Tube workers to get 52 days holiday a year

[Londonboy]

Omg what is going on here these overpaid glorified bus drivers are getting so many good deals whilst nurses and teachers are still at the bottom the governments priority list.

I worked out that this amount of holiday equates to 20% of the working year off on holiday! (based on 5 days a week)

Not only this but there hours are now being cut down to 35 hours a week. I cant beleive the government or commuters can except this seeing as tho tube drivers earn over £30,000 a year. part of this new deal means the tube runs 24 hours on new years eve and we have an extra 1 hour on fridays and saturdays.

This dont cut it when im paying over the odds for an antiquated travel system thats always packed and breaking down. Whilst teachers live on the breadline

Link for article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4036061.stm

[Kentish]

Supply and demand I suppose.

And it helps to have a union that has no qualms about bringing London to a standstill whenever its members fancy a day off.

The bit at the bottom about Operation Cyprus was interesting. Who'd have thought that having extra police on duty on the Tube would cut crime? :rolleyes:

[wheresmyplacebo]

yeh by 2008 one line will have computer controlled trains, drivers wont be drivers, theyll just say when people are on trains, im gona become a tube driver i think (Y)

[Aladdin]

Good for them and well done to the union(s) that made it possible. I wish I got 52 days holiday in my company.

To be honest I'm much more concerned with the Tube being run for profit and with commuters' fees ending up in the pockets of private companies than with tube drivers getting a good holiday deal.

[Disillusioned]

I find it quite disgusting that tube drivers get paid more than teachers, police officers, firemen, nurses and even junior doctors.

I also find it odd that tube drivers are paid so much more than bus drivers. Bus drivers have to put up with London traffic, deal with rude customers and I can’t help feel that driving a double-decker bus (or one of those stupid bendy buses) is harder work than pushing a lever.

The fact is tube drivers can hold LU to ransom. The mere threat of a strike drives anyone into panic, the tube drivers know they can bring London to a standstill and they’ll keep doing it until someone has the bottle to stand up to them and tell them to f**k off next time they want a raise.

[Blagsta]

Good on 'em. We should all be aiming for this.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Captain Slog]

Originally posted by Disillusioned
I also find it odd that tube drivers are paid so much more than bus drivers. Bus drivers have to put up with London traffic, deal with rude customers and I can’t help feel that driving a double-decker bus (or one of those stupid bendy buses) is harder work than pushing a lever. I agree. I would not want to drive a car in London, never mind a bloody great bus! A tube train on the other hand, is a nice simple device to drive. Drivers don't have to deal with traffic jams or eejits in hot hatches. Its a nice simple stress-free job.
]Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
I would imagine that tube drivers see more suicidal people spattered over their windscreens than bus drivers. Why? Is there that much suicide in London? I seriously doubt that the number of suicides on the tube exceeds the number of accidents on the buses.

[Disillusioned]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
I would imagine that tube drivers see more suicidal people spattered over their windscreens than bus drivers.

Er maybe…but there are a lot more suicides on the roads than on the tube. But yeah, you’re right that’s a very grim aspect of tube/train drivers jobs. For the unlucky few that experience that it must be absolutely awful.

So sure, there are aspects of tube drivers jobs that are not very nice. But the same applies for paramedics, nurses and firemen who all get paid a lot less than tube drivers...

[Blagsta]

Well then we should be pushing for these people to have pay rises as well.
Did you support the firefighters strike a couple of years ago?

[Disillusioned]

I had mixed views about it. I do think they deserve more money but I thought their union was wrong to ask for as much as 40% and I think the timing of the strike was poor. I live near a fire station and I remember in the strike how a lot of the firemen there carried on working driving green goddesses during the strike. My dads friend was one of them and he said more money would have been nice but he said he’d rather stay on crap pay with no modernisation rather than a few quid more (cos they knew they wouldn’t get 40%) with lots of modernisation.

And considering the servicemen covering for the striking firemen were already on less pay than the firemen without any rise it did seem a bit out of order for them to ask for 40%.

So I guess my answer is no I didn’t support the strike but I did support them getting 10 or 15% rise with no changes to their working practices.

[Aladdin]

When you see the directors of the (private) companies that run the tube (companies that were parachuted in for the sole purpose of saving the government money, at the detriment of service and safety) getting hundreds of thousands of Pounds in salary plus similar amounts in bonuses, you have to wonder why we hear no outcry from the media and indeed much of the public.

