To think tube drivers are overpaid as most earn 60-70k and get free travel

[nickiredcar]

Surely they are only paid so much because they run a monopoly and people have no choice. I think it's an argument against unions. Considering lots are semi automatic it does seem too high that they are now out earning pilots.

Apparently they are striking because one of their drivers was sacked for failing drugs tests at work three times

I was working in admin when I applied for my job as train driver. Never worked for the railway before.

So yes anyone can apply to be a train driver.

My friend who has also never worked on the railway before, is now a night tube driver 🤷🏽‍♀️

Then your DH is lying about his wage if after 5 years it's significantly lower than the starting wage.

Maybe he's lying about all the suicides also as statistically you would have to work over 70 years to experience 1, yet he's getting 2-3 every single year.

Yes some lines like the northern line do have a higher one (and obviously lower on jubelee line), but still your figures aren't believable even if he was on the Northern line.

I actually think it’s pointless to look at these figures in isolation. The ES said 9 drivers were paid more than 100k, that’s a tiny number. The majority earned a total of 70k but this was comprised of base pay, overtime, pension contributions & certain allowances, which is very different to a salary of 70k. If you looked at the Met (inspector upwards) in that way would it be much different? Or a teacher on the UPS?

Surely they are only paid so much because they run a monopoly and people have no choice. I think it's an argument against unions.

No, it is an argument for you to start an union and demand better pay for yourself (if you don't already earn more than a tube driver and just want them to earn less because you feel you are better than them, that is).

Seriously. Get a grip.

You remind me of the person who wants to make grandparents babysitting their grandchildren illegal so that people whose parents won't or can't babysit aren't disadvantaged.

Do you also walk around demanding that good-looking people smear their faces with dirt so as to look as shit as anyone else?

What about putting a ball and chain on every able bodied person so they can't be faster than a person with a crutch or in a wheelchair?

Complaining that the tube is too expensive for you to afford would be one thing. Complaining that the drivers earn too much?
Nonsensical.

ChesneyHawkes You are changing the goalposts. Yes anyone can apply to be a train driver. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT TRAIN DRIVERS. And they are often paid far less than tube drivers.

You can only apply to be a London tube driver internally. NO-ONE can apply externally. They are the rules.

The problem isn’t that tube drivers are paid too much; it’s that most people are paid too little. Agree with this.

Can't work out what your point is OP. Should everyone's pay be cut down to the lowest common denominator to make it "fair"?

There's a lot of professions I'd choose to have a pay axe before I even thought about tube drivers. Politicians for a start.

I have a feeling you just like to disagree OP. I've given you my experience with regards to your OP, and you just want to argue about it, not sure why.

I’m not bashing the public sector at all (I work in it) but there always seems to be this idea that all public sectors are on 20k etc & everyone in the private sector is a banker or accountant who gets a big bonus. I think on average a public sector worker earns more than a private sector & that’s before you look at pensions. Will get flamed now.

I'm disagreeing with you as your figures on wages are incorrect and the number of suicides are totally unbelievable. As the other poster said it's statistically the same as getting 5 numbers on the lottery every year.

No one can just apply to become a tube driver so why are people still saying anyone can apply

I agree it’s hard to get a tube driver job.

And I agree that many many jobs are paid way too little. And largely those with a majority of female staff, irrespective of levels of responsibility or skill required. And frankly most unions have screwed over those woman workers time and time again.

I work in a field with mainly woman workers. I am in my late 50's and when I started work it was one of the few jobs that actually paid woman reasonably well and did not expect us to just put up with sexual harassment and sexist comments. I did a few other jobs first, but then moved into this field of work. But in the last 10 years wages have plummeted.

Personally I am totally fed up of how many women my wage have had our lifetime wages made lower because we are women. And yet so many on this thread pretend that we all just make choices to work in lower paid jobs and could just as easily work in higher paid jobs.

I agree canigetaliein, public sector workers often say they are underpaid and could earn double in the private sector. This was true in the past, but has changed in the last few decades. It started with Blair and brown.

The problem isn’t that tube drivers are paid too much; it’s that most people are paid too little.

And who would pay for such an increase? You? Me? There isn't a bottomless pit of money.

caniget The reason public sector workers may work more on average than private sector, is that public sector have contracted all their lower paid jobs out such as cleaners. What is left are jobs that require skills and usually qualifications and yes these are usually low paid for what is required, apart from senior managers. They are well paid.

Well I'm not going to upload his wage slip. And the suicides? I don't know what to tell you, hopefully he's just been very unlucky and won't get another his whole career. Disagree with me, that's fine. You're an angry random on the Internet and it makes no difference to me.

I think other professions deserve your vitriol more than tube drivers. The whole underground system relies on them, and without the underground commuters are fairly screwed.

I think on average a public sector worker earns more than a private sector & that’s before you look at pensions

Public sector workers do earn more than private sector workers on average but that's mainly because they are more highly qualified and experienced, on average - eg lots of graduate professionals such as nurses, doctors, teachers, other HCPs, social workers etc.

Plus a lot of low paid public sector workers have been outsourced to the private sector, eg cleaning and care work.

nickiredcar Really!! Not where I live. Qualified social workers are paid £24-£28k for example.
It is true there was under Blair many new initiative type jobs that were well paid. Those have all gone now. They were well paid. Most local authorities have made massive cuts and wages have went down and responsibilities have went up. My local authority got rid of nearly all the youth workers for example, and most of who is left are low paid unqualified staff.

tbh nickiredcar similar to the private sector the ones at the top have probably pulled the ladder up so that the younger/junior members won’t see anything like the remuneration & benefits they did.

I earn less than I could in the public sector but as they contribute more than 13% to my pension I actually don’t.

And to be frank, the reducing wages and increased job responsibilities is why local authorities and the NHS are struggling so much to fill so may vacancies. Most local authorities can not recruit enough qualified child protection social workers, does not make them increase the wages though.

Anyway you are wrong. Latest statistics show private sector employees earn more than public sector employees.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2018#analysis-of-employee-earnings

Sorry abacu it does depend alot on the industry.

But it's the same in the private sector - wages relatively down and responsibilities up. In my industry there really isn't a huge difference.

This is such a big multi level problem. This thread was just about one group that have significant power so get overpaid.

I worry about the future.

Does that take into account the full package though?

abacucat & BarbaraofSevillle I’m always told I’m lying when I say that my friends in the met & teaching earn a very good wage & are not unusual.

I’d wager there are a fair free industries in the private sector that require degrees that don’t pay very well.

This thread is so weird.

You are irked by the fact that, basically, unskilled people can find themselves a career where they can actually afford to live at a reasonable standard?

What kind of unfeeling muppet is offended by that?!

nickired No idea. But in the public sector the full package except for very senior managers is only a far less good pension. It used to be a great pension, but for most employees it is nowhere near as good.