4 ms·
This isn't really the argument though. Sure, we want a member of staff to help but they could be a £30K train manager instead of a £70K driver.
by lbriner 5y ago
This isn't really the argument though. Sure, we want a member of staff to help but they could be a £30K train manager instead of a £70K driver.
- e17 5y agoAs the article explains, the train managers will strike just the same as drivers do, leaving us in exactly the same situation as before.
- yardstick 5y agoNot exactly the same situation. Less wages to pay, less pension debts to fund.
- e17 5y agoIf there are still strikes then it is the same situation. Your plan solves nothing, for reasons both the article and I have outlined already. If we put you in charge tomorrow to execute your plan of moving from £70k drivers to £30k hi-vis vest-wearers, you would cause weeks of strikes, massive disruption and solve nothing.
- yardstick 5y agoOne of cost of a few weeks of strikes to reduce cost of drivers by over half? Sign me up. Also the unions strikes are selfish in nature, they all team up to support one another to keep remuneration artificially high by holding the transport system to ransom anytime sometime tries correct it. The Tube Mafia would be a more apt name.
- pydry 5y agoHow badly paid do you want the people responsible for your safety to be?
- i_am_andy 5y agoA 30K train manager is still more than a 25K bus driver. And there are a lot more road accidents than train accidents.