The drivers are the ones who drive the trains, often work split shifts that fuck up their whole days, have to deal with suicides (which can be a most traumatic experience, and which sadly occurs rather frequently) and bear the full responsibility for the success of the operation- as opposed to the greedy, good-for-nothing fat cat greedy scumbag bosses.

When we see the Tube returned to public hands and its board of directors earn a modest five-figure salary like the rest of us mortals, you can come to me and discuss the 'perks' Tube drivers enjoy.

[morrocan roll]

Originally posted by Aladdin
When you see the directors of the (private) companies that run the tube (companies that were parachuted in for the sole purpose of saving the government money, at the detriment of service and safety) getting hundreds of thousands of Pounds in salary plus similar amounts in bonuses, you have to wonder why we hear no outcry from the media and indeed much of the public.

The drivers are the ones who drive the trains, often work split shifts that fuck up their whole days, have to deal with suicides (which can be a most traumatic experience, and which sadly occurs rather frequently) and bear the full responsibility for the success of the operation- as opposed to the greedy, good-for-nothing fat cat greedy scumbag bosses.

When we see the Tube returned to public hands and its board of directors earn a modest five-figure salary like the rest of us mortals, you can come to me and discuss the 'perks' Tube drivers enjoy. when a fork lift truck driver earns more than a doc ...summats fucking wrong ...and the fat cats is a differnet issue to attack.
a fucking monkey could do the job ...in fact guess what ...so could a microchip ...

[Kentish]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
when a fork lift truck driver earns more than a doc ...summats fucking wrong ...and the fat cats is a differnet issue to attack.
a fucking monkey could do the job ...in fact guess what ...so could a microchip ...
I agree. Let's leave fat cats out of the argument.

Doctors are now subject to the European working time directive, which has meant changes to working practices, rest periods and pay. Doctors have no choice but to accept these changes (most of which are desirable, but not all) because doctors could never strike, or even work to rule.

And then you get tube drivers and firemen striking because they don't want to change their working practices. In the case of firemen the proposed changes could only have benefitted the public and possibly saved lives. But no, better pay with status quo is what they got. It beggars belief sometimes.

[budda]

The PPP scheme really isnt all that related to this, and 'fat cat' bashing isn't related either.

It is supply and demand unfortunately, so they get paid what they are 'worth' thats how it works.

Doesnt mean its likeable and it certainly doesnt mean their union is nice either. Bob Crowe should be strung up.

[BumbleBee]

If your manager came into work and told you 'good news, we're getting 52 days holiday a year and you'll be paid more than a nurse' would you tell them to shove their offer? I very much doubt it.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by bongbudda
The PPP scheme really isnt all that related to this, and 'fat cat' bashing isn't related either.

It is supply and demand unfortunately, so they get paid what they are 'worth' thats how it works. Well there you have it: the fucking wonders of capitalism then.

The same system and principle that allows for still-spotty, wet-behind-the-ears young IT experts earn 30 or 40K per year, or high flying CEOs 200K per year.

Since I haven't heard many of you complaining about the disproportionate wages CEOs and top level managers earn, are we suggesting here that only white collar City boys can benefit from our wonderful capitalist job market system?

In other words, why no outrage that directors earn many times more than poor long suffering doctors and nurses? Why single out tube drivers? Shouldn't we ALL be cutting down our wages to be on a par with doctors and nurses?

[budda]

Aladdin; Yes, they get paid what they get paid, fine.

I dont have to like it, but I do think its how things should work.

More than anything I dont like is because of their union, who I think has put members interest significantly above safety issues. That issue with the drinking staff and going on strike was a classic example.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Aladdin; Yes, they get paid what they get paid, fine.

I dont have to like it, but I do think its how things should work.

More than anything I dont like is because of their union, who I think has put members interest significantly above safety issues. That issue with the drinking staff and going on strike was a classic example.


the PPP was rather unnecessery though, and there were so few bidders, it was effectively no point having a bidding process...

[budda]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
the PPP was rather unnecessery though, and there were so few bidders, it was effectively no point having a bidding process...

Yes, the PPP is a bad joke, I am against that. Services such as transport should really only ever be in Public ownership.

But thats not really the issue.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
No. The nurses at work earn many times what I do. When I qualify as a primary teacher I still won't earn as much as them.

Nurses who are grade G or above earn quite a hefty wage (and so they should!) The ones who earn less than people think they should, earn less than people think they should because they have less clinical skills (as I'm sure you know GWST, this isn't for your benefit!)

I don't think doctors are badly paid at all. I've never met a poor doctor, or one who drives a crappy car or lives in a council house.

[wheresmyplacebo]

lets hope they do what the french done, replace it all with computer controlled system :p or only have people at station to check if people are on the train or not yet

save loads of money, tube should be like that by 2010 apparantly

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by bongbudda
More than anything I dont like is because of their union, who I think has put members interest significantly above safety issues.

I think you'll find it's management that do that.

[budda]

Originally posted by Blagsta
I think you'll find it's management that do that.

So you're defending the strike they had over all those beer cans found in the staff room then?

[Londonboy]

Ken Livingston quoted that the infrastructre of the tube system is going to cost billions to repair and that more government handouts are needed as well price hike in tickets. So how really can they justify this latest cave in to tube workers. I mean they didnt even put up a fight.

In response to suicides. There are less suicides on tubes than there are on London streets and that doesnt take into account accidents that buses have. Nurses im sure, see far more death than tube workers

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by bongbudda
So you're defending the strike they had over all those beer cans found in the staff room then?

iirc management had no evidence as to who was responsible for those beer cans and unfairly victimised the nearest person/group of people.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Londonboy
Ken Livingston quoted that the infrastructre of the tube system is going to cost billions to repair and that more government handouts are needed as well price hike in tickets. So how really can they justify this latest cave in to tube workers. I mean they didnt even put up a fight.

How about criticising the bosses who cream off millions of public funds for change?

[budda]

Originally posted by Blagsta
iirc management had no evidence as to who was responsible for those beer cans and unfairly victimised the nearest person/group of people.

So when the union letter came forward saying that they should strike because of safety concerns because they couldnt strike because of the beer cans, that was alright? That was managements fault?

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by bongbudda
So when the union letter came forward saying that they should strike because of safety concerns because they couldnt strike because of the beer cans, that was alright? That was managements fault?

What letter was that? Do you have a copy?

[budda]

Originally posted by Blagsta
What letter was that? Do you have a copy?

It was leaked to a few news agencies, I'll have a look and find it.

[budda]

Here we go;

"The anti-trade union laws prohibit secondary picketing so we will have no other option but to refuse to work on the grounds of health and safety."

The story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3502581.stm

But I get the impression that you think the union is never in the wrong and all bosses are evil, so whats the point in debating.

[Blagsta]

No, I don't always support unions. But I am on the side of the workers and not the bosses.

[Toadborg]

But the bosses are workers too, the distinction is particulalry hard to motivate in the public sector......

[Blagsta]

The tube is not public sector anymore is it?

[Toadborg]

Even then, the bosses i.e. management etc are workers are they not?

[Blagsta]

The bosses job is to increase profit.

[budda]

Originally posted by Blagsta
The bosses job is to increase profit.

Yes? But are they workers?

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Blagsta
The bosses job is to increase profit.

As is the ordinary worker, both are paid a wage to make profit for the owners, both are workers..........

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by bongbudda
Yes? But are they workers?

Well if the boss also has a financial stake in the company, then no, not strictly. They are an owner.

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by Toadborg
As is the ordinary worker, both are paid a wage to make profit for the owners, both are workers..........

Yes, but a worker and a boss might have slightly different interests you see. A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

[budda]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes, but a worker and a boss might have slightly different interests you see. A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

Both of them have a legal responsibility to do their job, and both of them want to make the most money they can.

Its no where near as black and white as you're suggesting.

[Blagsta]

Yes, I'm simplifying it. I don't have time to write a 10,000 word dissertation on the subject at the moment. But this worker/boss conflict is the key to understanding capitalism and class struggle.

[budda]

You should read Eat The Rich by P J O'Rourke, you probably wont agree with him, but he's very very funny anyway.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by Blagsta
Yes, but a worker and a boss might have slightly different interests you see. A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

There are different interests I admit, and it is complicated by power dynamics but I do think it is wrong to label mgt as doing the owners bidding, there are mnay cases where they do not.......

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Londonboy
Omg what is going on here these overpaid glorified bus drivers are getting so many good deals whilst nurses and teachers are still at the bottom the governments priority list.

If you are going to make a complaint, perhaps you should know the reality rather than the media approach.

Teachers are currently going through a re-evaluation and redesign of their roles which should help reduce some of the pressures placed upon them, this will remove some of the tasks which they are currently asked to perform and which appear to have little impact on their time with pupils (other than to reduce it!)…

Nurses are currently having their pay scales and leave entitilment changed with both likely to increase. This process, know as Agenda for Change, is affecting all NHS employees and has been ongoing for about a year now.

