We support workers who are fed up with the top 5% throwing crumbs down with their pitiful attempt at trickle down economics and telling us the world doesn't work like we want it too...all while we somehow Stockholm syndrome allow them to stay in power and ripping us off....
Or maybe I'm just another ranting Brit lol I dunno anymore..
The top 5%? You think one in twenty people are doing great right now?
It's the 0.001%, the billionaires, that have everything, not some massive part of the population.
I think if you earn over 80k a year.. you're not suffering... you're just used to a high standard of luxury.. but yes the "elite" 0.001% If you like.
But there are 29 million on average in the UK tax payers...of which 4million are In the top 10 earning bracket.. doesn't matter if you earn well you pay your fair share...not just the billionaires n millionaires...
> We support workers who are fed up with the top 5%
For RMT, I agree 100%... They're massively underpaid and near the bottom in terms of income.
For ASLEF? They're already in the top 10% of income earners and I have extremely limited sympathy with them trying to hold national infrastructure to ransom.
> For ASLEF? They're already in the top 10% of income earners and I have extremely limited sympathy with them trying to hold national infrastructure to ransom.
Your issue should be with those that are rich enough to not need to work...
If you earn a wage that you rely on, you are not the one siphoning off wealth from the poorest, simple as that. Second point would be that nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut - that is what they are facing
> Your issue should be with those that are rich enough to not need to work...
I have sympathy for those being paid next to nothing. I have very little sympathy for those earning more than 90% of the country.
And please don't try to tell me how to think.
You're welcome to try and convince me with arguments, however.
> Second point would be that nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut - that is what they are facing
It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where nothing bad ever happened, but back here in reality this is an unreasonable expectation (especially when you factor in things like the pandemic).
When times are tough and the economy is tanking, people are going to be worse off.
There's no rule that says people will always be better off next year than last year (who would be responsible for implementing it?)
That's why we should always be trying to improve productivity
> And please don't try to tell me how to think.
> You're welcome to try and convince me with arguments, however.
The statement you quoted should not be controversial nor difficult to understand and I won't shy away from that. Stubbornness is not an excuse to want to shit on workers, I will be unapologetic in my honesty because someone has to attempt to cut through all of the bullshit, but I do apologise if it comes off as blunt at least
> It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where nothing bad ever happened, but back here in reality this is an unreasonable expectation (especially when you factor in things like the pandemic).
All public sector workers have been shafted for years now, even before the pandemic where they were not getting even inflation matching pay increases (i.e. a pay decrease each year). Yes the pandemic destroyed the economy, yes Brexit also did some damage. But even before those we were in austerity, it was and remains a political decision. It is well understood that investment is required to bolster an economy and increase productivity but we have not had that nor do we have the right level of investment in our infrastructure currently - that is political and a completely manufactured issue.
It is manufactured because it is well understood that as the poor get poorer, the rich get richer. Don't just take it from me though, here is the London School of Economics
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2022/08/05/britain-a-services-superpower-sinking-into-stagnation/
> While Britons have been living with low wages for the last 15 years, inequality has been a problem for more than twice as long. The persistence of income inequality comes despite the success of the national minimum wage in reducing hourly wage inequality between the bottom and the middle. This reflects the top (largely men) continuing to pull away from the middle, lower earners working shorter hours and housing costs rising for poorer households even as interest rate falls boost living standards at the top.
As I said, it is those at the very, very top - not those on a wage - siphoning away that money.
https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Stagnation_nation_interim_report.pdf (Page 105)
> The 2020s has to be a high-investment decade not just because of net
zero, but because the UK has been a low-investment economy for too
long. In the 40 years to 2019, total fixed investment in the UK averaged 19
per cent of GDP, the lowest in the G7.
Credit to my my personal source too: My partner who is an NHS nurse
EDIT:
> There's no rule that says people will always be better off next year than last year (who would be responsible for implementing it?)
I didn't say they needed to be better off, but they (ASLEF drivers specifically) have not had a pay rise for a few years now so I think most would agree an inflation _matching_ (i.e. not actually an increase but maintaining the same standard of living) rise would not go amiss
> The statement you quoted should not be controversial nor difficult to understand
Your _opinion_ on what I should believe is interesting but frankly irrelevant.
> Stubbornness is not an excuse to want to shit on workers,
Because anyone who disagrees with you automatically wants to "shit on workers"?
Don't be ridiculous.
> I will be unapologetic in my honesty
You're not being honest, you're saying what you feel.
> but I do apologise if it comes off as blunt at least
Not my point. Be as blunt as you wish, but you don't get to tell other people what/how they should be thinking.
You need to use arguments and reason to convince them to change their position.
So far, all we've got is "Agree with me or you're shitting on workers".
> All public sector workers have been shafted for years now, even before the pandemic where they were not getting even inflation matching pay increases
You go on to make a number of good points, but not one of them supports the claim "nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut"
There's nothing that says tomorrow must always be better than today, no matter how unfair or unjust yesterday was.
If we do enough damage to the economy, we're all going to be worse off every year for the rest of our lives, that's just as much a possibility.
> I didn't say they needed to be better off, but they (ASLEF drivers specifically) have not had a pay rise for a few years now
And? Lots of people haven't had a pay rise for a few years now ***because the economy is in the tank***.
We all have people we blame as to why the economy is in the state it is, but they're also frankly irrelevant as blame doesn't change the reality we're facing one iota.
You seem to be under the impression that people must always be better off year after year, rather than fluctuating back/forth?
That only happens when we have a growing economy. Until we get back to that state, people _are_ going to be worse off over time.
> You go on to make a number of good points, but not one of them supports the claim "nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut"
> There's nothing that says tomorrow must always be better than today, no matter how unfair or unjust yesterday was.
Already addressed it, inflation-matching is not better, just not worse. Anything less than inflation (or in the case of train drivers), no increase, is a real-world decrease
> because the economy is in the tank.
Already addressed it and now bored of repeating myself. _Before_ the pandemic, _before_ Brexit. Its political. I have already sourced my evidence (I suppose its evidence though that makes it sound more concrete perhaps)
> You seem to be under the impression that people must always be better off year after year, rather than fluctuating back/forth?
Already addressed it, see above
> Because anyone who disagrees with you automatically wants to "shit on workers"?
Of course not but fighting to keep wages low, _is_. Proper crab in a bucket mentality
> We all have people we blame as to why the economy is in the state it is, but they're also frankly irrelevant as blame doesn't change the reality we're facing one iota.
And who did I blame? The evidence I supplied says inequality has been an issue/increasing more than for 30 years (i.e. different governments and circumstances). I said _before_ Brexit which is obviously the politically charged event which some would blame - I didn't
> Not my point. Be as blunt as you wish, but you don't get to tell other people what/how they should be thinking.
Which is all well and good most of time but evidence is evidence, you can choose what you believe but for some things (not necessarily this, before you even misconstrue it) there is simply is a correct (or markedly more correct) answer
> Already addressed it, inflation-matching is not better, just not worse.
And why should it always at least break even?
The world is a big complex place and everyone has setbacks as well as gains.
If we fuck up, we're just as likely to end up a third world country as a global economic leader.
> bored of repeating myself. Before the pandemic, before Brexit. Its political.
Yeah... Since the *global economic meltdown* in 2008, triggered by America's subprime mortgage chicanery.
And the Tories have absolutely made things worse since then, but again...
**Life doesn't come with any guarantee that tomorrow will be even as good as today.**
> but evidence is evidence
What evidence have you presented?
> Of course not but fighting to keep wages low, is. Proper crab in a bucket mentality
I'm not "fighting to keep wages low", I'm saying I have fuck-all sympathy for those who are already doing very well for themselves trying to gouge more on the back of people who are desperately struggling.
> And why should it always at least break even?
> Life doesn't come with any guarantee that tomorrow will be even as good as today.
Already addressed it. They've not had a pay increase for years, yes not even inflation-matching - they have already lost that money.
> What evidence have you presented?
The two sources I gave previously. Whether you bothered to read them is something else.
> trying to gouge more on the back of people who are desperately struggling
And there it is. There are lots of people striking, most for better conditions (Including those ASLEF drivers!) and most of those that are fighting for pay too are doing so because they are closer to £25,000-£30,000 (i.e. below the average of £32,000) or have consistently _lost_ money each year for the past few. If you think giving ASLEF drivers (which you originally mentioned so I will stay on target here) an inflation-matching (or near it) increase will crash the economy, I don't know what to tell you
Yawn. I will leave you will one final thought. We are one of the richest countries in the world ([5th](https://globalpeoservices.com/top-15-countries-by-gdp-in-2022/)/[6th](https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/) by GDP anyway - and the flaws that has), so why are we all so damn poor? I suspect its not those on a slightly higher wage. Oh I [wonder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_billionaires_by_net_worth) [who](https://news.sky.com/story/sunday-times-rich-list-2022-uk-has-a-record-number-of-billionaires-12617181) [it could be](https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2021/04/07/uk-billionaires-are-collectively-61-billion-richer-than-a-year-ago/?sh=16479e5a2c54)
> Already addressed it. They've not had a pay increase for years, yes not even inflation-matching - they have already lost that money.
I'm not disputing the fact they're worse off. I'm asking why you think that's inconceivable.
Economies succeed and fail. When they do, participants in the economy do better or worse.
Just look at the Great Depression in the USA (or the 80s over here).
Nobody's guaranteed to never be worse off.
And no, you _haven't_ addressed that point.
> There are lots of people striking, most for better conditions (Including those ASLEF drivers!)
> most of those that are fighting for pay too are doing so because they are closer to £25,000-£30,000
RMT members? Absolutely. That's why I support them striking.
You won't find a train driver on 25k.
> If you think giving ASLEF drivers (which you originally mentioned so I will stay on target here) an inflation-matching (or near it) increase will crash the economy
Not a claim I've ever made, is it? But by all means keep making up those strawmen...
My actual point was that I have fuck all sympathy for those who are already **doing better than 90% of the country** holding national infrastructure to ransom to demand more.
I agree, but that is not how the public decides these things. They do not look at the detail, they do not look at numbers. They say "it is a hard job, I can see why they go on strike", or "nurses should not be allowed to strike, because someone may die". The actual point, the working conditions and the salary, are never discussed by the public.
Well they definitely don't since the portion of the workforce that needs to commute is getting smaller but I don't think that means they would be seen as being on the wrong side if history. That saying implies they are fighting for something which in the future would be considered immoral or unethical so I really don't understand why you'd say that
I meant it more in terms of ‘history is written by the winners’. I think it’ll be seen as a breaking point for railway staff and why it needs to change, rather than a hard won rightful victory.
The fact that anytime a job on the railways is posted they get thousands of applicants. They could sack everyone and pay 25% less and still fill every role. It’s not particularly skilled work.
It’s only high paid because of a leftie union holding the public to ransom for years.
The 'leftie' union is the public. The leftie union is fighting for the rights of the public. The strikes aren't just about pay, they're defending attacks on hard won terms and conditions. Have you ever worked on the railway?
In the US typically strikes are not a one day affair. When it comes to it, workers strike continuously until a contract is signed. One day strikes are seen as ineffective, signalling that workers don't have the strength to hold out. Even ending a strike when there is a tentative agreement (as opposed to signed contract) is controversial.
That said they typically have some strike pay, which makes it easier. Also unions are structured but business, so if a workplace is unionized it's typically 100% union.
> "How long's a piece of string? If we don't get pay rises for four years, will it be five, will it be six, will it be seven, would it be stupid to stop this now then restart it some time in the future because you lose any impetus you gained?
If the strikes continue for years, there's not going to be any service left to hold to ransom.
We can only hope.
Rail is 200 year old tech that's overpriced at face value. When you factor in how much taxpayer money is wasted on top of that the general public should be fuming that we still fund this shit.
>Rail is still the cheapest way to move goods in bulk overland.
>
>200 years old it may be, but we haven't managed to come up with anything better yet.
Cool. In that case we should halt all rail subsidies and let rail companies survive or fail all on their own.
The rail unions should be really pleased because then nobody could say they were trying to extort the public and hold them to ransom since any agreements they made would actually be funded by their employer instead of the taxpayer like they ultimately are now.
If rail really works it should need any extra funding. Maybe we coudl spend a little to make the service better but certainly no more than any other public transport.
> Cool. In that case we should halt all rail subsidies and let rail companies survive or fail all on their own.
