Spring Budget 2023

b0rn2sk8 said:
Given there has been a well documented shortage of train drivers for the last few years and train operating companies have been cancelling trains left and right where even the overtime drivers are doing will not cover the work, I’m not even sure where is point is going.
Click to expand...

There is no shortage of drivers at all. Their is an abundance of people in talent pools awaiting to be taken on. There is a shortage of drivers the companies are willing to take on and rather run to the bare minimum. It is of no difference to the "driver" shortage of HGV drivers. There is no shortage of licence holders what so ever but a shortage of drivers that are willing to work for peanuts. Chickens coming home to roost :).
 
adam cool dude said:
There is no shortage of drivers at all. Their is an abundance of people in talent pools awaiting to be taken on. There is a shortage of drivers the companies are willing to take on and rather run to the bare minimum. It is of no difference to the "driver" shortage of HGV drivers. There is no shortage of licence holders what so ever but a shortage of drivers that are willing to work for peanuts. Chickens coming home to roost :).
Click to expand...

I thought the main complaint ITT was train drivers were paid too much and there was a long list of people trying to get the gig, not that people were unwilling to do it because they get paid peanuts.
 
dLockers said:
...? Offset by fare increases that happen every year. Or do you think wages don't factor in that at all? :s
Click to expand...

Drivers wages account for about 1% of the total operating costs of the train operators, or somewhat less than 5% of the amount collected in fares. Any contribution to the increase in fare costs is basically noise.

But, in any case, the government sets the amount by which (most) fares are allowed to rise. The train companies are not free to set them as they please. With their highly limited ability to set fares, it's more likely that higher wages will come from profits than increase fares.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
Drivers wages account for about 1% of the total operating costs of the train operators, or somewhat less than 5% of the amount collected in fares. Any contribution to the increase in fare costs is basically noise.

But, in any case, the government sets the amount by which (most) fares are allowed to rise. The train companies are not free to set them as they please. With their highly limited ability to set fares, it's more likely that higher wages will come from profits than increase fares.
Click to expand...
I never said drivers wages drive the fare price increase. I said the fare price increase could pay for the drivers wage. I think you've confused me for a combatant :cry:
 
Freakbro said:
I thought the main complaint ITT was train drivers were paid too much and there was a long list of people trying to get the gig, not that people were unwilling to do it because they get paid peanuts.
Click to expand...
IIRC at least a couple of the rail companies have been relying on the existing train drivers doing overtime, and have tried to force those drivers to do more hours as "standard" without an increase in pay.
Those same train companies have refused to hire more drivers because it would have meant training them and then paying them, when they thought they could basically increase the hours the existing drivers worked whilst giving an effective pay cut (IE increase the base hours, and change the times that are classed as "anti social" thus removing things like shift allowances for working late/early/weekend).

Basically you can have both, they're not mutually exclusive as there is nothing stopping drivers objecting to a below inflation pay rise or an effective pay cut, whilst at the same time there are people that are willing to take on the job but not any openings because the company doesn't want to employ more staff, or not wanting to pay to train those new staff.

This is a very large part of the reason some of the companies have been having issues for a while even before the strikes, where they had relied on the drivers being willing to work additional shifts every week they ran into issues when those drivers refused to do them, or when say a driver is off ill and it turns out that running staffing at below the minimum levels is not actually sustainable as you have no ability left to cover absences.

It's not a unique thing to the railways, it's something that is depressingly common in the UK (and US), companies not being willing to invest in actually providing training for staff if it appears to be cheaper to just try and rely on overtime for existing staff (especially if you can change the contracts so the "normal" hours include those that used to pay a bonus), and it has a tendency to eventually cause an issue.
It's one of the reasons the UK is so far behind a lot of other countries in terms of productivity, companies won't invest in their people or equipment if it means eating into the profit for the next quarter (let alone next couple of years, even if it means that your profit after that is likely to be consistently higher and make up for it quickly).
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
IIRC at least a couple of the rail companies have been relying on the existing train drivers doing overtime, and have tried to force those drivers to do more hours as "standard" without an increase in pay.
Those same train companies have refused to hire more drivers because it would have meant training them and then paying them, when they thought they could basically increase the hours the existing drivers worked whilst giving an effective pay cut (IE increase the base hours, and change the times that are classed as "anti social" thus removing things like shift allowances for working late/early/weekend).

Basically you can have both, they're not mutually exclusive as there is nothing stopping drivers objecting to a below inflation pay rise or an effective pay cut, whilst at the same time there are people that are willing to take on the job but not any openings because the company doesn't want to employ more staff, or not wanting to pay to train those new staff.

This is a very large part of the reason some of the companies have been having issues for a while even before the strikes, where they had relied on the drivers being willing to work additional shifts every week they ran into issues when those drivers refused to do them, or when say a driver is off ill and it turns out that running staffing at below the minimum levels is not actually sustainable as you have no ability left to cover absences.

It's not a unique thing to the railways, it's something that is depressingly common in the UK (and US), companies not being willing to invest in actually providing training for staff if it appears to be cheaper to just try and rely on overtime for existing staff (especially if you can change the contracts so the "normal" hours include those that used to pay a bonus), and it has a tendency to eventually cause an issue.
It's one of the reasons the UK is so far behind a lot of other countries in terms of productivity, companies won't invest in their people or equipment if it means eating into the profit for the next quarter (let alone next couple of years, even if it means that your profit after that is likely to be consistently higher and make up for it quickly).
Click to expand...

All too familiar in my old line of work. I was ringing up people on a daily basis just to get OT in to run the bare minimum of production lines to get through the day and watched it get gradually worse and worse to the point I handed in my notice because the stress wasn't worth it anymore. Senior management couldn't care. The amount of times I got rebuffed by my seniors because something wouldn't pay back in 6 months was a joke. If I came up with an idea to help with staff retention it was just ignored but they would quite happily waste money on inductions and retraining of staff who were lucky to last a year. It got to the point when I left that they had to shut down whole production lines because they just couldn't get the staff anymore.

Share holders made plenty in profits though.
 
Mr Jack said:
No, it's my back of the envelope sums calculated by googling the number of train drivers, the average salary, and the total operating costs of the train companies.
Click to expand...
Something is off with the numbers you’ve used. If they only accounted for 1% of the operating cost for these business then all the nickel and diming that people above are talking about doesn’t make sense. It would be a rounding error on the balance sheet.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Something is off with the numbers you’ve used. If they only accounted for 1% of the operating cost for these business then all the nickel and diming that people above are talking about doesn’t make sense. It would be a rounding error on the balance sheet.
Click to expand...

You're right. I missed a zero so out by an order of magnitude. My bad.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Something is off with the numbers you’ve used. If they only accounted for 1% of the operating cost for these business then all the nickel and diming that people above are talking about doesn’t make sense. It would be a rounding error on the balance sheet.
Click to expand...
Yeah from what could see it breaks down something like
20,000 train drivers
£65,000 average salary
Total salary £1.2billion approx.
operating costs £19 billion approx.

About 6.3% of operational costs.

If they had the 11% increase that was being discussed taking them to £66,600 average then.
£1.332 billion

So about 7% of operational costs.
 
Curlyriff said:
Yeah from what could see it breaks down something like
20,000 train drivers
£65,000 average salary
Total salary £1.2billion approx.
operating costs £19 billion approx.

About 6.3% of operational costs.

If they had the 11% increase that was being discussed taking them to £66,600 average then.
£1.332 billion

So about 7% of operational costs.
Click to expand...
I think that makes up about 30% of the total staffing cost for these companies. The last figure I saw put drivers as 1/5 of the total work force for these companies.

Link to cost breakdown.


Edit: it’s shocking how unprofitable the rail industry is. Passenger fares barely cover staff costs alone, let alone the other costs. No wonder they are still running old systems
 
Last edited:
About two thirds of the tobacco lines have increased since the Budget.

Had a few customers that walked away when I told them the new price - 70p-£1 more for cigarettes and £1.30-£1.40 more for 30g and £1.80-£2 for 50g. Nothing to do with us.

Some customers have said to me that we sell their cigarettes £1 cheaper than elsewhere.

Not looking forward to the day one brand of cigs goes over £10. As these customers just come in with a tenner in their hands.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
As usual a promotion comes up. I look at what’s left post crippling tax payment and wonder what the point is unless they elevate the remuneration to a point that I doubt they’d go for anyway.
Click to expand...
A promotion comes up. I look at what’s left post crippling tax free allowance and wonder what the point is.

May as well just keep earning £12k. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom