Tube Drivers Again.

RevolvingDoor

I don't think earning £45,000 is a huge salary in London anyway. They are trying to bring in driver-less trains but I've heard it won't be for about 10 years, starting with the Piccadilly line.

jobdone1

My argument is clear the country needs taxes to pay for health schools etc to have the country run by machines and no one earning money is not going to provide our services.

Yes you may argue that we do not need in your words overpaid train drivers but where does your argument stop, What next overpaid Teachers lets do it electronically.

As you can see its easy to argue one profession being overpaid and under qualified but where does your argument end.

grizzly1911

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

I don't think earning £45,000 is a huge salary in London anyway. They are trying to bring in driver-less trains but I've heard it won't be for about 10 years, starting with the Piccadilly line.

I doubt automating the system will save very much. The cost of the technology up front, routinely updating the technology, sytems support technicians and engineers, more safety inspections, breakdown resolution.

On top of that you will no doubt have a number of drivers who will enter the welfare system and need to be supported.

GeorgeHowell

Crowe sees it as his duty and calling to disrupt the evil capitalist system. A high proportion of Tube workers no doubt have the proverbial public sector worker sense of entitlement. While it's like this they will never be able to privatise it, which is no doubt one of Crowe's primary objectives.

somethingcorporate

Do you think the fate of 3,500 people on a fairly standard salary for the capital is going to make any difference to the amount of taxes a country raises?

I agree a country needs to raise taxes and spend taxes wisely. Do you think those tube drivers are net contributors to the tax take? I am not sure they are given the level of subsidy that TFL receives.

My argument goes as far as the market pushes it. If a product/service is overpriced it will be replaced with a cheaper substitute. The more expensive something gets the quicker a substitute will be found as per my very post post on the first page.

The tube drivers constantly ratchet up their costs and demands and sooner or later they will find themselves replaced by a more cost effective substitute.

This will happen time and time again for many industries - happened for miners and manufacturing - when they became uncompetitively priced we started importing and made most of them redundant in the period of a decade.

I am not saying teachers are overpaid or under-qualified. If we find a cheaper, better substitute for teaching then I'd expect it to go the way of the dinosaurs as all things that do not adapt quickly enough do.

somethingcorporate

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I doubt automating the system will save very much. The cost of the technology up front, routinely updating the technology, sytems support technicians and engineers, more safety inspections, breakdown resolution.

On top of that you will no doubt have a number of drivers who will enter the welfare system and need to be supported.

If it made sense financially I would have expected it to have been done already. Eventually it will and with drivers increasing their costs annually way ahead of inflation and often holding the capital to ransom to cause as much disruption and inconvenience as they can there is only so far they can push it before they marginalise themselves and lose all support.

Typhoon2000

Driverless trains, like the DLR. That's what we need. Its plain to see that the tube driver just want Boxing day off.

RevolvingDoor

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I doubt automating the system will save very much. The cost of the technology up front, routinely updating the technology, sytems support technicians and engineers, more safety inspections, breakdown resolution.
On top of that you will no doubt have a number of drivers who will enter the welfare system and need to be supported.

Yes, probably. My husband works for London Underground btw.:D

grizzly1911

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

Yes, probably. My husband works for London Underground btw.:D

What is his/your take on the point I raised earlier?

Heard on the radio that the drivers made an agreement back in the early 90s that for improved conditions and more holiday they waived "premium" premium pay on BHs.

I appreciate that BHs may well be a much fuller service, more trains , than when the agreement was reached and that it may have become a normal working day, rather than a voluntary option, for instance..

timbo58

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Your opinion has already been seen to be worthless so thankfully I will take your post under advisement.

and I yours.
My opinion is as valid as yours in this context as is anyone else for that matter.

I was quite happy to respect someone who had posted more actively than me, clearly not all those who are very active posters are worthy of such.