Bob Crow, 1961 - 2014, RIP

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

People other than drivers are RMT members Stevo. See post above about track maintenance. A quick google suggests station staff are on a lot less than that too. The modal salary at TfL looks to be between £25K and £27K based on this

http://www.thejobcrowd.com/employer/transport-london/salary

Still doesn't justify screwing up the working day for millions of ordinary people who are not part of the dispute. Plus costing the economy huge amounts and hitting tax revenues :roll: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

jds_1981

My point was that TFL is massively subsidised. Measure of how much / person in the UK is to make the figures understandable.
In my personal situation, I'm subsidising TFL. I wouldn't need to if fares reflected their real cost.
I then moved on to the point that perhaps we need some good targetted investment to encourage businesses to move out of London. At the moment we're getting investment that will allow people to get across London more quickly (cross rail) and more people to travel from the midlands to London. Woohoo!

fat_tail

jds_1981 wrote:

My point was that TFL is massively subsidised. Measure of how much / person in the UK is to make the figures understandable.

my point is that number is fictitious because London taxes subsidise the rest of the country. So by your reckoning, the subsidy is around £23.5 per taxpayer. working on the assumption of around 30mm tax payers in the UK then this works out to around 0.7bn. However, if London is subsidising the rest of the UK and we assume around 3mm taxpayers in London, then this is actually a subsidy of 235 per London taxpayer. As one of those individuals, I actually don't mind making that payment so long as Bob Crowe's johnnies don't strike because they get £50k for "driving" a train.

jamesco

IMHO, the tube & bus in London should be free at point of use - they're essential services. The fares taken now don't cover the cost of the networks and simply removing them would save a lot of expense and hassle. The shortfall would be made up through a combination of council tax and congestion/pollution charges.

Saying that taxpayers outside London subsidise Londoners is ridiculous as London pays more in tax than it receives in benefits, which is how it should be - if the money is in London then that's where the taxman should be, too.

Stevo_666

jamesco wrote:

IMHO, the tube & bus in London should be free at point of use - they're essential services.

Surely food should be free then, that's pretty essential?

jds_1981

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

IMHO, the tube & bus in London should be free at point of use - they're essential services.

Surely food should be free then, that's pretty essential?

I was going to avoid replying, but as you got here first - outside of London, petrol and cars are fairly essential?

Stevo_666

jds_1981 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

IMHO, the tube & bus in London should be free at point of use - they're essential services.

Surely food should be free then, that's pretty essential?

I was going to avoid replying, but as you got here first - outside of London, petrol and cars are fairly essential?

Good point. I'll add beer and attractive women to the list.

fat_tail

Stevo 666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

IMHO, the tube & bus in London should be free at point of use - they're essential services.

Surely food should be free then, that's pretty essential?

I was going to avoid replying, but as you got here first - outside of London, petrol and cars are fairly essential?

Good point. I'll add beer and attractive women to the list.

how about everyone gets paid a £1mm as well ?

rick_chasey

fat_tail wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

IMHO, the tube & bus in London should be free at point of use - they're essential services.

Surely food should be free then, that's pretty essential?

I was going to avoid replying, but as you got here first - outside of London, petrol and cars are fairly essential?

Good point. I'll add beer and attractive women to the list.

how about everyone gets paid a £1mm as well ?

Inflation innit.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

People other than drivers are RMT members Stevo. See post above about track maintenance. A quick google suggests station staff are on a lot less than that too. The modal salary at TfL looks to be between £25K and £27K based on this

http://www.thejobcrowd.com/employer/transport-london/salary

Still doesn't justify screwing up the working day for millions of ordinary people who are not part of the dispute. Plus costing the economy huge amounts and hitting tax revenues :roll: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Did it really screw things up that much? Obviously it had some effect, and there were lots of figures being thrown around (most of them probably guesses at best) but I don't know if there were any accurate measures of its financial impact. They still ran a reduced service on the tube, which was being used (I was one of them) and aside from some extra road users everything seemed to carry on as normal. I think it got a bit mental at some of the big stations but London didn't grind to a halt.

The Rookie

Every day about 100M people die worldwide......being objective he's just one.

