Wasting your time Wrighty.
Mean or Median, the FACT of the matter is that very high wage earners and London wages all push up the national average to a point. The only TRUE and accurate way to formulate an accurate average would obviously to include ALL wage earners, not a 1% sample.
Sometimes you are ■■■■■■■ in the wind. Seems funny though, that all these Professors of Economics we have on here are mere truck drivers. 
What a waste of such learned and accomplished minds…
wrighty1:
Well how nice of you to be so patronising but still if you really think that the millions of people working in all of those RDC’s, shops, care workers, factory workers, cleaners etc earn the national average I can assure you they don’t. In a two or three years there will be a massive percentage of working people in the UK working for the National Living Wage which was a system of good intent brought in by Labour and taken advantage of by industry to actually reduce wages.
If folks are going to repeatedly misrepresent what I have said then yes, I’ll be bloody patronising. Also if you are going to put words into my mouth (metaphorically speaking) when I have made no assertions whatsoever about how much or how little folks in some low-paid jobs earn I’ll be patronising to you as well.
eagerbeaver:
Wasting your time Wrighty.Mean or Median, the FACT of the matter is that very high wage earners and London wages all push up the national average to a point. The only TRUE and accurate way to formulate an accurate average would obviously to include ALL wage earners, not a 1% sample.
Sometimes you are ■■■■■■■ in the wind. Seems funny though, that all these Professors of Economics we have on here are mere truck drivers.
Just popping in that when working out statistcal data theres certain algorithms that look out for anomolies like extreme earnings. In order to extrapolate 1% of data to 100% theres such a margin of error that just using the basics like looking at Mean, Mode and Median average points then averaging them again is not enough.
For the given statistics I would guestimate a margin of error of 20% at least biased in the negative by another 80%.
At this point it becomes so ludicrous a calculation that one must fudge the figures a little in order to appeal to the largest proportion of the percentage (the easily influenced populous). In other words just look at the closest recurring figure (or the Mode average) and work round it.
In other words its a load of bollox, statistical data based on 1% extrapolated is a joke. Its foolish to believe any figure presented and pure guesswork is better.
The average income in the UK is by my guess approx 24k, allowing for benefits and some cash in hand work on the sly.
[Edit to add: Margin of error +5% and -10% based on vodka consumed]
Dipper_Dave:
Just popping in that when working out statistcal data theres certain algorithms that look out for anomolies like extreme earnings. In order to extrapolate 1% of data to 100% theres such a margin of error that just using the basics like looking at Mean, Mode and Median average points then averaging them again is not enough.For the given statistics I would guestimate a margin of error of 20% at least biased in the negative by another 80%.
At this point it becomes so ludicrous a calculation that one must fudge the figures a little in order to appeal to the largest proportion of the percentage (the easily influenced populous). In other words just look at the closest recurring figure (or the Mode average) and work round it.
In other words its a load of bollox, statistical data based on 1% extrapolated is a joke. Its foolish to believe any figure presented and pure guesswork is better.
The average income in the UK is by my guess approx 24k, allowing for benefits and some cash in hand work on the sly.[Edit to add: Margin of error +5% and -10% based on vodka consumed]
So what you’re saying is: “there are lies, ■■■■ lies and statistics”.
eagerbeaver:
Wasting your time Wrighty.Mean or Median, the FACT of the matter is that very high wage earners and London wages all push up the national average to a point. The only TRUE and accurate way to formulate an accurate average would obviously to include ALL wage earners, not a 1% sample.
Sometimes you are ■■■■■■■ in the wind. Seems funny though, that all these Professors of Economics we have on here are mere truck drivers.
It’s not a “fact” at all - Extreme high earners do not affect the national median wage figure at all. London wages don’t have much (if any) effect either. This has nothing whatsoever to do with sample sizes. I’m no Professor of anything - but I did pay enough attention during my school years to grasp the basics of mean, mode and median figures.
But as you correctly observe, sometimes one is indeed simply ■■■■■■■ in the wind.
Captain Caveman 76:
Dipper_Dave:
Just popping in that when working out statistcal data theres certain algorithms that look out for anomolies like extreme earnings. In order to extrapolate 1% of data to 100% theres such a margin of error that just using the basics like looking at Mean, Mode and Median average points then averaging them again is not enough.For the given statistics I would guestimate a margin of error of 20% at least biased in the negative by another 80%.
