Train drivers = greed

Wyrdo said:
Sounds like my job but I don't get paid anywhere near 40k and I'll be lucky if I get a 2% pay rise this year :(

How does one go about becoming a train driver?
Click to expand...

Apply


Platypus said:
I believe it's a question of parity. Are you justified in collecting £40k for doing what you do? Perhaps.

Are you justified in collecting £40k for doing what you do, when there are people that shoulder more responsibility then you on a daily basis, and get paid a lot less? I'd say not. Of course, it's just a question of semantics.
Click to expand...

No.Parity doesn't come into it.I've already said what I believe.You said 'So why aren't Police Officers paid more then these brave transport people who risk their lives on a daily basis, just to bring you to your destination late?

I earn just below £40k and I do a damned more difficult/skilled job then train drivers.'

So,you are saying that your job is more difficult than mine.How do you qualify this? As I've said frequently,I believe I earn my wage.You cannot effectively argue this point unless you've done my job.Semantics? No it isn't.And you still haven't said what you do for a living? But it wouldn't matter,unless it's a job that I've done,how can I argue it's inherent worth?
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
Fair play to them if they can get away with it. What I don't get is why more people don't become train drivers?
Click to expand...

Well, one of the reasons for the high pay is that their is pretty much zero career progression, it's not like a big business where you can climb the management tiers and try to make partner.
 
Couldn't give a rats ass if i'm a partner at 60, hopefully i'm dead due to have such a dam good time before then and i wouldn't be fond of the inability to see past my hand without the use of binoculars. :).

ideally, i wanna be my age x £1000 as a good target throughout my life. When i'm dead being a millionaire will suck though.
 
V3g3tto said:
Couldn't give a rats ass if i'm a partner at 60, hopefully i'm dead due to have such a dam good time before then and i wouldn't be fond of the inability to see past my hand without the use of binoculars. :).

ideally, i wanna be my age x £1000 as a good target throughout my life. When i'm dead being a millionaire will suck though.
Click to expand...

Then by all means, go be a train driver.

I've learnt over the years that job satisfaction is worth more than you paypacket.

I would rather scrape by, enjoy my job, and have my own free time, than earn big buck but have no social life, or wake up each morning hating my job.
 
No, i'm agreeing with you, i'm saying being unhappy going for the big bucks is not cool.

I see a lot of Directors are bald, wear glasses, married by requirement and only go out if it's a lunch meeting with clients. That's not something i aspire to.

However, In a job now that i find so easy, i often fall asleep at the desk, especially when i'm hungover, i've been on these forums all day since i got in. There's a balance there that i'll probably never get right.
 
Very interesting reading all this and I have to say it's the unions that are the problem.

An insight as to the other side of the.
 
Mikey said:
it's the unions that are the problem.
Click to expand...

I don't think 'it's the union's fault' is enough. The problem with public sector jobs is that there is by definition much less of a free market - you get paid what the government decides to pay you, but it takes the power of the union to change that amount. This results in a situation where everyone in the public sector is to some extent painted with the same brush, there's very little scope for personal performance to be taken into account when it comes to earnings.

Does every train driver deserve a 4.5% pay rise? Probably not. Some will deserve more, some less, and some deserve a pay cut. A few will even deserve to lose their jobs outright.

The second part of it is because you have so many employees working for he same 'company', if one group gets a raise, another will quickly pipe up. If the firemen get a 10% raise, the police will want one too, then teachers, nurses and so on. The government has a duty to keep wages low to appease the taxpayer, and also to keep inflation down.

Personally, it always annoys me when public workers threaten to go onstrike. Relatively low pay is one of the drawbacks of public sector work, but on the positive side they get great job security and better than average pensions. If they're that desperate to earn more, there are always private companies that work alongside the public sector, but that would mean giving up the job security and the pension. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
I remember a few years back my mate telling me that train drivers got £36k and train guards £24k. Seems like not a bad option to me if you can get it.

Probably some dodgy hours need to be worked and overrunning shifts etc, but that's no different from what say Nurses have to put up with.
 
V3g3tto said:
ideally, i wanna be my age x £1000 as a good target throughout my life. When i'm dead being a millionaire will suck though.
Click to expand...

Hehe, I remember trying to come up with a similar formula once.

age*1000 was my starting point, but then I decided that this slightly overpays teenagers (16yo on £16k) and underpays successful people in their late 20s and 30s.

