Still not totally convinced. If there are 4000 train hours to be driven (for example), they need to pay those wages either to 100 drivers on 40 hours or 200 drivers doing 20 hours each - or are you saying that they are so overstaffed with full time drivers that there would be a significant ('lot less') cost saving by only paying hours driven? Is this really about downsizing an overstaffed drivers pool? Surely with increased journeys they need more drivers?
Still not totally convinced. If there are 4000 train hours to be driven (for example), they need to pay those wages either to 100 drivers on 40 hours or 200 drivers doing 20 hours each - or are you saying that they are so overstaffed with full time drivers that there would be a significant ('lot less') cost saving by only paying hours driven? Is this really about downsizing an overstaffed drivers pool? Surely with increased journeys they need more drivers?
Still not totally convinced. If there are 4000 train hours to be driven (for example), they need to pay those wages either to 100 drivers on 40 hours or 200 drivers doing 20 hours each - or are you saying that they are so overstaffed with full time drivers that there would be a significant ('lot less') cost saving by only paying hours driven? Is this really about downsizing an overstaffed drivers pool? Surely with increased journeys they need more drivers?
I think the main concern will be pension payouts
Ta. That makes more sense, especially if they are salary linked (wish mine was :-( )
Comments