At this point it becomes so ludicrous a calculation that one must fudge the figures a little in order to appeal to the largest proportion of the percentage (the easily influenced populous). In other words just look at the closest recurring figure (or the Mode average) and work round it.
In other words its a load of bollox, statistical data based on 1% extrapolated is a joke. Its foolish to believe any figure presented and pure guesswork is better.
The average income in the UK is by my guess approx 24k, allowing for benefits and some cash in hand work on the sly.[Edit to add: Margin of error +5% and -10% based on vodka consumed]
So what you’re saying is: “there are lies, ■■■■ lies and statistics”.
Yep… 
I.e. lets say 5% of the population are gay or bisexual, so out of 20 male friends 1 must (or could) be a bit lets say open minded.
In reality I would say its closer to 20% taking into account grey arrears like: those that have never tried it but might like it, those being so far in the closet they have one foot in Narnia, those who like a bit of gay ■■■■ but arent sure why.
So any form of statistical data is useless when percenatages below 50% are used.
Obviously the figure for the members of the female ■■■ that are bi-curious is around 80% as all men know…
Its like the classic " 8 out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their ■■■■■ liked Felix".
WTF the cat said bugger all and would eat a dead hedgehog if it was hungry enough.
Dipper_Dave:
Captain Caveman 76:
Dipper_Dave:
Just popping in that when working out statistcal data theres certain algorithms that look out for anomolies like extreme earnings. In order to extrapolate 1% of data to 100% theres such a margin of error that just using the basics like looking at Mean, Mode and Median average points then averaging them again is not enough.For the given statistics I would guestimate a margin of error of 20% at least biased in the negative by another 80%.
At this point it becomes so ludicrous a calculation that one must fudge the figures a little in order to appeal to the largest proportion of the percentage (the easily influenced populous). In other words just look at the closest recurring figure (or the Mode average) and work round it.
In other words its a load of bollox, statistical data based on 1% extrapolated is a joke. Its foolish to believe any figure presented and pure guesswork is better.
The average income in the UK is by my guess approx 24k, allowing for benefits and some cash in hand work on the sly.[Edit to add: Margin of error +5% and -10% based on vodka consumed]
So what you’re saying is: “there are lies, ■■■■ lies and statistics”.
Yep…
I.e. lets say 5% of the population are gay or bisexual, so out of 20 male friends 1 must (or could) be a bit lets say open minded.In reality I would say its closer to 20% taking into account grey arrears like: those that have never tried it but might like it, those being so far in the closet they have one foot in Narnia, those who like a bit of gay ■■■■ but arent sure why.
So any form of statistical data is useless when percenatages below 50% are used.
Obviously the figure for the members of the female ■■■ that are bi-curious is around 80% as all men know…
Its like the classic " 8 out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their ■■■■■ liked Felix".
WTF the cat said bugger all and would eat a dead hedgehog if it was hungry enough.
PMSL they should use your methods to work it out
stevieboy308:
Winseer old chap, I’ve explained this to you several times in the past, but you still keep peddling your same old nonsense, why do you do that?Getting paid for 60, being on duty for 60, is not the same as 60 working time limit, it’s even the point of the original post, as breaks and poa don’t count towards working time
I go to work at 0600, finish at 1800, but have 5 hours on break / poa, then that leaves 7 hours of driving + other work that are counted as working time for the WTD
Get paid for 12, have a duty of 12, but only 7 hours of working time, towards the average of 48 and max of 60. It’s quite straight forward.They’ve put up a yearly figure, as that’s what they are paying as a minimum 12 x 60 x 52. But also saying overtime is available on top of that. Now as I’ve just shown you above, you can get paid 60 hours or more week in week out.
You see when you said “two 45 minute breaks unpaid” I thought you meant you’d be deducted 2 45 minute breaks, but it turns out you didn’t, you sure?
Getting paid for 60 hours holiday pay will still see that week, if it’s in the fixed week, be recorded as 48 hours, it will not be recorded as 60.
