..in the light of the information in the article below it seems that, given the current dire state of the economy, and the problems faced by millions of households the ASLEF are not doing the union movement any favours. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61840077 The inequalities of the divide between Senior managers, the ' Fat cats' and the vast majority of the workers who are equally responsible for producing the wealth of the country is not the only issue here. What is, is the fact that, rightly, the Govt are seen to be completely out of touch with the daily problems faced by millions and their general mood but this strike action suggests the Union is too, or worse, is aware but do not care. Given the fact that Train drivers median salaries are considerably higher than the national average and compared to nurses and care workers for example, far greater, implies that the 'I'm all right jack' attitude that politicians and CEOs (example Utility companies) demonstrate, clearly exists within certain areas of the Union movement. I stress I am not Union bashing as, particularly under the current Govt (especially if Truss becomes PM) now, more than ever, representation of workers rights is essential. However, the unions need to pick their fights more carefully. This latest action, besides kicking the economy and the rest of the public when they are down smacks of being political ideology motivated. TheRMT have very little support from the general public , and more seriously it gives more weight to those who argue for more constraints on the right to strike and more curbs on union power. It is clear action needs to be taken due to the cost of living crisis, and unions should negotiate the best interests for their members but this strike is not doing that. Given the lack of support, it will likely fail. Had it been nurses, care workers and many other people paid below, and in the latter case, far below, the median wage, fair minded people would have got behind it as it is seen as a just cause.
The RMT strike is nothing to do with train drivers. The RMT does not represent train drivers. The median wage of an RMT member is lower than the average median wage. I didn’t read the article, but if your takeaway from it is that train drivers are already high earners, it’s either misleading or you jumped to a conclusion. Happy to clear that up edit to add… The mood in the country is supportive of striking workers. After 40 years of media spin about evil unions and strikes ruining peoples lives, the veil is lifting as people have realised they’ve been conned. That in one of the richest countries on the planet, a full time job is not enough money to live on is an absolute scandal. When I was a kid one full time worker could keep a family, two working parents gave a very comfortable living. Now, one wage isn’t enough, and often 2 isn’t either.
People live to their means. I will never criticise anyone earning under say £100k striking to obtain a raise in line with inflation. As Donny Red says, we're a far cry from the days of comfortable single income households and if there's economic hardship then it shouldn't be for the workers to roll over and have their bellies tickled by the companies and governments who have been making people poorer in real terms for a long time. If times are good it's record profits for the bosses, but if times are bad it's the workers who have to suck it up for the greater good.
I've not read the article either, but I note that he referred to the action by ASLEF, not the RMT which has a separate dispute ongoing. I would suggest that train drivers are high earners compared to the average, those represented by the RMT are not in this bracket however, and I would suggest that loko may have a valid point about loco drivers.
Should have read ASLEF. The fact that I quoted the wrong union (brain fade) does not change my argument or the fact that 6500 train drivers who ARE Paid higher than median (TRY READING THE ARTICLE!) are striking. Therefore I am not 'jumping to a conclusion'. You say that "the mood in the country is supportive of striking workers" Even if that were the case, in this specific instance I do not believe it to be the case given many comments on social media you see on the previous recent train drivers strikes. Have you evidence to support that bold statement? As regards the "one of the richest countries in the World" compared to 3rd World countries that may be the case but the UK has one of the lowest productivity levels, debt servicing is set to rise to record levels and deficit/GDP ratio critical. UK is NOT rich (as people keep stating when referencing Brexit) Suddenly when it comes to pay claims the same people argue we are! High wages simply cause higher inflation and we spiralling costs ..rinse and repeat. Austerity is not the answer, but neither is a free for all round of pay rises. My argument was to focus on those most in need and Train drivers do NOT fit that category IMO.
80% of UK train lines are run by foreign states or foreign companies. Some train drivers are paid well because they have a strong union. More power to them. Nurses are paid very poorly and have been for years. Nursing as a whole is in a terrible state and the government are to blame - not striking rail workers.
The U.K. is currently the 6th largest economy in the world was 5th prior to Brexit. That’s a fact, I’d say that makes us rich. Here’s my simplistic economic world view. If a company is making a profit, that’s due to the hard work of its employees. It’s shareholders also ‘deserve’ a return on their investment. So if a company is making billions in profits, but rather than rewarding all it uses it’s mates in the media to make the employees look ‘greedy’ for asking for a below inflation wage rise, whilst paying massive dividends. That’s immoral. And please, stop trying to lecture people who live here on ‘the mood of the nation’ it’s never gonna end well for you.
If we all go on strike to get higher wages how does that effect the economy?, I would have thought everything goes up with it, so end up no better off. Should a brain surgeon be paid the same as a first aider at work? both jobs are important and can save lives. Should all company owners and shareholders lower their margins to pay workers more? if so should there be a percentage profit cap to all businesses and profits be shared out to all below? Do business and company owners keep working the extra hours, taking the risks and living with the stress for less to give others without the risk or stress? @SuperTyke please avoid responding to this post if you can please.
The title of this thread says it all, now plenty have responded and largely disagreed it will now be classed as a ‘pile on’ bullying, ‘upsetting the cliche’ etc, etc, The Liz Truss’s on here can fek right off for me
YES! Edit, People who work hard for their companies DO deserve decent reward for it but investors who sit on their asses letting the money do the work for them don't. They should get a return on their investments but the level of dividends paid out by privatised businesses like the railways and water companies is obscene.
It would apply inflationary pressure, but when there's massive inflation anyway and wages aren't going up it's the government's problem to solve and not the workers'. Nobody is arguing for universal income communism. There's always going to be an element of supply and demand. Yes in general I think they should lower their margins but there shouldn't be any sort of cap or enforcement. Also the capitalist model of supply and demand applies to labour as well. Workers are selling their time and are free to bargain with it as they see fit, as a company would when selling its goods or services. So if workers won't work for a certain wage then we should all recognise that's just market economics and tough **** for the employer rather than decrying it as Marxist treachery. You're acting as if bosses are being charitable by paying workers. That's an outdated bootlicking attitude. They're purchasing a service from the workers and often leveraging the imbalance in negotiating power to underpay.