|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 15, 2024 14:59:23 GMT
The fact you say I need luck shows the benefit system is not fit for purpose and does not represent any sort of value for money towards the general public. I also did say pushed ahead, there's a lot of work to do but it all needs to start somewhere. Saying it costs too much will result in it never being done and eventually will result in a network not fit for purpose. Go ahead then, detail what you wish to be changed to the benefits package. Review the cost of the nominee pass, would be very interesting to see the figures on that one. Review staff wages, pretty sure many tube drivers are earning a lot more relative to their work. This does however include potentially raising wages for front line staff who receive the abuse from pax. Take a look at the pension contributions. I need to be clear that no existing staff member on them should be changed, but new staff should probably go on a pension plan that doesn't cause strikes every year. It's been done with the NHS in 2015 so it can be done with TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 15, 2024 15:00:04 GMT
The fact you say I need luck shows the benefit system is not fit for purpose and does not represent any sort of value for money towards the general public. I also did say pushed ahead, there's a lot of work to do but it all needs to start somewhere. Saying it costs too much will result in it never being done and eventually will result in a network not fit for purpose. Go ahead then, detail what you wish to be changed to the benefits package. Whatever guff the Daily Mail write tomorrow: |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 15, 2024 15:02:22 GMT
Go ahead then, detail what you wish to be changed to the benefits package. Whatever guff the Daily Mail write tomorrow: I think you underestimate the sheer contempt the general public hold towards railway staff at the moment. I'm a staunch Labour supporter but know that the people who work hardest need to see the greater rewards. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Apr 15, 2024 15:04:27 GMT
Go ahead then, detail what you wish to be changed to the benefits package. Review the cost of the nominee pass, would be very interesting to see the figures on that one. Review staff wages, pretty sure many tube drivers are earning a lot more relative to their work. This does however include potentially raising wages for front line staff who receive the abuse from pax. Take a look at the pension contributions. I need to be clear that no existing staff member on them should be changed, but new staff should probably go on a pension plan that doesn't cause strikes every year. It's been done with the NHS in 2015 so it can be done with TfL. LU train operator salaries are similar to operators for other train operating companies. This is a fact that some people seem not to realise. Would you propose to reduce salaries for the TOCs operating within London? Removal of the nominee pass may prove to be quite tricky - you could only realistically stop this for new staff (after a cut off point). I also did say pushed ahead, there's a lot of work to do but it all needs to start somewhere. Saying it costs too much will result in it never being done and eventually will result in a network not fit for purpose. I am of the thought that driverless trains are a waste of money - I edited my first post, but I believe any money is much better spent improving the resilience of the network in other ways. LU is facing many challenges at the moment due to underinvestment. Let's focus on getting the fleet up to scratch, keep the infrastructure in working order and perhaps extending services. The benefits for driverless trains are minimal, people are annoyed by strikes but driverless trains aren't going to end the problem. The wicked tabloids fan the flames of hatred towards railway staff, and it's not on. You know how I feel about the MSM... |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 15, 2024 15:09:33 GMT
Whatever guff the Daily Mail write tomorrow: I think you underestimate the sheer contempt the general public hold towards railway staff at the moment. I'm a staunch Labour supporter but know that the people who work hardest need to see the greater rewards. I don't doubt there's some frustration, but it's likely to be a lot more nuanced than suggested. There are similar frustrations with NHS consultant doctors who earn twice what train drivers do and have also striked. |
|
|
|
Post by allentc on Apr 15, 2024 15:12:49 GMT
Like wirewiper , I’d introduce a road pricing scheme instead of the ULEZ one Japan has it right in the promotion of kei cars. People in London don't really need massive 4x4s to ferry their children to school in. In reality small city runabouts are more than adequate for most circumstances. A sliding scale of fees based on engine size or weight/size of vehicle to penalise those with the largest and heaviest vehicles with maybe even a free tier for cars with engines/motors and dimensions under a certain size. There is no reason why someone in a small car with a 1.0 litre engine should pay the same per mile as someone in a large 4x4/saloon/sports car with an engine several times the size. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2024 15:22:10 GMT
