Jamer Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I heard on the radio that fuel tanker drivers earn £48k for a 37 hour week. Surely cant be striking for more money???? Throw me the keys I'll drive the truck! Driving fuel tankers is a responsible job not rocket science. Unions are for dinosaurs and we as a country can not be held to ransom like the bad old days. Give the contract to Stobart, WH Malcolm or Dentresangle and the job will be done efficiently, safely and within budget....end of story. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Blimey, the old 'divide and rule' tactic has certainly worked on you Jamer! Even if that is the correct figure, so what? Do you begrudge someone their money just because it might be a bit more than you get? Give me £5m and I'll go and f*ck up a bank - now that's easy! And held to ransom?...I think you'll find it's all the sheep who have panicked after the words of a couple of buffoons in government when a strike hasn't even been called yet! In actual fact the dispute is a health and safety issue, and if you think private companies put that at the forefront of their concerns then you are sadly mistaken. It is profit first and last, and everything/everyone else is screwed as hard as possible. If you were told by your employer to do something unsafe, what would you do? I recall being asked to put in some dodgy electrics, and told them to f*ck off! And if someone came to you and said you'll now have to work longer for the same, or your pension is being halved would you do anything about it? Either by design or by incompetence, this 'shortage' is being driven by those in power! And what it should show people (although they never listen) is the precariousness of a capitalist society that is run on the 'just in time' principle - hence my 'only 4 days from chaos' comment. Personally I'd like to see the whole edifice come crashing down, as otherwise our descendants will be living as serfs in the future! Unions came about to provide individuals with bargaining power against unscrupulous employers and the government. That's why the tories are always destroying them, so that wages can be slashed and work conditions worsened. Look around you and see what is happening - a race to the bottom. See you there... :Winky: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloneword Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I have also heard it's a health and safety issue to some degree but also to do with longer contracts and petrol companies cutting costs, who knows what the truth is somewhere inbetween is my guess but i do agree with Jamer 48k is alot for the job they do IMO, but hey what do i know what goes into there jobs.. All1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm just interested in why people think it's a lot. And why there is an 'if I'm not getting that much, why should they' attitude, rather than 'why am I not getting that much'? It's the same with the public vs private pay/pension argument.... The governing classes are p*ssing themselves laughing at how easy it is to pit 'pleb' against 'pleb' whilst lowering the living standards of 95% of us... And meanwhile they are feathering their own nests to the tune of millions! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndLoser Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm just interested in why people think it's a lot. And why there is an 'if I'm not getting that much, why should they' attitude, rather than 'why am I not getting that much'? It's the same with the public vs private pay/pension argument.... The governing classes are p*ssing themselves laughing at how easy it is to pit 'pleb' against 'pleb' whilst lowering the living standards of 95% of us... And meanwhile they are feathering their own nests to the tune of millions! You've got a point there - why aren't we all earning that much? 48k is peanuts to the ruling classes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloneword Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm just interested in why people think it's a lot. And why there is an 'if I'm not getting that much, why should they' attitude, rather than 'why am I not getting that much'?It's alot of money in relation to what i get (but then i'm not working so no problems there) but i beleive average wage in uk is 24 or 25k, I do think they should get some kind of danger money but 20K of danger money is way OTT IMO. All1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 But it's all relative isn't it. Should we all then get around £26k? Should someone carting around what is in effect an explosive not get a lot more than someone delivering pasties? I recall during the building boom many trades were getting £50k+, and a certain tory whore (edwina curry) remarked that 'why should they get that much as they are only brickies'! As if working hard doesn't deserve reward! We shouldn't envy those who have got a slightly better deal than ourselves - we should reserve our anger for those earning out of all proportion to their worth, and those ripping off the system (at both ends). In this instance, start reducing pay and safety rules and guess what - there will be another type of 'boom'! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Unions came about to provide individuals with bargaining power against unscrupulous employers and the government. That's why the tories are always destroying them, so that wages can be slashed and work conditions worsened. Well strike me down with a pasty....It was so obvious after all ! But am I surprised so many didn't see that... :Winky: Petrol crisis 'is our Thatcher moment' Tory MPs have compared the panic over fuel supplies to the 1980s miners' strike and urged party members to "humiliate" the unions by stockpiling petrol, it has been reported. In a private message from MPs to constituency associations, seen by the Daily Telegraph's Charles Moore, members were told: "This is our Thatcher moment." The message reportedly continues: "In order to defeat the coming miners' strike, [Thatcher] stockpiled coal. When the strike came, she weathered it, and the Labour party, tarred by the strike, was humiliated. In order to defeat the coming fuel drivers' strike, we want supplies of petrol stockpiled. Then, if the strike comes, we will weather it, and Labour, in hock to the Unite union, will be blamed." Labour immediately demanded an apology from the government. Maria Eagle, the shadow transport secretary, said: "These allegations are outrageous. It is unacceptable that the Tory-led government have attempted to play politics with fuel supplies. "People will be angry that David Cameron has inconvenienced millions in an attempt to create his own 'Thatcher moment'. The prime minister should apologise to the country for the chaos his government have created this week." Number 10 described the claim as a matter for the Conservative party. In his blog, Moore comments: "There is a key difference which ministers have not spotted. When Mrs Thatcher piled up the coal at power stations until the strike began in 1984, she was not inconveniencing the public. "In 2012, the coalition is trying to press-gang the public, without saying so, into its political battles. All those people queuing on the forecourts were pawns in a government-organised blame-game." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamer Posted March 31, 2012 Author Share Posted March 31, 2012 I'm just interested in why people think it's a lot. And why there is an 'if I'm not getting that much, why should they' attitude, rather than 'why am I not getting that much'? I earn good money not quite £48k but not far off, but I also am a single parent with 2 jobs, so it's got nothing to do with "why am I not getting that much as you put it" but even so its very good money! There is no issue with being paid well for a job well done from me, but I think they are cheeky considering there is nearly 3 million unemployed that would do there job for half of that amount in many cases, not forgetting the tanker drivers in Afghanistan, hey Just my opinion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I earn good money not quite £48k but not far off, but I also am a single parent with 2 jobs, so it's got nothing to do with "why am I not getting that much as you put it" but even so its very good money! There is no issue with being paid well for a job well done from me, but I think they are cheeky ###### considering there is nearly 3 million unemployed that would do there job for half of that amount in many cases, not forgetting the tanker drivers in Afghanistan, hey Just my opinion.. So you apparently earn more than me (according to my accounts... :Cool: ), so should I think you are also a 'cheeky f*cker*? The 'there are plenty unemployed that would do the job for half the amount' argument just plays into the hands of greedy employers... And guess what...if other companies can pay chicken feed, then you might just be the next one in line as there must be someone who can undercut you as well ! *how come I can't say or quote f*cker like you?.... :Fun: ps. interested in who you think are actually to blame for the current crisis... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamer Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 So you apparently earn more than me (according to my accounts... :Cool: ), so should I think you are also a 'cheeky f*cker*? The 'there are plenty unemployed that would do the job for half the amount' argument just plays into the hands of greedy employers... Yes of course there are plenty unemployed that would do my job for half the amount but I am not threatening strike action because I know when I have a good thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Yes of course there are plenty unemployed that would do my job for half the amount but I am not threatening strike action because I know when I have a good thing But if your 'employer' changed your terms and conditions unilaterally for the worse and told you to put others at risk, would you not do something about it? And if your only option was to strike, would you not do so? And of course if a third party caused an economic panic and blamed it on you in order to destroy your bargaining power and try and force you to accept those worse conditions, would you not feel agrieved? But you still don't say who you think is to blame for the current crisis... (A clue is that a certain PM is reported to have said "a bit of a petrol panic is no bad thing", and 4 out of 5 of the public not blaming the union.... :Winky: ) The reality is that everyone's living standards (apart from the rich) are being driven down bit by bit, and you are no exception. Our difference is that I don't blame those who are trying to do something about that ! Oh, and when our only real power (the right to withdraw our labour) is made illegal, where will you stand then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamer Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 But if your 'employer' changed your terms and conditions unilaterally for the worse and told you to put others at risk, would you not do something about it? So what exactly are