|
Post by whitecity01 on Jan 31, 2010 22:06:30 GMT
Thought these may be of interest, sorry if they are too big
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Feb 1, 2010 7:43:23 GMT
Note the disparity with women's pay. This is something that I first came across in my first job back in 1973, when we had si many female typists and front office staff. I was in theory on £850 per year initially that actually increased to £950* when I actually joined (straight out of Grammar School). However, those 1952 figures look interesting: I must ask my Dad what he was earning in 1952: I think he said once that £15 per week was a huge wage and that you really knew that you had made it when you earned that sort of money. To put things into perspective, as I do regularly with vehicle prices for my magazine articles, for example a 4th Year Driver on 164 shillngs 6d [£8.47 1/2p] per week in today's money represents: £177.21 using the retail price index. £525.99 using average earnings. So £27,500 per annum or so in today's wages....how does that compare with today's LU salaries without overtime? Probably slightly less. * £8,600.35 using the retail price index. £13,949.58 using average earnings.
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Feb 1, 2010 9:12:40 GMT
Moderator comment
We (the staff) have noticed that the pictures are a touch large, but are prepared to allow these to remain due to the interest.
Most of the uploading sites do have a facility to reduce picture sizes, and while we are aware that this can greatly reduce the quality (and in this instance render them almost useless) we would ask that people consider this option as well.
------------
Still a fascinating view of how wages differed between the sexes, and how low they actually were back then in comparison with today.
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri on Feb 1, 2010 12:58:13 GMT
Most of the uploading sites do have a facility to reduce picture sizes, and while we are aware that this can greatly reduce the quality (and in this instance render them almost useless) we would ask that people consider this option as well. I'd suggest replacing a full-size picture with a clickable link to it, e.g.: Click here for a big picture (149 kB).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 14:37:42 GMT
Junior booking office staff aged 16 was £165 p.a. When I joined in 1965 it had reached £400 p.a.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 1, 2010 16:01:44 GMT
Interesting to note that although sex discrimination has since been rightfully outlawed, it remains legal (and written into the law!) to pay people a different rate based purely on their age. Perhaps we've not moved that far forward...
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Feb 1, 2010 16:33:55 GMT
for example a 4th Year Driver on 164 shillngs 6d [£8.47 1/2p] per week in today's money represents: £177.21 using the retail price index. £525.99 using average earnings. So £27,500 per annum or so in today's wages....how does that compare with today's LU salaries without overtime? Probably slightly less. Just slightly!! An LU driver these days is on around £40,000 Interesting to note that although sex discrimination has since been rightfully outlawed, it remains legal (and written into the law!) to pay people a different rate based purely on their age. Perhaps we've not moved that far forward... Applied correctly though, this can actually make sense. LU doesn't pay on the basis of age, but there could easily be an argument that a person who has life experience under their belt - or even just plain work experience - is a greater asset to an employer than somebody who has just left education. Ability to do a job isn't just about how clever you are intellectually. LU could be affected by proposed changes to age discrimination laws in another way though (did you know the Government has been proposing changes for some years now?) - seniority. Seniority is used as a way of, for example, sorting out who may be promoted or transferred first if two candidates have the same application date. Seniority also plays a part in deciding in what order staff are moved from depot pool or station group cover rota's onto permanent rota's - or indeed off them if there is a reduction. New years eve is covered by volunteers (extra pay is offered ;D ;D); if you have too many volunteers seniority is a way of solving the issue. It has long been accepted, certainly within LU, that seniority is another way of expressing experience and that it's something which should be valued.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Feb 1, 2010 17:48:11 GMT
£40K? That's cheap at the price! Seriously, that is very understandable and justified for a London job with the requisite skills required, and the relevant safety issues, etc. By the way, £400 in 1965 equates to £5,797.02 using the retail price index. or £12,056.15 using average earnings.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 1, 2010 17:55:02 GMT
Interesting to note that although sex discrimination has since been rightfully outlawed, it remains legal (and written into the law!) to pay people a different rate based purely on their age. Perhaps we've not moved that far forward... Applied correctly though, this can actually make sense. LU doesn't pay on the basis of age, but there could easily be an argument that a person who has life experience under their belt - or even just plain work experience - is a greater asset to an employer than somebody who has just left education. Ability to do a job isn't just about how clever you are intellectually. LU could be affected by proposed changes to age discrimination laws in another way though (did you know the Government has been proposing changes for some years now?) - seniority. Seniority is used as a way of, for example, sorting out who may be promoted or transferred first if two candidates have the same application date. Seniority also plays a part in deciding in what order staff are moved from depot pool or station group cover rota's onto permanent rota's - or indeed off them if there is a reduction. New years eve is covered by volunteers (extra pay is offered ;D ;D); if you have too many volunteers seniority is a way of solving the issue. It has long been accepted, certainly within LU, that seniority is another way of expressing experience and that it's something which should be valued. See, I don't have a problem with seniority within an organisation at all. It makes sense and can help retention. In my previous employment you got an extra xp per hour added to your pay for the first 10 years of your employment (unless you were part time of course, in which you probably got nothing - but that's another matter). A valid point can be made that you can do the job better if you have more experience. And again, yes, pay people more if they are more experienced. But why immediately say that somebody aged 20 has less experience than one aged 40? It might be the case, but equally the opposite might be the case! (I grant that, generally, experience comes with age - but I'm pretty sure that cases could be quoted of a 20 year old member of staff having more experience of a job than a 40 year old).
