DOO was taken off the table.... Drivers release doors happens all-over the network.
-
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 ethics of train strikes
- Thread starter Schweir
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
PeterY
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,363
I can't believe this dispute as gone on so long, with no end in sight. OK we get 14 days notice but train travel isn't (for me) worth the stress. I spend a lot of my money travelling by train but I've given up now.
DOO isn't happening. The then MDs of Northern and TPE said explicitly that guards were essential to their operation. The government removed it from its list of demands.
The average full time wage in the UK according the the ONS is £33280 as of April 2022.
A guard at my TOC is paid £29k, which includes working shifts that can start as early as 0345 and finish as late as 0200. Diagrams are on average around 9.5hrs long and many now have minimum breaks. In addition it includes lone working, cash handling, having to pass safety-critical assessments and medicals and can land you in prison for making an error of judgement.
The salary also hasn't increased for 4 years now. 4 years which includes pretty heavy inflation. My mortgage fixed deal has ended and my new payments are about 50% higher than they were last year. According to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator a £35k salary is worth the same today as a £29k salary in 2019. In real terms that is a 20% pay cut.
Incidentally some cleaners at my TOC have received a pay rise recently simply because their hourly rate was otherwise going to be below the National Living Wage.
Don't know what you'd call a "proper wage" but I certainly don't think they could be considered as overpaid.
Suggesting all rail staff are striking for a pay rise on their £60-70k+ salary (as you did upthread) is coming from cloud cuckoo land.
Turtle
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 468
Do you think it is ethical for a Government to obstruct reasonable claims for higher salaries by hiding behind and manipulating pseudo Private Companies for purely political purposes?
Like I say, what do you think is a "proper wage" for a RMT guard then?
Sly Old Fox
Member
IN before the lock.
Of course strikes are ethical. What a mad question.
Of course strikes are ethical. What a mad question.
What would you define a "proper wage" as?
I suspect that average you cite is the median, not an actual average.
johncrossley
Established Member
Another reason why rail strikes might not be ethical is the impact on the environment. Cutting the number of car trips is absolutely vital, which is (or should be) the main reason why trains exist. Not just transport for people who don't have a car.
The median is generally used in these kinds of statistics as it minimises distortion caused by a relatively small number of outliers. But if the median is being used then it needs to be stated.
The median is generally used in these kinds of statistics as it minimises distortion caused by a relatively small number of outliers. But if the median is being used then it needs to be stated.
A wage you think they deserve to be paid.
Most of the cleaners working at the TOCs involved in the national strike are outsourced anyway, so its outcome is irrelevant to most of them .
I do understand the use of median, however away from statistics it is quite meaningless. Most people in this country do not earn £33K+.
I think a little point made by the OP perhaps has been missed in all the to-and-fro about pay rises and average salaries to date.
It's certainly fair to say strikes impact the poorer end of society far more than the wealthy.
To exemplify: a cleaner who relies on the train to reach their night shift in a city centre will be paid circa £10 per hour. Strikes remove that service and they would have to pay substantially more for a taxi to the city centre or pay for parking. This could easily account for 1 to 2 hours pay.
An executive/professional sort in the same situation would likely be on far closer to £52 per hour (taking £100,000 as a low exemplar annual salary). To them, the cost of the inconvenience will be far less than 15 minutes pay - if they even used the train in the first instance.
Thus, the impact of strike action in rail transport has a disproportional impact on the poorer end of society.
I'm not, for a second, calling into question the right to strike; what I would suggest is that the government is clearly totally apathetic towards the poorer end of society AND towards the demands of rail unions. As such, the two could be seen to be broadly on the same team vs the current government. It could even be seen as a way of striking divisions within a broadly similar socio-economic group.
I think it's fair to call into question the ethics of this approach, however, is there any other viable alternative?
It's certainly fair to say strikes impact the poorer end of society far more than the wealthy.
To exemplify: a cleaner who relies on the train to reach their night shift in a city centre will be paid circa £10 per hour. Strikes remove that service and they would have to pay substantially more for a taxi to the city centre or pay for parking. This could easily account for 1 to 2 hours pay.
An executive/professional sort in the same situation would likely be on far closer to £52 per hour (taking £100,000 as a low exemplar annual salary). To them, the cost of the inconvenience will be far less than 15 minutes pay - if they even used the train in the first instance.
Thus, the impact of strike action in rail transport has a disproportional impact on the poorer end of society.
I'm not, for a second, calling into question the right to strike; what I would suggest is that the government is clearly totally apathetic towards the poorer end of society AND towards the demands of rail unions. As such, the two could be seen to be broadly on the same team vs the current government. It could even be seen as a way of striking divisions within a broadly similar socio-economic group.
I think it's fair to call into question the ethics of this approach, however, is there any other viable alternative?
Be careful quoting stats from tabloid newspapers they often manipulate figures. I was quoting now increases and got my calculator out and everything.
johncrossley
Established Member
If indeed the median was used, then the arithmetic mean (the most common definition of average) would be even higher, because of the huge pay that company directors etc. get.
https://www.avtrinity.com/uk-average-salary suggests that £33K is the median average for *full time* workers, but £27.8K is the median for all workers.
I am pretty confident that most people in this country do not earn £33K+ a year.
Sorry folks but we have debated rail strikes loads of times before and it eventually leads to ill feeling and antagonism so we will bring this thread to a close.
- Status