Like I said, maybe they are not a 7 day a week operation, so 3 on 3 off isn’t going to work for them and they’ll find it far easier to attract a driver wanting 5 shifts a week
Who wants to “Be at work for 60” only have it count as 48 thanks to POA, and only get paid for 48, since surely you can’t be paid for 60 AND expect to have any room for “Overtime” on top? I guess the whole job could have been advertised as “OTE” rather than implied as “Basic Pay” - but neither expression is used. The mention of “Overtime” implies that “Overtime is available and legal to be done”. How on Earth can anyone fit any overtime in if they have already been at work 60 hours that week, regardless of “how many of them count towards WTE” or even “the Job Package”?
None of my arguments were ever about “running out of driving hours” in the way that most of us understand it, because the time wasted on the road is all about “being stationary” rather than driving anywhere near 9-10 hours a day solid. Thus, “A Ten hour per day shift with 9hr15m per day driving for 5 days the same week” is bent, or more than 13 hours at work each day for 5 days is also bent but 3 days of 15 hours plus two shifts of 13 hours with no more than 9 hours per day driving any day - is totally legal. IMHO NONE of them are what I would call “Safe”, but that’s the way the law stands, as I understand it.
“Time at work” is NOT “Off Duty Time” - EVER. I do wish people would stop counting POA and Breaks as “Time not at work”. It’s “Time not working/driving” but that’s where this huge mis-lead over legal terminology trips up the masses every time… Imagine you run someone over on a zebra crossing, and it turns out you’ve done a totally legal 15,15,15,13,13,13 when you kill some in your car on the way home saturday evening… You’re going to JAIL - make no mistake! You were driving tired which is seen in the eyes of the law the same as drink driving these days, providing plod can prove it. The legally-must-be-kept drivers record on digicard buries the driver, every time because it proves that you’ve not had a reasonable amount of time off work that whole week regardless of it it’s legal or not - because the law as it stands is not sensible. This is the sort of point I keep banging on about. I’m advocating getting the laws changed to favour the workers AND the public safety - not just have them bloody worded so Businesses can get more bang for their buck out of their staff.
Dipper_Dave:
Captain Caveman 76:
Dipper_Dave:
Just popping in that when working out statistcal data theres certain algorithms that look out for anomolies like extreme earnings. In order to extrapolate 1% of data to 100% theres such a margin of error that just using the basics like looking at Mean, Mode and Median average points then averaging them again is not enough.For the given statistics I would guestimate a margin of error of 20% at least biased in the negative by another 80%.
At this point it becomes so ludicrous a calculation that one must fudge the figures a little in order to appeal to the largest proportion of the percentage (the easily influenced populous). In other words just look at the closest recurring figure (or the Mode average) and work round it.
In other words its a load of bollox, statistical data based on 1% extrapolated is a joke. Its foolish to believe any figure presented and pure guesswork is better.
The average income in the UK is by my guess approx 24k, allowing for benefits and some cash in hand work on the sly.[Edit to add: Margin of error +5% and -10% based on vodka consumed]
So what you’re saying is: “there are lies, ■■■■ lies and statistics”.
Yep…
I.e. lets say 5% of the population are gay or bisexual, so out of 20 male friends 1 must (or could) be a bit lets say open minded.
In reality I would say its closer to 20% taking into account grey arrears like: those that have never tried it but might like it, those being so far in the closet they have one foot in Narnia, those who like a bit of gay ■■■■ but arent sure why.
So any form of statistical data is useless when percenatages below 50% are used.
Obviously the figure for the members of the female ■■■ that are bi-curious is around 80% as all men know…
Its like the classic " 8 out of 10 owners who expressed a preference said their ■■■■■ liked Felix".
WTF the cat said bugger all and would eat a dead hedgehog if it was hungry enough.
That’s quite nicely put actually. 
Winseer:
blah blah blah waffle waffle waffle. Boring boring twaddle. The man is a prick.
happysack:
Winseer:
blah blah blah waffle waffle waffle. Boring boring twaddle. The man is a prick.
It’s not my fault I’m overqualified for this job.
Now kindly cease this inverted snobbery of your own.
“Anything you don’t understand and is over your head is boring” - I get that. That doesn’t make me any less of a human being though. Carry on skipping past my posts if you want - but keep your opinions regarding me personally - to yourself if you don’t mind. 
Winseer:
It’s not my fault I’m overqualified for this job.
Nah, nah, I aint letting that one go Winseer mate.
Would you care to explain.
Are you implying that the main qualification to be a driver is to be thick, or have I picked you up wrong.
I know many very intelligented truck drivers. (granted not too many ) but are you saying that you are the exception to the rule?
often wondered if I could do shelf stacking,have a break from driving for a few months/year,then go back to hgvs
truckman020:
often wondered if I could do shelf stacking,have a break from driving for a few months/year,then go back to hgvs
As I said in my other post…Which incidentally was ignored, I can only think that either some find it hard to hear home truths, or I was totally agreed with, or even that I was perceived to be talking total ■■■■■■■■…who knows.
Anyway point was, that afaik, shelf stackers are only part time, so even if the hourly rate is greater, the hours are not there to make a living out of it.
When I started driving Lorries nearly 3 years ago I knew it wasn’t a nine to five job and the hours could be long. I accepted that and cracked on. Nobody applying for that job should be complaining. They know beforehand EXACTLY what is involved.
robroy:
Winseer:
It’s not my fault I’m overqualified for this job.Nah, nah, I aint letting that one go Winseer mate.
Would you care to explain.
Are you implying that the main qualification to be a driver is to be thick, or have I picked you up wrong.I know many very intelligented truck drivers. (granted not too many
Listen… I didn’t want to be a trucker when I left school… I wanted to be… A lumberjack 
Seriously though, I probably ended up doing this for a living - because I’d ■■■■■■ off too many people in any and all other walks of life I had once partaken of…
Yes, I did have to ask the interviewer nicely to “disregard my paper qualifications” when first going (and finally getting) a proper job that paid the same full rate as those working around me.
I had spent six years prior to that - moving from job to job on lousy terms, because the ones asking for what I had on paper - didn’t pay the full going rates any more.
The early 80’s was a bad time to be totally tooled up for Science and Technology instead of Arts and ■■■■■ I might say…
So I re-trained out of Science and into Transport then. I’m still doing it, because it pays the bills and I’m too long in the tooth now to want another “Career Upheaval” any more. I Never fancied “Going Management” though, as I like the “Getting out and about” aspect of driving. I detest being “bored in an office” all day long. It wasn’t much fun working 8pm-8am as a mainframe operator on nights either, back before I got my licence. 
Interestingly, the original senior drivers that I might say “Mentored Me” when I was first starting out - were all ALSO “Over Qualified” in that they had switched from a totally different original career path to be at that point the “Senior” drivers by the point I had first met them. Like yourself then, I, too, have known “many very intelligent truck drivers” over the years. Interestingly, during my years at RM - most of them ended up taking VR around the same time I did - so we must have been onto something as a “group” there - right?
Winseer - regardless of your qualifications and obvious intelligence, you do have a habit of populating your posts with some rather baffling tangents, couple that with the fact that you also write very long replies its very easy for your message to get lost.
Or bore people.
Which manifests itself as
happysack:
Winseer:
blah blah blah waffle waffle waffle. Boring boring twaddle. The man is a prick.
Oh and FYI
At my place if you were “on duty” for 15,15,15,13,13,13 you would be paid for 84 hours. 44 of which would be at an enhanced overtime rate. Plenty of it around. Might even be available for the advert too if you can grease a pole the right way
Winseer:
stevieboy308:
Winseer old chap, I’ve explained this to you several times in the past, but you still keep peddling your same old nonsense, why do you do that?Getting paid for 60, being on duty for 60, is not the same as 60 working time limit, it’s even the point of the original post, as breaks and poa don’t count towards working time
I go to work at 0600, finish at 1800, but have 5 hours on break / poa, then that leaves 7 hours of driving + other work that are counted as working time for the WTD
Get paid for 12, have a duty of 12, but only 7 hours of working time, towards the average of 48 and max of 60. It’s quite straight forward.They’ve put up a yearly figure, as that’s what they are paying as a minimum 12 x 60 x 52. But also saying overtime is available on top of that. Now as I’ve just shown you above, you can get paid 60 hours or more week in week out.
You see when you said “two 45 minute breaks unpaid” I thought you meant you’d be deducted 2 45 minute breaks, but it turns out you didn’t, you sure?
Getting paid for 60 hours holiday pay will still see that week, if it’s in the fixed week, be recorded as 48 hours, it will not be recorded as 60.
Like I said, maybe they are not a 7 day a week operation, so 3 on 3 off isn’t going to work for them and they’ll find it far easier to attract a driver wanting 5 shifts a week
Who wants to “Be at work for 60” only have it count as 48 thanks to POA, and only get paid for 48, since surely you can’t be paid for 60 AND expect to have any room for “Overtime” on top? I guess the whole job could have been advertised as “OTE” rather than implied as “Basic Pay” - but neither expression is used. The mention of “Overtime” implies that “Overtime is available and legal to be done”. How on Earth can anyone fit any overtime in if they have already been at work 60 hours that week, regardless of “how many of them count towards WTE” or even “the Job Package”?
None of my arguments were ever about “running out of driving hours” in the way that most of us understand it, because the time wasted on the road is all about “being stationary” rather than driving anywhere near 9-10 hours a day solid. Thus, “A Ten hour per day shift with 9hr15m per day driving for 5 days the same week” is bent, or more than 13 hours at work each day for 5 days is also bent but 3 days of 15 hours plus two shifts of 13 hours with no more than 9 hours per day driving any day - is totally legal. IMHO NONE of them are what I would call “Safe”, but that’s the way the law stands, as I understand it.
“Time at work” is NOT “Off Duty Time” - EVER. I do wish people would stop counting POA and Breaks as “Time not at work”. It’s “Time not working/driving” but that’s where this huge mis-lead over legal terminology trips up the masses every time… Imagine you run someone over on a zebra crossing, and it turns out you’ve done a totally legal 15,15,15,13,13,13 when you kill some in your car on the way home saturday evening… You’re going to JAIL - make no mistake! You were driving tired which is seen in the eyes of the law the same as drink driving these days, providing plod can prove it. The legally-must-be-kept drivers record on digicard buries the driver, every time because it proves that you’ve not had a reasonable amount of time off work that whole week regardless of it it’s legal or not - because the law as it stands is not sensible. This is the sort of point I keep banging on about. I’m advocating getting the laws changed to favour the workers AND the public safety - not just have them bloody worded so Businesses can get more bang for their buck out of their staff.
You’re ether thick as ■■■■ or trying to be funny. I also remember how you’ve previously said something along the lines of, you used to be an average fish in a bright pond, but then you became one of the brighter fishes in the truck drivers pond, well ■■■■ me, it doesn’t say a lot for the bright pond, oh yeah, I don’t think you’re remotely funny, but that probably won’t mean anything to you…
I’ll try again, the EU regs allow you to be on duty for 84 hours or 90 if you include split rests, as a single crew, in a working week. You might not think it’s right, but if you know the regs, you know it’s a fact.
But that is duty time and not the same as working time for the WTD. To try to keep it simple for you, I’ll use the same example as before.
0600 - 1800 = 12 hours duty, we’ll say paid breaks, so 12 hours on the time sheet. But there’s only 7 hours of driving and other work, that leaves 5 hours that was breaks or poa. So 7 hours is recorded as working time for the WTD.
Let’s say we work Mon - sat and all the days just happen to be exactly the same.
So my paid hours are 6 x 12 = 72 and my working time hours are 6 x 7 = 42. But again, I’ll be getting paid for 72 and my working time for that week is 42, paid for 72, WTD 42, paid for 72, WTD 42.
Now as tempted as you are, just take a minute and decide how you want to portray yourself
Your comment about the masses being confused reminds me of when Mable hears on the news about someone driving the wrong way on the motorway, so decides to ring her husband to warn him, there’s not just 1 Mable, there’s hundreds of them!
Winseer:
I’d ■■■■■■ off too many people in any and all other walks of life I had once partaken of…
Yeh ? 
Btw RM ? Somebody posted that at me about you, I gennuinely thought ex. Royal Marine, and I joked back that I thought he meant Royal Mail,.and I was not scared of Postmen.
I’m beginning to think it was Royal Mail…is it?? 