Soldato
So are there really 'thousands' of tube drivers?
And out of whose taxes do their wages come, is another question.
And out of whose taxes do their wages come, is another question.
Bob Crow - More harm than good for his members?
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Caporegime
A lot of it is to do with emergency situations, and could arguably be passenger management than train operating, such as when/if a train derails (or heaven forbid another bombing) and the passengers need to be extracted when in a tunnel etc. There are also some complex operational routines that the drivers need to learn, starting with things like how to operate safely with failed signals/points. Some of these things a computer simply cannot do. If the computer failed or the train derailed etc. and the train is 2 miles into a tunnel, who is going to be there to direct the passengers on what to do?
Simply put - what happens if the technology fails?
Caporegime
Tickets and advertising in stations/on trains pay for it, with some subsidy from the government.
Soldato
The person that needs to be on the train, a lá DLR, and is paid considerably less. Doesn't need to be a driver
.
Caporegime
The person that needs to be on the train, a lá DLR, and is paid considerably less. Doesn't need to be a driver
I agree whole heartedly that some staff at LUL are WAY overpaid, but to not have them on the trains at all is quite a concern, and the point I'm making.
Driving a train is a doddle, I even went as far as building the track. I miss my N gauge railway.
Man of Honour
The technology is already being used on the much of the Jubilee line and the trains run under automatic train operation. All the “driver” does is open the doors. I believe that it is also used on parts of the Victoria and Central lines.
Caporegime
Central line has been fully auto (as far as actual driving goes) for a long time now.
Not really the point. The job is absolutely dire, rubbish hours, poor conditions, and so what they earn £35k, this doesn't mean they are overpaid it simply means that others are underpaid
What would happen if they were paid £20k, the extra money wouldn't go to lower fares or development, it would go into the shareholders and senior managements pockets.
So instead of whining on about how a tube driver isn't worth what he is paid, they should be kicking up a fuss about how little many other people are paid.
From a professional point of view, I say get rid of Bob Crow and the all train Drivers, make the entire network automated (I know we can't but...) so that I can enjoy a 40% pay increase and obscene bonuses...
Last edited:
I don't understand how he manages to keep in a job. Surely nobody in their right minds would trust him to make a cup of tea, never mind run a union. The only thing I can think of is that his members believe they don't have a hope unless they try something really out there.
I think the end result across the country will be good though. Bob Crow is an idiot union leader who is harming his members, and when it all comes to a head and he's shown to be useless and inept... then perhaps other unions will get back to what they should be doing.
I think the end result across the country will be good though. Bob Crow is an idiot union leader who is harming his members, and when it all comes to a head and he's shown to be useless and inept... then perhaps other unions will get back to what they should be doing.
The problem is that he is very good at running a union from a members point of view. He gets them their wage increases, he has increased RMT members T&C's and has seen RMT membership rise hugely since he has been their GS.
He may seem like a loony and idiot to us, but to his members who he is ultimately responsible to, he does the job he is paid to do.
People underestimate Bob Crow at their peril.
Listening to him talking is like listening to a recording from the 1970's. I'm shocked people like him still exist.
Here is a perfect illustration of what i mean.
So he lives at taxpayer expense while creaming 145,000 a year from his members. Simultaneously he is denying a social housing property from someone who would certainly need it more than he.
Scum.
Here is a perfect illustration of what i mean.
So he lives at taxpayer expense while creaming 145,000 a year from his members. Simultaneously he is denying a social housing property from someone who would certainly need it more than he.
Scum.
Last edited:
Interestingly the Sun had to issue an apology for stating that he lived in subsidised housing.
As for his wages, they are voted upon by the members and thus they must be happy so who are we to complain.
Strange that they can pressure The Sun into changing their mind but can't get it changed on Wikipedia if its not true, they could change it themselves within a short while.
And no, i am not the one to complain, i'm not the one getting the money taken out of my wage to fund his bank account.
Well, the point is the 'subsidised' part, while he does indeed live in a ex-council house which is now owned by a private housing association, he is entitled to live there until he dies or decides to move. He pays the full unsubsidised rent in accordance with the associations T&C's.
Many people live in council accommodation paying taxpayer subsidised rents and earn far more than is needed to buy or rent privately, I am of the opinion that ALL subsidised and housing association properties should be only available to those in financial need.
I think there is a thread somewhere where I spoke about my friend who as a Lawyer earns in the region of £75k/annum and yet pays £68/week rent on a 4 bed council house. Frankly this is pretty disgusting (I tell him so regularly) but the Government has yet to do something about this and when they bought it up recently all the same voices who attack Crow and his ilk began to attack the Govt for doing something about it.
Go figure...
There is no love lost between myself and Bob Crow I can assure you, but as militant and psychotic that he is, he genuinely does care about his members, and they (unfortunately for myself and those in the industry like me who have to deal with him and his reps daily) love him for it. He is not scum, he just knows how to get his members the best deal he can. (I wish he didn't).
Anyway feel free to continue slagging him off, I only came into the thread really to point out that Bob Crow, although he is a menace to the Public, he is definitely more good than harm to the RMT members he is paid to represent.
Last edited:
Indeed it does not. But then is there any other kind?
Any job that requires 4 months of learning pointless regulations has to be a made up job
Training a Policeman, yes OK
Training to press a button compliant with regulation 7, subsection 5a of the button pushing manual 1973 edition, no.
The only good thing is that Northerners get to laugh at Londoners getting irate when their transport infrastructure has a day off
While he remains King of the castle perhaps. But I'm sure his priorities aren't as angelic as that, or he wouldn't be taking such a huge salary from his members pockets.
Aside from that though, is he doing them any good? Are his rants in the newspapers just something he does on the side, and he's more reasonable around a table in a meeting?
He strikes me as one of these criminal leaders who is "really good to his own community". I'm not suggesting he's a criminal, but I'm suggesting that he's not a good person, he just looks like it.