Like wirewiper , I’d introduce a road pricing scheme instead of the ULEZ one Japan has it right in the promotion of kei cars. People in London don't really need massive 4x4s to ferry their children to school in. In reality small city runabouts are more than adequate for most circumstances. A sliding scale of fees based on engine size or weight/size of vehicle to penalise those with the largest and heaviest vehicles with maybe even a free tier for cars with engines/motors and dimensions under a certain size. I agree with that but even then, I still think in a city like London, there are far too many cars overall - not all should be demonised as there are people who need them for genuine reasons like the type of job they do or for disability reasons but outside of those genuine reasons, there are many who make journeys in a car that really are unnecessary. Of course, investment needs to go hand in hand with this it should be said - can't do one without the other. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Apr 15, 2024 15:41:11 GMT
How about a tax on the weight of the vehicle, considering they are exponentially more damaging to the road and are dangerous to pedestrians and passengers. Probably sensible to exclude vans and HGVs from this though
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 15, 2024 15:57:33 GMT
How about a tax on the weight of the vehicle, considering they are exponentially more damaging to the road and are dangerous to pedestrians and passengers. Probably sensible to exclude vans and HGVs from this though And PCVs (Passenger Carrying Vehicles) with 9 or more passenger seats. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Apr 15, 2024 16:02:59 GMT
How about a tax on the weight of the vehicle, considering they are exponentially more damaging to the road and are dangerous to pedestrians and passengers. Probably sensible to exclude vans and HGVs from this though And PCVs (Passenger Carrying Vehicles) with 9 or more passenger seats. We have just excluded all the heaviest most damaging vehicles, so made rather pointless. Will then become another car tax, which we go down well when those that damage roads most are excluded. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2024 16:10:41 GMT
How about a tax on the weight of the vehicle, considering they are exponentially more damaging to the road and are dangerous to pedestrians and passengers. Probably sensible to exclude vans and HGVs from this though So what are you actually taxing then if your excluding the very same vehicles your tax looks to be aimed at? Heavy vehicles are only more dangerous to pedestrians if, as a pedestrian, you act stupidly. No doubt some heavy vehicle drivers shouldn't be behind the wheel of one but I don't it helps to generalise. I'm a pedestrian a lot of the time and I see plenty of other pedestrians be a danger to other road users. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 15, 2024 18:54:19 GMT
I think you underestimate the sheer contempt the general public hold towards railway staff at the moment. I'm a staunch Labour supporter but know that the people who work hardest need to see the greater rewards. I don't doubt there's some frustration, but it's likely to be a lot more nuanced than suggested. There are similar frustrations with NHS consultant doctors who earn twice what train drivers do and have also striked. No, I think you seem to have grossly underestimated the sheer frustration the general public have towards this group of people. I've not come across similar frustrations when you tell someone that the person cutting them up is earning 90K. But the person sitting in the front of the train while the train drives itself gets 50+K pumped into them for effectively just sitting there. Jobs need to be paid with the skill level involved, the fact of the matter is that people can train to be a tube driver in a relatively short space of time while reaching consultancy in the medical profession requires 2 years of A Levels/IB at the top marks, 7 years of Medical School, 7 years of Specialty training and then 2 years of fellowship. This is replicated similarly in other cases within the NHS who are paid less than tube drivers. Nurses start at Band 5 which is ever so slightly above 30K in Central London, 28K elsewhere after 2 years of A Levels/IB/BTEC, 3-4 years in University followed by relevant training for at least a year after that, similar case with Biomedical and certain clinical Scientists who need to do 2-3 years of pre-undergrad studies, 3 years of an Undergraduate degree and then spending 1-2 years training in the field before having to do a masters if they haven't already. How long does it take to train a tube driver? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 15, 2024 18:55:58 GMT
