Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's quite simple. None of the tube drivers wants to work on Boxing Day and they earn so much money the rest of the year that they can afford to skip work on this one day - oh, and call it a strike to avoid getting the sack.


All they have to do is find a reason every year.


This year's reason is brilliant - they want to choose whether to work on Boxing Day, kind of a warped Catch-22, "We won't work on Boxing Day because we want the right to choose not work on Boxing Day".


It's happened so often that it's become a kind of Yuletide tradition now.

Too many ignorant comments to deal with here, but I'll try...


Go back a 100 years and manual workers were treated appallingly. The trade union movement transformed society. And if you look back to the press at the time there was often popular support not the rabid stuff you see in the Mail and the Sun.


Too much of what we think now is blinkered based on the 'union bashing' of Thatcher and 'the grim 70s'. Even Thatcher preferred to have a negotiated settlement. If you'd swapped Thatcher and Scargil you would have still had the same entrenched battle.


Trade unions are not an evil empire, they are a membership organisation primarily negotiating pay and conditions. I would rather be part of an organisation negotiating on my behalf, than outside.


Like government, you get the trade union leadership you deserve. If you don't like it, join, get involved and change things.


Bob Crow is an awkward so and so, but plays the media well (villain and hero) and has more levers than most. Aslef are of course more moderate. The unions campaigned against privitisation of the rail network, and lost. Result more money paid now to the train operating companies and wider subsidies, than during the days of state ownership. A license to print money hence Virgin just wouldn't let it go (West Coast main line).


Really dunno what the 'you are a lazy lot' comment is. I recall the Aussies having a go at Brits for striking in the past when in truth (or struth) there were more strikes over there. And of course our European friends are far more millitant.


Worklessness and the benefits trap is of course a separate thing - please discuss on a new thread.


You lose a lot of dosh, particularly on boxing day, for striking, so it should be quite a tough decision.


And finally why is public transport, irrespective of LU strikes, so bad on boxing day? I am going to have to drive yet again to a festive match.


Informed comment please - whether you agree or disagree with me.

Well you seem to have said a few contradictory things.


If unions primary responsibility is pay and conditions of workers, then you can't claim they were altruistically fighting on the behalf of the nation in the privatisation battle. They must have been fighting for pay and conditions there also.


Secondly you've said that striking on Boxing Day in particular would cost them a lot of money - this implies that their terms for working on Boxing Day are already very attractive and hence a strike is unjustified.


Views regarding striking tube drivers are not motivated by Thatcherism, but by the view that tube drivers are already over compensated for the work they do for too few hours, with disproportionate perks in holidays and pensions. They are simply perceived as not giving value for money.


Your views on the success or not of rail privatisation are unsupported by facts. They rehash propaganda regarding privatisation that don't take into account pre and post privatisation activity on an equal playing field.

There are millions of other people who will also work on Boxing Day minder, tube drivers are no more deserving than them.


Working on public holidays is what you do when you work for a public service. If they didn't want to work bank holidays they shouldn't have taken the job. Bank holiday working was agreed by the tube drivers over 20 years ago - that means that most tube drivers have always known that bank holiday working was part of the job, and it always will be.


What they're doing is simply price gouging, holding the economy of London's retail industry to ransom whilst they extort money under menaces.

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maxxi do you think that tube drivers are robots?

> Do they not deserve quality time with their

> families at Christmas?

>

> Tube drivers receive no enhancements in pay for

> working Boxing Day.

>

> If a driver does not work on Boxing Day or any

> other Bank Holiday, including Xmas Day, then one

> day is taken off their annual leave entitlement

> for each day.


But what exactly is the Tube driver's annual leave entitlement? In the NHS annual leave is usually around 33 - 38 days a year (to include bank holidays).


It's not at all unusual for public sector staff to have to work on a Bank Holidays and weekends, it's part of the job for nurses, police, doctors, servicemen, paramedics, bus drivers and tube drivers.


What makes Tube drivers special appears to be their ever escalating demand for improved pay & conditions. Given that their annual basic salary is approximately twice the average wage, with some useful additional benefits such as free travel in London they are hardly being exploited by penny pinching management. Rather the reverse, they appear to be exploiting, and bullying by striking on key holidays, the hard pressed members of the public that fund their salaries.

Plenty of people in plenty of industries have to work Boxing Day or over the festive period.


If you're earning upwards of ?45k for what is essentially an unskilled job, then I fail to see what makes you so special a case. You go into it knowing that you will have to work some public holidays, it can hardly be a surprise.


Do Tube drivers et al deserve time with their families at Xmas? Yes. But then do what I and many others do and use holiday entitlement for this period. My colleagues and I are on call over this period and despite never having had a callout in the last 5 years, I still banked up a few days to make sure that my time was undisturbed.


What is really sickening is that it is the vast majority who suffer due to the tiny minority who had the gall to paint themselves as the victims and you get people like Malumbu defending them like we are back in the dark ages and live in a serfdom.


Hopefully TFL will have the stones to follow through on their warning and sack those who strike as this seems to be what the man and woman in the street wants.

Malumbu - pointing out that Aussies are more lazy than Brits in your opinion doesn't excuse this lazy, opportunist and cynical move by the tube drivers. They really don't appreciate when they've got it good.

Obviously an area where we need some reliable and dependable Poles, Bangladeshis or other hard-working people.

I don't think that's what anyone said at all minder.


What people said was that with an average salary of ?44,500 per year on a 35 hour working week and 43 days annual leave for a job they KNEW would entail working on bank holidays when they took it, there is NO justification for holding London to ransom and aggressively targeting other workers.


Tube driver activity damages our economy, and anything that does that cost jobs.


Given their generous existing terms and conditions, there is no public support for tube driver demands.

The only downside to being a tube driver is that someone might jump out in front of you and traumatise you- but they get loads of time off and counselling for that rare event. Public sector workers have had a 2 year wage freeze- now that's a good reason to go on strike-if they only could.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not supporting the strike, but Fark me plenty of

> people painting it as a very attractive job

>

> Why aren't more of us applying? Serious question


Because you can't. The positions are only offered internally in LU.

Without trade unions all those people attacking striking Aslef members would be in work themselves on Boxing Day. Trade unions won holiday rights.


And Tube workers don't have disproportionately good working conditions, they have more effective unions.


Millions of workers have crap jobs and appalling working conditions. Instead of being on their knees they should look to Aslef as an example and join a union.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...