On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:59:24 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote this gibberish:

On Mon, 5 May 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2008 14:02:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

It's when we get bus and tube strikes (both quite likely given the 3
year pay deal for LU has just ended and Unite are demanding pay parity
for bus drivers) that the fun will begin.

What? Pay parity with tube drivers? Seriously? How about starting with
professionalism parity? Bus drivers are currently a bunch of dangerous,
incompetent, passenger-hating maniacs. Well, not all of them, obviously,
but there's a huge gap in professionalism between bus and tube drivers.

I think parity with tube drivers is a long term aim.

Wow.

Their aim in this pay round is equal pay and conditions across all
companies running TfL tendered services. Can't see that happening
somehow.

That's a shame - that seems like a fair and reasonable thing to want.

I don't think I share your slightly extreme view of bus drivers'
qualities. There's the odd bad one but most do a good job in what can be
very trying circumstances.

Most do an adequate job.

The City wouldn't function without its buses and it's quite a few years
since we have lots of buses on strike - the last one I remember
coincided with tube strikes and getting anywhere was nigh on impossible.

Absolutely true. I'm not (for once!) having a go at buses, i'm just saying
that their drivers are a lot less professional than i believe those of the
tube trains to be.

tom

Purely from personal experience and what I've seen (only been in
London a couple of years), the jobs of tube and bus drivers are rather
different, the tube drivers very rarely have to deal with passengers
and I've never seen one taking any 'aggro'. Wheras bus drivers
generally deal with each and every passenger (mostly very briefly but
it puts them in the fireing line) and are the first to get an earful
(and I have seen this many times) if anything goes wrong on-route.
--
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

In article ,
MIG wrote:

Tiny grants to mythical black lesbians of less than the Mayor's lunch
expenses may make headlines for the Mail and the Standard, but they
don't really compare with how much of our money goes at ludicrous
rates of interest to even smaller numbers of directors and
shareholders of private companies under PPP and the like, out of the
budget that should have been used to maintain and run services.

I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, but would add that plenty
of these minority groups are far from mythical. I'm a member of one
such myself, and yes, we have received some small grants from the
GLA. They're tiny amonunts of money in the grand scheme of things, but
can literally make the difference between life and death for some very
vulnerable people who find themselves in a really **** situation
through no fault of their own.

On May 5, 11:31*pm, Sarah Brown
wrote:
In article ,

MIG wrote:

Tiny grants to mythical black lesbians of less than the Mayor's lunch
expenses may make headlines for the Mail and the Standard, but they
don't really compare with how much of our money goes at ludicrous
rates of interest to even smaller numbers of directors and
shareholders of private companies under PPP and the like, out of the
budget that should have been used to maintain and run services.

I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, but would add that plenty
of these minority groups are far from mythical. I'm a member of one
such myself, and yes, we have received some small grants from the
GLA. They're tiny amonunts of money in the grand scheme of things, but
can literally make the difference between life and death for some very
vulnerable people who find themselves in a really **** situation
through no fault of their own.

You misunderstand (or I was unclear) about where I felt that the myth
was.

My point was that that the kind of money that would allow a community
group (typically stereotyped as "black lesbians"*, regardless of what
they actually do, hence the myth) to book rooms for a year, and
therefore continue to exist, is tiny compared with the amount that any
politician claims on expenses in the same period.

But the former is presented as throwing money away, while the latter
is presented as normal running costs.

And both are miniscule compared with the amount of public money given
away to private companies in interest on PPP deals. The people
benefiting from that really are a minority, and getting very rich.

*I heard exactly that phrase from an intelligent person only recently
and had to make the same argument.

In message , at 17:48:55 on
Mon, 5 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:
What? Pay parity with tube drivers? Seriously? How about starting with
professionalism parity? Bus drivers are currently a bunch of dangerous,
incompetent, passenger-hating maniacs. Well, not all of them, obviously,
but there's a huge gap in professionalism between bus and tube drivers.

