Public Ownership of Electricity Generation
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Tube drivers are rather well paid - but, of course, that upsets those who don't like Labour, the Unions or workers being well paid.
If it were not for subsidies, there would be no railways - anywhere.
It might be considered odd to "privatise" a service by selling it off cheap and then have to "pay" the purchaser to run that service.
These payments are now known as "subsidies" but when it was in public ownership they were called "losses" and decried by those who sold it off cheap and used as a reason for doing it.
I'm sure that is not good business or even common sense but what do I know.
Renationalise the railways with no compensation and employ a Japanese person to run them.
If it were not for subsidies, there would be no railways - anywhere.
It might be considered odd to "privatise" a service by selling it off cheap and then have to "pay" the purchaser to run that service.
These payments are now known as "subsidies" but when it was in public ownership they were called "losses" and decried by those who sold it off cheap and used as a reason for doing it.
I'm sure that is not good business or even common sense but what do I know.
Renationalise the railways with no compensation and employ a Japanese person to run them.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,775
- Reaction score
- 2,693
- Country
If you set pay for all jobs at a realistic, liveable minimum (via statute), then above that it should be based entirely on supply and demand. A newly qualified tube driver earns £50k per year. There aren't many jobs driving vehicles that pay better. A bus driver in the same city earns half as much (and they have to steer too). Airline Pilots earn £60-80K when newly qualified and most have taken out big loans to cover their training which costs £80-120k
I think therefore that over unionisation of the rail network has led to over pay in the sector.
I think therefore that over unionisation of the rail network has led to over pay in the sector.
What percentage of unionisation do you estimate to be "under?"
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,775
- Reaction score
- 2,693
- Country
? - Are you asking how much of their current pay I think is due to collective bargaining rather than market forces?
I think there is about a 40-50% uplift as a result. Starting pay of 30-35k feels about right - that would put them in the middle between police and teacher.
I think there is about a 40-50% uplift as a result. Starting pay of 30-35k feels about right - that would put them in the middle between police and teacher.
no, I'm asking what level of unionisation you consider to be "under."
You've already said there is a level you think is "over."
No doubt there is also a level that's "just right."
It's interesting that you think "market forces" exclude organised labour.
You've already said there is a level you think is "over."
No doubt there is also a level that's "just right."
It's interesting that you think "market forces" exclude organised labour.
Can I ask why you think their pay should be downgraded, rather than pay be raised for the groups you mention?
(a race to the bottom)
The unions are some of the only powerful ones left in a particular industry and can drive a hard bargain.
A pity that other groups of employees can't do the same.
And after all, those at the top have a system which puts the drivers pay into perspective and is the reverse of what you suggest!
(race to the top)
But here's a thought.
All of the professions you mention have a lot of training, and to a varying degree we all will find our lives in their hands at some time in our lives.
But there is a 'profession' where with no training at all you can get a much higher starting salary - Members of Parliament!
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,775
- Reaction score
- 2,693
- Country
because they are over paid, for the skill level, training and ability. Simple as that. You can find people just as good who will work for less.
There is a long queue of people willing to do the work to the same high standard for less money. Given that as said, we all have to pay, why is it right that consumers (and non-consumers) to have to pay more for the service, when they work equally hard for less money? The difference is they aren't in roles/unions that can exploit control over their employers as effectively.
@ellal - footballers are the more obvious example. however neither are unionised.
@JohnD - I don't think you need unions, I think the state could replace their functions with statutory controls. However, I have no problem where membership is voluntary and employers not under obligations to support and fund them. i.e. no indirect closed shops.
There is a long queue of people willing to do the work to the same high standard for less money. Given that as said, we all have to pay, why is it right that consumers (and non-consumers) to have to pay more for the service, when they work equally hard for less money? The difference is they aren't in roles/unions that can exploit control over their employers as effectively.
@ellal - footballers are the more obvious example. however neither are unionised.
@JohnD - I don't think you need unions, I think the state could replace their functions with statutory controls. However, I have no problem where membership is voluntary and employers not under obligations to support and fund them. i.e. no indirect closed shops.
London tube drivers need to live (as well as work) in London. Their pay reflects the living costs associated with living in proximity to their job and is why their pay was negotiated to the level it is at now.
Probably.
Probably.
E
EddieM
well, they don't but they do get about double the salary of a London bus driver.
Perhaps they are considered twice as important in our capitalist capital.
E
EddieM
Or maybe the RMT.
Up the workers! (pumps fist).
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,775
- Reaction score
- 2,693
- Country
I can’t imagine it’s more mentally or physically taxing than driving a bus.
Sponsored Links