the changes and more importantly how will these changes put others at risk? and I am not sure who to blame to be honest, but I am sue you will tell me it's the Governments fault eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 So what exactly are the changes and more importantly how will these changes put others at risk? and I am not sure who to blame to be honest, but I am sue you will tell me it's the Governments fault eh Amongst many, the enforced moves to subcontractors with reduced wage/pension terms, short term contracts (6 months when company contracts are 4 years), relaxation of limits on shift driving (9 to 12 hours), training reduced (from minimum of 12 days to 2), sole refuelling of unmanned garages (as opposed to having someone else present), more use of older 'repaired' vehicles and tanks.... I would have thought those speak for themselves... And as I asked, what would you do if your terms were changed? But I know who I blame... :Winky: It's the private companies that are at fault for trying to maximise their profits at the expense of workers and safety that has sparked the confrontation...And the current crisis is of the government's making because they see it as an opportunity to bash another union - but they are in reality just doing the bidding of their corporate masters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alloneword Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 training reduced (from minimum of 12 days to 2), sole refuelling of unmanned garages (as opposed to having someone else present),That alone is enough to go on strike IMO, after all they are driving round a massive bomb at the endof the day and safety has to come first, however 48k is still too much IMO but then again so is what thesebankers get. All1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 But again, is it really too much?....Or are others being short changed? They could be what might be termed at the top of the driver scale, so why not earn more than an 'average' numpty behind the wheel? And £48k (if it is actually that, not spin figures*) brings you in (after taxes) only approx £11k more than the average wage does....and if you have a family and kids subtract about another £2k.. So not such a big difference really is there! * Just a couple of links to counter the tabloid headlines...and don't forget - average pay doesn't include overtime! http://www.payscale....r_Driver/Salary http://www.mysalary....er_Driver_11127 And here is an example of the new rates of pay being offered via agencies, which is what they are being forced into and what the unions oppose: http://www.jobsite.co.uk/job/tanker-driver-942333527?utm_campaign=indeed_feed_ukmanu&utm_source=indeed_organic&utm_medium=aggregator&tid=742696 Not quite so lucrative is it...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fonz Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I reckon sparks is a secret tanker driver :Winky: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Nah - sparks and fuel tankers don't mix too well... :Fun: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rother Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 They would if I had my way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
densh1 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I reckon sparks is a secret tanker driver :Winky: No just a prick who's anti everything, Unless its on benefits or rioting and causing trouble. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 No just a prick who's anti everything, Unless its on benefits or rioting and causing trouble. Nothing to add yet again? It's better to have an opinion than being totally clueless... :Winky: If ever there was a pay 'scam' worth complaining about, here it is: Executive pay soars as bosses set each others' awards Executive pay has spiralled out of control because nearly half of remuneration committee members are either serving or former company bosses, according to a report by the High Pay Commission. Nine current FTSE 100 chief executives, including Smith Group's Philip Bowman, Kingfisher's Ian Cheshire, Diageo's Paul Welsh and Centrica's Sam Laidlaw sit on the remuneration committees of fellow blue chip companies. The committees, which set chief executives' pay, succumb to "group-think" because they are dominated by a "closed shop" of highly paid current and former directors who benefit personally from rising pay levels, the campaign group said. The average pay of a FTSE 100 boss now stands at £4.2m, according the employment research group IDS. On Friday, it emerged that the former Reckitt Benckiser chief executive Bart Becht, who stepped down in September, had been paid £12.1m last year in cash and shares. The company behind Cillit Bang and Vanish paid him cash and shares worth £203m in six years, and he could still be in line for staggered payouts worth £45m in future years. Or maybe I should say well done, and not be 'anti everything' like the numpty says... PS. Regarding a 'prick' - I just saw this Densh, and thought it might be relevant to you... My nookie days are over, My pilot light is out. What used to be my pride and joy, Is now my water spout. Time was when, on its own accord, From my trousers it would spring. But now I've got a full time job, To find the f***in' thing. It used to be embarrassing, The way it would behave. For every single morning, It would stand and watch me shave. Now as old age approaches, It sure gives me the blues. To see it hang its little head, And watch me tie my shoes!! :Smiler: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.