Train strikes

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Well, Mike, you made much of your antipathy to unions in your earlier days (which aligns you with the Tories, broadly). But leaving that to one side, you seem to be arguing that the appropriate thing to do if you don’t like your employer’s terms is to seek another employer.

I’m curious how that works for a train driver?

 

[matt j]

You're suggesting people should only strike when it doesn't inconvenience anyone Mike? It's a lovely idea but I'm not sure how much pressure that's going to put on the employers : )

They should strike only when they've clocked off and are at home is the gist of it I think.

This old trope of "just get a better well paid job" seems to ignore one quite basic fact I've never seen explained, which is if someone on low pay can't afford to live a half decent existence and the lazy answer is to 'just get a better job', how is the person replacing them in said low paid job supposed to exist?

 

[Finnegan]

What the heck is the class system in the 21st century? More than ever before, progress is mostly built on merit, which in my opinion is right. That merit doesn't even need to be accomplished by a good education, though obv. it helps. Maybe I'm out of date and the class system is represented solely by the job you do nowadays, though not at all sure how to pigeon-hole that one.

Oh come on. Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Liz Truss, Nadine Dorries- merit!!! A caustic mix of Etonian privilege, brown nosing and a huge dollop of psychopathy.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Oh come on. Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Liz Truss, Nadine Dorries- merit!!! A caustic mix of Etonian privilege, brown nosing and a huge dollop of psychopathy.

Even putting aside Eton etc, access to any form of higher education is increasingly unaffordable for lower income families, reducing social mobility and reinforcing existing class structures. This appears to me to be deliberate government policy.

 

[zeon]

Wether you agree with Mike or not I like the way he replies and bats off everybody individually ! This man could play cricket for England lol.
As a little aside I had one pay rise in 12 years as a lowly paid van driver in private sector and seemed to escape serious financial hardship.
Having said that I do appreciate the work they did during the pandemic and hope there can be a sensible, amicable agreement.

 

[Bob McC]

Pointless to include as that is surely the main/only driver of a business.



A strike is going to inconvenience people regardless, Paul. I was really, I suppose, referring to deliberately targetting max. inconvenience re. special events like the Marathon, e.g.



No idea, Enfield Boy, as I've always accepted the terms of my employment in a lifetime of different jobs. If I was dissatisfied, I left. Just cannot understand the union mentality, or so it seems, to confront employers, modernisation and changing needs for greater efficiency.




Nope! I don't, as I've had little experience of even belonging to a union let alone understanding the rational reasons for this country, currently in the grip of so many economic and domestic pressures, having strikes compound things and potentially or actually degrade the chances of us all benefitting from climbing out of this mess.


In retrospect I thought I might have been stirring up a hornets' nest. I have to say, though, as a possible explanation, that in the early sixties, I was interviewed and employed by an agricultural union in the City. Six weeks later they asked me to join the union, which hadn't been discussed at the interview. They said that this was mandatory for an employee. I left. Even in my naive early twenties I must have had an innate rejection of the herd instinct of unions.

Much later, in the late seventies and after about 6 years of teaching, I was eventually forced (more or less) by the N.A.S./U.W.T. rep. (deputy head) to join. In protest (I guess), I joined the N.U.T. instead. Within a year or so, there was a call to go on strike. I resigned from the union. Whereas I wasn't exactly happy with my terms of employment or my job, I accepted the situation, and thought that teaching continuity was priority.. Thereby, hopefully, you can see where I'm coming from, as they say. I can only see the overall picture from an economic and non political standpoint. No axes to grind except in my own hassles !

Bet you didn’t turn down the pay rises won by the unions negotiators did you?

 

[Finnegan]

Even in my naive early twenties I must have had an innate rejection of the herd instinct of unions.

What you characterise as a ‘herd instinct’ (a derogatory term that wittingly or otherwise exhibits an underlying attitude) others, including myself and the whole trade union movement, characterise as solidarity and strength in numbers. I have seen many people bullied and mistreated at work who would not have known where to turn without the knowledge and support of a good union rep. Management have a whole HR structure behind them, individual workers, frequently frightened and intimidated, only source of support is union membership.

You say you can’t understand industrial action in the current economic climate. Is it too much of a qualitative leap of understanding to realise that this is precisely why workers have had to resort to industrial action? Nobody wants to lose a day’s or a week’s pay. But when we see certain sections benefitting immensely from the crises (eg. energy firms) or the egregious behaviour of the hedge fund managers who whooped and cheered Kwarteng and Truss’s budget because it personally significantly enriched them, full in the knowledge of the misery it will inflict on ordinary people, is it any wonder that people are realising enough is enough? The rich get richer and the poor are expected to put up with choosing to eat, feed their children or heat their homes. And expected to have their homes repossessed because a narrow section of financiers impose financial immiseration on the many.

If you really can’t understand that then there is little to be gained from further dialogue.

 

[Bob McC]

Top post

 

[legzr1]

Bet you didn’t turn down the pay rises won by the unions negotiators did you?

I’ve met quite a few chaps over the years who have enjoyed: minimum wage, living wage, maternity and paternity pay,pensions,holiday and sickness benefits, safer working conditions, health benefits, help when retired or injured, weekends free from work, equal pay and opportunities, flexible working and no fear of dismissal simply for being ill.

No help whatsoever from ‘unions’ though. Stuck in the 70s that lot. Out for themselves…

It’s difficult to make the blind see.

 

[ks.234]

I’ve met quite a few chaps over the years who have enjoyed: minimum wage, living wage, maternity and paternity pay,pensions,holiday and sickness benefits, safer working conditions, health benefits, help when retired or injured, weekends free from work, equal pay and opportunities, flexible working and no fear of dismissal simply for being ill.

No help whatsoever from ‘unions’ though. Stuck in the 70s that lot. Out for themselves…

It’s difficult to make the blind see.

The only reason anyone enjoys your list of benefits is unions.

 

[legzr1]

The only reason anyone enjoys your list of benefits is unions.

Yes.

Perhaps my sarcasm was a little too subtle

 

[ks.234]

Yes.

Perhaps my sarcasm was a little too subtle

Apologies, I do sometimes struggle with sarcasm

 

[palindrome]

Apologies, I do sometimes struggle with sarcasm

Count me in on this one as well. There also have been times when I've assumed sarcasm when probably none was intended, and decided to delete the post I was going to make because dunno. . . Mebbe one day I'll be savvy enough to grok the many and varied subtleties certain fishes enjoy deploying.

(No criticism intended here, btw.)

John

(And apologies for the thread crap.)

 

[Mike Reed]

But leaving that to one side, you seem to be arguing that the appropriate thing to do if you don’t like your employer’s terms is to seek another employer.
I’m curious how that works for a train driver?

Or stay put? People change careers frequently, and at north of £50K I'd think seriously if I were a train driver. Even then, I'd wait until I get to my destination.

Oh come on. Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg, Dominic Raab, Matt Hancock, Liz Truss, Nadine Dorries- merit!!! A caustic mix of Etonian privilege, brown nosing and a huge dollop of psychopathy.

You seem to be very class biased, if that's what it is. I've never been envious of wealth or upbringing and have only striven to be comfortable by working hard and saving hard. Wonder if you include all those wealthy entrepreneurs who've made a fortune without, and even despite poor education and upbringing in your 'upper class'. I simply don't share your 'class' bias; nor really understand it unless it's simply what is called the politics of envy.

Equality was never a part of history, nor ever will be; social disparity, for whatever reason, should simply be recognised and ameliorated where necessary but not to the detriment of others. I, like others I'm sure, have little faith in some politicians, whatever party they belong to, and as I get older, that seems to increase (esp. with this lot!). However, I'd hate to govern so someone's got to do it. I believe strikes like the current ones to be anachronisms which should've been consigned to history with the increased workplace legislation enacted in the interim.

Wether you agree with Mike or not I like the way he replies and bats off everybody individually ! This man could play cricket for England

Thanks, but though I try to play a straight bat I'd be useless on the pitch !

Bet you didn’t turn down the pay rises won by the unions' negotiators did you?

Funny you should say that, Bob, as part of the coercion experienced in my first teaching post was just that argument. Should I have felt guilty for receiving a union negotiated pay rise? Not that can remember any (though scale and promotion rises were nice)? Sorry, but I just accepted the status quo in any job and budgeted accordingly.

If you really can’t understand

I think I understand very well, but with a different perspective based upon a working life of 64 years; nor, I may add, a perspective cast in stone. Each to his own.


Sorry for the delay in acknowledging the above comments, but a Zeon kindly says, I do try to express my opinion without thrusting it down someone's throat, and am unlikely to become a class warrior at my age. I have nothing against unions (which some think I have); I've simply not wished to belong, esp. to a militant one. I do have feelings about the timing, unilateral gratification and likely consequences of the current strikes in the dangerous global and economic period we currently live in, though.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I suspect, Mike, you don't have a proper appreciation of the changes which are being proposed by the TOCs, which have driven these strikes. If you just casually scan the media, it would be easy to suppose this is just about pay rises driven by inflation pressures and the like. In reality, certainly for the RMT membership but also (IIUC) ASLEF too in large part, this is about the imposition of working terms and conditions that most of us would find intolerable. I can't blame anybody who wishes to protest at an employer seeking to force changes on them that will only erode their quality of life, and family life. This is not about 'productivity', it's about exploitation.

 

[legzr1]

I suspect, Mike, you don't have a proper appreciation of the changes which are being proposed by the TOCs, which have driven these strikes. If you just casually scan the media, it would be easy to suppose this is just about pay rises driven by inflation pressures and the like. In reality, certainly for the RMT membership but also (IIUC) ASLEF too in large part, this is about the imposition of working terms and conditions that most of us would find intolerable. I can't blame anybody who wishes to protest at an employer seeking to force changes on them that will only erode their quality of life, and family life. This is not about 'productivity', it's about exploitation.

Great post.

The ‘timing’ of this action was mentioned by Mike Reed.

It’s worth pointing out which side provoked this action. Which side chose the timing. Which side set up the dominoes and chose when to to topple them.

RMT maintenance staff face the real prospect of compulsory redundancy at the same time as being begged to work overtime to cover gaps in the roster.
Those that survive the cull will be paid less for more hours which will become even more antisocial.
Ministers on £120K ask MPs on £86K to attack the ‘greedy bastards’ on £27K.

The phrase ‘need to modernise’ is often thrown around.
It’s laughable when you’re made aware of what this modernisation actually represents - a return to Victorian values, the premise that one should be thankful for the employment and if you don’t like it just F right Off.

This has very, very little to do with wages. Little to do with a demand for more. It is a direct result of a planned attack on a Union.

The game is obvious and has been from the start. Introduce confusion for the masses, employ a client media to create headlines such as ‘train drivers on £100K on strike AGAIN’ , deliberately missing the point that it wasn’t train drivers and it wasn’t their union.


That is progress under this current Government.

There will be more action from more unions and more sectors/industries.

 

[Mike Reed]

I suspect, Mike, you don't have a proper appreciation of the changes which are being proposed by the TOCs, which have driven these strikes.

You are correct, Sue; I don't. I just know what I hear and read, coupled with historical notes of past disputes, outcomes etc. Only managed to catch the final half-hour of last evening's 'Winter of Discontent' show on Ch. 5. Even though I was a house owner and was in year 4 of my teaching career, I simply don't remember that anarchic chaos; nor the long period it lasted (6+ months).

It just seems to me that the unions are striking for pecuniary reasons, not to complain about forced working schedules (which I believe they have flatly refused to entertain within negotiations). Same situation with Royal Mail, I believe, where they wish to bring in more efficiency and flexibility to adapt to their increasing role as couriers. If, as you imply, 'modernisation' would impoverish workers both financially and in exercising their duties there's a possible case but I think that the unions are outlawing redundancies. How come, if so? If there's no job, why is there an employee?

I remember, a few years back, a guards' dispute which seemed to involve the unions citing safety for non compliance. Is it the unions or the companies who bear responsibility for running a company, including its safety provisions?

 

[Cav]

Is it the unions or the companies who bear responsibility for running a company, including its safety provisions?

I really sick and tired of people whose opinions are based only on what the Daily Mail says.

You declare, with some pride it seems to me, that you know little about Trades Union. You are correct - you don't have a clue - but what is worse you show no indication that you want to learn. Wilful ignorance is not something to be proud of and I will waste no more of my time on the drivel you write.

 

[legzr1]

It just seems to me that the unions are striking for pecuniary reasons, not to complain about forced working schedules (which I believe they have flatly refused to entertain within negotiations).

You say that having read the posts myself and others have added detailing the real reasons for the months of RMT action?

On at least three separate occasions that I’m aware of, RMT lead by M Lynch have come to an agreement with TOCs and NR management which included the loss of some roles, voluntary redundancy, movement of redundant staff into vacant positions with required re-training, changes to existing T&Cs and a pay deal both sides were happy with.

Sensible compromise with both parties taking account of the fact we’re no longer living in the 70s and aware of the current financial state of this country.

Then,in walks the latest Tory minister and rips everything up. Interferes and makes a mockery of weeks and months of negotiations followed by days and weeks of press releases stating a minister cannot interfere with negotiations.

There is lots I could add to this post.
I could get emotional and start ranting, losing my temper at those who cannot or will not see the other side.
But that serves no purpose.

Simply, I ask you to do a little research. Don’t take the Mail or TOC CEOs words as gospel. Do a little homework. Os that too much to ask?
RMT in 2022 is a far cry from NUT in 19-whatever.

You could do worse than listen to M Lynch when describing this dispute, the why’s and when’s.
He was dismissed as a 70s dinosaur two years ago.
Recently, he’s ripped apart every piss-poor Tory backbencher sent to ‘sort him out’, made this government look the fools they are and has had millions of us LOL with the way he’s dealt with certain ‘journalists’.

How has he managed that?
Straight talking, truth and intelligence backed with decades of experience.

Some just can’t deal with that.

 

[Bob McC]

“RMT in 2022 is a far cry from NUT in 19-whatever.”

what happened to solidarity comrade?

I was a grateful member of the NUT from 1974 until the day I retired.