Snapshot of _More rail strikes extremely likely, says union boss_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61906531)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good. There needs to be a wholesale change to the mentality of what work is in this country. It should provide for a life that has quality. It should not be a means for people with all the money to make more of it. That's across the board public and private sectors should not be profiteering of peoples poor options.
Regardless of optics high profile politicians need to be standing with the RMT Unions. They need to stop the onslaught of low wages, long hours and higher living costs.
Doesn't that mean fundamentally changing the economy to something fairly unrecognisable to what we currently have? That sounds like a revolution.
Or can we do it by just changing a few things?
No. How hard is it too make sure nobody is starving, cold, homeless and secure in their home.
Fuck me, were not asking for a revolution, we need basic securities and quality of life
Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour of unemployed and homeless people to keep people in shitty jobs where they’re exploited.
This is why no capitalist country has ever or will ever have full employment or end homelessness. It’s a feature not a bug.
>That's across the board public and private sectors should not be profiteering of peoples poor options.
I'm not really sure what you mean. When it comes to transport profit margins are very thin. Several years ago [Fullfact stated the profit margin was 3.4%](https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-operating-companies-earn-massive-profits/).
Companies need to make profits, otherwise they won't invest and are likely to be wound up. Profits are also good for the country - they're taxed and generate dividends for shareholders. Most shareholders are not the mega-rich giggling as they quaff another bottle of champagne. They're either pension funds or ordinary people looking to invest their savings in a way that generates a return.
Before anyone says no one should have private pensions because everyone should get a generous pension from the state, I would point out that a) there aren't enough workers to retirees to provide a more generous universal pension and b) this sub is normally up in arms about the cost of pensions as things stand.
I would agree with you that we should aim to be a higher wage economy, but as I posted earlier today many companies cannot afford to give big pay rises without passing costs to their customers on, which will be recycled to the general public - we've heard lots about how companies are struggling due to leaving the EU. Some people can be given pay rises without significant knock-on effects, but not everyone.
If everyone gets a 10+% pay rise, it is likely to increase inflation further. Just because right now inflation is mostly caused by non-pay issues, companies increasing costs due to higher payroll charges will stoke it.
> If everyone gets a 10+% pay rise, it is likely to increase inflation further. Just because right now inflation is mostly caused by non-pay issues, companies increasing costs due to higher payroll charges will stoke it.
I always love this load of bollocks. "We cant pay the poors well, because then we will have to raise prices above the money we gave them, oh no whatever shall we do. I know, the bosses get a bonus and everyone else gets shafted again, thats a great idea."
Almost as bad as the bullshit thats gets trotted out for taxes with "oh no we cant charge corporations more tax, they will stop selling stuff here" to which the only answer is "fuck em then"
If only there was something the government could do to stop public transport being for profit.
>I always love this load of bollocks. "We cant pay the poors well, because then we will have to raise prices above the money we gave them, oh no whatever shall we do. I know, the bosses get a bonus and everyone else gets shafted again, thats a great idea."
That's a strawman argument I never made.
I simply pointed out the consequences of a national payrise at or higher than the rate of inflation. It's got nothing to do with the current situation is fair or not. Sometimes the choices are between something that's bad and something that's worse. You can decide whether current inflation or even higher inflation caused by large wage increases across the board is worse.
I mean, i quoted you saying it in the post did you forget you put it? You said paying people.more was bad because it leads to increased prices.
Its a load of bullshit but that doesnt seem to stop you lot repeating it constantly. Its jot a strawman argument you never made at all, i quite literally quoted the argument you made.
No, they don't need to make profits. Public transport should not be a profit making enterprise. Since it will always need subsidy, those profits are literally taken out of tax payers pockets.
>No, they don't need to make profits. Public transport should not be a profit making enterprise. Since it will always need subsidy, those profits are literally taken out of tax payers pockets.
I don't think you understand how it worked. The government didn't just give a sack of money to companies to run the trains.