Originally posted by Kentish
Doctors are now subject to the European working time directive, which has meant changes to working practices, rest periods and pay. Doctors have no choice but to accept these changes (most of which are desirable, but not all) because doctors could never strike, or even work to rule.

Hmmm not strictly true.

Firstly most junior doctors are in support for the WTD becuase it makes their lives much easier. It's causing hospitals huge prblems though.

Secondly doctors are more than capable of working to rule and do. Many PCTs are finding this a particular problem since the new GP contract came into force because it didn't covers some basic apects of patient care, such as arranging transport for vulnerable patients to initial outpatient appointment, removal of stitches. Both of those examples of something which GPs have always done...

Originally posted by Blagsta
A worker wants to have decent pay, good hours and good conditions. A boss wants to increase profit.
Can you see how these things might conflict?

A narrow minded boss may see the conflict between the two, just as a narrow minded employee might. Good bosses/employee see that the two are inherently linked.

Also worth noting that the boss, even as an owner, would want good conditions etc for himself ;) He’s just in a better position to influence relevant decisions.

As a manager, who is also an employee, I know that flexibility works both ways and I cannot expect my staff to put in the extra time when it’s necessary if I don’t offer them the same courtesy when they need time out. For example.

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Hmmm not strictly true.

Firstly most junior doctors are in support for the WTD becuase it makes their lives much easier. It's causing hospitals huge problems though.
Perhaps, but it has meant large pay cuts for some juniors and changed trusts' attitudes to rest periods and provisions such as oncall rooms. And just because something makes your life easier doesn't mean you would strike for it - it has caused a hoo-har amongst surgical trainees who are seeing their opportunities to train being cut significantly. Not all junior doctors want shorter hours ;)
Secondly doctors are more than capable of working to rule and do. Many PCTs are finding this a particular problem since the new GP contract came into force because it didn't covers some basic apects of patient care, such as arranging transport for vulnerable patients to initial outpatient appointment, removal of stitches. Both of those examples of something which GPs have always done...
Not really the same. GPs are not doing OOH etc because they don't have to under the terms of the contract which was negotiated on their behalf with the government...so they aren't working to rule out of protest, just providing the service for which they are contracted.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Kentish
Perhaps, but it has meant large pay cuts for some juniors and changed trusts' attitudes to rest periods and provisions such as oncall rooms. And just because something makes your life easier doesn't mean you would strike for it - it has caused a hoo-har amongst surgical trainees who are seeing their opportunities to train being cut significantly. Not all junior doctors want shorter hours ;)

Must admit some concern about training opportunities generally.

Can you help with with the rest though

If they aren't working so many hours, why should they still be paid the same amount? The Trust has to employ extra staff to cover...

Rest periods form part of the new contract, don't they. What is the problem here, can you say?

With regards on-call rooms, why should they be there?

GPs are not doing OOH etc because they don't have to under the terms of the contract which was negotiated on their behalf with the government...so they aren't working to rule out of protest, just providing the service for which they are contracted.

Sorry wasn't talking about OOH because this was something specified within the contract. A right which GPs are exercising and any PCT who has a problem with GPs doing that needs an ass kicking IMHO.

I'm talking about basic patient care which isn't specified in the contract and therefore some GPs (a minority) are refusing to offer patients this care unless they are paid extra for it. Even though they have been providing a service for years. Believe me, GPs will work to rule if they want to... [/exasperation]

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Must admit some concern about training opportunities generally.

Can you help with with the rest though

If they aren't working so many hours, why should they still be paid the same amount? The Trust has to employ extra staff to cover...
Of course, but who in their right mind would strike for a pay cut?

Rest periods form part of the new contract, don't they. What is the problem here, can you say?

With regards on-call rooms, why should they be there?
I can only speak of what I've read in the medical press - particularly from surgeons and anaethetists who still have back-to-back day/night shifts, and at night may have a lot of "down time" which one could argue requires a room to rest in so they can be in a reasonable condition when they do get bleeped to the ward. Full shift patterns don't eliminate the problem of tired doctors because the shifts are erratic and often unpredictable.
I'm talking about basic patient care which isn't specified in the contract and therefore some GPs (a minority) are refusing to offer patients this care unless they are paid extra for it. Even though they have been providing a service for years. Believe me, GPs will work to rule if they want to... [/exasperation]
OK a minority will work according to the contract, but I can't see it being an issue to strike or work-to-rule over for the majoirty. I think you underestimate the integrity of most doctors there.

