Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Gigabit, Aug 10, 2018.
Broken window fallacy I'm afraid.
Being from Northern Ireland, we have a similar issue. The public transport company (note "the") is a government backed, EU funded monopoly. Routinely they release press releases to say that foot-fall is low and profits are negative so they are raising prices. (Business 101 suggests this is suicide, but they are government backed and EU funded and... a monopoly).
I worked out to take public transport to work would cost me £180 a month. I would need to leave 30 minutes earlier, get a bus, a train and then a 15 minute walk on the work end. This is assuming the trains are on time, but the way they operate rush hour is to optimistically schedule a few expresses and then axe them to get back on schedule. The all-stoppers take about 3 times as long. So I would be late on those mornings, or have to aim for an earlier train.
Cost of petrol is about £110. While you could argue that I have to pay insurance, car payments, maintenance, tax etc. for the car, it's not a fair and direct comparison, as I would still keep the car if I took public transport, so those costs net out, more or less.
Previously I have always found free parking, or paid someone rent for their driveway (£10 a month). Currently work pay for my parking as I'm on customer site 3 days a week. I grant if I had to pay for the parking £9 a day, it would be cheaper to take public transport... but I'd probably find somewhere cheaper/free to park.
The trouble with privatising public transport is that it's too essential to the functioning of the country as a whole, so it has to be government backed. This sitting on the fence is just a way for the private sector to milk the government. The NHS is suffering the same with a lot of it's services being contracted out at twice the cost. The country is being ripped off. Either properly open competition and fully privatise or ... as I would prefer, nationalise it again fully.
Do you have a citation for this?
I think you have to be pretty naive to think this won't be used as a proxy to cut staff. Why else would they do it?
Go and read every statement that Southern and Northern have made on the matter, they clearly state no one will be made redundant as a part of introducing DOO, every member of staff has been offered a similar alternative role (basically a guard that doesn’t do the doors and is focused on serving customers instead of operating the train) at the same pay level.
Cutting staff does not mean people are made redundant, far from it you are confusing two issues. Also having excess staff harms productivity which is bad for the overall economy when looked at on a macro economic level. To put it simply having waste just pushes old money around and doesn’t generate any new wealth, that is a huge issue in this country.
Most large companies lose a good % of their staff every year due to natural wasteage and others move internally within the company itself. Almost all large companies are constantly recruiting to maintain their headcount. So if you stop recruiting new people you will overtime reduce your headcount naturally. The public sector has been doing this for years and has shrunk its headcount massively but has hardly made anyone redundant.
I'm fairly sure that redundancy applies to the role and not necessarily the individual. You can only make a person redundant if the role they serve has been made redundant.
Offering an alternative role as an option to the employee, must be an 'option'. If the person does not like the new role they can request redundancy and if their current role is redundant the company has an obligation to issue redundancy proceedings.
Of course companies can and do find loop holes and work arounds to avoid redundancy as it can be quite expensive.
So that the guard can be doing more useful things than pressing a button the driver can easily do.
So do you have a citation or not? I am not going to go and Google things, if you made the comment, please find me the evidence.
Tube is doo isnt it?
Massive number of users too compared to any other rail network.
Seems perfectly safe too
I ask you again: why are they doing it then? What is the logic behind it if they won't save any money?
Because in time they can realise savings by not replacing staff who leave through retirement or of their own accord?
So it is about cutting staff, thanks for admitting it.
That's not necessarily a bad thing though? If technology makes certain roles redundant doesn't make sense to not move with the times.
Containeristation for example massively reduced the work available at the docks but allowed for far cheaper shipping and more capacity creating new jobs elsewhere.
It does if these people end up costing the taxpayer to support them.
but as we established before no ones losing their job. Sure you can say that these jobs may not be available to future generations but then new technology also often generates new job opportunities.
90%+ of the population used to work in the farming industry.
I don't think too many people are sad that's not the case anymore.
Those opportunities are entirely gated by extensive education, considering only half the populace at best even attempts University, that's at least half that are worthless in any science/engineering heavy society.
Unless of course you want your local junkies looking after you when you're old?
This isn't like the Industrial revolution, as many economists are saying its going to be a disaster if governments don't prioritize for it now. (example) I mean we tried letting the banks do whatever (muh free market) they wanted from the 80s onwards and we we're happily rewarded with a sovereign debt expansion... we cannot rely on the private sector to manage it.
Do you seriously believe 40 year old train driver Billy from York is going to retrain in neurology, social care or civil engineering?
Will he ****, he'll moan, he'll hit his wife, he'll hit his children and he'll be radicalised by the far-right because there's nothing left for him. /major exaggeration
You keep contradicting yourself.
The point of DOO must be to save money, otherwise there would be no point in doing it.
Disregarding the safety side - I personally feel safer knowing there is somebody on the train with the ability to control the doors who isn’t locked away - the people that lose their jobs as a result of this will have to be supported in some other way. I don’t see many of them re-training to do other things, so that means a potential increase in Government support, perhaps in housing.
The retiring point makes no sense as the franchises don’t last that long. It has to be shorter term than that otherwise as I keep saying, the TOCs wouldn’t bother.
The only person not making sense and contradicting themselves is you.....
Existing staff have to be transferred between franchisees under TUPE....
The same company has held the Southern franchise since 2001 and is due to hold it till 2021 (it was subsumed into a larger company in 2015) so plenty of time to allow from some natural wastage without redundancies.
Do you think the uk would be better off if we employed everyone who didn't have a job to do pointless tasks?
We could do a 50/50 split with a hole digging team and a hole filling team.
How is that a contradiction? The SW franchise changed last year.
You keep avoiding the point that the reason behind this DOO exercise is clearly to save money by getting rid of staff. There is no other logical conclusion and to deny it it madness.
On the contrary I agree that it's being done to save money.
We appear however to disagree however as to whether that's an inherently bad thing......
I would expect a rail franchisee to actively look to make their operation as cost effective as possible so that come renewal time any efficency savings can at least partially benefit the tax payer who is subsidising the railways massively.
Separate names with a comma.