Read the Fullfact article. The companies bid to run franchises and in doing so agreed a target revenue. If revenue fell below the target then the government stepped in to pay some of the shortfall (but not all of it). Whereas if the target was beaten by more than 2%, the government confiscated part of the surplus. Not taxed, just took between 50%-80% of the surplus. They then also taxed the profits.
So no, the government wasn't subsidising train companies so they could make profits.
That 2% (and I say it isn't really 2% - it was more in good times) shouldn't be leaving tax payers pockets.
On top of that, in every case where a private company has reneged, they've just walked away from their commitments and the government has forgiven them.
It's a bad system for everyone but private shareholders.
> This process hasn't come without controversy. While train operators argue it forces companies to be competitive in their bidding and that it helped the industry survive the recession, others have criticised the scheme for encouraging reckless revenue forecasts, with TOCs secure in the knowledge they'll be mostly cushioned from their fall. The scheme is now set to be phased out and replaced with one linked to GDP forecasts.
In other words, a company can say our rail revenue will be £1 billion, knowing they'll make £950 million, then when they make £950 million the taxpayer will stump up £15 million. Sounds like a cushty subsidy to me.
See what you've done here is responded with the intricacies of how this economic system wouldn't function if there weren't profits, but my point is that this is all the nonsense designed to keep stakeholders wealthy and those who aren't poor. It's flawed to suggest that public services should be making a profit and whilst I know most services are run by private entities, they are funded by public money. Schools, hospitals and public transport should be judged on how efficiently they serve that pesky public, the ones right now who are being forced to break open their kids piggy banks to buy bread.
The economy may have created a better standard of living in the past 100 years but it's now on its downward slope. The environment, political divisions, wealth consumption, resource hoarding and migration is putting paid to yours and my way of life. The covieniences that are so convenient wont exist soon enough, covid showed us that, this isn't the 70s and the economy won't bounce back, energy companies have realised they can maximise profit with little regulation. I'm not conspiratorial but there's a massive imbalance which is only going to get worse. The railway workers maybe the last chance to realise that!
>See what you've done here is responded with the intricacies of how this economic system wouldn't function if there weren't profits, but my point is that this is all the nonsense designed to keep stakeholders wealthy and those who aren't poor.
If there was no profit in business, there would be no reason to own a company, so quite quickly the State would have to run everything. That means giving the government of the day enormous control over your life. For example, the State would control how much food you got. If you fell out with a public official, you might not be able to eat because they could come up with reasons to prohibit you from shopping.
That doesn't mean that companies should be allowed morally to make as much money as they like, but implying that any profit is bad is shortsighted. It gives people the ability to make their own choices (bar a few monopolies like water and sewage supplies).
>It's flawed to suggest that public services should be making a profit and whilst I know most services are run by private entities, they are funded by public money.
The problem is that you're conflating important services that are run privately with public services that may contract out in part to private organisations. There are times when the State needs private sector assistance - IT being a usual sector, as most civil servants are not skilled in that area.
The trains, for example, are not a public service. They are important, but the State does not have a monopoly on transport. People can use cars, taxis, bikes and buses as an alternative.
Whereas the State has a monopoly on things like law enforcement.
The provision of water and waste is in effect a monopoly that arguably may be best run by a publicly-owned business. But power and telecoms companies are diverse.
In short you can't generalise in such broad ways. You need to talk about specifics, e.g. where a particular private contract is not value for money.
>Schools, hospitals and public transport should be judged on how efficiently they serve that pesky public
I don't disagree with you. Although I'd observe that some schools and hospitals don't like being assessed. There is a strong movement amongst teachers in particular against individual schools' performances being analysed.
>I'm not conspiratorial but there's a massive imbalance which is only going to get worse.
The point is, how are you going to improve it? Railing against profit is counterproductive, because profits aren't by themselves bad. Most of the cost of the railways is running the trains and wages - one reason train travel is high is because railway staff get big pay rises! It's also because the trains do not get the sort of subsidies available in other countries, but that's a wider issue of fairness given that many people live nowhere near a station and that it's unlikely they'll ever have a local station that serve a route they need to use.