I only see positive impacts for a relatively few numbers of train drivers, negative impacts for a lot more people, on that basis I'm glad he isn't the head of that union any more though not by this mechanism, but I certainly have sympathy for his family at this time (I can't see how you can have sympathy for someone no longer here - check what it actually means!) along with a few hundred million other families, whether his some 'mr angry' character traits had anything to do with his demise I don't know, but one would imagine there was a degree of cause and effect.

rjsterry

The Rookie wrote:

I only see positive impacts for a relatively few numbers of train drivers, negative impacts for a lot more people

For the umpteenth time, RMT is not just train drivers. They represent station staff, track maintenance and many others.

jamesco

Stevo 666 wrote:

Good point. I'll add beer and attractive women to the list.

Hah, the difference is that people using public transport is essential to London functioning. Anyone that drives in London is imposing negative externalities on the rest of the population - can you imagine what London would be like if the tube & buses weren't around? Your having beer & attractive women has no effect on anyone but yourself and the lucky ladies who would otherwise be left lonely

It costs a lot to time & money to operate a ticketing system; if the service is free at the point of use, then a lot of money is saved. Not enough to cover the lost revenue, but it's a large proportion. Since we have to have the tube anyway, just meet the operating costs via tax (very efficient since the system is already in place).

The Rookie wrote:

Every day about 100M people die worldwide......being objective he's just one.

Might want to check the sums on that...

drlodge

The Rookie wrote:

Every day about 100M people die worldwide......being objective he's just one.

I only see positive impacts for a relatively few numbers of train drivers, negative impacts for a lot more people, on that basis I'm glad he isn't the head of that union any more though not by this mechanism, but I certainly have sympathy for his family at this time (I can't see how you can have sympathy for someone no longer here - check what it actually means!) along with a few hundred million other families, whether his some 'mr angry' character traits had anything to do with his demise I don't know, but one would imagine there was a degree of cause and effect.

Think 100M people a day is a bit steep, so I googled it

"According to the CIA World Factbook, as of July, 2005, there were approximately 6,446,131,400 people on the planet, and the death rate was approximately 8.78 deaths per 1,000 people a year. According to our nifty desktop calculator, that works out to roughly 56,597,034 people leaving us every year. That's about a 155,000 a day."

But he's still just 1 person out of 155,000 who died that day.

I concur with the sentiment that the strikes impacted many more people than the benefits being sought for the RMT members, so its a disproportional act. It also strikes (!) me that strikes are often about a single issue, where as disputes are often more complex than that, impact and involve many people and the UNIONs seem unable to consider the bigger picture. They remind me of single issue political parties - utterly pointless banging on about one issue when there are some many interdependencies.

jds_1981

jamesco wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Good point. I'll add beer and attractive women to the list.

Hah, the difference is that people using public transport is essential to London functioning. Anyone that drives in London is imposing negative externalities on the rest of the population

You could also answer my point about petrol and cars outside of London?

It costs a lot to time & money to operate a ticketing system; if the service is free at the point of use, then a lot of money is saved. Not enough to cover the lost revenue, but it's a large proportion.

Any figures, rather than guesses? Living in zone 3, would my council tax go up by £2,800/year to cover (two adults)?
Problem with making everything free is you lose the ability to influence behaviour.
Would I cycle as much if transport was free? Probably not. Why bother spend a grand on a bike?
Would people who are currently persuaded to use buses rather then the underground by virtue of cost, now start using the tube? Probably.
Would people who can travel outside of peak travel times lose some incentive to do so? Yes.

jamesco

jds_1981 wrote:

You could also answer my point about petrol and cars outside of London?

Hey, I've got work to do, taxes to pay! There are alternatives to petrol & cars outside London; there is no alternative to public transport in London.

jds_1981 wrote:

Any figures, rather than guesses?

Sure, here you go, figures for 2012.

jds_1981 wrote:

Would I cycle as much if transport was free? Probably not. Why bother spend a grand on a bike?

Maybe you wouldn't - a grand is a lot to spend on a commuting bike - but perhaps you'd cycle more if there were fewer cars on the road, since drivers would have extra incentive to take the tube/bus.

jds_1981 wrote:

Living in zone 3, would my council tax go up by £2,800/year to cover (two adults)?

Nope. You don't pay £2,800 in fares out-of-pocket now, do you?

jds_1981

jamesco wrote:

Hey, I've got work to do, taxes to pay! There are alternatives to petrol & cars outside London; there is no alternative to public transport in London.

hmm, I lived in an area relatively well serviced by public transport before London. To get anywhere interesting by public transport you'd be looking at pencilling in at least an hour. Same places by car, about 20 minutes. Feasible - yes, reasonable - not really.
London, a lot more travel could be done by walking and cycling than is done currently. I'm not suggesting getting rid of public transport in London though?

Sure, here you go, figures for 2012.

sorry, was after figures for savings that would be made from not using tickets.

Nope. You don't pay £2,800 in fares out-of-pocket now, do you?

1-3 year travel card is just under 1.5k. This would be averaged and expected to be covered somehow. So wouldn't the expectation be that 2 adults would have to subsidise close to that through council tax?
Currrently I probably spend ~£30/year on my oyster, and probably a similar amount through tax that is then used to subsidise.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

People other than drivers are RMT members Stevo. See post above about track maintenance. A quick google suggests station staff are on a lot less than that too. The modal salary at TfL looks to be between £25K and £27K based on this

http://www.thejobcrowd.com/employer/transport-london/salary

Still doesn't justify screwing up the working day for millions of ordinary people who are not part of the dispute. Plus costing the economy huge amounts and hitting tax revenues :roll: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Did it really screw things up that much? Obviously it had some effect, and there were lots of figures being thrown around (most of them probably guesses at best) but I don't know if there were any accurate measures of its financial impact. They still ran a reduced service on the tube, which was being used (I was one of them) and aside from some extra road users everything seemed to carry on as normal. I think it got a bit mental at some of the big stations but London didn't grind to a halt.

One off, not catastrophic but they were not one offs and as has been said, seemed to be the default threat of the Unions when it should be a last resort. I also mentioned that a lot of peeople who were hit were people who were not necessarily high earners themsleves and who lost money from lost hours at work - what about them? Then there's the knock on effect for working people with dependents (young and old) and the damage to London's reputation as a good place to visit/do business.

There's also the principle of the point that if other unions see the RMT getting away with it then you'll get a lot more strikes - just look at utter mess the UK was in during the 70's when the Unions thought they ran the show.

Bikequin

jamesco wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

You could also answer my point about petrol and cars outside of London?

Hey, I've got work to do, taxes to pay! There are alternatives to petrol & cars outside London; there is no alternative to public transport in London.

You do realise this is a forum for people who cycle to work?

jamesco

Bikequin wrote:

jamesco wrote:

There are alternatives to petrol & cars outside London; there is no alternative to public transport in London.

You do realise this is a forum for people who cycle to work?

It's a forum, sometimes cycling gets mentioned here

Cycling only makes up about 1.6% of journeys in London, so there's lots of room for growth, but my point is that London as a city wouldn't function without the tube & bus network. It would simply seize up.

cyclingprop

jamesco wrote:

Bikequin wrote:

jamesco wrote:

There are alternatives to petrol & cars outside London; there is no alternative to public transport in London.

You do realise this is a forum for people who cycle to work?

It's a forum, sometimes cycling gets mentioned here

Cycling only makes up about 1.6% of journeys in London, so there's lots of room for growth, but my point is that London as a city wouldn't function without the tube & bus network. It would simply seize up.

Technically, that graph shows that a lot fewer journeys would happen if only cycling existed. It does not comment on the impact on the city of the bus or tube networks, which are not referenced at all. #justsayin

RedWheels

drlodge wrote:

I concur with the sentiment that the strikes impacted many more people than the benefits being sought for the RMT members, so its a disproportional act. It also strikes (!) me that strikes are often about a single issue, where as disputes are often more complex than that, impact and involve many people and the UNIONs seem unable to consider the bigger picture. They remind me of single issue political parties - utterly pointless banging on about one issue when there are some many interdependencies.

Austerity is a disproportional act
Hiroshima and nagasaki were disproportional acts

Striking to protect jobs and commuter safety and upsetting a few commuters in the process is not disproportionate

You are right though, strike's are largely about single issues. That is because there are anti-trade union laws forcing them to be so. if you want to mope about strikes being on single issues then you should blame Thatchers Tory government. They were the ones that made it so.

Looking at the bigger picture:

we have half a million people in Britain going to food-banks to get food to eat.
we have pensioners dying in there thousands because they can't afford to heat there homes on their rubbish pensions
Our state pension income places people below the poverty line.



Bob Crow was always pushing these real issues to the top of the agenda, whilst doing his job as the leader of his union.


Your the one stuck on a single issue- that of train drivers- when the last strike wasn't even about that