lost revenue...

An extension of that is we have a workforce that is essential. Without the Driver there is no service. Therefore, no revenue, heavy penalties and potentially a further loss when it comes to franchise renewal. When I worked elsewhere I was completely replaceable. If I didn't turn in for work then I could be replaced with a phone call to a local agency. My skills and training were as such that almost anyone could do my job. Having an essential workforce isn't unique to the railway but it does have an impact on wages. All the previous points about training and recruitment have a serious impact on staff retention and replacement.

For as long as I have been a Driver, GTR have had a staffing level problem. TOC's will always run to the bare bones so rest day bans dramatically affect the service, Strikes all but destroy it. The question for the TOC's is how best to deal with a workforce that cannot be replaced and can strangle your business in a blink. TOC's tend to throw money at it. High wages are a bribe to buy terms and conditions that wouldn't normally be accepted elsewhere.

They have currently paid a lot of money to resolve the long standing issue with Sundays. They still haven't made a Sunday part of the week as it would force the TOC to recruit more Drivers. They simply offered a large sum of money and have a contractual overtime clause.

All it has done is drive the wage bill higher and higher. All because it removes the need to recruit additional staff.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I'm not posting here to judge whether train drivers are paid at the correct level. I didn't really have any idea how much they were paid until I read this post. I can remember during the recent tube drivers dispute being quite surprised at how much they were paid. This is not because I seriously disagreed with the amount, it just took me by surprise because I'd never really thought about it.

My dad was a train driver, and I do know that for the responsibility he had his wages were appallingly low. He retired nearly 30 years ago and I know that in those days pay for jobs on the railway was very poor. He worked very long hours, with lots of overtime and very unsociable hours for many of his shifts, but without the overtime, earned barely enough to support his family.

I retired two years ago after 37 years as a Primary School Teacher and my final salary was just £37,000. That was at the top of the pay scale for a classroom teacher without responsibility of Deputy Headship etc., but as a classroom teacher I was responsible for the education and welfare of a class of 30 children aged just 6 or 7 years old. I know that I got good holidays and no unsocial hours but including work that I had to bring home I did regularly work up to 60 hours a week, and even more when it was Parents Evenings etc.

Whether it's right or wrong you can perhaps see why I was surprised at how much train drivers earn or could earn. I do not deny that it's a very responsible job and I'm not sure that I would want that responsibility.

I think that all this proves is that teachers are underpaid! Potentially along with fire officers, nurses etc

 

[Carlisle]

For most jobs, the rewards on offer depend mainly on:

1. What proportion of people could (with sufficient training) do the job. E.g. professional football may be something that only 1 in 100,000 people could do - even if you trained the other 99.999% of people, there'd not get to the required standard; whereas many skilled/professional jobs a reasonably high proportion (maybe 1 in 100 to 1 in 10) of people to do with training

1. 
   Is it that simple? It definitely applies to a tiny few at the very tip top, however a significant number of reasonable standard pros over the years have been the sons of other footballers

 

[HH]

In what way do you differ ? Long and high failure rate... sounds the same to me.

Apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that #2 was high was #1 was low.

An extension of that is we have a workforce that is essential. Without the Driver there is no service. Therefore, no revenue, heavy penalties and potentially a further loss when it comes to franchise renewal. When I worked elsewhere I was completely replaceable. If I didn't turn in for work then I could be replaced with a phone call to a local agency. My skills and training were as such that almost anyone could do my job. Having an essential workforce isn't unique to the railway but it does have an impact on wages. All the previous points about training and recruitment have a serious impact on staff retention and replacement.

Agreed.

For as long as I have been a Driver, GTR have had a staffing level problem. TOC's will always run to the bare bones so rest day bans dramatically affect the service, Strikes all but destroy it. The question for the TOC's is how best to deal with a workforce that cannot be replaced and can strangle your business in a blink. TOC's tend to throw money at it. High wages are a bribe to buy terms and conditions that wouldn't normally be accepted elsewhere.

They have currently paid a lot of money to resolve the long standing issue with Sundays. They still haven't made a Sunday part of the week as it would force the TOC to recruit more Drivers. They simply offered a large sum of money and have a contractual overtime clause.

All it has done is drive the wage bill higher and higher. All because it removes the need to recruit additional staff.

This is true for GTR; other TOCs have taken a different approach. From what I've seen that approach has been gaining some traction; Sundays are included in the week by several TOCs now and staffing levels are reasonable at a number.

However, I still feel that a lack of operations management skills causes more problems than is necessary across the board. By this I mean poor resource planning, poor diagramming , poor rostering and bad "on the day" decisions.