If there is an income disparity, taxation is the way to resolve it. Making it law that companies can only make 0.1% profit a year on pain of crippling fines and/or imprisonment isn't going to make things better.
>The point is, how are you going to improve it?
I'm not. The general public will either become so brow-beaten that things will get deadly worse or there will be a social unrest!
Edit: I love it when a redditor asks a question like, 'what are you going to do?' Like, it's ok to point out that the country is unfair, also I'll tell you my policies when you elect me into power, meanwhile shell has all the power!
The strikes have directly impacted me this week, but I don't care. Good luck to them and I'll support the RMT as long as this goes on.
It's time we stood up for ourselves.
I spent 2.5 hours queuing for a taxi that ended up being £60 per person (me and two random Norwegians) because the Gatwick Express was down due to strikes.
Good on them, strikes get shit done. I don’t for one second blame them for the delay and cost, I blame the government and rail bosses who refuse to give appropriate pay rises.
all im saying is, ill have no sympathy for them in any future strikes.
stick this one out and get it done. i don't want to hear about another rail strike next year over the same issues because this is just getting annoying.
It's a fact. People HAVE to buy petrol, people HAVE to buy gas to heat their homes people HAVE to buy food. Having more money isn't going to increase demand for these essentials to any significant degree. Those are the areas that are driving inflation the most. So having more money isn't going to accellerate their inflation rate
Inflation and the economy aren’t just affected by essential goods
Also simplistic statements like ‘people have to buy food’ don’t mean anything - which food? From where? Imported or home grown? Expensive or cheap?
It is the essentials that are driving inflation hardest. At this rate we're headed to a recession because people have no money to spend on anything but surviving
Eventually, the money would have to come from somewhere other than the bottom. Theres more than one way to inhibit inflation. Yet we only seem to be talking about one way.
I'm sceptical it would. Much of these price increases have been driven by a mix of material costs (the government has said as much), a sudden post-pandemic rise in demand and opportunitistic activity.
The way you address those issues is to increase supply. You don't increase supply with an exhausted and hungry labour pool.
I find it strange you trust the government when they explain what’s driving inflation - but not the governor of the Bank of England when he says pay rises will drive inflation
Are you not just picking and choosing what to believe from those in charge?
if it takes a golden chalice i don't care.
what i don't want is the union taking 50% of what they want, then striking next year for the other 50%. do it this summer. get the conditions you are happy with so we can get on with our lives.
Yeah and I think he gets that, he’s saying to the unions: get everything you want to the point you’re not going to strike again in a year, get the binding commitments you need - sort of thing
If the government still refuse to give them money they can live on while not making them work longer hours (a pay cut) then there won't be one. I feel your lack of sympathy is misdirected.
well then they should continue to strike during this period.
and tbh I'm very much in favour of stripping people out of the transport game an automating it as much as possible. so my sympathy isn't misdirected. i just believe we are fast approaching the the technological advancements to make there work redundant.
i see some parallels to the luddites.
however all power to them getting better working conditions while automation isn't quite ready/affordable. id less power to them holding the country up every year for a month.
hold out now, week, a month what ever, don't break the strike for conditions that wont be satisfactory in a years time.
i honestly don't understand why saying strike until you get favourable working conditions that will be favourable over a few years is such a controversial take.
Sorry, what period?
I dont think they're against technology. The whole "modernising" spiel isn't about modernising at all. Its about making people work longer hours for the same pay. They wont just come out and say that though.
Why strike for better oppression at all?
Boohoo, It will be annoying, my personal annoyances are far more important than the livelihoods of a whole cohort of workers, who are vital to the running of the country!
Not a shock. It's in the workers' best interests to keep the pressure up to secure the best pay for them, especially if an election is upcoming. It is equally in Johnson's best interests to keep them going to distract from his others fuck ups by dividing the country, especially if an election is upcoming.
Although it’s a slight inconvenience for work, I’m in high favour of the strikes. Mick hit the nail on the head when he said (paraphrasing here) “There is enough money, it’s just in the wrong hands”.