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,309
|
Post by Colin on Feb 1, 2010 18:14:35 GMT
But the point is seniority is a form of age discrimination, so I find it interesting that you agree with the principle of it. To me, paying on the basis of age alone is almost tantamount to the same thing as you are essentially saying xx amount of time must pass before you are entitled to something.
Whilst it is course quite possible for a younger person to have much more useful or relevant life/work experience than someone older, do employers agree? Would the Government quango looking into age discrimination in the workplace agree?
I'm not so sure they would.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 1, 2010 23:02:42 GMT
But the point is seniority is a form of age discrimination, so I find it interesting that you agree with the principle of it. To me, paying on the basis of age alone is almost tantamount to the same thing as you are essentially saying xx amount of time must pass before you are entitled to something. Whilst it is course quite possible for a younger person to have much more useful or relevant life/work experience than someone older, do employers agree? Would the Government quango looking into age discrimination in the workplace agree? I'm not so sure they would. You know I began my career as an apprentice telephone engineer with PO Telephones in 1970. As a 17 year old I earned £12 7s 6d and took home £10 19s after deductions. It was a good wage paying between 25% and 50% more than many other apprenticeships at the time. Age related pay was a feature of the structure on the Post Office and someone stating as a 16 year old in 1970 could look forward with normal promotion to technician and technical officer and some 25 years of annual pay increment based initially upon age up to 21 and then on timed served in grade. These pay increments were not cost of living increases but part of the structure and in company with good conduct, neat appearance, passing training courses etc one expected to one's lot to improve with age and experience. It took me a little over six years to make it to Technical Officer and in that time the unions were finding ways to make employers improve pay and at a stroke the tops and tails of all the pay scales were simply cut out and I got the same pay as a Technical Officer who had been in the grade for 4 years! Why the story? Quite simply pay scales based upon age and experience were one excellent way of managing general discipline and maintaining incentive to be attentive, efficient and trustworthy etc. What we have these days is a situation where age and experience count for little in general terms with regard to pay, pay has little connection with ability, incentive , efficiency or indeed trustworthiness! LUL is just one of many companies do much the same in the 'modern' world and society in general doesn't see that not have to work to maintain a standard of income is one of the many ills that make so many believe that they are entitled to something without working for it. As for seniority, most industries used it to move the knowledgeable and experienced into positions where they would be most valuable for the business. Within LUL it often managed to put square pegs in round holes as well as round ones as many will know! It was also used to 'claim over' staff in certain positions, for instance a senior man on days with no night experience at all could claim over a junior who had been on nights for years in the days when nightwork attracted more wages! I can recall an entire depot being put on days to prevent one man from succeeding in such a claim, he was then promptly transferred to another depot and two weeks later all the night staff went back onto nights. Pure seniority based promotion is not the answer which is why LUL moved away from pure seniority to seniority with conditions i.e. senior most suitable. Of course in some parts of the business suitability then became a big issue and in general terms someone with a better conduct record and educational qualifications would be promoted over someone with experience. No matter what the system at the end of the day it can be used properly or misused and that will probably never change. As for equality, it is an issue close to my heart especially as family men are more equal than single men! It's not just about equal pay for women, the whole of society is riddled with imbalance in favour of families and the law will never change that unless it determines that equality means equality in all things and that by definition can never be.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 1, 2010 23:12:04 GMT
As I said, I don't mind seniority based pay. As people continue in a given job, complete training to a satisfactory standard etc then why not give them a bit extra each year for the experience. (This assumes some process is in place for those employees who don't progress as they should).
I don't have a problem with extra pay for experience or ability, I just have a problem with age being used as a very crude measurement of this - one which the government enshrine.
As for seniority based promotion, I recall reading in the Fennel report that at the time managers were generally selected on seniority - it was in effect possible to progress to management "by default", with the result that people were in a supervisory role just because they'd done their 10 years sweeping platforms, or whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Feb 1, 2010 23:47:03 GMT
As I said, I don't mind seniority based pay. As people continue in a given job, complete training to a satisfactory standard etc then why not give them a bit extra each year for the experience. (This assumes some process is in place for those employees who don't progress as they should). I don't have a problem with extra pay for experience or ability, I just have a problem with age being used as a very crude measurement of this - one which the government enshrine. As for seniority based promotion, I recall reading in the Fennel report that at the time managers were generally selected on seniority - it was in effect possible to progress to management "by default", with the result that people were in a supervisory role just because they'd done their 10 years sweeping platforms, or whatnot. Yep and the reverse is also true, i.e. lots of people with no experience or practical knowledge or ability in management posts on the basis of having a degree or two!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2010 21:36:37 GMT
Moderator commentStill a fascinating view of how wages differed between the sexes, and how low they actually were back then in comparison with today. Not only how wages differed between the sexes, but given there is no stated women's rate for most grades, how women were very restricted in what jobs they could even do (which of course I already knew, the first woman driver was in 1978 and in other grades even later than that, I believe the first woman in my current grade - controller - was in the late 90s).
|
|