Review the cost of the nominee pass, would be very interesting to see the figures on that one. Review staff wages, pretty sure many tube drivers are earning a lot more relative to their work. This does however include potentially raising wages for front line staff who receive the abuse from pax. Take a look at the pension contributions. I need to be clear that no existing staff member on them should be changed, but new staff should probably go on a pension plan that doesn't cause strikes every year. It's been done with the NHS in 2015 so it can be done with TfL. LU train operator salaries are similar to operators for other train operating companies. This is a fact that some people seem not to realise. Would you propose to reduce salaries for the TOCs operating within London? Removal of the nominee pass may prove to be quite tricky - you could only realistically stop this for new staff (after a cut off point). I also did say pushed ahead, there's a lot of work to do but it all needs to start somewhere. Saying it costs too much will result in it never being done and eventually will result in a network not fit for purpose. I am of the thought that driverless trains are a waste of money - I edited my first post, but I believe any money is much better spent improving the resilience of the network in other ways. LU is facing many challenges at the moment due to underinvestment. Let's focus on getting the fleet up to scratch, keep the infrastructure in working order and perhaps extending services. The benefits for driverless trains are minimal, people are annoyed by strikes but driverless trains aren't going to end the problem. The wicked tabloids fan the flames of hatred towards railway staff, and it's not on. You know how I feel about the MSM... I'm a firm believer of not taking away from people who already have, so my suggestion of reviewing the nominee pass as you say would only happen for new staff. Driverless trains won't end the problem at all, however it does mean drivers aren't locked away in a cab all day and can actually go up and down the train serving the passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 15, 2024 18:59:08 GMT
I don't doubt there's some frustration, but it's likely to be a lot more nuanced than suggested. There are similar frustrations with NHS consultant doctors who earn twice what train drivers do and have also striked. No, I think you seem to have grossly underestimated the sheer frustration the general public have towards this group of people. I've not come across similar frustrations when you tell someone that the person cutting them up is earning 90K. But the person sitting in the front of the train while the train drives itself gets 50+K pumped into them for effectively just sitting there. Jobs need to be paid with the skill level involved, the fact of the matter is that people can train to be a tube driver in a relatively short space of time while reaching consultancy in the medical profession requires 2 years of A Levels/IB at the top marks, 7 years of Medical School, 7 years of Specialty training and then 2 years of fellowship. This is replicated similarly in other cases within the NHS who are paid less than tube drivers. Nurses start at Band 5 which is ever so slightly above 30K in Central London, 28K elsewhere after 2 years of A Levels/IB/BTEC, 3-4 years in University followed by relevant training for at least a year after that, similar case with Biomedical and certain clinical Scientists who need to do 2-3 years of pre-undergrad studies, 3 years of an Undergraduate degree and then spending 1-2 years training in the field before having to do a masters if they haven't already. How long does it take to train a tube driver? I'm sure you and your Daily Mail colleagues will be calling for better wages for NHS staff promptly then? Better a race to the top than the bottom. I won't hold my breath... |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 15, 2024 20:00:53 GMT
No, I think you seem to have grossly underestimated the sheer frustration the general public have towards this group of people. I've not come across similar frustrations when you tell someone that the person cutting them up is earning 90K. But the person sitting in the front of the train while the train drives itself gets 50+K pumped into them for effectively just sitting there. Jobs need to be paid with the skill level involved, the fact of the matter is that people can train to be a tube driver in a relatively short space of time while reaching consultancy in the medical profession requires 2 years of A Levels/IB at the top marks, 7 years of Medical School, 7 years of Specialty training and then 2 years of fellowship. This is replicated similarly in other cases within the NHS who are paid less than tube drivers. Nurses start at Band 5 which is ever so slightly above 30K in Central London, 28K elsewhere after 2 years of A Levels/IB/BTEC, 3-4 years in University followed by relevant training for at least a year after that, similar case with Biomedical and certain clinical Scientists who need to do 2-3 years of pre-undergrad studies, 3 years of an Undergraduate degree and then spending 1-2 years training in the field before having to do a masters if they haven't already. How long does it take to train a tube driver? I'm sure you and your Daily Mail colleagues will be calling for better wages for NHS staff promptly then? Better a race to the top than the bottom. I won't hold my breath... Haven't NHS staff been calling for better wages for years? You haven't acknowledged anything regarding the skill levels I mention either relative to tube drivers. NHS staff are limited in their striking capability as there's always minimum staffing requirements. It's also not how the economy works, you need to pay more into National Insurance to fund the NHS' costs. However you try to put a minimum staffing requirement anywhere on the rails and then people go up in arms. Like I said there's a reason why this group are probably up there for the most disliked group of workers in the country. Only one group can probably gather as much dislike as politicians but the people who strike on the railways are certainly up there. |
|
