Tube Drivers Again.

heathcote123

richardvc wrote: »

Secondly, as soon as they can replace them with automated trains, they will. That's what business is all about...

Only if it's cheaper or more politically convenient. They're doing quite well on both counts right now..

richardvc

heathcote123 wrote: »

Only if it's cheaper or more politically convenient. They're doing quite well on both counts right now..

But have they got the money now ?

I can't see Boris or Ken (if he wins) making loads of redundancies on the Underground anytime soon and then convincing Londoners to travel on automated trains...... YET !

Procrastinator333

richardvc wrote: »

Google it.

They are not 'incredibly rare' skills, you have put those words into the equation, they are just skills that when combined, not that many people have.

Reaction tests, mechanical tests, concentration tests, memory tests to name but a few.

And I will ask again, what is your definition of 'a short period of time that hundreds of thousands could learn' how to drive a tube train ?

Absolute tosh. Their salaries have nothing to do with being highly skilled. Solely the result of being in a union with a disproportionate impact if they strike.

Forward, backward, start and stop. There you go. £45k per year is yours.

timbo58

I don't agree with a larger payout for nothing: what extra duties have been asked for?
If extra duties are asked for then the union are right to ask for recompense.
The driver is wholly responsible for safety on the (tube) train, they are paid for that responsibility.

Also there is a great deal of cr*p being spouted on here, the poster who quoted the drivers need to have an aptitude for the job and that is uncommon is perfectly correct.

80% of people who think they could pass the drivers aptitude tests would be surprised when they sat the exam and tests, thats why it takes a year to train (at least).
Many Drivers who can drive mainline trains cannot work on the tube as they can't get used to the different way of work.
I'm not making it out to be brain surgery, but it is not the simple task others pretend it is for their own arguments.

Don't assume I am a tube worker either, but I do have a great deal of railway safety experience in my past career.

It's about as much 'forward,backward, start stop' as flying a plane is push button, have a cup of tea, push button get off plane.

timbo58

OK, rather than just jump up and down and tell all & sundry about my uninformed opinion: I thought I'd just check that well known pro union source the BBC.

the £500 payment is for accepting temporary changes to working patterns during the olympics.

If your employer decided they'd have a muck about with your job would you simply accept it or would you look at your contract and come to some agreement?

Procrastinator333

timbo58 wrote: »

I don't agree with a larger payout for nothing: what extra duties have been asked for?
If extra duties are asked for then the union are right to ask for recompense.
The driver is wholly responsible for safety on the (tube) train, they are paid for that responsibility.

Also there is a great deal of cr*p being spouted on here, the poster who quoted the drivers need to have an aptitude for the job and that is uncommon is perfectly correct.

80% of people who think they could pass the drivers aptitude tests would be surprised when they sat the exam and tests, thats why it takes a year to train (at least).
Many Drivers who can drive mainline trains cannot work on the tube as they can't get used to the different way of work.
I'm not making it out to be brain surgery, but it is not the simple task others pretend it is for their own arguments.

Don't assume I am a tube worker either, but I do have a great deal of railway safety experience in my past career.

It's about as much 'forward,backward, start stop' as flying a plane is push button, have a cup of tea, push button get off plane.

Ok, I know I'm exaggerating slightly. But take your figs. Say it is only 20% who could do it (which I doubt). Of a working population of about 20m, that is 4m. And I bet 3.97m of them would do it for a lot less. But they can't because of labour laws. The right to a union etc ain't a bad thing, but it creates a disproportionate position of strength for tube drivers.

And as for 1 year of training. So what, there are plenty of jobs that take longer to learn and pay less.

Procrastinator333

richardvc wrote: »

But have they got the money now ?

I can't see Boris or Ken (if he wins) making loads of redundancies on the Underground anytime soon and then convincing Londoners to travel on automated trains...... YET !

They have already sealed their fate with their greed. They have made it the only sensible business decision and probably not as expensive as it might have been by the time you factor in all the down time of the strikes. On the other side, public opinion, Londoners will be ecstatic when the tubes go driverless. If they had kept things running smoothly, they probably would have had the public on side. Instead all the public think of is all the !!!! those drivers caused them with the strikes.

richardvc

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Ok, I know I'm exaggerating slightly. But take your figs. Say it is only 20% who could do it (which I doubt). Of a working population of about 20m, that is 4m. And I bet 3.97m of them would do it for a lot less. But they can't because of labour laws. The right to a union etc ain't a bad thing, but it creates a disproportionate position of strength for tube drivers.

And as for 1 year of training. So what, there are plenty of jobs that take longer to learn and pay less.

It isn't even 20%.

As I said earlier, google it.

With mainline train drivers, our local TOC says for every 317 applicants they get one fully trained driver and the tube is not dissimilar.

As I keep repeating, the skills are not brain surgery BUT the combination of the required skills are a bit unusual !

Secondly, the unions are needed to make sure that safety is not compromised for both staff and the public and to make sure that standards are kept high. They do a lot of good work behind the scenes regarding training, education etc etc but as that doesn't suit the media's outlook it never gets publicised.

richardvc

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Absolute tosh. Their salaries have nothing to do with being highly skilled. Solely the result of being in a union with a disproportionate impact if they strike.

Forward, backward, start and stop. There you go. £45k per year is yours.

If it is that easy btw, how come so many people from all walks of life, fail at the first test of the first assessment ?

Secondly, it is a skilled profession. Ask the RSSB, HMRI and so on and you would find they would disagree with you.

I like to hear other people's opinions but when they just assume stuff that isn't true and then make the rest up to suit their argument it becomes a bit tiresome.

ILW

Please outline what is so difficult?