How hard is it to drive a train?

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

I just wish I could join the RMT where I work instead of the rather limp wristed union I am in.Your RMT poster is exactly correct and nothing to deride.It essentially says that they fought long and hard to get where they are,and need to fight continually to maintain what they have got.All very true and why is it bad for everyone else?Because we cant exploit cheap labour on the railway.Good says I.

It's bad for everyone else because it does nothing to help with fare prices.

Exploit cheap labour? This isn't the 19th century where you worked in the local factory in hellish conditions for peanuts, or staved to death. People don't need unions to protect them from that anymore, the law does it for them. And if you still think you're being underpaid, quit!

[Balky001]

Found a site and pay varies from £29K to £43K depending what company you work for. Starting wage is £12k-16K. Have to work Saturdays but Sundays are optional for most companies. I don't know, if you are willing to do a year on £12K as an apprentice and then do the shifts, mid £30's as most seem to pay doesn't seem unreasonable. Like any job, unless you do it you probably don't know half of what it entails.

Looks hard to me

[Biker Biggles]

If all the rail workers had to work for the national minimum wage fares could be a lot cheaper.If you actually believe that the law protects you from being exploited by your employer(other than sub min wage)you clearly havnt studied much employment law.Most of it was essentially written either by or on behalf of employers.

Thatchers children Dont you just love the caring society she created.

[Balky001]

I think I might get a copy of the Microsoft Train Driver and give it a go, where can you buy the driver's hat from??

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

If all the rail workers had to work for the national minimum wage fares could be a lot cheaper.If you actually believe that the law protects you from being exploited by your employer(other than sub min wage)you clearly havnt studied much employment law.Most of it was essentially written either by or on behalf of employers.

Thatchers children Dont you just love the caring society she created.

Who said anything about rail workers being paid minimum wage? All I'm saying is they should be paid the market rate, not some artificial rate brought about by the unions.

If you think this has anything to do with me being uncaring then the point has gone sailing way over your head. Money doesn't have an absolute value, it's relative. If every worker in the UK joined a union and secured double pay overnight, then everyone wouldn't suddenly become twice as well off, all that would happen is that sterling would halve in value and we'd be right back where we started.

How much money someone earns only means something when it's compared against those around them. So to argue that it's ok for a certain group of people to artificially inflate their wages is to say that they are in some way a special case more deserving than others. I'm still yet to see a convincing argument as to what that case is.

[Biker Biggles]

Depends how you determine or rig the market.In a free(ish)society unions are part of the market and enable employees to band together to negotiate with employers who, almost exclusively, are richer and far more powerful than any individual employee.Seems like a good idea to me and maybe more people should join a union instead of bleating on about how well a particular union is doing for its members.

No, in a free(ish) society people try (or in some cases don't) to gain as many commercially appealing skills as they can and market themselves to the highest bidder. If you succeed then companies will compete to employ you and you'll be paid well. If you don't have any particular skills then you'll end up doing a job that anyone could do and you'll be paid minimum wage. If you're in a job where you're genuinely being underpaid for your skills, the opportunities to go elsewhere to earn more money are out there.

Those who use unions to increase their pay are not underpaid as they don't have the skills to earn the same kind of money anywhere else. This is why despite their constant complaining about pay and conditions rail workers will never leave.

By and large i support their concept of unions, and the fact that due to them large numbers of people have decent wages and working conditions. however i would agree that they are sometimes a bit greedy in their demands and militant in their actions.

but IMO the bigger issue is the number of people on benefits who we are paying to do nothing at all! Now I obviously don't mean anyone who for health reasons or special circumstances is not able to get a job. However there are people out there (in fact i saw some being interviewed on TV the other day) who just don't fancy what's available and so therefore can't be bothered. Surely that's more important than quibbling about a few grand on a train driver's wage??