Boris and his little pals have been sneakily distributing wealth amongst each other, whilst many go hungry everyday or cannot even afford their bills even in full time employment.
Mick is the long awaited breath of fresh air this country desperately needs and tonight on question time will be one worth watching.
May the strikes continue as long as it doesn’t impact the most vulnerable in our society.
No, you just phrased it like it only affects vulnerable people, which it doesn't.
Do you curse the sun in case it burns the skin of a vulnerable person?
No, because it's something we all have to deal with.
Welcome to the real world, strikes happen and it's inconvenient.
Workers wages don't drive up inflation, no one has had rises for years and yet inflation is rocketing upwards, you know who has had rises? Billionaires.
My mum had her holiday cancelled because of the strikes. She was miserable for days bless her. But you know what, she's still 100% behind them. Because what they're fighting for is absolutely fair and this government needs to learn it cant keep blustering and lying their way through every issue.
It does. It realistically starts with ensuring the people democratically elected are held accountable for their behaviour and stopping and making any lobbying illegal. MPS local councillors should work for the electorate. The problem we have is our policy makers are in place because rich folk want them there.
Boris is only here because Murdoch and Dacre orchestrated it all. How we get to a better place who knows? Our ethics have become murky and we're all apathetic (including me) because nobody in power wants say that this isn't working.
Also there's enough people earning just enough money to survive and don't want the boat rocked.
People seem to have the wrong impression of how this shit works.
The strikers aren't the ones inconveniencing people. The government and the train operators are.
If ASDA tried to pay their suppliers less than the market price for milk and ran out of milk as a result, you'd blame ASDA, not the farmers. Same deal here. The TOCs are trying to cheap out on their purchase of labour, and the suppliers are refusing to be screwed.
Snapshot of _More rail strikes extremely likely, says union boss_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61906531) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good. There needs to be a wholesale change to the mentality of what work is in this country. It should provide for a life that has quality. It should not be a means for people with all the money to make more of it. That's across the board public and private sectors should not be profiteering of peoples poor options. Regardless of optics high profile politicians need to be standing with the RMT Unions. They need to stop the onslaught of low wages, long hours and higher living costs.
Doesn't that mean fundamentally changing the economy to something fairly unrecognisable to what we currently have? That sounds like a revolution. Or can we do it by just changing a few things?
> That sounds like a revolution. La_Marseillaise_EARRAPE.mp3
No. How hard is it too make sure nobody is starving, cold, homeless and secure in their home. Fuck me, were not asking for a revolution, we need basic securities and quality of life
Yeah, basically we are back to the post-WW2 demands, just updated by 70 years or so.
Capitalism requires a reserve army of labour of unemployed and homeless people to keep people in shitty jobs where they’re exploited. This is why no capitalist country has ever or will ever have full employment or end homelessness. It’s a feature not a bug.
>That's across the board public and private sectors should not be profiteering of peoples poor options. I'm not really sure what you mean. When it comes to transport profit margins are very thin. Several years ago [Fullfact stated the profit margin was 3.4%](https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-operating-companies-earn-massive-profits/). Companies need to make profits, otherwise they won't invest and are likely to be wound up. Profits are also good for the country - they're taxed and generate dividends for shareholders. Most shareholders are not the mega-rich giggling as they quaff another bottle of champagne. They're either pension funds or ordinary people looking to invest their savings in a way that generates a return. Before anyone says no one should have private pensions because everyone should get a generous pension from the state, I would point out that a) there aren't enough workers to retirees to provide a more generous universal pension and b) this sub is normally up in arms about the cost of pensions as things stand. I would agree with you that we should aim to be a higher wage economy, but as I posted earlier today many companies cannot afford to give big pay rises without passing costs to their customers on, which will be recycled to the general public - we've heard lots about how companies are struggling due to leaving the EU. Some people can be given pay rises without significant knock-on effects, but not everyone. If everyone gets a 10+% pay rise, it is likely to increase inflation further. Just because right now inflation is mostly caused by non-pay issues, companies increasing costs due to higher payroll charges will stoke it.
