Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

During my working life, the last 1/4 of which was in teaching, I have designed, built and run computer centres. That includes fire prevention, electrical safety, backup measures etc etc etc.. Pen pusher? Far from it. Train drivers are there, mainly, for when the "system" fails or outside influences, such as some idiot being on the tracks or a broken down vehicle at a crossing requires instant handling to prevent a crash. Of course, if it's a suicide attempt, that's likely to be a last second jump and they can't react quickly enough. You minimise the train drivers task. It's similar to an airline pilot, in essence. A train is perfectly capable of running itself but, as yet, there's no replacement been found for the human intervention when needed.

It's an interesting point that the driver is there for when the automated systems cannot act or fail to act, so they effectively ae watchman / brakeman - whilst letting the train drive itself. Agree that's the reality of the job, although wonder whether that role merits what will approach 90k a year in a couple of years time. A lot of that high salary was developed in an era when the role was more hand on / less automated, yet it has not gone down as technology has crept in. Many jobs (my own included) have downgraded and have become less well remunerated because of tech, yet train drivers seem immune from such changes. The power of a closed shop and the ability to hold customers / passengers hostage to strike action combines to allow them to demand and get perhaps disproportionately high salaries. The refusal to accept technological changes in the industry is to my mind not acceptable. I agree that one man trains are not the answer but there has to be an acceptance that the industry must move forward. The answer for the train companies is not simply to spend more but to spend wisely - on infrastructure, rolling stock and technology - and not caving in to wage demand tactics more relevant to the 1970's. All jobs evolve, move with the times, don't sit in entrenched positions refusing to embrace change.

[MadAmster]

It's an interesting point that the driver is there for when the automated systems cannot act or fail to act, so they effectively ae watchman / brakeman - whilst letting the train drive itself. Agree that's the reality of the job, although wonder whether that role merits what will approach 90k a year in a couple of years time. A lot of that high salary was developed in an era when the role was more hand on / less automated, yet it has not gone down as technology has crept in. Many jobs (my own included) have downgraded and have become less well remunerated because of tech, yet train drivers seem immune from such changes. The power of a closed shop and the ability to hold customers / passengers hostage to strike action combines to allow them to demand and get perhaps disproportionately high salaries. The refusal to accept technological changes in the industry is to my mind not acceptable. I agree that one man trains are not the answer but there has to be an acceptance that the industry must move forward. The answer for the train companies is not simply to spend more but to spend wisely - on infrastructure, rolling stock and technology - and not caving in to wage demand tactics more relevant to the 1970's. All jobs evolve, move with the times, don't sit in entrenched positions refusing to embrace change.

Depends on what terms and conditions are being looked at by the companies. If it's upping the number of weekends worked from 26 to 39 and then cutting the premium payments for weekend working or upping the number of night shifts and, again, cutting premium payments then I'm with the drivers who would, basically, be paying for their own pay increase. If it's the other things in the T&C's the companies wish to change, then mI'd likely come down on the side of the companies UNLESS, as the drivers claim, some of those changes will cause a decrease in passenger safety.

Might the current drivers be more willing to income changes if the companies came with a plan to keep their level of remuneration stayed where it is and a lower level was agreed for newcomers to the industry?

At KLM, pilots, together with the company, looked at costs and profitability and decided that the current levels of remuneration were not sustainable. They came to an agreement that saw the current staff keeping their levels of pay and newcomers earning less. At a later date, when the company got into financial trouble, the pilots lent the company something like €2Bn to keep it afloat and had, IIRC, a 2 year pay freeze. Could UK rail drivers be persuaded to be as flexible?