What are teh real pay & conditions of the tube drivers?

[johnfm]

I don't believe a word I read on the BBC website, or newspapers for that matter.

So, while some say pay is £40k and 38 days holiday, I assume this may be one extreme case and that the actuality is less generous. Anyone know the real skinny on this?


If this is the case, I'm not sure why tube driving has become automated. How hard can it be?

[V8mate]

I think basic is c£38k but there are lots of opportunities for overtime. Annual leave is 43 days.

Edited by V8mate on Wednesday 10th June 14:15

[johnfm]

43 days!!

I thought only teachers were on this sort of holiday entitlement.

How on earth do their employers stomach that?

[V8mate]

johnfm said:

43 days!!

I thought only teachers were on this sort of holiday entitlement.

How on earth do taxpayers stomach that?

EFA!



Also, station staff in LU get 52 days!

[anonymous-user]

johnfm said:

43 days!!

I thought only teachers were on this sort of holiday entitlement.

How on earth do their employers stomach that?

I get 43 but I can increase that to 61 depending on when I book the leave. I remember that plenty of people on here get more than that from the last time this came up.

[johnfm]

Is this for real??

over 50 days paid holiday??

so in reality, their £38k is not for 240 working days, but for around working days.

So, its more like an 'equivalent' pay of £43k.

I note that of over 10,000 RMT members, only about 2000 voted. maybe they were all out on holiday?

[asbo]

'kin 'ell, that's a not inconsiderable sum of money!

Where do I sign?

[Chilli]

And what's the average "working" day (less tea breaks etc)? 8 hours?

[TrevorH]

I presume they get so many days because they have to work weekends. In that case 43 days = 6 weeks and one day.

I don't want to stick up for the money-grabbers, but let's be fair(ish)

[esselte]

TrevorH said:

I presume they get so many days because they have to work weekends.

But they'll get 2 days off in the week..?

[Funk Odyssey]

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

[Slothario]

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

What a dumbass question. The OP may have a job in which he feels perfectly contented. Does that mean he can't have an opinion on this ?
Maybe he lives 300 miles away and feels that the commute to the city would make things difficult...????
Is that your contribution ?

[johnfm]

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

Because I already earn comfortably more, don't have London cot of living and don't want to drive a tube.

However, IIRC the tube is heavily subsidised by TPM isn't it?

Since I pay a decent wedge in tax every year, I think I have the right to query why those we elect to run the services in this country aren't capable of managing employee expectations.

Frankly, I do not think it represents value for money.

If it was run by a corporation, I expect contracts would have been renegotiated long before now, final salary pension would be cut, most tube trains would be 'driven' by computers and things would be a bit better. THough I concede that if Virgin were running things, they would be ste and still have £billions of govt handouts!

[Funk Odyssey]

Slothario said:

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

What a dumbass question. The OP may have a job in which he feels perfectly contented. Does that mean he can't have an opinion on this ?
Maybe he lives 300 miles away and feels that the commute to the city would make things difficult...????
Is that your contribution ?

thanks for your contribution -- however the OP has now answered the question.

feel free to go and be rude somewhere else

another forum perhaps?

[Funk Odyssey]

johnfm said:

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

Because I already earn comfortably more, don't have London cot of living and don't want to drive a tube.

However, IIRC the tube is heavily subsidised by TPM isn't it?

Since I pay a decent wedge in tax every year, I think I have the right to query why those we elect to run the services in this country aren't capable of managing employee expectations.

Frankly, I do not think it represents value for money.

If it was run by a corporation, I expect contracts would have been renegotiated long before now, final salary pension would be cut, most tube trains would be 'driven' by computers and things would be a bit better. THough I concede that if Virgin were running things, they would be ste and still have £billions of govt handouts!

there is undoubtably waste.

I don't think private rail companies represent the pared down wage slave existence that you seek either!