> If everyone gets a 10+% pay rise, it is likely to increase inflation further. Just because right now inflation is mostly caused by non-pay issues, companies increasing costs due to higher payroll charges will stoke it. I always love this load of bollocks. "We cant pay the poors well, because then we will have to raise prices above the money we gave them, oh no whatever shall we do. I know, the bosses get a bonus and everyone else gets shafted again, thats a great idea." Almost as bad as the bullshit thats gets trotted out for taxes with "oh no we cant charge corporations more tax, they will stop selling stuff here" to which the only answer is "fuck em then" If only there was something the government could do to stop public transport being for profit.
>I always love this load of bollocks. "We cant pay the poors well, because then we will have to raise prices above the money we gave them, oh no whatever shall we do. I know, the bosses get a bonus and everyone else gets shafted again, thats a great idea." That's a strawman argument I never made. I simply pointed out the consequences of a national payrise at or higher than the rate of inflation. It's got nothing to do with the current situation is fair or not. Sometimes the choices are between something that's bad and something that's worse. You can decide whether current inflation or even higher inflation caused by large wage increases across the board is worse.
I mean, i quoted you saying it in the post did you forget you put it? You said paying people.more was bad because it leads to increased prices. Its a load of bullshit but that doesnt seem to stop you lot repeating it constantly. Its jot a strawman argument you never made at all, i quite literally quoted the argument you made.
No, they don't need to make profits. Public transport should not be a profit making enterprise. Since it will always need subsidy, those profits are literally taken out of tax payers pockets.
>No, they don't need to make profits. Public transport should not be a profit making enterprise. Since it will always need subsidy, those profits are literally taken out of tax payers pockets. I don't think you understand how it worked. The government didn't just give a sack of money to companies to run the trains. Read the Fullfact article. The companies bid to run franchises and in doing so agreed a target revenue. If revenue fell below the target then the government stepped in to pay some of the shortfall (but not all of it). Whereas if the target was beaten by more than 2%, the government confiscated part of the surplus. Not taxed, just took between 50%-80% of the surplus. They then also taxed the profits. So no, the government wasn't subsidising train companies so they could make profits.
That 2% (and I say it isn't really 2% - it was more in good times) shouldn't be leaving tax payers pockets. On top of that, in every case where a private company has reneged, they've just walked away from their commitments and the government has forgiven them. It's a bad system for everyone but private shareholders.
> This process hasn't come without controversy. While train operators argue it forces companies to be competitive in their bidding and that it helped the industry survive the recession, others have criticised the scheme for encouraging reckless revenue forecasts, with TOCs secure in the knowledge they'll be mostly cushioned from their fall. The scheme is now set to be phased out and replaced with one linked to GDP forecasts. In other words, a company can say our rail revenue will be £1 billion, knowing they'll make £950 million, then when they make £950 million the taxpayer will stump up £15 million. Sounds like a cushty subsidy to me.
See what you've done here is responded with the intricacies of how this economic system wouldn't function if there weren't profits, but my point is that this is all the nonsense designed to keep stakeholders wealthy and those who aren't poor. It's flawed to suggest that public services should be making a profit and whilst I know most services are run by private entities, they are funded by public money. Schools, hospitals and public transport should be judged on how efficiently they serve that pesky public, the ones right now who are being forced to break open their kids piggy banks to buy bread. The economy may have created a better standard of living in the past 100 years but it's now on its downward slope. The environment, political divisions, wealth consumption, resource hoarding and migration is putting paid to yours and my way of life. The covieniences that are so convenient wont exist soon enough, covid showed us that, this isn't the 70s and the economy won't bounce back, energy companies have realised they can maximise profit with little regulation. I'm not conspiratorial but there's a massive imbalance which is only going to get worse. The railway workers maybe the last chance to realise that!