My next iteration was:
(age-8)*1500

This means that 16yos target 12k, 24yos target £24k, 30yos target £33k, 40yos target £48k etc. I'm still not happy with it as obviously it needs to plateau a bit as it scales up too much for middleaged/old people.
 
Scottly said:
I don't think 'it's the union's fault' is enough. The problem with public sector jobs is that there is by definition much less of a free market - you get paid what the government decides to pay you, but it takes the power of the union to change that amount. This results in a situation where everyone in the public sector is to some extent painted with the same brush, there's very little scope for personal performance to be taken into account when it comes to earnings.

Does every train driver deserve a 4.5% pay rise? Probably not. Some will deserve more, some less, and some deserve a pay cut. A few will even deserve to lose their jobs outright.

The second part of it is because you have so many employees working for he same 'company', if one group gets a raise, another will quickly pipe up. If the firemen get a 10% raise, the police will want one too, then teachers, nurses and so on. The government has a duty to keep wages low to appease the taxpayer, and also to keep inflation down.

Personally, it always annoys me when public workers threaten to go onstrike. Relatively low pay is one of the drawbacks of public sector work, but on the positive side they get great job security and better than average pensions. If they're that desperate to earn more, there are always private companies that work alongside the public sector, but that would mean giving up the job security and the pension. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...

Railways were privatised a long time ago now.A train operating company's only objective is to make a profit.I am working for a private company.
 
surprised they didnt do it when the weathers nicer they normally do, must be that time of year for the greedy train drivers to go on strike
 
Scottly said:
I don't think 'it's the union's fault' is enough. The problem with public sector jobs is that there is by definition much less of a free market - you get paid what the government decides to pay you, but it takes the power of the union to change that amount. This results in a situation where everyone in the public sector is to some extent painted with the same brush, there's very little scope for personal performance to be taken into account when it comes to earnings.
Click to expand...

I can imagine any scheme to bring in performance related pay would be meet by heavy resistance from the unions. I think it would be a good idea though, they're working for a private company after all.
 
HangTime said:
Hehe, I remember trying to come up with a similar formula once.

age*1000 was my starting point, but then I decided that this slightly overpays teenagers (16yo on £16k) and underpays successful people in their late 20s and 30s.

My next iteration was:
(age-8)*1500

This means that 16yos target 12k, 24yos target £24k, 30yos target £33k, 40yos target £48k etc. I'm still not happy with it as obviously it needs to plateau a bit as it scales up too much for middleaged/old people.
Click to expand...

How about (3100*age)-(25*age^2)-36000 :p

Gives

18 target 11700
24 target 24000
30 target 34500
36 target 43200
42 target 50100
48 target 55200
54 target 58500
60 target 60000
 
OSB said:
How about (3100*age)-(25*age^2)-36000 :p

Gives

18 target 11700
24 target 24000
30 target 34500
36 target 43200
42 target 50100
48 target 55200
54 target 58500
60 target 60000
Click to expand...

That was my original target but I'm beating it already :D
 
The wage for 18 is too low and the wage for 24 is too high because it's more than me :)

Realistically, in midlands, i'd say targets possible could be (yes, no mathematical formulae :P)

16 - 10k (To be honest, that's being generous for a wet-behind the ears chappie :))
18 - 13k (2yrs experience or relevant A-levels would prompt this starting wage for good office based jobs)
21 - 16k (Most graduates would bite your hand off for 15k if they can find a job and chances are non-grads have a couple eyars exp.)
25 - 22k (Beyond what i'll probably get (only 1-2 years away), but realistic for most)

Figures are realistic for office based jobs.
 
ExRayTed said:
So,you are saying that your job is more difficult than mine.How do you qualify this? As I've said frequently,I believe I earn my wage.You cannot effectively argue this point unless you've done my job.Semantics? No it isn't.And you still haven't said what you do for a living? But it wouldn't matter,unless it's a job that I've done,how can I argue it's inherent worth?
Click to expand...
Well that's because to a certain extent I can't say.

Of course it's semantics. You believe you earn your wage, I believe your wage is too high, in comparison with other jobs which also involve peoples safety, which is one of the reasons you've given in justification of your salary.

Yes, you can argue that just because these other people aren't paid as much as they deserve, should you be paid any less? And I can argue that your wage is too high. It's semantics.

I am not, whatever you may think, having a go at you for earning £40,000 a year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom