I see they got 14% over two years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm

Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?

-- 
Abo

Abo wrote:
> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?

No.

On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>
> --
> Abo

I'd be more worried about the demands of this lot....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-420248/MPs-demand-66-cent-pay-rise.html

though to be fair they've aimed for a less inflation busting deal
since the above a couple of years ago...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=84244&in_page_id=34

Fod

Brimstone wrote:
> Abo wrote:
>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>
>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
> 
> No.

Well obviously, but the headline is a bit dodgy

-- 
Abo

Abo wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Abo wrote:
>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>
>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>
>> No.
>
> Well obviously, but the headline is a bit dodgy

What else do you expect from the media, the simple honest truth?

Brimstone wrote:
> Abo wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Abo wrote:
>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>>
>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>> No.
>> Well obviously, but the headline is a bit dodgy
> 
> What else do you expect from the media, the simple honest truth? 
> 
> 
It would make a nice change

-- 
Abo

Abo wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Abo wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Abo wrote:
>>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>>> No.
>>> Well obviously, but the headline is a bit dodgy
>>
>> What else do you expect from the media, the simple honest truth?
>>
>>
> It would make a nice change

Indeed. Have you seen that formation of pigs flying low over Wapping and 
along Fleet Street?

On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?

41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
not.

B2003

In article <b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,  says...
> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> > I see they got 14% over two years:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
> >
> > Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
> 
> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> not.
> 
That's including overtime. Works out at £12 and some pence per hour 
basing overtime at time and a half. £1/hr more than I was getting paid 
at Stobarts to put trailers on loading bays at Tesco RDC at Goole and 
£2-£3/hr more than the rates in the area for standard general haulage.

If you think it's a lot, there's nothing to stop you getting a licence 
and driving a truck. Application forms are available at the post 
office.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Conor  wrote:
> If you think it's a lot, there's nothing to stop you getting a licence
> and driving a truck. Application forms are available at the post
> office.

41K would be a lot of money for being a dustman. Doesn't mean I'd want
to do it as a career but it does make a mockery of pay scales in this
country when scientists don't earn that much and police & nurses &
many other somewhat more vital jobs than truckers ** don't come
anywhere close.

** Sorry , but if truckers all went on strike tommorow plenty of
people on car licenses could shift most of the stuff in transits and
7.5 tonners, not so if police or hospital staff walked out.

B2003

thagor2008@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Conor  wrote:
>> If you think it's a lot, there's nothing to stop you getting a
>> licence and driving a truck. Application forms are available at the
>> post office.
>
> 41K would be a lot of money for being a dustman. Doesn't mean I'd want
> to do it as a career but it does make a mockery of pay scales in this
> country when scientists don't earn that much and police & nurses &
> many other somewhat more vital jobs than truckers ** don't come
> anywhere close.
>
> ** Sorry , but if truckers all went on strike tommorow plenty of
> people on car licenses could shift most of the stuff in transits and
> 7.5 tonners, not so if police or hospital staff walked out.
>
The skills involved in doing a job are only a part of the justification for 
a given pay rate. Just because a brain surgeon goes through a longer and 
more intensive training than a dustman doesn't mean that a dustman isn't 
worth the same amount of money based on his contribution to the welfare of 
society as a whole.

On 18 Jun, 17:07, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> thagor2...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Conor  wrote:
> >> If you think it's a lot, there's nothing to stop you getting a
> >> licence and driving a truck. Application forms are available at the
> >> post office.
>
> > 41K would be a lot of money for being a dustman. Doesn't mean I'd want
> > to do it as a career but it does make a mockery of pay scales in this
> > country when scientists don't earn that much and police & nurses &
> > many other somewhat more vital jobs than truckers ** don't come
> > anywhere close.
>
> > ** Sorry , but if truckers all went on strike tommorow plenty of
> > people on car licenses could shift most of the stuff in transits and
> > 7.5 tonners, not so if police or hospital staff walked out.
>
> The skills involved in doing a job are only a part of the justification for
> a given pay rate. Just because a brain surgeon goes through a longer and
> more intensive training than a dustman doesn't mean that a dustman isn't
> worth the same amount of money based on his contribution to the welfare of
> society as a whole.-

In practice, the skills and qualifications required can bear a very
dim relationship to pay scales.  As a lawyer, I earn considerably more
than I earned as a scientific researcher, despite the fact that my
training as a scientist took longer and was probably harder.

BrianW wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 17:07, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> thagor2...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Conor  wrote:
>>>> If you think it's a lot, there's nothing to stop you getting a
>>>> licence and driving a truck. Application forms are available at the
>>>> post office.
>>
>>> 41K would be a lot of money for being a dustman. Doesn't mean I'd
>>> want to do it as a career but it does make a mockery of pay scales
>>> in this country when scientists don't earn that much and police &
>>> nurses & many other somewhat more vital jobs than truckers ** don't
>>> come anywhere close.
>>
>>> ** Sorry , but if truckers all went on strike tommorow plenty of
>>> people on car licenses could shift most of the stuff in transits and
>>> 7.5 tonners, not so if police or hospital staff walked out.
>>
>> The skills involved in doing a job are only a part of the
>> justification for a given pay rate. Just because a brain surgeon
>> goes through a longer and more intensive training than a dustman
>> doesn't mean that a dustman isn't worth the same amount of money
>> based on his contribution to the welfare of society as a whole.-
>
> In practice, the skills and qualifications required can bear a very
> dim relationship to pay scales.  As a lawyer, I earn considerably more
> than I earned as a scientific researcher, despite the fact that my
> training as a scientist took longer and was probably harder.

Unfortunately many people equate "pay" with "earnings". I'm sure that, as a 
lawyer, you will appreciate the difference. :-)

BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> The skills involved in doing a job are only a part of the justification
>> for a given pay rate. Just because a brain surgeon goes through a
>> longer and more intensive training than a dustman doesn't mean that a
>> dustman isn't worth the same amount of money based on his contribution
>> to the welfare of society as a whole.-

> In practice, the skills and qualifications required can bear a very dim
> relationship to pay scales.

It's all about the basic economic laws of supply and demand.

> As a lawyer, I earn considerably more than
> I earned as a scientific researcher, despite the fact that my training
> as a scientist took longer and was probably harder.

Indeed - but the demand for your services as a lawyer is high from people 
who feel it is a good financial investment. Elasticity of supply means 
that the market sets the level of pricing.

Likewise amongst scientific researchers. Those who have the demand are 
not willing or in a position to pay high amounts, and the supply, even at 
low pay rates, is sufficient to meet the demand.

Should it be otherwise?

In article <74b2a0ba-7750-4f7e-a47b-8ae040c625c6
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,  says...

> ** Sorry , but if truckers all went on strike tommorow plenty of
> people on car licenses could shift most of the stuff in transits and
> 7.5 tonners, not so if police or hospital staff walked out.
> 
Hardly. For a start, there aren't enough of them. A single artic load 
of 26 tonnes requires NINE 7.5 tonners or THIRTEEN Transit vans. A 
single artic load of 26 pallets requires FOUR 7.5 tonners. A 7.5 tonner 
can't even carry a single coil of steel FFS so how do you propose to 
move steel coils, plates and box section?

A single pack of timber is more than the load capacity of a Transit and 
there's hundreds of those per day leaving Hull Docks.

In fact, a single reel of paper for a printing press is about the load 
capacity of a 7.5 tonner and there's hundreds of those leaving the 
Docks everyday.

Then there's the fact that most of the imported goods comes in ISO 
containers...what you going to put them on?

And then there's petrol. Non of your car licence holding drivers can 
touch it without doing an ADR course. Even then, you'd need NINE 7.5t 
tankers to do the delivery of a single articulated tanker.

And what are you going to eat? The supermarkets would run empty as the 
long line of trannies would take so long to load and unload, the amount 
of goods going out the front door would exceed that coming in the back.



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 18 Jun, 17:54, Adrian  wrote:
> BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> The skills involved in doing a job are only a part of the justification
> >> for a given pay rate. Just because a brain surgeon goes through a
> >> longer and more intensive training than a dustman doesn't mean that a
> >> dustman isn't worth the same amount of money based on his contribution
> >> to the welfare of society as a whole.-
> > In practice, the skills and qualifications required can bear a very dim
> > relationship to pay scales.
>
> It's all about the basic economic laws of supply and demand.

Well I never!

> > As a lawyer, I earn considerably more than
> > I earned as a scientific researcher, despite the fact that my training
> > as a scientist took longer and was probably harder.
>
> Indeed - but the demand for your services as a lawyer is high from people
> who feel it is a good financial investment. Elasticity of supply means
> that the market sets the level of pricing.
>
> Likewise amongst scientific researchers. Those who have the demand are
> not willing or in a position to pay high amounts, and the supply, even at
> low pay rates, is sufficient to meet the demand.

The odd thing (but see my comments below) is that the old supply and
demand thing doesn't really (in my opinion) explain the pay
differentials in the two sectors I mentioned.  The supply of
candidates for training positions in law firms is massive - my firm
gets about 100 applicants per place, all from suitably qualified
people.  The supply of candidates for scientific posts is much smaller
IME.  Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar
services at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which
salaries ultimately depend) keep on rising.  I would have expected
that market forces would in the circumstances level off lawyers' pay,
and increase scientists' pay, but it ain't so.

> Should it be otherwise?

No.  I wasn't arguing that it is unfair or anything.  I was simply
pointing out that many people make the fallacious argument (which we
have seen over the tanker driver dispute) that pay and skill levels
are directly correlated.

I long ago gave up pondering the logic, fairness or otherwise of pay
levels in different sectors, and chose to vote with my feet, jumping
from one of the most poorly paid professions to one of the best paid.
I can recommend it to anyone ...

BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > In practice, the skills and qualifications required can bear a very
>> > dim relationship to pay scales.

>> It's all about the basic economic laws of supply and demand.

> Well I never!

<grin>
Some here really don't quite seem to understand it.

>> > As a lawyer, I earn considerably more than I earned as a scientific
>> > researcher, despite the fact that my training as a scientist took
>> > longer and was probably harder.

>> Indeed - but the demand for your services as a lawyer is high from
>> people who feel it is a good financial investment. Elasticity of supply
>> means that the market sets the level of pricing.
>>
>> Likewise amongst scientific researchers. Those who have the demand are
>> not willing or in a position to pay high amounts, and the supply, even
>> at low pay rates, is sufficient to meet the demand.

> The odd thing (but see my comments below) is that the old supply and
> demand thing doesn't really (in my opinion) explain the pay
> differentials in the two sectors I mentioned.  The supply of candidates
> for training positions in law firms is massive - my firm gets about 100
> applicants per place, all from suitably qualified people.

Are they all?

If they were, I'd have thought that the firm would hire the bloody lot, 
and continue to make large profits-per-head. Yet they don't. Wonder why? 
Perhaps because the law firms are artificially throttling supply, in 
order to keep prices high...?

> The supply of candidates for scientific posts is much smaller IME.

So there's pretty much a saturation of supply - which helps to keep 
prices low.
  
> Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services 
> at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries 
> ultimately depend) keep on rising.

Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large sums 
for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay anything 
other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.

> I long ago gave up pondering the logic, fairness or otherwise of pay
> levels in different sectors, and chose to vote with my feet, jumping
> from one of the most poorly paid professions to one of the best paid. I
> can recommend it to anyone ...

When you were a scientific researcher, people kept clear of you because 
of your lack of social skills. Now, they keep clear of you because you're 
a pariah... <grin>

On 18 Jun, 18:32, Adrian  wrote:

> > The odd thing (but see my comments below) is that the old supply and
> > demand thing doesn't really (in my opinion) explain the pay
> > differentials in the two sectors I mentioned.  The supply of candidates
> > for training positions in law firms is massive - my firm gets about 100
> > applicants per place, all from suitably qualified people.
>
> Are they all?

They are all "suitably qualified" in the sense that they have the
requisite degrees, diplomas etc.  They may not have the other skills
required e.g. being a complete git ;-)

Contrast this to many other jobs, where you would get applications
from people who simply don't have the paper qualifications to get the
job.

> If they were, I'd have thought that the firm would hire the bloody lot,
> and continue to make large profits-per-head. Yet they don't. Wonder why?
> Perhaps because the law firms are artificially throttling supply, in
> order to keep prices high...?

Nice thought, but a given firm only has so much work available at any
time.  I think most firms try and predict what resources they'll need
4-5 years in the future (which is when candidates will qualify as
lawyers) and hire accordingly.  Last thing you want is a bunch of well
paid people sitting doing nothing ...

> > The supply of candidates for scientific posts is much smaller IME.
>
> So there's pretty much a saturation of supply - which helps to keep
> prices low.
>
> > Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services
> > at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries
> > ultimately depend) keep on rising.
>
> Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large sums
> for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay anything
> other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.

Indeed, but I'm not quite sure why that is.

> > I long ago gave up pondering the logic, fairness or otherwise of pay
> > levels in different sectors, and chose to vote with my feet, jumping
> > from one of the most poorly paid professions to one of the best paid. I
> > can recommend it to anyone ...
>
> When you were a scientific researcher, people kept clear of you because
> of your lack of social skills. Now, they keep clear of you because you're
> a pariah... <grin>

I think there's a lot in that!

BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services
>> > at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries
>> > ultimately depend) keep on rising.

>> Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large
>> sums for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay
>> anything other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.

> Indeed, but I'm not quite sure why that is.

Because rich people and companies like suing each other and like nice 
thick contracts. It's how they got rich, and it's how they stay rich.

Meanwhile, those self-same rich people and companies wait until there's a 
scientific breakthrough that can make 'em richer, then ride roughshod 
over the patents - safe in the knowledge that they've got more and better 
lawyers than the scientists who discovered it, because the money from 
selling the miracle invention is in their pockets, not those of the 
scientists.

On 18 Jun, 20:22, Adrian  wrote:
> BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> > Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services
> >> > at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries
> >> > ultimately depend) keep on rising.
> >> Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large
> >> sums for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay
> >> anything other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.
> > Indeed, but I'm not quite sure why that is.
>
> Because rich people and companies like suing each other and like nice
> thick contracts. It's how they got rich, and it's how they stay rich.

Hmmm.  I'm not quite sure that's right.  In my experience, big
companies (and most of my clients are) don't like getting involved in
litigation, and complain bitterly about the huge cost of it.  Oddly,
though, despite the fact that virtually all the big companies complain
about the cost of litigation, law firms are able to keep increasing
their rates.

> Meanwhile, those self-same rich people and companies wait until there's a
> scientific breakthrough that can make 'em richer, then ride roughshod
> over the patents - safe in the knowledge that they've got more and better
> lawyers than the scientists who discovered it, because the money from
> selling the miracle invention is in their pockets, not those of the
> scientists.

That is certainly nearer the truth.  Also, in the context of a big
company's own patents, it will happily pay vastly higher salaries/fees
to the people who defend their patents than they pay to the guys who
came up with the inventions underlying the patents.  Don't know why,
but it's just the way it is.

On 18 Jun, 13:11, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?

It really galls me when people say "14% over 2 years", when what they
mean is "0% for last year, 9% for this year, 5% for the year after, so
an average of about 4.5%".

When you look at how much extra money the oil companies are making at
the moment, it's a fair distribution of money to the people that make
that profit possible. If the shareholders kept it they'd be an
outrage.

On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, Conor  wrote:
> Hardly. For a start, there aren't enough of them. A single artic load
> of 26 tonnes requires NINE 7.5 tonners or THIRTEEN Transit vans. A
> single artic load of 26 pallets requires FOUR 7.5 tonners. A 7.5 tonner
> can't even carry a single coil of steel FFS so how do you propose to
> move steel coils, plates and box section?

I said most of the stuff could be moved , not all of it. And yes , it
would take longer but eventually a lot of stuff could be shifted by
smaller vehicles.

> Then there's the fact that most of the imported goods comes in ISO
> containers...what you going to put them on?

Take the stuff out of the containers. A container is just a
convenience , mainly for ships, not trucks. Unless whatever is  in the
container is almost the same size as the container it wouldn't be a
problem.

> And then there's petrol. Non of your car licence holding drivers can
> touch it without doing an ADR course. Even then, you'd need NINE 7.5t
> tankers to do the delivery of a single articulated tanker.

See above.

> And what are you going to eat? The supermarkets would run empty as the
> long line of trannies would take so long to load and unload, the amount
> of goods going out the front door would exceed that coming in the back.

Probably true, but there would be stuff being delivered.

OTOH if all doctors and nurses went on strike who's going to step in
to the breach? Answer - no one. Same goes for any highly trained
profession. At the end of the day driving a large vehicle is not
rocket science - almost any idiot can do it, as plenty of london bus
drivers prove every day. I'm not saying truck drivers arn't trained ,
but its not training in the same league as white collar professions.

B2003

thagor2008@googlemail.com gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> Then there's the fact that most of the imported goods comes in ISO
>> containers...what you going to put them on?

> Take the stuff out of the containers. A container is just a convenience
> , mainly for ships, not trucks. Unless whatever is  in the container is
> almost the same size as the container it wouldn't be a problem.

No, a container is rather more than a convenience for the person shipping 
goods, because you know the goods will be SECURE even if there are 
multiple changes of transport mode along the way.

BrianW wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 18:32, Adrian  wrote:
> 
>>> The odd thing (but see my comments below) is that the old supply and
>>> demand thing doesn't really (in my opinion) explain the pay
>>> differentials in the two sectors I mentioned.  The supply of candidates
>>> for training positions in law firms is massive - my firm gets about 100
>>> applicants per place, all from suitably qualified people.
>> Are they all?
> 
> They are all "suitably qualified" in the sense that they have the
> requisite degrees, diplomas etc.  They may not have the other skills
> required e.g. being a complete git ;-)
> 
> Contrast this to many other jobs, where you would get applications
> from people who simply don't have the paper qualifications to get the
> job.
> 
>> If they were, I'd have thought that the firm would hire the bloody lot,
>> and continue to make large profits-per-head. Yet they don't. Wonder why?
>> Perhaps because the law firms are artificially throttling supply, in
>> order to keep prices high...?
> 
> Nice thought, but a given firm only has so much work available at any
> time.  I think most firms try and predict what resources they'll need
> 4-5 years in the future (which is when candidates will qualify as
> lawyers) and hire accordingly.  Last thing you want is a bunch of well
> paid people sitting doing nothing ...
> 
>>> The supply of candidates for scientific posts is much smaller IME.
>> So there's pretty much a saturation of supply - which helps to keep
>> prices low.
>>
>>> Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services
>>> at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries
>>> ultimately depend) keep on rising.
>> Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large sums
>> for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay anything
>> other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.
> 
> Indeed, but I'm not quite sure why that is.
> 
>>> I long ago gave up pondering the logic, fairness or otherwise of pay
>>> levels in different sectors, and chose to vote with my feet, jumping
>>> from one of the most poorly paid professions to one of the best paid. I
>>> can recommend it to anyone ...
>> When you were a scientific researcher, people kept clear of you because
>> of your lack of social skills. Now, they keep clear of you because you're
>> a pariah... <grin>
> 
> I think there's a lot in that!

Yes, how does it feel feel when you've shaken someone's hand and they 
surreptitiously check to see that all their fingers are still there and 
their wedding ring is still in place?

;-)

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

wrote:

> OTOH if all doctors and nurses went on strike who's going to step in
> to the breach? 

Any mixed-sex bunch of primary school children, behind the garden shed.

Paul Weaver  wrote:

> it's a fair distribution of money to the people that make
> that profit possible. If the shareholders kept it they'd be an
> outrage.

The people that make profit possible - shareholders.

So if the shareholders keep it, the money is going to the right people.

Or have you failed to understand the egalitarian nature of capitalism?

Paul Weaver wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 13:11, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>
>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
> 
> It really galls me when people say "14% over 2 years", when what they
> mean is "0% for last year, 9% for this year, 5% for the year after, so
> an average of about 4.5%".
> 
> When you look at how much extra money the oil companies are making at
> the moment, it's a fair distribution of money to the people that make
> that profit possible. If the shareholders kept it they'd be an
> outrage.

Except that these drivers are not employed by an oil company.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On Jun 18, 10:00 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> No, a container is rather more than a convenience for the person shipping
> goods, because you know the goods will be SECURE even if there are
> multiple changes of transport mode along the way.

Its still a convenience. How do you think stuff was moved before
containers came along?

B2003

Paul Weaver  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> It really galls me when people say "14% over 2 years", when what they
> mean is "0% for last year, 9% for this year, 5% for the year after, so
> an average of about 4.5%".
> 
> When you look at how much extra money the oil companies are making at
> the moment, it's a fair distribution of money to the people that make
> that profit possible. If the shareholders kept it they'd be an outrage.

Don't be silly.

If the tanker drivers didn't think they were getting paid enough for the 
work, they were free to resign and find another job paying a rate they 
did think was fair.

Unless, of course, there was no such job. In which case... Tough.

thagor2008@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, Conor  wrote:
>> Hardly. For a start, there aren't enough of them. A single artic load
>> of 26 tonnes requires NINE 7.5 tonners or THIRTEEN Transit vans. A
>> single artic load of 26 pallets requires FOUR 7.5 tonners. A 7.5 tonner
>> can't even carry a single coil of steel FFS so how do you propose to
>> move steel coils, plates and box section?
> 
> I said most of the stuff could be moved , not all of it. And yes , it
> would take longer but eventually a lot of stuff could be shifted by
> smaller vehicles.
> 
>> Then there's the fact that most of the imported goods comes in ISO
>> containers...what you going to put them on?
> 
> Take the stuff out of the containers. A container is just a
> convenience , mainly for ships, not trucks. Unless whatever is  in the
> container is almost the same size as the container it wouldn't be a
> problem.
> 
Containers are also used to stop people nicking the goods in the course 
of the journey - frequently at the point of disembarkation.

Oops, dropped another crate which just happens to have broken open...

>> And then there's petrol. Non of your car licence holding drivers can
>> touch it without doing an ADR course. Even then, you'd need NINE 7.5t
>> tankers to do the delivery of a single articulated tanker.
> 
> See above.
> 
>> And what are you going to eat? The supermarkets would run empty as the
>> long line of trannies would take so long to load and unload, the amount
>> of goods going out the front door would exceed that coming in the back.
> 
> Probably true, but there would be stuff being delivered.
> 
> OTOH if all doctors and nurses went on strike who's going to step in
> to the breach? Answer - no one. Same goes for any highly trained
> profession. At the end of the day driving a large vehicle is not
> rocket science - almost any idiot can do it, as plenty of london bus
> drivers prove every day. I'm not saying truck drivers arn't trained ,
> but its not training in the same league as white collar professions.
> 
> B2003


-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Fod wrote:
> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>
>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>
>> --
>> Abo
> 
> I'd be more worried about the demands of this lot....
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-420248/MPs-demand-66-cent-pay-rise.html
> 
> though to be fair they've aimed for a less inflation busting deal
> since the above a couple of years ago...
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=84244&in_page_id=34

And there are about the same number of MPs as there are drivers 
delivering Shell petrol. Interesting coincidence.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 18 Jun, 22:10, �i�ardo  wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> > On 18 Jun, 18:32, Adrian  wrote:
>
> >>> The odd thing (but see my comments below) is that the old supply and
> >>> demand thing doesn't really (in my opinion) explain the pay
> >>> differentials in the two sectors I mentioned. �The supply of candidates
> >>> for training positions in law firms is massive - my firm gets about 100
> >>> applicants per place, all from suitably qualified people.
> >> Are they all?
>
> > They are all "suitably qualified" in the sense that they have the
> > requisite degrees, diplomas etc. �They may not have the other skills
> > required e.g. being a complete git ;-)
>
> > Contrast this to many other jobs, where you would get applications
> > from people who simply don't have the paper qualifications to get the
> > job.
>
> >> If they were, I'd have thought that the firm would hire the bloody lot> >> and continue to make large profits-per-head. Yet they don't. Wonder why?
> >> Perhaps because the law firms are artificially throttling supply, in
> >> order to keep prices high...?
>
> > Nice thought, but a given firm only has so much work available at any
> > time. �I think most firms try and predict what resources they'll need
> > 4-5 years in the future (which is when candidates will qualify as
> > lawyers) and hire accordingly. �Last thing you want is a bunch of well
> > paid people sitting doing nothing ...
>
> >>> The supply of candidates for scientific posts is much smaller IME.
> >> So there's pretty much a saturation of supply - which helps to keep
> >> prices low.
>
> >>> Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services
> >>> at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries
> >>> ultimately depend) keep on rising.
> >> Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large sums
> >> for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay anything
> >> other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.
>
> > Indeed, but I'm not quite sure why that is.
>
> >>> I long ago gave up pondering the logic, fairness or otherwise of pay
> >>> levels in different sectors, and chose to vote with my feet, jumping
> >>> from one of the most poorly paid professions to one of the best paid. I
> >>> can recommend it to anyone ...
> >> When you were a scientific researcher, people kept clear of you because
> >> of your lack of social skills. Now, they keep clear of you because you're
> >> a pariah... <grin>
>
> > I think there's a lot in that!
>
> Yes, how does it feel feel when you've shaken someone's hand and they
> surreptitiously check to see that all their fingers are still there and
> their wedding ring is still in place?

I've never experienced that - most people won't shake hands with me in
the first place ...

Abo wrote:

> I see they got 14% over two years:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?

Apparently so.

I was watching the BBC4-repeated BBC TV coverage of the 1979 General 
Election last night (fascinating stuff).

There was one Labour minister who (I think) lost his seat and had been 
the "Prices Secretary".

Surely von Braun must be just about to revive the office, and is about 
to appoint a "Prices and Incomes Board"?

thagor2008@googlemail.com wrote:

> Conor  wrote:

>> If you think it's a lot, there's nothing to stop you getting a licence
>> and driving a truck. Application forms are available at the post
>> office.

> 41K would be a lot of money for being a dustman. Doesn't mean I'd want
> to do it as a career but it does make a mockery of pay scales in this
> country when scientists don't earn that much and police & nurses &
> many other somewhat more vital jobs than truckers ** don't come
> anywhere close.

The bigger mockery, as was pointed out last week, is that revenue 
identification officers - or "parking attendants" as they prefer to be 
called - earn (a lot) more than soldiers. One can't even argue that one 
of them is in the private sector.

In article <e241086f-34e2-40e8-8284-cdfa57bf0c90
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,  says...
> On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, Conor  wrote:
> > Hardly. For a start, there aren't enough of them. A single artic load
> > of 26 tonnes requires NINE 7.5 tonners or THIRTEEN Transit vans. A
> > single artic load of 26 pallets requires FOUR 7.5 tonners. A 7.5 tonner
> > can't even carry a single coil of steel FFS so how do you propose to
> > move steel coils, plates and box section?
> 
> I said most of the stuff could be moved , not all of it.

Not even anywhere near "most" though.


> And yes , it
> would take longer but eventually a lot of stuff could be shifted by
> smaller vehicles.
> 
Who is going to drive them? Who is going to pay for the massive cost 
increase in transportation?

> > Then there's the fact that most of the imported goods comes in ISO
> > containers...what you going to put them on?
> 
> Take the stuff out of the containers. A container is just a
> convenience , mainly for ships, not trucks. Unless whatever is  in the
> container is almost the same size as the container it wouldn't be a
> problem.
> 
Who is going to do that?

> > And then there's petrol. Non of your car licence holding drivers can
> > touch it without doing an ADR course. Even then, you'd need NINE 7.5t
> > tankers to do the delivery of a single articulated tanker.
> 
> See above.
> 
Who is going to do that?

> > And what are you going to eat? The supermarkets would run empty as the
> > long line of trannies would take so long to load and unload, the amount
> > of goods going out the front door would exceed that coming in the back.
> 
> Probably true, but there would be stuff being delivered.
> 
Not enough to meet demand.

> OTOH if all doctors and nurses went on strike who's going to step in
> to the breach? Answer - no one.

I've been to the doctors once in five years. Wouldn't make much 
difference to me or most of the population.


> Same goes for any highly trained
> profession. 

Like lawyers? Yeah, we'd really notice if they went on strike by the 
massive IMPROVEMENT caused by their absence.

> At the end of the day driving a large vehicle is not
> rocket science - almost any idiot can do it, as plenty of london bus
> drivers prove every day. I'm not saying truck drivers arn't trained ,
> but its not training in the same league as white collar professions.
> 
So why are the white collar workers bitching about being paid less? 
Surely if its that easy, they think the money is good and there's a 
shortage of drivers then shouldn't they be getting a HGV licence and 
doing it?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <738cdbe5-ec32-4bae-83be-
11a2ff7c654b@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,  says...
> On Jun 18, 10:00 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> > No, a container is rather more than a convenience for the person shipping
> > goods, because you know the goods will be SECURE even if there are
> > multiple changes of transport mode along the way.
> 
> Its still a convenience. How do you think stuff was moved before
> containers came along?
> 
On the backs of lorries. 


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Abo <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

> I see they got 14% over two years:

Now all the Asda drivers will want 14% to "maintain parity".

Rising inflation, economy in a mess, soaring fuel prices, strikes...

Anyone would think that Labour wer eback in power.

wrote in message 
news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>
>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>
> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> not.
>

The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....

Ian D Henden wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>
>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>
>> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load
>> or not.
>>
>
> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....

But is it more hazardous to other road users and people in nearby 
properties?

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:2a-dnSAoesydW8fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@bt.com...
> Ian D Henden wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>>
>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>>
>>> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load
>>> or not.
>>>
>>
>> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
>
> But is it more hazardous to other road users and people in nearby 
> properties?
It can sometimes be very volatile.

Especially at 11.30 pm on a Saturday Evening.

Or every alternate Saturday afternoon at around 5 (just after Scum have 
lost)....

Ian D Henden wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> news:2a-dnSAoesydW8fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Ian D Henden wrote:
>>>  wrote in message
>>> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>>>
>>>> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
>>
>> But is it more hazardous to other road users and people in nearby
>> properties?
> It can sometimes be very volatile.
>
> Especially at 11.30 pm on a Saturday Evening.
>
> Or every alternate Saturday afternoon at around 5 (just after Scum
> have lost)....

I was thinking of schoolchildren when I posted that. However, some so-called 
football supporters can be almost as hazardous as petrol.

On Jun 19, 9:42 pm, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> >> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>
> > 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> > not.
>
> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....

So what? I used to work in the City and worked on software that was
dealing with 10s of millions of quids worth of transactions a day. You
think I got paid 10 million quid a day?

In a fair world job pay should relate to how difficult a job is either
mentally or physically and how much effort needs to be put into
training to do it. While truck driving probably isn't the easiest job
in the world its far from being the hardest to do or learn.

B2003

wrote:

> On Jun 19, 9:42 pm, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
> >  wrote in message
> >
> > news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> > >> I see they got 14% over two years:
> >
> > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
> >
> > >> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
> >
> > > 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> > > not.
> >
> > The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
> 
> So what?

I think I'll put you down for a "whoosh" on that one.

> I used to work in the City and worked on software that was
> dealing with 10s of millions of quids worth of transactions a day. You
> think I got paid 10 million quid a day?
> 
> In a fair world job pay should relate to how difficult a job is either
> mentally or physically and how much effort needs to be put into
> training to do it. While truck driving probably isn't the easiest job
> in the world its far from being the hardest to do or learn.

Ian's job is IMO harder work, and as he says his cargo is more valuable
indeed most of his customers would consider his cargo to have a value in
excess of anything carried by truck, ever in the history of the world.

I suspect that if any one of his were given a free choice, not one of
them would swap his cargo for any other cargo of any value.

On 2008-06-20, thagor2008@googlemail.com  wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:42 pm, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> >> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>
>> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>
>> >> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>
>> > 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
>> > not.
>>
>> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
>
> So what? I used to work in the City and worked on software that was
> dealing with 10s of millions of quids worth of transactions a day. 

Nuisance deals, then?    :o)

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On Jun 20, 10:26 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>  wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 9:42 pm, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
> > >  wrote in message
>
> > >news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> > > >> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> > > >> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>
> > > > 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> > > > not.
>
> > > The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
>
> > So what?
>
> I think I'll put you down for a "whoosh" on that one.

Guess you'll have to. I'm still not getting the joke.

B2003

Brimstone wrote:
>  Just because a brain surgeon goes through a longer and 
> more intensive training than a dustman doesn't mean that a dustman isn't 
> worth the same amount of money based on his contribution to the welfare of 
> society as a whole. 

  If push came to shove though who is the most "valuable" member to 
society, surely a "brain surgeon" can humph buckets whilst a dustman 
can't (or rather wouldn't be trusted to) cut people's heads open?

-- 
'S rioghal mo dhream
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

soup wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>>  Just because a brain surgeon goes through a longer and
>> more intensive training than a dustman doesn't mean that a dustman
>> isn't worth the same amount of money based on his contribution to
>> the welfare of society as a whole.
>
>  If push came to shove though who is the most "valuable" member to
> society, surely a "brain surgeon" can humph buckets whilst a dustman
> can't (or rather wouldn't be trusted to) cut people's heads open?

But if a brain surgeon is humping rubbish bins then he'll be paid at 
dustman's rate and his brain surgeon's training will be irrelevant.

wrote:

> On Jun 20, 10:26 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >  wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 9:42 pm, "Ian D Henden"  wrote:
> > > >  wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> > > > >> I see they got 14% over two years:
> >
> > > > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
> >
> > > > >> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
> >
> > > > > 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> > > > > not.
> >
> > > > The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
> >
> > > So what?
> >
> > I think I'll put you down for a "whoosh" on that one.
> 
> Guess you'll have to. I'm still not getting the joke.

Ian drives a bus.

BrianW wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 22:10, �i�ardo  wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>> On 18 Jun, 18:32, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>> The odd thing (but see my comments below) is that the old supply and
>>>>> demand thing doesn't really (in my opinion) explain the pay
>>>>> differentials in the two sectors I mentioned. �The supply of candidates
>>>>> for training positions in law firms is massive - my firm gets about 100
>>>>> applicants per place, all from suitably qualified people.
>>>> Are they all?
>>> They are all "suitably qualified" in the sense that they have the
>>> requisite degrees, diplomas etc. �They may not have the other skills
>>> required e.g. being a complete git ;-)
>>> Contrast this to many other jobs, where you would get applications
>>> from people who simply don't have the paper qualifications to get the
>>> job.
>>>> If they were, I'd have thought that the firm would hire the bloody lot,
>>>> and continue to make large profits-per-head. Yet they don't. Wonder why?
>>>> Perhaps because the law firms are artificially throttling supply, in
>>>> order to keep prices high...?
>>> Nice thought, but a given firm only has so much work available at any
>>> time. �I think most firms try and predict what resources they'll need
>>> 4-5 years in the future (which is when candidates will qualify as
>>> lawyers) and hire accordingly. �Last thing you want is a bunch of well
>>> paid people sitting doing nothing ...
>>>>> The supply of candidates for scientific posts is much smaller IME.
>>>> So there's pretty much a saturation of supply - which helps to keep
>>>> prices low.
>>>>> Similarly, there are loads of law firms all offering similar services
>>>>> at any particular level, yet charge-out rates (on which salaries
>>>>> ultimately depend) keep on rising.
>>>> Simple. Demand is high from those willing to pay sufficiently large sums
>>>> for lawyers. However, demand is low from those willing to pay anything
>>>> other than trifling sums for scientific researchers.
>>> Indeed, but I'm not quite sure why that is.
>>>>> I long ago gave up pondering the logic, fairness or otherwise of pay
>>>>> levels in different sectors, and chose to vote with my feet, jumping
>>>>> from one of the most poorly paid professions to one of the best paid. I
>>>>> can recommend it to anyone ...
>>>> When you were a scientific researcher, people kept clear of you because
>>>> of your lack of social skills. Now, they keep clear of you because you're
>>>> a pariah... <grin>
>>> I think there's a lot in that!
>> Yes, how does it feel feel when you've shaken someone's hand and they
>> surreptitiously check to see that all their fingers are still there and
>> their wedding ring is still in place?
> 
> I've never experienced that - most people won't shake hands with me in
> the first place ...

LOL!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Ian D Henden wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:2a-dnSAoesydW8fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@bt.com...
>> Ian D Henden wrote:
>>>  wrote in message
>>> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>>> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
>> But is it more hazardous to other road users and people in nearby 
>> properties?
> It can sometimes be very volatile.
> 
> Especially at 11.30 pm on a Saturday Evening.
> 
> Or every alternate Saturday afternoon at around 5 (just after Scum have 
> lost).... 
> 
> 
Which "Scum" is that? My family's is Br*stol C*ty!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

On Jun 20, 11:47 am, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > I think I'll put you down for a "whoosh" on that one.
>
> > Guess you'll have to. I'm still not getting the joke.
>
> Ian drives a bus.

Ah. In that case he's probably right except for at upper school
kicking out time. Wouldn't give you tuppence for some of those little
bar stewards!

B2003

In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth 
says...

> Ian drives a bus.
> 
So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined 
route.

Hardly taxing.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> says...
>
>> Ian drives a bus.
>>
> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined
> route.
>
> Hardly taxing.

But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the loader 
has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far.

In article , Brimstone says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> > says...
> >
> >> Ian drives a bus.
> >>
> > So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined
> > route.
> >
> > Hardly taxing.
> 
> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the loader 
> has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far. 
> 
Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> In article , Brimstone says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> Ian drives a bus.
>>>>
>>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined
>>> route.
>>>
>>> Hardly taxing.
>> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the loader 
>> has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far. 
>>
> Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?
> 
> 
I don't know but perhaps for safety reasons he would not be allowed to 
do 15 hours.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

In article , Tony Dragon says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article , Brimstone says...
> >> Conor wrote:
> >>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> >>> says...
> >>>
> >>>> Ian drives a bus.
> >>>>
> >>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined
> >>> route.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly taxing.
> >> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the loader 
> >> has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far. 
> >>
> > Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?
> > 
> > 
> I don't know but perhaps for safety reasons he would not be allowed to 
> do 15 hours.
> 
What safety reasons would they be? They're bound by the same EU drivers 
hours rules, which were introduced for safety, as we are.
 
In addition to that, the handling characteristics of a bus remain 
constant, the length doesn't change, the stopping distance doesn't 
change by a factor of 3 or more, it has better all round visibility, is 
driven at lower speeds with lower speed traffic around.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> In article , Tony Dragon says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article , Brimstone says...
>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian drives a bus.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined
>>>>> route.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly taxing.
>>>> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the loader 
>>>> has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far. 
>>>>
>>> Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know but perhaps for safety reasons he would not be allowed to 
>> do 15 hours.
>>
> What safety reasons would they be? They're bound by the same EU drivers 
> hours rules, which were introduced for safety, as we are.
>  
> In addition to that, the handling characteristics of a bus remain 
> constant, the length doesn't change, the stopping distance doesn't 
> change by a factor of 3 or more, it has better all round visibility, is 
> driven at lower speeds with lower speed traffic around.
> 
Did you miss the word perhaps?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Conor wrote:
> In article , Brimstone
> says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
>>> Firth says...
>>>
>>>> Ian drives a bus.
>>>>
>>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a
>>> predefined route.
>>>
>>> Hardly taxing.
>>
>> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the
>> loader has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far.
>>
> Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?

The number of hours worked has got nothing to do with the behaviour of the 
load.

On 20 Jun, 22:11, Conor  wrote:
> In article , Brimstone says...> Conor wrote:
> > > In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%ste...@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
> > > says...
>
> > >> Ian drives a bus.
>
> > > So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a predefined
> > > route.
>
> > > Hardly taxing.
>
> > But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the loader
> > has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far.
>
> Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?

When was the last time you did a 15 hour day behind the wheel without
breaking the law?

B2003

Conor wrote:
> In article , Tony Dragon says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article , Brimstone
>>> says...
>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
>>>>> Firth says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian drives a bus.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a
>>>>> predefined route.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly taxing.
>>>> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless
>>>> the loader has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job,
>>>> by far.
>>>>
>>> Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?
>>>
>>>
>> I don't know but perhaps for safety reasons he would not be allowed
>> to do 15 hours.
>>
> What safety reasons would they be? They're bound by the same EU
> drivers hours rules, which were introduced for safety, as we are.
>
> In addition to that, the handling characteristics of a bus remain
> constant,

Wrong, they're liable to chnage from one stop to the next.

> the length doesn't change, the stopping distance doesn't
> change by a factor of 3 or more,

But the load is liable to complain if it's chucked around.

> it has better all round visibility,
> is driven at lower speeds with lower speed traffic around.

But with more idiots who see a bus as nothing more than an obstruction to 
their progress.

On 20 Jun, 23:07, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> But with more idiots who see a bus as nothing more than an obstruction to
> their progress.

Unfortunately in london anyway , that frequently is the case. If you
stuck in slow moving traffic outside of the rush hour its odds on
theres a bus at the head of it. Half the time the buses don't bother
to pull into bus stops even if they're clear of parked cars, they just
stop dead in the road with their indicators on so blocking everyone
behind. Great for the bus - it doesn't have to wait to be let out into
the road when it moves off, not so great for us poor buggers stick
behind the red slug.

B2003

thagor2008@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 23:07, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> But with more idiots who see a bus as nothing more than an
>> obstruction to their progress.
>
> Unfortunately in london anyway , that frequently is the case. If you
> stuck in slow moving traffic outside of the rush hour its odds on
> theres a bus at the head of it. Half the time the buses don't bother
> to pull into bus stops even if they're clear of parked cars, they just
> stop dead in the road with their indicators on so blocking everyone
> behind. Great for the bus - it doesn't have to wait to be let out into
> the road when it moves off, not so great for us poor buggers stick
> behind the red slug.
>
But if you were on the bus you'd be at the head of the queue.

In article <f266c756-9239-4d72-94db-701d42f207e9
@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,  says...

> When was the last time you did a 15 hour day behind the wheel without
> breaking the law?
> 
A couple of weeks ago. You may want to go brush up on EU Drivers hours 
law.



-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Brimstone says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article , Tony Dragon says...
> >> Conor wrote:
> >>> In article , Brimstone
> >>> says...
> >>>> Conor wrote:
> >>>>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
> >>>>> Firth says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ian drives a bus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a
> >>>>> predefined route.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hardly taxing.
> >>>> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless
> >>>> the loader has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job,
> >>>> by far.
> >>>>
> >>> Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I don't know but perhaps for safety reasons he would not be allowed
> >> to do 15 hours.
> >>
> > What safety reasons would they be? They're bound by the same EU
> > drivers hours rules, which were introduced for safety, as we are.
> >
> > In addition to that, the handling characteristics of a bus remain
> > constant,
> 
> Wrong, they're liable to chnage from one stop to the next.
> 
By the effect losing or gaining 26 tonnes has?

> > the length doesn't change, the stopping distance doesn't
> > change by a factor of 3 or more,
> 
> But the load is liable to complain if it's chucked around.
> 
Likewise on a lorry. Difference is that some loads on a lorry can kill 
you if they're chucked around.

> > it has better all round visibility,
> > is driven at lower speeds with lower speed traffic around.
> 
> But with more idiots who see a bus as nothing more than an obstruction to 
> their progress. 
> 
Ah, because they don't do that with lorries do they? I must imagine all 
the times I'm carved up at a motorway exit as someone dives across to 
leave despite there being a 1/2 mile space behind me.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Brimstone says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article , Brimstone
> > says...
> >> Conor wrote:
> >>> In article <1iiu0qk.1rnx7wpgr979fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
> >>> Firth says...
> >>>
> >>>> Ian drives a bus.
> >>>>
> >>> So has a load that loads and unloads itself and goes down a
> >>> predefined route.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly taxing.
> >>
> >> But your load doesn't answer back, fight, nor misbehave (unless the
> >> loader has fouled up). A lorry driver has got the easier job, by far.
> >>
> > Riight. When was the last time a bus driver did a 15 hour day?
> 
> The number of hours worked has got nothing to do with the behaviour of the 
> load. 
> 
Indeed. The load on a bus is the same all the time.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

wrote


 > 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load or
> not.


Yes, but what you have to bear in mind is that we are very GRREEEEEDY!


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Long Distance Diary 30th May 2008-  Switzerland

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32454

Brimstone wrote:
> Ian D Henden wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>> news:2a-dnSAoesydW8fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Ian D Henden wrote:
>>>>  wrote in message
>>>> news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
>>>>> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load
>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
>>> But is it more hazardous to other road users and people in nearby
>>> properties?
>> It can sometimes be very volatile.
>>
>> Especially at 11.30 pm on a Saturday Evening.
>>
>> Or every alternate Saturday afternoon at around 5 (just after Scum
>> have lost)....
> 
> I was thinking of schoolchildren when I posted that. However, some so-called 
> football supporters can be almost as hazardous as petrol. 

What happens when you set fire to them then?


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 21 Jun, 10:16, Conor  wrote:
> In article <f266c756-9239-4d72-94db-701d42f207e9
> @e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,  says...
>
> > When was the last time you did a 15 hour day behind the wheel without
> > breaking the law?
>
> A couple of weeks ago. You may want to go brush up on EU Drivers hours
> law.

http://www.eubusiness.com/Employment/eu-working-hours.42/

"Drivers must also take a total of 45 minutes rest for every four and
a half hours of driving."

Since when does 4.5 hours = 15 hours? Or are you counting your breaks
to? I'll have to try that in my job. "Hey boss, I might be sitting
with my feet up at my desk for 45 minutes , but I'm working. No ,
really!"

And if you did ever drive for 15 hours non stop you're a danger to
yourself and everyone else on the road and should be arrested IMO
before you kill someone.

B2003

On 21 Jun, 16:16, John Wright  wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > Ian D Henden wrote:
> >> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
> >>news:2a-dnSAoesydW8fVnZ2dnUVZ8sPinZ2d@bt.com...
> >>> Ian D Henden wrote:
> >>>>  wrote in message
> >>>>news:b6679722-aaff-4379-b1c1-24d12bae2d3e@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> >>>>>> I see they got 14% over two years:
>
> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7460452.stm
>
> >>>>>> Now they're blaming inflation on the tanker drivers?
> >>>>> 41K seems rather a lot of money for driving a truck, hazardous load
> >>>>> or not.
>
> >>>> The load I regularly drive is far more valuable .....
> >>> But is it more hazardous to other road users and people in nearby
> >>> properties?
> >> It can sometimes be very volatile.
>
> >> Especially at 11.30 pm on a Saturday Evening.
>
> >> Or every alternate Saturday afternoon at around 5 (just after Scum
> >> have lost)....
>
> > I was thinking of schoolchildren when I posted that. However, some so-called
> > football supporters can be almost as hazardous as petrol.
>
> What happens when you set fire to them then?

You wake up in hospital 3 days later minus your front teeth and having
to drink your lunch through a straw.

B2003

John Wright wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Ian D Henden