Should Tube leaders go to prison?

[albionite]

Why are so many people interested in what others get paid and if they earn too much? What is it to them? Do you think your ticket price will come down (think again) or is it a jealousy thing?

Maybe the question should be do nurses, teachers, emergency services, public sector etc earn enough. At the end of the day they choose to work in that profession fully knowing it doesn't pay well unless they go work for a private firm.

 

[Ernest]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/09/tube-strike-james-obrien-rant-support_n_7759890.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

[theboybilly]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sam-kriss-tube-strike-july-2015-633?utm_source=vicefbuk

 

[DurringtonGull]

I'll ask my mate who was driving one of the tubes on 7/7 and has had people commit suicide by jumping in front of his train on more than one occasion.

 

[Hamilton]

you could argue that the stance of the tube drivers fighting a rear guard action against the vast culture of envy and like it or lump it prevelant in Britain, does something indirectly to help other low waged and exploited.

the unspoken know your place attitude very thinly veiled on here by some, is so depressing. Why should train drivers get 50k a year? Why the f shouldnt they in one of the most expensive cities on earth, keeping it moving shuttling thousands of frankly less economically vital but similarly paid drones to their desks.

Back to nursing and teaching, teaching pays well but should it be paid more as its more middle class and requires higher qualifications? Yes if its the latter arguably, but the former somewhat clouds peoples judgement. Are teaching salaries really that much of a deterrent?

Nursing. Fantastically emotive and not a great benchmark to measure the relative worth of salaries on. You could put forward pretty much any salary level over the currents for a nurse and its hard to argue it would be excessive.

I dont have any difficulty supporting the tube drivers while people get paid less than them, or while GB Plc cannot raise taxes effectively, either from corporations or the fact that raising personal taxation will not be tolerated by the UK population, effectively them refusing to pay for an increase in nurses salaries themselves. IF the BRitish public created a culture where they were pro taxation for public services, arguably that would create a culture where there was pressure on more corporate responsibility.

Why should I pay when the Man doesnt is a cop out, irrespective of how much we are taken for a ride.

I've just looked at a few pages from the other thread, and it is a right binfest.

My issue isn't whether or not they are striking. It's about where my sympathies lie. Yes, they're being asked to drastically change work patterns. That will impact their lives and if they haven't been consulted properly then strike action is inevitable. I'd still suggest that shifting the business to a 24-hour operation is a business decision and that TFL will need to recruit more drivers to cover that. If existing employees are being forced into changes of conditions then they have every right to strike. I'm not against that.

My issue is more around where I feel macro-priorities should lie (and I'm not saying changes to conditions aren't a dangerous precedent). Personally, I feel that roles within teaching and nursing - as two examples - bring with them the need for significant amounts of intellectual skill. They need to be rewarded with more. Much more. At the end of the day, what you're rewarded does matter. It pays for things. And as the government is now bringing in a tax on children that matters. So when I look at priorities, I find it hard to get over-sympathetic.

The 'Man' does get away with it all the time. Why are people in this country not angrier about that. If the tube drivers can get angry and organised, why aren't the people for whom society should feel support do the same. The divide between rich and poor has never been sharper.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

you could argue that the stance of the tube drivers fighting a rear guard action against the vast culture of envy and like it or lump it prevelant in Britain, does something indirectly to help other low waged and exploited.

the unspoken know your place attitude very thinly veiled on here by some, is so depressing. Why should train drivers get 50k a year? Why the f shouldnt they in one of the most expensive cities on earth, keeping it moving shuttling thousands of frankly less economically vital but similarly paid drones to their desks.

Back to nursing and teaching, teaching pays well but should it be paid more as its more middle class and requires higher qualifications? Yes if its the latter arguably, but the former somewhat clouds peoples judgement. Are teaching salaries really that much of a deterrent?

Nursing. Fantastically emotive and not a great benchmark to measure the relative worth of salaries on. You could put forward pretty much any salary level over the currents for a nurse and its hard to argue it would be excessive.

I dont have any difficulty supporting the tube drivers while people get paid less than them, or while GB Plc cannot raise taxes effectively, either from corporations or the fact that raising personal taxation will not be tolerated by the UK population, effectively them refusing to pay for an increase in nurses salaries themselves. IF the BRitish public created a culture where they were pro taxation for public services, arguably that would create a culture where there was pressure on more corporate responsibility.

Why should I pay when the Man doesnt is a cop out, irrespective of how much we are taken for a ride.

I will add you to the motley and very disparate crew which are backing the tube drivers. I've not seen a political issue with such widespread backing on NSC before.

 

[Ernest]

I will add you to the motley and very disparate crew which are backing the tube drivers. I've not seen a political issue with such widespread backing on NSC before.

Perhaps a lot now feel the race to the bottom will include them if they're not careful ?

 

[The Spanish]

I will add you to the motley and very disparate crew which are backing the tube drivers. I've not seen a political issue with such widespread backing on NSC before.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can't win[emoji3]

Join the railway union then, they know how to win!

 

[yxee]

The reasons it is ludicrous are manifold but the glaringly ludicrous aspect is the "if you don't like it QUIT" comment. Why should they? They worked their way into their job and they care about it so why on earth should they leave because their bosses are trying to blackmail them into longer hours for no real term pay rise and a huge disruption to their working and family life?
It devalues their contribution to the workforce and makes a total mockery of the working man. Oh, just QUIT. Yeah y'know just quit and go and get one of those other milions of jobs suitable for your skill set that pay 50k a year, I mean there must be other jobs out there? I bet they are really easy to get too but people just don't try do they!

Because we live in a capitalist society where labour is a commodity like anything else, and it is governed by supply and demand.

The fact that you are trying to make the argument personal makes me think you find this idea deeply offensive. It's basic capitalism.

Your power lies in your ability to quit. If you can't find another job paying £50,000 for your "skill set", then you face the choice of accepting the terms or moving and taking lower wages. If you CAN find another job paying £50,000, then you will move your employer will feel some pain, which will force them to rethink their terms. When people act like this en masse, wages will move up (or down) to compensate those offering the most useful services most generously.

The fact that option A is probably more likely for the tube drivers might just be an indicator that they are overpaid compared to other sectors of employment. And, being overpaid, they find themselves in an awkward position of immobility. Tough. We all face the consequences of our career choices, and too much money is one of the better ones.

You might have a shitty job that people can just walk in and out of but that's not the case for everyone, some care about their work.

Don't shoot the messenger, this is Economics 101.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Because we live in a capitalist society where labour is a commodity like anything else, and it is governed by supply and demand.

The fact that you are trying to make the argument personal makes me think you find this idea deeply offensive. It's basic capitalism.

Your power lies in your ability to quit. If you can't find another job paying £50,000 for your "skill set", then you face the choice of accepting the terms or moving and taking lower wages. If you CAN find another job paying £50,000, then you will move your employer will feel some pain, which will force them to rethink their terms. That's how the labour market works.

The fact that option A is probably more likely might just be an indicator that you are overpaid. And, being overpaid, find yourself in an awkward position of immobility. Tough.

Are you studying for a GCSE in Economics?

 

[yxee]

Are you studying for a GCSE in Economics?

Do you always try to make things personal when your views are challenged?

I bet it works quite often.

 

[Nibble]

Because we live in a capitalist society where labour is a commodity like anything else, and it is governed by supply and demand.

The fact that you are trying to make the argument personal makes me think you find this idea deeply offensive. It's basic capitalism.

Your power lies in your ability to quit. If you can't find another job paying £50,000 for your "skill set", then you face the choice of accepting the terms or moving and taking lower wages. If you CAN find another job paying £50,000, then you will move your employer will feel some pain, which will force them to rethink their terms. When people act like this en masse, wages will move up (or down) to compensate those offering the most useful services most generously.

The fact that option A is probably more likely for the tube drivers might just be an indicator that they are overpaid compared to other sectors of employment. And, being overpaid, they find themselves in an awkward position of immobility. Tough. We all face the consequences of our career choices, and too much money is one of the better ones.

Don't shoot the messenger, this is Economics 101.

Well, among many flaws in this post the glaring one is that you have managed to just make unions not exist in your head. Is the idea someone can use legitimate union power to maintain or improve their lot so offensive to you that you just ignore it's existence? Seem a very illogical way of debating.

Economics 101, judging by this post you don't seem to understand the very basics of factors outside the economic structure affecting capitalism. Go back and start again.

 

[yxee]

Well, among many flaws in this post the glaring one is that you have managed to just make unions not exist in your head. Is the idea someone can use legitimate union power to maintain or improve their lot so offensive to you that you just ignore it's existence? Seem a very illogical way of debating.

No, I am offering a moral opinion that unions who hold the country to ransom are objectionable, and that free markets will do a better job of setting wages.

I fully understand your opinion that "if you can squeeze more money out of them, then why not?". But it's a selfish view.

 

[Nibble]

No, I am offering a moral opinion that unions who hold the country to ransom are objectionable, and that free markets will do a better job of setting wages.

I fully understand your opinion that "if you can squeeze more money out of them, then why not?". But it's a selfish view.

Absolutely not my view AT ALL. Unions are there to ensure that workers rights are observed and if changes are bought in that the changes are negotiated with workers. It basically ensures that people are not treated singularly as a commodity to be done with what they will. They want a fair wage and fair working conditions. It is not anti-capitalist to strive for such things.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

No, I am offering a moral opinion that unions who hold the country to ransom are objectionable, and that free markets will do a better job of setting wages.

I fully understand your opinion that "if you can squeeze more money out of them, then why not?". But it's a selfish view.

As a counterpoint, is the view of a business (this is hypothetical and not referring to TFL) trying to squeeze more and more out of staff for no recompense/until breaking point any less selfish?

I would suggest possibly not. I see merit in your argument but much like the eternal battle between football clubs and players, for me the ideal is for as much of an equal amount of give and take as is possible.

I suspect that neither of us will see the way we each individually want it to be come to fruition so let's all kick back, grab a beverage of choice and enjoy the weather.

 

[yxee]

Absolutely not my view AT ALL. Unions are there to ensure that workers rights are observed and if changes are bought in that the changes are negotiated with workers. It basically ensures that people are not treated singularly as a commodity to be done with what they will. They want a fair wage and fair working conditions. It is not anti-capitalist to strive for such things.

Apologies for the misrepresentation.

I would say that if workers are to have certain rights then those rights should apply universally and be enforceable by law. Employment law does that job, and it is based on independent moral reasoning.

Unions, in practice, are money-making enterprises whose existence depends on having something to show their members for the membership fee. Better working conditions, yes, fine, but also higher pay, more holiday, or fewer hours will also do the trick. They are not based on independent moral reasoning, they exist purely to enhance the negotiating power of a mass of workers, and generally when striking will do this at the expense of the wider nation. People aren't working in coal mines or in cotton mills where safety was a genuine issue any-more, the unions exist for profit. It is a legalised labour cartel.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Apologies for the misrepresentation.

I would say that if workers are to have certain rights then those rights should apply universally and be enforceable by law. Employment law does that job, and it is based on independent moral reasoning.

Unions, in practice, are money-making enterprises whose existence depends on having something to show their members for the membership fee. Better working conditions, yes, fine, but also higher pay, more holiday, or fewer hours will also do the trick. They are not based on independent moral reasoning, they exist purely to enhance the negotiating power of a mass of workers, and generally when striking will do this at the expense of the wider nation. People aren't working in coal mines or in cotton mills where safety was a genuine issue any-more, the unions exist for profit. It is a legalised labour cartel.

Employers very often try to change conditions of work which go against employment law. Union members can then consult their local rep to check the legality.
I know of two separate occasions in the last 5 years where the union has had to tell employers, that what they were proposing to do was illegal. It happens in this day & age.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

People aren't working in coal mines or in cotton mills where safety was a genuine issue any-more

I guess we'll have to wait until LUL introduce new driverless trains. I sincerely hope we dont end up with an "Alton Towers" scenario.

 

[Diablo]

I guess we'll have to wait until LUL introduce new driverless trains. I sincerely hope we dont end up with an "Alton Towers" scenario.

Alton Towers scenario ??...Several people badly injured,no one killed.......There are many people killed (sadly fairly often) from train crashes due to Driver or other human error.