Driver rates of pay are notoriously difficult to compare between different companies due to length of turn, compulsory Sunday working, Bank Holiday arrangements, Annual Leave entitlements and a whole load of other issues.
Yes, just as in any industry there are many factors to a job, so it is impossible to compare like with like. As far as I can tell a typical FCC driver will be earning about £40k basic plus pension and free travel for a 35 hour working week. I can't find the exact figures now, but I think £40 is something like the top 10%. The average UK salary is about £25k, 35 hour minimum wage would be about £11k. [citation needed] My point being train drivers aren't underpaid compared to the general population.
A similar job would be something with requiring similar qualificaitons and responsibility. If the goverment closed the railways tomorrow and offered drivers the oportunity to retrain in anything they wanted, what you would do? Based on the data at
http://www.mysalary.co.uk/2008-salary-data.php train drivers earn more than teachers and nurses, and comparible with policemen and nucleur safety engineers. I picked those because they are hard working, skilled professions, but feel free to post your own comparisons.
What I will say is that on FCC the Driver effectively does two jobs: that of a Driver and Guard. On NXEC, for example, the combined wage of these two members of staff is getting on for a basic £70k so I do not think for one moment that we are wildly overpaid for the work that we do on FCC.
Are you trying to argue that with DOO a driver should be paid two wages? Yes, a DOO driver has extra duties, but you don't normally see them answering passengers questions or selling tickets! Some of the guard's job moves to platform staff, and some to automated systems like the video screens.
I assume you'll be campaigning for a pay reduction when automatic train operation comes in, as the driver will not be needed for a period of the train journey - only fair they are not paid for it.
As for your final point, and aside from the fact that FCC's revenue is propped up by you (the Taxpayer) in times of strife,
Oh great, so if First are bullied into making over-generous pay offers then I can pay for them! And this is meant to convince me that the drivers need a payrise?
and ignoring the fact that Moir Lockhead has said First is "recession proof", the figures for 2010's revenue would seem to me to be irrelevant considering how we are conducting 2009's salary review. Please don't tell me that we should take next years 'if's, but's and maybe's' into account, else it provides a nice get out for rogue companies like FCC to just wait untill the figures look suitably favourable for them to negotiate the lowest possible deal, irrespective of the pay revie anniversary date.
They should be looking both back and forward - how have things changed since the last pay review, and how are they likely to change before the next one. They should be looking at the driver market and inflation though, not their corporate profits, although healthy profits allow them room to be a little more generous, and losses will mean they have to be more careful.
Companies often make losses for years, supported by investors who believe they can turn the business round and make a profit. Those investors wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to take money from companies that are doing well, and the country would be a worse place for it.
If First's profits are excessive, then that is because the Government has not negioated a good deal on the franchise. If we ignore the investors, then excess money should go into improving the services, not to the group of employees who are most easily able to blackmail management.
Which by the way is seven months overdue!
That's one point you have got my support on. If they have a time of announcing pay reviews then they should stick to it. They should also have enough staff to run their service without relying on overtime.
.