ETA: if the contract states that they should be paid for providing a particular service, why should they not claim the remuneration to which they are entitled? Declining to provide extra services and working to rule are not the same thing in that case. It is usually not a case of doctors choosing to provide fewer services because they are not getting paid, but sticking to core services which they can reasonably provide with their current staffing and resources.

[Aladdin]

Someone was suggesting earlier in the thread that the drivers and unions' attitude compromised safety. The opposite is in fact the truth. When it comes to public transport, trains and Underground in particular, you will find that a very good proportion of recent strikes or threat to strike have been directly linked to safety procedures. If it weren't for the unions and the drivers, safety in the Underground would be much worse than it is.

Bosses on the other hand, especially if they're running the network for profit, put safety rather low on their list of priorties, well below profits and share dividends.

[wheresmyplacebo]

since the PPP

some of the track inspecitons have fallen to once every 3 nights instead of every night

this was just before the central and northern line derailments strangely enough

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Kentish
Of course, but who in their right mind would strike for a pay cut?

People who didn't understand the consequences of dropping their hours. Surely they didn't expect to have their cake and the cream on top.

I can only speak of what I've read in the medical press - particularly from surgeons and anaethetists who still have back-to-back day/night shifts, and at night may have a lot of "down time" which one could argue requires a room to rest in so they can be in a reasonable condition when they do get bleeped to the ward. Full shift patterns don't eliminate the problem of tired doctors because the shifts are erratic and often unpredictable.

If those doctors are still being asked to do their shift then I would recommend that they make a stance. I agree that they should not be doing those shifts and IMHO it compromises patient safety. I would agree that if they are doing such shift then they should have a room overnight.

However, if they a doing a night shift alone then they should be on the wards (for example) and not asleep.

As for the erratic shifts, I can only refer to nurses who have always been expected to do the same thing and would also point to other workers who do split shifts like this...

ETA: if the contract states that they should be paid for providing a particular service, why should they not claim the remuneration to which they are entitled? Declining to provide extra services and working to rule are not the same thing in that case. It is usually not a case of doctors choosing to provide fewer services because they are not getting paid, but sticking to core services which they can reasonably provide with their current staffing and resources.

It's not about what was specified in the contract but rather about the definition of one aspect of the contract which causes a problem. Namely "essential services" and "core practice", some GPs have taken one view, others have taken another and the GPC have just managed to stir things up...

[Kentish]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
People who didn't understand the consequences of dropping their hours. Surely they didn't expect to have their cake and the cream on top.
The reason I mentioned doctors in the first place on this thread was because they had no choice but to comply with the EWTD - it was thrust upon them without the option to strike, whereas firemen can refuse to modernise and strike for 40%. The pay cut is a secondary issue, but still not nice if you have been used to the generous banding of noncompliance.
If those doctors are still being asked to do their shift then I would recommend that they make a stance. I agree that they should not be doing those shifts and IMHO it compromises patient safety. I would agree that if they are doing such shift then they should have a room overnight.

However, if they a doing a night shift alone then they should be on the wards (for example) and not asleep.
What "stance" can one take - it is too often a career decision to object.
As for the erratic shifts, I can only refer to nurses who have always been expected to do the same thing and would also point to other workers who do split shifts like this...
No, it's not the same at all. OK some [nurses] will be on bizarre shift patterns - bank staff and those with funny contracts - but regular staff are often on patterns that will allow a period to adjust e.g. 3 days of 12 hour nights, then 2-3 days off, then twilights, whatever. That's not the same as doing day shifts then switching to a week of nights, then back onto days.

Split shifts aren't pleasant in any job, but doctors shouldn't have to be tired on the job with nowhere to rest in quiet moments. What's the point twiddling your thumbs on a ward when you could have a power nap in an oncall room?
It's not about what was specified in the contract but rather about the definition of one aspect of the contract which causes a problem. Namely "essential services" and "core practice", some GPs have taken one view, others have taken another and the GPC have just managed to stir things up...
I'll take your word for it - I haven't taken the time to look at the contract in detail.

BTW, it's gone 5 - home time for some, eh MoK? ;)

[Blagsta]

Originally posted by bongbudda
You should read Eat The Rich by P J O'Rourke, you probably wont agree with him, but he's very very funny anyway.

I read some O'Rourke a few years ago. Total bastard, but very funny.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[budda]

Originally posted by Blagsta
I read some O'Rourke a few years ago. Total bastard, but very funny.

I suspected you'd say that, he's not all that keen on the Left.

[Blagsta]

Did you know that its actually station staff that get 52 days. Drivers get about 40 days. These include bank holidays as the tube is open on bank holidays.