RMT to ballot for strike action.

It seems to me that the tube operators are worrying about automated trains in exactly the same way that the miners worried about their mines closing.

These people are stuck in the past and can't see our industry changing so they just stamp their feet and shout at the Government. Is the Government going to listen? I don't think so...
 
[TW]Fox;28481086 said:
London Underground employs almost 20,000 people. The chances of a random guy on a gateline being 'known' to management who select drivers is surely almost nil.

Yes but they'll be known to local management who can make a recommendation to the management who select drivers.
 
It seems to me that the tube operators are worrying about automated trains in exactly the same way that the miners worried about their mines closing.

These people are stuck in the past and can't see our industry changing so they just stamp their feet and shout at the Government. Is the Government going to listen? I don't think so...

My favourite part about this post is how it's a response to previous points made in the thread and not just the eighteenth re-wording of your personal attitude towards a situation. Do you think wages should be capped by policy to a level deemed 'reasonable'?
 
You're getting confused between the deal offered to drivers (and publicised widely by TfL / Evening Standard / Telegraph / Daily Mail etc.) and the one that applies to staff that aren't drivers. Presumably because writing articles about why station staff should be told to work nights and be grateful they have a job wouldn't receive as much support since they don't earn over some arbitrary threshold which is considered to be too much.

Fair enough. Then what's the deal offered to the staff that aren't drivers? Is that on any of the union sites?

My point about work-life balance still stands. Law firms, banks etc. pay you to have a crap work-life balance. Is that not the same case here? Trainee Solicitors for instance will work (very regularly) 9am - anywhere between 9pm and 3am. Getting out anytime before 8pm would be considered 'early'. This is when contracted hours would be 9:30-5:30. They're paid in the high 30s/low 40s. There is room for advancement, but the hours don't really change all that much. Not sure how many people would argue that the wages for trainee solicitors should rise...
 
I think the point is that they advance, and people who feel they can trade normal working hours for money know it going into the job.
 
Fair enough. Then what's the deal offered to the staff that aren't drivers? Is that on any of the union sites?

My point about work-life balance still stands. Law firms, banks etc. pay you to have a crap work-life balance. Is that not the same case here? Trainee Solicitors for instance will work (very regularly) 9am - anywhere between 9pm and 3am. Getting out anytime before 8pm would be considered 'early'. This is when contracted hours would be 9:30-5:30. They're paid in the high 30s/low 40s. There is room for advancement, but the hours don't really change all that much. Not sure how many people would argue that the wages for trainee solicitors should rise...

But aren't Tube drivers paid overtime as well?
 
[TW]Fox;28481229 said:
It's also not true either so let's not cloud the issue. Even the lowest paid training posts are not as low as £20k (and are training posts, after all).

FY1 salary is £22,636 and remember they have completed their university degree at this point and although it is 'training' they are still an important part of the healthcare system, assisting with more experienced doctors and providing healthcare with the patient alone.
 
And what do first year out of uni trainee lawyers earn? Similar I'd imagine. It seems reasonable enough for a training post and I don't think that comparing trainee doctors fresh from uni salaries with qualified tube drivers is particularly useful or relevant.
 
People are moaning about the wage inequality between the posts. And I agree, there is an inequality there, do you not?

My Google skills for actual graduate positions seem to be lacking, especially as it is the time of year these posts should be appearing... (perhaps they recruit direct from universities?) I did find this though:

Round up of training contract starting salaries and on qualification

Starting salaries at Allen & Overy LLP – £39,000
Starting salaries at Ashurst LLP – £40,000/£63,000
Starting salaries at Baker & McKenzie LLP – £39,500/£65,000
Starting salaries at Bird & Bird LLP – £36,000/£59,000
Starting salaries at Burges Salmon LLP – £33,000/£41,000
Starting salaries at Clifford Chance LLP – £40,500/£63,500
Starting salaries at Clyde & Co – £36,000/£59,000
Starting salaries at CMS Cameron McKenna – £38,000 (London), £32,000 (Bristol)
Starting salaries at Covington & Burling LLP – £40,000/£80,000
Starting salaries at Dentons – £37,000/£59,000
Starting salaries at DWF LLP – £25,000 (regions), £35,000 (London)/£36,000 (regions), £48,000 (London)
Starting salaries at Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP – £38,000/£61,000
Starting salaries at Eversheds LLP – £23,500 – £36,000/£35,000 – £59,000
Starting salaries at Fieldfisher – £35,000/£58,000
Starting salaries at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer – £40,500/£63,500
Starting salaries at the Government Legal Service (GLS) – £23,900/£35,000 min
Starting salaries at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP – £39,500/£65,000
Starting salaries at Hill Dickinson LLP – £24,000 (North), £32,000 (London)/up to £36,000 (North), £58,000 London
Starting salaries at Hogan Lovells – £39,500/£63,000
Starting salaries at Holman Fenwick Willan LLP – £35,000/£58,000
Starting salaries at Ince & Co LLP – £36,000/£58,000
Starting salaries at Irwin Mitchell – £36,000 (London)/£25,000 (outside London)
Starting salaries at Jones Day – £42,000/£75,000
Starting salaries at Kennedys – £34,000 (London), £25,000 (regions)
Starting salaries at King & Wood Mallesons LLP – £39,250/£63,000
Starting salaries at Kirkland & Ellis International LLP – £41,000/£97,560
Starting salaries at Macfarlanes LLP – £39,000/£64,000
Starting salaries at Mayer Brown International LLP – £37,500/£62,500
Starting salaries at Mills & Reeve LLP – £25,000/£36,000 to £56,000
Starting salaries at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP – £39,500/£65,000
Starting salaries at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (Europe) LLP – £38,000/£70,000
Starting salaries at Osborne Clarke – £33,000 to £37,500/£42,500 to £60,000
Starting salaries at PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP – £37,000
Starting salaries at Reed Smith – £37,000/£59,000
Starting salaries at RPC – £37,000 (London)
Starting salaries at Shearman & Sterling LLP – £45,000/£88,000
Starting salaries at Shoosmiths – £24,000/£38,000
Starting salaries at Sidley Austin LLP – £41,000/£72,000
Starting salaries at Simmons & Simmons LLP – £37,500/£59,000
Starting salaries at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom (UK) LLP – £42,000/£98,000
Starting salaries at Slaughter and May – £41,000/£70,000
Starting salaries at Stephenson Harwood LLP – £37,000/£60,000
Starting salaries at Stevens & Bolton LLP – £31,000 – £32,000/£45,000
Starting salaries at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP – £50,000/£97,500
Starting salaries at Taylor Wessing – £37,000/£55,000
Starting salaries at Travers Smith LLP – £40,000/£65,000
Starting salaries at Trowers & Hamlins LLP – £36,000 (London), £27,000 (regions)/£58,000 (London) £34,000–£37,000 (regions)
Starting salaries at Weil, Gotshal & Manges – £41,000/£95,500
Starting salaries at White & Case LLP – £43,000/£75,000
 
Brb off to apply for a training role at Sullivan & Cromwell :p

But seriously, I'm also not sure why we are comparing. Just to prove other people make a lot of money too? People going to those firms have presumably got a bachelors degree at the bare minimum, probably a years internship and possibly a masters, right? (I know nothing about that industry). Comparing them to some muggins who applied with no qualifications to be a ticket hall 'person' and has been internally promoted (fast tracked due to no outside recruitment) and earns £50k is a bit silly.

Oh, and that ghastly James O'Brien trying to make it about envy whilst using Boris's salary as a punch-point :rolleyes:
 
well just seen mark serwotka on politics today going on about bringing the gov down and says they have sent out papers for a general strike.

here we go again.
 
But seriously, I'm also not sure why we are comparing. Just to prove other people make a lot of money too? People going to those firms have presumably got a bachelors degree at the bare minimum, probably a years internship and possibly a masters, right? (I know nothing about that industry).

A couple of my friends work for Freshfields. They both have degrees in law from Oxford. Some of the above firms are very competitive, others less so. Starting salaries may look attractive but the real goal is becoming a partner. Then we're often talking seven-figure incomes.

Comparing them to some muggins who applied with no qualifications to be a ticket hall 'person' and has been internally promoted (fast tracked due to no outside recruitment) and earns £50k is a bit silly.

If someone starts at the bottom, works hard and gets promoted several times then why shouldn't they earn £50K a year? There's plenty of jobs in the city where you can earn more than £50K a year without any formal qualifications.
 
not seen any, just saw him on the tv when i was flicking through. going on about having to bring the gov down. his words not mine.

Here is one of the more obscure proposal he will fight.

Introduce fines of up to £20,000 on unions if pickets do not wear an official armband

For the record I am uneasy with how the unions behave although I support the right to withhold your labour.
 
New tube strike called by the RMT affecting the Waterloo and City Line from 9pm on Monday 28th September until 11 pm on Wednesday 30th September.

Apparently a control room dispute where the control team is comprised of eight employees. Six of these are RMT members. The RMT balloted its members and three of them voted for the strike action.

The majority rules so have a nice journey. :p
 
I read that. Completely hilarious. However even under more sensible turnout rules it would still be legit I guess. As 6/8 voted.
 
I read that. Completely hilarious. However even under more sensible turnout rules it would still be legit I guess. As 6/8 voted.

Actually I think it was only 3 who voted (and it was 100% in favour). No idea if that means 3/8 and therefore not legit, or 3/6 and therefore legit under new rules!

Interesting case though, in such a small population what is "acceptable" turnout for strike action. I'd be inclined to support the strikers in this situation.
 
I read it as 6/8 are RMT members and therefore actually took part. 3/6 voted for a strike*. Unsurprisingly, it's not entirely clear.

*Does 50% warrant a yes to strike? Surely it needs a majority?
 
Back
Top Bottom