I think parity with tube drivers is a long term aim. Their aim in this
pay round is equal pay and conditions across all companies running TfL
tendered services. Can't see that happening somehow.

Why can't all drivers be on the same pay scale?

You'd just have different *grades* of driver, including the most junior
which was "have licence to drive bus, but not trains".
--
Roland Perry

On May 6, 9:09 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Why can't all drivers be on the same pay scale?

You'd just have different *grades* of driver, including the most junior
which was "have licence to drive bus, but not trains".

I suspect the only thing bus driving and train driving have in common
is that the vehicles both have wheels and they jobs are both called
"driving". I don't really think you can compare the two anymore than
you could compare flying a 747 with flying a kite even though both are
called flying (ok ,the disparity is obviously far greater there but
you get the point). Much as I think a lot of the tube drivers are a
bunch of agitators desperate to get their fingers in the till I
suspect there job has a lot more responsibility than a bus driver even
if driving a bus itself in london traffic is probably a bit harder
than driving a tube train.

B2003

In message
, at
02:07:06 on Tue, 6 May 2008, Boltar remarked:
Why can't all drivers be on the same pay scale?

You'd just have different *grades* of driver, including the most junior
which was "have licence to drive bus, but not trains".

I suspect the only thing bus driving and train driving have in common
is that the vehicles both have wheels and they jobs are both called
"driving". I don't really think you can compare the two anymore than
you could compare flying a 747 with flying a kite even though both are
called flying (ok ,the disparity is obviously far greater there but
you get the point). Much as I think a lot of the tube drivers are a
bunch of agitators desperate to get their fingers in the till I
suspect there job has a lot more responsibility than a bus driver even
if driving a bus itself in london traffic is probably a bit harder
than driving a tube train.

Of course the skills are different, which is why most of the drivers
will only be qualified to be on one grade or the other. However this
achieves the objective of having all of them on one "scale".

Eg;

Scale A: Drivers

Grade i) PSV licence £10k-£15k according to experience
Grade ii) Train driving licence £18k-£25k

Scale B: Administrators

Grade i) Barrier staff £8k-£12k
Grade ii) Ticket office staff £10k-£15k
Grade iii) Ops control staff £13k-£20k

etc

(All of the above merely illustrative).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
MIG wrote:

You misunderstand (or I was unclear) about where I felt that the myth
was.

My point was that that the kind of money that would allow a community
group (typically stereotyped as "black lesbians"*, regardless of what
they actually do, hence the myth) to book rooms for a year, and
therefore continue to exist, is tiny compared with the amount that any
politician claims on expenses in the same period.

Oh, OK. I thought the suggestion was that these groups didn't actually
exist and the money (albeit a tiny amount) is just
disappearing. Thanks for the clarification.

But the former is presented as throwing money away, while the latter
is presented as normal running costs.

Yeah. Vulnerable people make easy scapegoats for disguising a lack of
policies. :-(

In article
,
(Boltar) wrote:

I suspect the only thing bus driving and train driving have in common
is that the vehicles both have wheels and they jobs are both called
"driving".

Not even that. The job title of the man at the front of a tube train has
been "motorman" for over 1000 years.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On May 6, 2:24 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

(Boltar) wrote:
I suspect the only thing bus driving and train driving have in common
is that the vehicles both have wheels and they jobs are both called
"driving".

Not even that. The job title of the man at the front of a tube train has
been "motorman" for over 1000 years.

I thought that was an american expression, never heard it used over
here. Even the drivers call themselves drivers.

B2003

In message . uk, Colin
Rosenstiel writes
In article
,
(Boltar) wrote:

I suspect the only thing bus driving and train driving have in common
is that the vehicles both have wheels and they jobs are both called
"driving".

Not even that. The job title of the man at the front of a tube train has
been "motorman" for over 1000 years.

I never knew that piece of info, thanks.

--
Edward Cowling http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/easterdate/