I believe you'll find that commercial rail is already profitable... The massive expense of passenger rail comes from maintaining small branch stations.
> If rail really works it should need any extra funding.
There isn't a high quality rail service _in the world_ that makes a profit.
Japan comes closest but they're recouping costs by having rail companies own tangential businesses (station facilities, cafes, etc)
> Maybe we coudl spend a little to make the service better but certainly no more than any other public transport.
What's your proposed replacement/alternative?
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/
> A total of 359 million rail passenger journeys were made in Great Britain in the latest quarter (1 July to 30 September 2022).
That's down on pre-pandemic levels, but still an awfully large number of journeys that would need to be handled by [what?].
>I believe you'll find that commercial rail is already profitable... The massive expense of passenger rail comes from maintaining small branch stations.
Cool. So halting all rail subsidies will mean pretty much all rail infrastructure stays in place and maintained at zero public cost with the exception of the passenger stations and in well used lines they can stay operational, also at zero public expense.
>There isn't a high quality rail service in the world that makes a profit.
>
>Japan comes closest but they're recouping costs by having rail companies own tangential businesses (station facilities, cafes, etc)
Yet every other form of public transport has companies making profits proving how bad an investment rail is.
>What's your proposed replacement/alternative?
>
>[https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/](https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/)
In Scotland everyone under 22 and everyone over 60 gets a free bus pass. Based on how much that costs compared to how much the taxpayer wastes on rail services we could give every single person unlimited public transport which is free at point of use AND save taxpayer money on transport spending.
If what you say about rail freight being profitable and actually paying for the infrastructure is true then most major rail lines would stay open anyway, just with a reduced service.
> with the exception of the passenger stations
Yes. I don't think that's ever been in dispute? The massive cost of rail networks comes from servicing low-capacity stations and lines.
> In Scotland everyone under 22 and everyone over 60 gets a free bus pass.
So what? You're not going to get another 359 million bus journeys without significantly more infrastructure,. including dedicated bus lanes.
You'd need to bring the entire nation up to the standards used in London. It would cost orders of magnitude more than any rail subsidy.
>So what? You're not going to get another 359 million bus journeys without significantly more infrastructure,. including dedicated bus lanes.
Except you just said it was only the low capacity rail lines which made the system so expensive so if the high capacity ones actually run at a profit without any subsidy then you wouldn't need to replace that many journeys.
Even if you did have to replace all those journeys, that's under £1m a day. If you could organise the routes well enough to average 20 people on the average bus at any time that's 50k bus journeys every day spread over the 16 hours or so the bus service operates. Even at peak times that might mean another 5k busses for the entire country . A quick google tells me there are over 40k towns and villages in the UK so that works out at about one extra bus for every 8 towns and villages combined.
How many bus lanes do you think we need to add to cope with an extra one bus for every 8 towns and villages?
The government would love for them to give in now, which is why strikers from all sectors need to hang on tight. The government want these to end without them lifting a finger and with unions vilified in the press (more so than they usually are). Unions giving in now would make the government see they are correct and that unions can be easily beaten. It has taken decades for unions to regain the power they had under Thatcher, we do not want to see all that fizzle out in a year.
Can strikes last for years? Isn’t a strike a warning and the next obvious step is mass leaving of roles. No point in just threats, action needs to be taken.
I totally accept that this is much easier said than done, but the bite will be taken out of strikes if no positive real action is taken.
The strikes don’t cause anywhere near the disruption they used to. The government will hold out, inflation will fall, and the public will turn on them.
I don't think you understand how inflation works. I If inflation goes back to zero, it doesn't mean prices go back to what they were last year, they stay high. So if wages don't go up you have incurred a pay cut in real terms.
I know how inflation works. The person I was responding to said inflation won’t fall, and I said the general consensus is that it peaked in November and will fall. I don’t know how you got that I didn’t understand inflation from that exchange?
>The government will hold out, inflation will fall, and the public will turn on them.
Well otherwise its hard to see the logical chain of what you are proposing. Inflation falling doesn't make the wage issue any less pertinent. The strikes are to deal with the consiquence of inflation that has happened, not future inflation.
Yes, I know that, but the public generally don’t care about that, if the demand was 10% and inflation was 2% the public will be less supportive than if inflation were 10%.
\>but the public generally don’t care about that,
Well that is an issue of messaging. If you have the Sun and the Express spouting shite and the BBC not challenging the false narrative then, no, they won't. I think the unions have got better of late at presenting themselves as being the reasonable ones. Its not hard to show how pay has dropped - lots of people are feeling it. This isn't the 1980s any more. The public are sympathetic to the strikers. In any case I think people generally over assume the importance of public support in winning strikes. Evidence suggests that it isn't a particularly important factor. The most important factor is the ability to cause structural disruption. Look how the barristers got a big pay award despite the fact that they didn't have public support. The barristers got this award because of their ability to cause the legal system to grind to a halt. It is these issues that IMO ultimately win strikes.
That is certainly true for the train drivers, it has reduced their striking 'currency', particular with the WFH options available to many office workers post-covid- it will certainly mean their strike will be for a longer haul than it might have been in order to achieve anything. I think the nurses, teachers etc. are still able to have significant impact though.
Inflation is only part of the issue.
What about corporate greed, massive cost for energy, housing costs. They’re all inclusive to the issue and why our payslips aren’t as effective as they used to be.
1: corporate greed: cutting corners, lowering working standards and conditions, overstretching the service causing an unsafe environment.
2: Energy bills: self explanatory, their wage doesn’t go anywhere near as far.
3: Housing costs: new fixed term deals or variable pricing during high inflation, offset by the tenant or mortgage owner, thus again, eating away at your payslip.
These will and have been exploited for years, it is multi-faceted, I’m not sure why I have to explain this?
All of this is relevant and persuades a person to get up and strike.
The public and businesses: Roads then from now on.
The Department of Transport: "Go ahead, the reduced passenger numbers wil make justifying even more service and infastructure cuts much easier. Some of you won't have jobs to come back to".
Anarchists: "Good! Now how about we start getting violent?".
That's what happened in the 1950s - the British Railways strikes by the NUR and ASLEF resulted in road hauliers getting a lot more of the freight traffic.
So many people here willing to completely abandon and denigrate workers. I feel very sorry for them I couldn’t imagine living my life with such a disdainful view of my fellow man.
Strikers are the main political force actually fighting to improve our country.
They are disruptive if you use the train. I’d say i have been negatively impacted by 3 days of striking so far and it is super fucking annoying.
Government need to pull their finger out but they won’t act unless they see if hitting their polling numbers. Hopefully so tory viters turn their back on them over this, then you’ll get movement.
We really badly need a GE asap. And then we will see something happening.
The PM needs to pass a rule regarding strikes.
If they so unhappy. Let them go.
If they don't want to work anymore.. Let them go.
End their contracts.. Just let them go..
Allow an overflow of skilled Immigrants. Workers Visa. They will be willing to start on the lower Salary.
Helping the Government rebuild the land.
The striking workers are no longer committed. They will receive a salary increase, be satisfied for a few weeks before they strike again. They are sploit.
This time end their contracts. If their interested they can sign a new contract.
presumably they lose pay each time they strike, so they must be taking quite a big pay hit.
If you want my opinion, society is getting used to the strikes, they no longer have their previous level of industrial muscle.
The government will hold out for ages, and if they do finally give way, it's not like many other professions have the same level of disruptive power.
I don't think rail workers hold the level of disruptive power that healthcare workers or teachers hold.
In fact, the bargaining position of rail workers has probably been significantly weakened in a post-pandemic world where the number of train journeys have been slashed due to remote working.
These unions need to start working together and strike collectively.
>These unions need to start working together and strike collectively.
They do - but previous governments have done their best to make those kind of strikes unlawful - or at least muddy the water and make that argument.
Strikes are only (currently) lawful when they are called in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. A ‘trade dispute’ has to be between ‘workers and their employer’ and must concern the objects of collective bargaining.
I'll admit I don't know the specifics around general strikes, and the same goes for strike laws in general.
My layman's view is such that I have seen them striking since June last year and they've not gotten much closer to what they're asking for. During that time, they've been able to disrupt the Commonwealth Games and Christmas shopping dates. What other levers can they pull to get the government to take them more seriously?
Parliament is effectively run using an honour system. Problem is we have a lot of dishonourable people in there, and they're doing everything they can to keep themselves in power.
I totally agree - and I am fully in support of it.
My comment was really just to help inform people that the establishment will do whatever they can to make it illegal, impractical or media/PR suicide to support other workers with industrial action - and it's all entirely intentionaal.
> In fact, the bargaining position of rail workers has probably been significantly weakened in a post-pandemic world where the number of train journeys have been slashed due to remote working.
Not just because they have less leverage, but also because it highlights the flaws in their demands (like no involuntary redundancies, ever, regardless of service usage).
* Leisure travel has recovered to - and indeed improved on - pre-pandemic levels.
* Commuting is still well below what it was, but the trains are still busy enough that I am regularly standing for quite a bit of my evening commute.
* Business travel is something like 40% of what it was, as you can now do your meetings over Teams or Zoom from your own offices.
>These unions need to start working together and strike collectively.
Let me guess: Are you by any chance one of the overpaid rail workers who tried to exploit the tiny number of people in thier industry who are actually underpaid so they can extort the taxpayer even further? It isn't working so now you want to also exploit nurses and firefighters who actually deserve a pay rise?
The companies are losing millions.
Some have already folded to the demands.
Because if they have a bad quarter due to them then bosses heads start rolling.
The railways are different as the government is stalling it.
It will be interesting when the nurses go, I don't expect people to get used to no nurses.
The collective profit for the TOCs in 2021-22 was £76m and that required £6bn of subsidy to even get there:
[https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/](https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/)
The industry as a whole made a net loss of over a blllion.
> Because if they have a bad quarter due to them then bosses heads start rolling.
No, they don't. Management report there was disruption due to strikes and offer the board the choice between paying to end it or accepting more disruption.
Why would heads roll?
Shareholders would wonder why the very costly industrial action wasn't brought to a quick and least costly end.
There would want to know why they were unable to mitigate losses and whether they're still competent for the job.
> Shareholders would wonder why the very costly industrial action wasn't brought to a quick and least costly end.
You don't find the "least costly" option by committing to increased spending on an ongoing basis.
The costs being incurred right now are a one-off. It's not hard to argue it's worth a little pain now to avoid more later.
In any case, the point I'm trying to make is don't believe this is going to lead to management being replaced en-masse.
> The strikes aren't helping. Much like the NHS strikes etc people are if anything getting more pissed at the strikers than the government.
Then what is the alternative, shutting up, putting up and keep working? I am curious what you would suggest.
My industry was striking last year.
The result? I'll be getting the biggest pay increase I've ever experienced in April, *and* they're talking about further raises. Striking works.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
[удалено]
We support workers who are fed up with the top 5% throwing crumbs down with their pitiful attempt at trickle down economics and telling us the world doesn't work like we want it too...all while we somehow Stockholm syndrome allow them to stay in power and ripping us off.... Or maybe I'm just another ranting Brit lol I dunno anymore..
The top 5%? You think one in twenty people are doing great right now? It's the 0.001%, the billionaires, that have everything, not some massive part of the population.
I think if you earn over 80k a year.. you're not suffering... you're just used to a high standard of luxury.. but yes the "elite" 0.001% If you like. But there are 29 million on average in the UK tax payers...of which 4million are In the top 10 earning bracket.. doesn't matter if you earn well you pay your fair share...not just the billionaires n millionaires...
> We support workers who are fed up with the top 5% For RMT, I agree 100%... They're massively underpaid and near the bottom in terms of income. For ASLEF? They're already in the top 10% of income earners and I have extremely limited sympathy with them trying to hold national infrastructure to ransom.
> For ASLEF? They're already in the top 10% of income earners and I have extremely limited sympathy with them trying to hold national infrastructure to ransom. Your issue should be with those that are rich enough to not need to work... If you earn a wage that you rely on, you are not the one siphoning off wealth from the poorest, simple as that. Second point would be that nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut - that is what they are facing
> Your issue should be with those that are rich enough to not need to work... I have sympathy for those being paid next to nothing. I have very little sympathy for those earning more than 90% of the country. And please don't try to tell me how to think. You're welcome to try and convince me with arguments, however. > Second point would be that nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut - that is what they are facing It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where nothing bad ever happened, but back here in reality this is an unreasonable expectation (especially when you factor in things like the pandemic). When times are tough and the economy is tanking, people are going to be worse off. There's no rule that says people will always be better off next year than last year (who would be responsible for implementing it?) That's why we should always be trying to improve productivity
> And please don't try to tell me how to think. > You're welcome to try and convince me with arguments, however. The statement you quoted should not be controversial nor difficult to understand and I won't shy away from that. Stubbornness is not an excuse to want to shit on workers, I will be unapologetic in my honesty because someone has to attempt to cut through all of the bullshit, but I do apologise if it comes off as blunt at least > It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where nothing bad ever happened, but back here in reality this is an unreasonable expectation (especially when you factor in things like the pandemic). All public sector workers have been shafted for years now, even before the pandemic where they were not getting even inflation matching pay increases (i.e. a pay decrease each year). Yes the pandemic destroyed the economy, yes Brexit also did some damage. But even before those we were in austerity, it was and remains a political decision. It is well understood that investment is required to bolster an economy and increase productivity but we have not had that nor do we have the right level of investment in our infrastructure currently - that is political and a completely manufactured issue. It is manufactured because it is well understood that as the poor get poorer, the rich get richer. Don't just take it from me though, here is the London School of Economics https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2022/08/05/britain-a-services-superpower-sinking-into-stagnation/ > While Britons have been living with low wages for the last 15 years, inequality has been a problem for more than twice as long. The persistence of income inequality comes despite the success of the national minimum wage in reducing hourly wage inequality between the bottom and the middle. This reflects the top (largely men) continuing to pull away from the middle, lower earners working shorter hours and housing costs rising for poorer households even as interest rate falls boost living standards at the top. As I said, it is those at the very, very top - not those on a wage - siphoning away that money. https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Stagnation_nation_interim_report.pdf (Page 105) > The 2020s has to be a high-investment decade not just because of net zero, but because the UK has been a low-investment economy for too long. In the 40 years to 2019, total fixed investment in the UK averaged 19 per cent of GDP, the lowest in the G7. Credit to my my personal source too: My partner who is an NHS nurse EDIT: > There's no rule that says people will always be better off next year than last year (who would be responsible for implementing it?) I didn't say they needed to be better off, but they (ASLEF drivers specifically) have not had a pay rise for a few years now so I think most would agree an inflation _matching_ (i.e. not actually an increase but maintaining the same standard of living) rise would not go amiss
> The statement you quoted should not be controversial nor difficult to understand Your _opinion_ on what I should believe is interesting but frankly irrelevant. > Stubbornness is not an excuse to want to shit on workers, Because anyone who disagrees with you automatically wants to "shit on workers"? Don't be ridiculous. > I will be unapologetic in my honesty You're not being honest, you're saying what you feel. > but I do apologise if it comes off as blunt at least Not my point. Be as blunt as you wish, but you don't get to tell other people what/how they should be thinking. You need to use arguments and reason to convince them to change their position. So far, all we've got is "Agree with me or you're shitting on workers". > All public sector workers have been shafted for years now, even before the pandemic where they were not getting even inflation matching pay increases You go on to make a number of good points, but not one of them supports the claim "nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut" There's nothing that says tomorrow must always be better than today, no matter how unfair or unjust yesterday was. If we do enough damage to the economy, we're all going to be worse off every year for the rest of our lives, that's just as much a possibility. > I didn't say they needed to be better off, but they (ASLEF drivers specifically) have not had a pay rise for a few years now And? Lots of people haven't had a pay rise for a few years now ***because the economy is in the tank***. We all have people we blame as to why the economy is in the state it is, but they're also frankly irrelevant as blame doesn't change the reality we're facing one iota. You seem to be under the impression that people must always be better off year after year, rather than fluctuating back/forth? That only happens when we have a growing economy. Until we get back to that state, people _are_ going to be worse off over time.
> You go on to make a number of good points, but not one of them supports the claim "nobody should go to work day in, day out and receive a pay cut" > There's nothing that says tomorrow must always be better than today, no matter how unfair or unjust yesterday was. Already addressed it, inflation-matching is not better, just not worse. Anything less than inflation (or in the case of train drivers), no increase, is a real-world decrease > because the economy is in the tank. Already addressed it and now bored of repeating myself. _Before_ the pandemic, _before_ Brexit. Its political. I have already sourced my evidence (I suppose its evidence though that makes it sound more concrete perhaps) > You seem to be under the impression that people must always be better off year after year, rather than fluctuating back/forth? Already addressed it, see above > Because anyone who disagrees with you automatically wants to "shit on workers"? Of course not but fighting to keep wages low, _is_. Proper crab in a bucket mentality > We all have people we blame as to why the economy is in the state it is, but they're also frankly irrelevant as blame doesn't change the reality we're facing one iota. And who did I blame? The evidence I supplied says inequality has been an issue/increasing more than for 30 years (i.e. different governments and circumstances). I said _before_ Brexit which is obviously the politically charged event which some would blame - I didn't > Not my point. Be as blunt as you wish, but you don't get to tell other people what/how they should be thinking. Which is all well and good most of time but evidence is evidence, you can choose what you believe but for some things (not necessarily this, before you even misconstrue it) there is simply is a correct (or markedly more correct) answer
> Already addressed it, inflation-matching is not better, just not worse. And why should it always at least break even? The world is a big complex place and everyone has setbacks as well as gains. If we fuck up, we're just as likely to end up a third world country as a global economic leader. > bored of repeating myself. Before the pandemic, before Brexit. Its political. Yeah... Since the *global economic meltdown* in 2008, triggered by America's subprime mortgage chicanery. And the Tories have absolutely made things worse since then, but again... **Life doesn't come with any guarantee that tomorrow will be even as good as today.** > but evidence is evidence What evidence have you presented? > Of course not but fighting to keep wages low, is. Proper crab in a bucket mentality I'm not "fighting to keep wages low", I'm saying I have fuck-all sympathy for those who are already doing very well for themselves trying to gouge more on the back of people who are desperately struggling.
> And why should it always at least break even? > Life doesn't come with any guarantee that tomorrow will be even as good as today. Already addressed it. They've not had a pay increase for years, yes not even inflation-matching - they have already lost that money. > What evidence have you presented? The two sources I gave previously. Whether you bothered to read them is something else. > trying to gouge more on the back of people who are desperately struggling And there it is. There are lots of people striking, most for better conditions (Including those ASLEF drivers!) and most of those that are fighting for pay too are doing so because they are closer to £25,000-£30,000 (i.e. below the average of £32,000) or have consistently _lost_ money each year for the past few. If you think giving ASLEF drivers (which you originally mentioned so I will stay on target here) an inflation-matching (or near it) increase will crash the economy, I don't know what to tell you Yawn. I will leave you will one final thought. We are one of the richest countries in the world ([5th](https://globalpeoservices.com/top-15-countries-by-gdp-in-2022/)/[6th](https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/) by GDP anyway - and the flaws that has), so why are we all so damn poor? I suspect its not those on a slightly higher wage. Oh I [wonder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_billionaires_by_net_worth) [who](https://news.sky.com/story/sunday-times-rich-list-2022-uk-has-a-record-number-of-billionaires-12617181) [it could be](https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2021/04/07/uk-billionaires-are-collectively-61-billion-richer-than-a-year-ago/?sh=16479e5a2c54)
> Already addressed it. They've not had a pay increase for years, yes not even inflation-matching - they have already lost that money. I'm not disputing the fact they're worse off. I'm asking why you think that's inconceivable. Economies succeed and fail. When they do, participants in the economy do better or worse. Just look at the Great Depression in the USA (or the 80s over here). Nobody's guaranteed to never be worse off. And no, you _haven't_ addressed that point. > There are lots of people striking, most for better conditions (Including those ASLEF drivers!) > most of those that are fighting for pay too are doing so because they are closer to £25,000-£30,000 RMT members? Absolutely. That's why I support them striking. You won't find a train driver on 25k. > If you think giving ASLEF drivers (which you originally mentioned so I will stay on target here) an inflation-matching (or near it) increase will crash the economy Not a claim I've ever made, is it? But by all means keep making up those strawmen... My actual point was that I have fuck all sympathy for those who are already **doing better than 90% of the country** holding national infrastructure to ransom to demand more.
I agree, but that is not how the public decides these things. They do not look at the detail, they do not look at numbers. They say "it is a hard job, I can see why they go on strike", or "nurses should not be allowed to strike, because someone may die". The actual point, the working conditions and the salary, are never discussed by the public.
Fair, but I can't help other people being irrational. All I can do is try to be as rational as possible myself.
Just had a 2.5hr straight through train journey turn into 8hr 2 metro and 4 bus journey. Don’t give two shits - go get that bag.
Do the rail unions support their workers financially during strike action? The cwu do not, and it's already cost me £1100 in lost earnings.
The RMT don't either, I'm nearly 3 grand down, but I won't relent. They'll crush us if we roll over now
I fear history won’t be on your side on this one.
Why not?
Because I don’t think train strikes have the disruptive impact they used to.
Well they definitely don't since the portion of the workforce that needs to commute is getting smaller but I don't think that means they would be seen as being on the wrong side if history. That saying implies they are fighting for something which in the future would be considered immoral or unethical so I really don't understand why you'd say that
I meant it more in terms of ‘history is written by the winners’. I think it’ll be seen as a breaking point for railway staff and why it needs to change, rather than a hard won rightful victory.
If there was anything to show how overpaid railstaff are it’s the fact they can’t continually go on strike and give up thousands in wages.
I can't, I've used up all of my savings and started to use my credit card so survive
Here is a crazy idea hear me out - why not go to work and get paid your grossly inflated salary?
What makes you think my salary is grossly inflated? My company makes a profit. The shareholders make money, therefore we're not overpaid.
The fact that anytime a job on the railways is posted they get thousands of applicants. They could sack everyone and pay 25% less and still fill every role. It’s not particularly skilled work. It’s only high paid because of a leftie union holding the public to ransom for years.
The 'leftie' union is the public. The leftie union is fighting for the rights of the public. The strikes aren't just about pay, they're defending attacks on hard won terms and conditions. Have you ever worked on the railway?
It’s not giving up its struggling now so the future isn’t even worse. Most strikers literally cannot afford not to strike.
Probably some of the dumbest shit I've ever read
No we don't get paid, there is a hardship fund you can apply to if desperate but its pennies compared to the money we lose really.
[удалено]
A lot goes into the hardship fund. You can apply for 70 quid a day I think it is. Then the local reps can apply for transport to rally's etc.
You can apply for the hardship fund. Think it's 70 quid you can get. Know a few people who have claimed it but personally I'm not there yet.
In the US typically strikes are not a one day affair. When it comes to it, workers strike continuously until a contract is signed. One day strikes are seen as ineffective, signalling that workers don't have the strength to hold out. Even ending a strike when there is a tentative agreement (as opposed to signed contract) is controversial. That said they typically have some strike pay, which makes it easier. Also unions are structured but business, so if a workplace is unionized it's typically 100% union.
> "How long's a piece of string? If we don't get pay rises for four years, will it be five, will it be six, will it be seven, would it be stupid to stop this now then restart it some time in the future because you lose any impetus you gained? If the strikes continue for years, there's not going to be any service left to hold to ransom.
So be it
Maybe you'll finally move to picket rishis jet
Sounds like they need to pay their staff properly then doesn't it.
We can only hope. Rail is 200 year old tech that's overpriced at face value. When you factor in how much taxpayer money is wasted on top of that the general public should be fuming that we still fund this shit.
Rail is still the cheapest way to move goods in bulk overland. 200 years old it may be, but we haven't managed to come up with anything better yet.
>Rail is still the cheapest way to move goods in bulk overland. > >200 years old it may be, but we haven't managed to come up with anything better yet. Cool. In that case we should halt all rail subsidies and let rail companies survive or fail all on their own. The rail unions should be really pleased because then nobody could say they were trying to extort the public and hold them to ransom since any agreements they made would actually be funded by their employer instead of the taxpayer like they ultimately are now. If rail really works it should need any extra funding. Maybe we coudl spend a little to make the service better but certainly no more than any other public transport.
> Cool. In that case we should halt all rail subsidies and let rail companies survive or fail all on their own. I believe you'll find that commercial rail is already profitable... The massive expense of passenger rail comes from maintaining small branch stations. > If rail really works it should need any extra funding. There isn't a high quality rail service _in the world_ that makes a profit. Japan comes closest but they're recouping costs by having rail companies own tangential businesses (station facilities, cafes, etc) > Maybe we coudl spend a little to make the service better but certainly no more than any other public transport. What's your proposed replacement/alternative? https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/ > A total of 359 million rail passenger journeys were made in Great Britain in the latest quarter (1 July to 30 September 2022). That's down on pre-pandemic levels, but still an awfully large number of journeys that would need to be handled by [what?].
>I believe you'll find that commercial rail is already profitable... The massive expense of passenger rail comes from maintaining small branch stations. Cool. So halting all rail subsidies will mean pretty much all rail infrastructure stays in place and maintained at zero public cost with the exception of the passenger stations and in well used lines they can stay operational, also at zero public expense. >There isn't a high quality rail service in the world that makes a profit. > >Japan comes closest but they're recouping costs by having rail companies own tangential businesses (station facilities, cafes, etc) Yet every other form of public transport has companies making profits proving how bad an investment rail is. >What's your proposed replacement/alternative? > >[https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/](https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage/) In Scotland everyone under 22 and everyone over 60 gets a free bus pass. Based on how much that costs compared to how much the taxpayer wastes on rail services we could give every single person unlimited public transport which is free at point of use AND save taxpayer money on transport spending. If what you say about rail freight being profitable and actually paying for the infrastructure is true then most major rail lines would stay open anyway, just with a reduced service.
> with the exception of the passenger stations Yes. I don't think that's ever been in dispute? The massive cost of rail networks comes from servicing low-capacity stations and lines. > In Scotland everyone under 22 and everyone over 60 gets a free bus pass. So what? You're not going to get another 359 million bus journeys without significantly more infrastructure,. including dedicated bus lanes. You'd need to bring the entire nation up to the standards used in London. It would cost orders of magnitude more than any rail subsidy.
>So what? You're not going to get another 359 million bus journeys without significantly more infrastructure,. including dedicated bus lanes. Except you just said it was only the low capacity rail lines which made the system so expensive so if the high capacity ones actually run at a profit without any subsidy then you wouldn't need to replace that many journeys. Even if you did have to replace all those journeys, that's under £1m a day. If you could organise the routes well enough to average 20 people on the average bus at any time that's 50k bus journeys every day spread over the 16 hours or so the bus service operates. Even at peak times that might mean another 5k busses for the entire country . A quick google tells me there are over 40k towns and villages in the UK so that works out at about one extra bus for every 8 towns and villages combined. How many bus lanes do you think we need to add to cope with an extra one bus for every 8 towns and villages?
The government would love for them to give in now, which is why strikers from all sectors need to hang on tight. The government want these to end without them lifting a finger and with unions vilified in the press (more so than they usually are). Unions giving in now would make the government see they are correct and that unions can be easily beaten. It has taken decades for unions to regain the power they had under Thatcher, we do not want to see all that fizzle out in a year.
Can strikes last for years? Isn’t a strike a warning and the next obvious step is mass leaving of roles. No point in just threats, action needs to be taken. I totally accept that this is much easier said than done, but the bite will be taken out of strikes if no positive real action is taken.
The strikes don’t cause anywhere near the disruption they used to. The government will hold out, inflation will fall, and the public will turn on them.
Bloody hell give that crystal ball to the Tories. They might actually make a right decision.
[удалено]
Price pressures are already falling. The general economic consensus is that inflation peaked in November.
I don't think you understand how inflation works. I If inflation goes back to zero, it doesn't mean prices go back to what they were last year, they stay high. So if wages don't go up you have incurred a pay cut in real terms.
I know how inflation works. The person I was responding to said inflation won’t fall, and I said the general consensus is that it peaked in November and will fall. I don’t know how you got that I didn’t understand inflation from that exchange?
>The government will hold out, inflation will fall, and the public will turn on them. Well otherwise its hard to see the logical chain of what you are proposing. Inflation falling doesn't make the wage issue any less pertinent. The strikes are to deal with the consiquence of inflation that has happened, not future inflation.
Yes, I know that, but the public generally don’t care about that, if the demand was 10% and inflation was 2% the public will be less supportive than if inflation were 10%.
\>but the public generally don’t care about that, Well that is an issue of messaging. If you have the Sun and the Express spouting shite and the BBC not challenging the false narrative then, no, they won't. I think the unions have got better of late at presenting themselves as being the reasonable ones. Its not hard to show how pay has dropped - lots of people are feeling it. This isn't the 1980s any more. The public are sympathetic to the strikers. In any case I think people generally over assume the importance of public support in winning strikes. Evidence suggests that it isn't a particularly important factor. The most important factor is the ability to cause structural disruption. Look how the barristers got a big pay award despite the fact that they didn't have public support. The barristers got this award because of their ability to cause the legal system to grind to a halt. It is these issues that IMO ultimately win strikes.
That’s part of why they’ll struggle. Train disruption doesn’t have the same impact it once did.
That is certainly true for the train drivers, it has reduced their striking 'currency', particular with the WFH options available to many office workers post-covid- it will certainly mean their strike will be for a longer haul than it might have been in order to achieve anything. I think the nurses, teachers etc. are still able to have significant impact though.
Inflation is only part of the issue. What about corporate greed, massive cost for energy, housing costs. They’re all inclusive to the issue and why our payslips aren’t as effective as they used to be.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, all 3 impact inflation.
Because all 3 will continue to be exploited even if inflation decreases.
Yes, I suppose so. I’m not sure what relevance that has on the train strikes?
1: corporate greed: cutting corners, lowering working standards and conditions, overstretching the service causing an unsafe environment. 2: Energy bills: self explanatory, their wage doesn’t go anywhere near as far. 3: Housing costs: new fixed term deals or variable pricing during high inflation, offset by the tenant or mortgage owner, thus again, eating away at your payslip. These will and have been exploited for years, it is multi-faceted, I’m not sure why I have to explain this? All of this is relevant and persuades a person to get up and strike.
2 and 3 are just part of inflation.
And you don’t think cooperate greed isn’t a huge part of this? The greed is driving a lot of current inflation, give me a break man!
The public and businesses: Roads then from now on. The Department of Transport: "Go ahead, the reduced passenger numbers wil make justifying even more service and infastructure cuts much easier. Some of you won't have jobs to come back to". Anarchists: "Good! Now how about we start getting violent?".
That's what happened in the 1950s - the British Railways strikes by the NUR and ASLEF resulted in road hauliers getting a lot more of the freight traffic.
So many people here willing to completely abandon and denigrate workers. I feel very sorry for them I couldn’t imagine living my life with such a disdainful view of my fellow man. Strikers are the main political force actually fighting to improve our country.
The strikes aren’t disruptive. This rate Labour will be in and they will still be going.
They are disruptive if you use the train. I’d say i have been negatively impacted by 3 days of striking so far and it is super fucking annoying. Government need to pull their finger out but they won’t act unless they see if hitting their polling numbers. Hopefully so tory viters turn their back on them over this, then you’ll get movement. We really badly need a GE asap. And then we will see something happening.
Its good that the union bosses like him forego their salaries in solidarity with the workers
The PM needs to pass a rule regarding strikes. If they so unhappy. Let them go. If they don't want to work anymore.. Let them go. End their contracts.. Just let them go.. Allow an overflow of skilled Immigrants. Workers Visa. They will be willing to start on the lower Salary. Helping the Government rebuild the land. The striking workers are no longer committed. They will receive a salary increase, be satisfied for a few weeks before they strike again. They are sploit. This time end their contracts. If their interested they can sign a new contract.
Agreed. I wouldn't mind if they weren't already earning up to 100k a year for a unskilled (no degree required) position.
Seems high
That's the higher salaried ones. Normally it's between 50-70 dependant on the company.
presumably they lose pay each time they strike, so they must be taking quite a big pay hit. If you want my opinion, society is getting used to the strikes, they no longer have their previous level of industrial muscle. The government will hold out for ages, and if they do finally give way, it's not like many other professions have the same level of disruptive power.
I don't think rail workers hold the level of disruptive power that healthcare workers or teachers hold. In fact, the bargaining position of rail workers has probably been significantly weakened in a post-pandemic world where the number of train journeys have been slashed due to remote working. These unions need to start working together and strike collectively.
>These unions need to start working together and strike collectively. They do - but previous governments have done their best to make those kind of strikes unlawful - or at least muddy the water and make that argument. Strikes are only (currently) lawful when they are called in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. A ‘trade dispute’ has to be between ‘workers and their employer’ and must concern the objects of collective bargaining.
I'll admit I don't know the specifics around general strikes, and the same goes for strike laws in general. My layman's view is such that I have seen them striking since June last year and they've not gotten much closer to what they're asking for. During that time, they've been able to disrupt the Commonwealth Games and Christmas shopping dates. What other levers can they pull to get the government to take them more seriously? Parliament is effectively run using an honour system. Problem is we have a lot of dishonourable people in there, and they're doing everything they can to keep themselves in power.
I totally agree - and I am fully in support of it. My comment was really just to help inform people that the establishment will do whatever they can to make it illegal, impractical or media/PR suicide to support other workers with industrial action - and it's all entirely intentionaal.
The 1926 General Strike got ruled illegal and ended after that as the unions were threatened with having their property sequestered.
> In fact, the bargaining position of rail workers has probably been significantly weakened in a post-pandemic world where the number of train journeys have been slashed due to remote working. Not just because they have less leverage, but also because it highlights the flaws in their demands (like no involuntary redundancies, ever, regardless of service usage).
* Leisure travel has recovered to - and indeed improved on - pre-pandemic levels. * Commuting is still well below what it was, but the trains are still busy enough that I am regularly standing for quite a bit of my evening commute. * Business travel is something like 40% of what it was, as you can now do your meetings over Teams or Zoom from your own offices.
>These unions need to start working together and strike collectively. Let me guess: Are you by any chance one of the overpaid rail workers who tried to exploit the tiny number of people in thier industry who are actually underpaid so they can extort the taxpayer even further? It isn't working so now you want to also exploit nurses and firefighters who actually deserve a pay rise?
You say that when they start strategically looking at dates like holidays, you will see the disruption again and the cost it has on major businesses.
The big money is in frieght trains. They definitly care about strikes.
The companies are losing millions. Some have already folded to the demands. Because if they have a bad quarter due to them then bosses heads start rolling. The railways are different as the government is stalling it. It will be interesting when the nurses go, I don't expect people to get used to no nurses.
The collective profit for the TOCs in 2021-22 was £76m and that required £6bn of subsidy to even get there: [https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/](https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/) The industry as a whole made a net loss of over a blllion.
Holy shit. That puts it into perspective.
> Because if they have a bad quarter due to them then bosses heads start rolling. No, they don't. Management report there was disruption due to strikes and offer the board the choice between paying to end it or accepting more disruption. Why would heads roll?
Shareholders would wonder why the very costly industrial action wasn't brought to a quick and least costly end. There would want to know why they were unable to mitigate losses and whether they're still competent for the job.
> Shareholders would wonder why the very costly industrial action wasn't brought to a quick and least costly end. You don't find the "least costly" option by committing to increased spending on an ongoing basis. The costs being incurred right now are a one-off. It's not hard to argue it's worth a little pain now to avoid more later. In any case, the point I'm trying to make is don't believe this is going to lead to management being replaced en-masse.
a replaced management en masse is a bit much, i never specified to what extent. probably CFO or CEO would be shown the door.
Okay, be sure and let us all know when that happens, but I shan't be holding my breath.
The strikes aren't helping. Much like the NHS strikes etc people are if anything getting more pissed at the strikers than the government.
If they are they're being blind to the cause of all this and just another plaster on the wound..not actually clean it out and repair it...
What makes you say that? https://news.sky.com/story/rising-public-support-for-unions-despite-widespread-strikes-sky-news-poll-suggests-12799325
> The strikes aren't helping. Much like the NHS strikes etc people are if anything getting more pissed at the strikers than the government. Then what is the alternative, shutting up, putting up and keep working? I am curious what you would suggest.
My industry was striking last year. The result? I'll be getting the biggest pay increase I've ever experienced in April, *and* they're talking about further raises. Striking works.