[johnfm]

Funk Odyssey said:

johnfm said:

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

Because I already earn comfortably more, don't have London cot of living and don't want to drive a tube.

However, IIRC the tube is heavily subsidised by TPM isn't it?

Since I pay a decent wedge in tax every year, I think I have the right to query why those we elect to run the services in this country aren't capable of managing employee expectations.

Frankly, I do not think it represents value for money.

If it was run by a corporation, I expect contracts would have been renegotiated long before now, final salary pension would be cut, most tube trains would be 'driven' by computers and things would be a bit better. THough I concede that if Virgin were running things, they would be ste and still have £billions of govt handouts!

there is undoubtably waste.

I don't think private rail companies represent the pared down wage slave existence that you seek either!

I agree. I think Virgin's running of rail services proves this.

Maybe we need to sub it out to some efficient Germans....

[V8mate]

Funk Odyssey said:

johnfm said:

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

Because I already earn comfortably more, don't have London cot of living and don't want to drive a tube.

However, IIRC the tube is heavily subsidised by TPM isn't it?

Since I pay a decent wedge in tax every year, I think I have the right to query why those we elect to run the services in this country aren't capable of managing employee expectations.

Frankly, I do not think it represents value for money.

If it was run by a corporation, I expect contracts would have been renegotiated long before now, final salary pension would be cut, most tube trains would be 'driven' by computers and things would be a bit better. THough I concede that if Virgin were running things, they would be ste and still have £billions of govt handouts!

there is undoubtably waste.

I don't think private rail companies represent the pared down wage slave existence that you seek either!

Because the requirement to continue to recognise the unions is a government imposed franchise obligation.

[V8mate]

haworthlloyd1 said:

you are underground all your life too - i can see why they have a long holiday - the job must be very repetitive.

not bad money for someone though

Only 45% of London Underground is actually underground.

[Funk Odyssey]

V8mate said:

Funk Odyssey said:

johnfm said:

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

Because I already earn comfortably more, don't have London cot of living and don't want to drive a tube.

However, IIRC the tube is heavily subsidised by TPM isn't it?

Since I pay a decent wedge in tax every year, I think I have the right to query why those we elect to run the services in this country aren't capable of managing employee expectations.

Frankly, I do not think it represents value for money.

If it was run by a corporation, I expect contracts would have been renegotiated long before now, final salary pension would be cut, most tube trains would be 'driven' by computers and things would be a bit better. THough I concede that if Virgin were running things, they would be ste and still have £billions of govt handouts!

there is undoubtably waste.

I don't think private rail companies represent the pared down wage slave existence that you seek either!

Because the requirement to continue to recognise the unions is a government imposed franchise obligation.

as much trouble as SOME unions cause. I don't want to be in a situation where union recognition is scrapped

[V8mate]

Funk Odyssey said:

V8mate said:

Funk Odyssey said:

johnfm said:

Funk Odyssey said:

to the OP -- why not apply for a job if the conditions are so good.

Because I already earn comfortably more, don't have London cot of living and don't want to drive a tube.

However, IIRC the tube is heavily subsidised by TPM isn't it?

Since I pay a decent wedge in tax every year, I think I have the right to query why those we elect to run the services in this country aren't capable of managing employee expectations.

Frankly, I do not think it represents value for money.

If it was run by a corporation, I expect contracts would have been renegotiated long before now, final salary pension would be cut, most tube trains would be 'driven' by computers and things would be a bit better. THough I concede that if Virgin were running things, they would be ste and still have £billions of govt handouts!

there is undoubtably waste.

I don't think private rail companies represent the pared down wage slave existence that you seek either!

Because the requirement to continue to recognise the unions is a government imposed franchise obligation.

as much trouble as SOME unions cause. I don't want to be in a situation where union recognition is scrapped

It would be nice for the companies to have the choice though. I'm not sure how the government has got round the laws of the land by making a contractual issue override legislation. Maybe because the TOCs are only franchisees of the regional businesses?