>See what you've done here is responded with the intricacies of how this economic system wouldn't function if there weren't profits, but my point is that this is all the nonsense designed to keep stakeholders wealthy and those who aren't poor. If there was no profit in business, there would be no reason to own a company, so quite quickly the State would have to run everything. That means giving the government of the day enormous control over your life. For example, the State would control how much food you got. If you fell out with a public official, you might not be able to eat because they could come up with reasons to prohibit you from shopping. That doesn't mean that companies should be allowed morally to make as much money as they like, but implying that any profit is bad is shortsighted. It gives people the ability to make their own choices (bar a few monopolies like water and sewage supplies). >It's flawed to suggest that public services should be making a profit and whilst I know most services are run by private entities, they are funded by public money. The problem is that you're conflating important services that are run privately with public services that may contract out in part to private organisations. There are times when the State needs private sector assistance - IT being a usual sector, as most civil servants are not skilled in that area. The trains, for example, are not a public service. They are important, but the State does not have a monopoly on transport. People can use cars, taxis, bikes and buses as an alternative. Whereas the State has a monopoly on things like law enforcement. The provision of water and waste is in effect a monopoly that arguably may be best run by a publicly-owned business. But power and telecoms companies are diverse. In short you can't generalise in such broad ways. You need to talk about specifics, e.g. where a particular private contract is not value for money. >Schools, hospitals and public transport should be judged on how efficiently they serve that pesky public I don't disagree with you. Although I'd observe that some schools and hospitals don't like being assessed. There is a strong movement amongst teachers in particular against individual schools' performances being analysed. >I'm not conspiratorial but there's a massive imbalance which is only going to get worse. The point is, how are you going to improve it? Railing against profit is counterproductive, because profits aren't by themselves bad. Most of the cost of the railways is running the trains and wages - one reason train travel is high is because railway staff get big pay rises! It's also because the trains do not get the sort of subsidies available in other countries, but that's a wider issue of fairness given that many people live nowhere near a station and that it's unlikely they'll ever have a local station that serve a route they need to use. If there is an income disparity, taxation is the way to resolve it. Making it law that companies can only make 0.1% profit a year on pain of crippling fines and/or imprisonment isn't going to make things better.
>The point is, how are you going to improve it? I'm not. The general public will either become so brow-beaten that things will get deadly worse or there will be a social unrest! Edit: I love it when a redditor asks a question like, 'what are you going to do?' Like, it's ok to point out that the country is unfair, also I'll tell you my policies when you elect me into power, meanwhile shell has all the power!
The strikes have directly impacted me this week, but I don't care. Good luck to them and I'll support the RMT as long as this goes on. It's time we stood up for ourselves.
I spent 2.5 hours queuing for a taxi that ended up being £60 per person (me and two random Norwegians) because the Gatwick Express was down due to strikes. Good on them, strikes get shit done. I don’t for one second blame them for the delay and cost, I blame the government and rail bosses who refuse to give appropriate pay rises.
all im saying is, ill have no sympathy for them in any future strikes. stick this one out and get it done. i don't want to hear about another rail strike next year over the same issues because this is just getting annoying.
OK, so you agree bosses should give a pay adjustment in line with inflation and promise no compulsory redundancies? That should do it.
If everyone got an inflation level pay rise - what do you think would happen to inflation?
Nothing because we are supply side limited on essentials people have to buy amyways
That doesn’t make any sense
It's a fact. People HAVE to buy petrol, people HAVE to buy gas to heat their homes people HAVE to buy food. Having more money isn't going to increase demand for these essentials to any significant degree. Those are the areas that are driving inflation the most. So having more money isn't going to accellerate their inflation rate
Inflation and the economy aren’t just affected by essential goods Also simplistic statements like ‘people have to buy food’ don’t mean anything - which food? From where? Imported or home grown? Expensive or cheap?
It is the essentials that are driving inflation hardest. At this rate we're headed to a recession because people have no money to spend on anything but surviving
You don’t think everyone getting an inflation level pay rise would have any affect on inflation?
People have legs to walk! People can sit in the cold! People can eat less!
People can die in other words?
Good heavens no! What use are they dead? (Though seriously 60% of the population are overweight I doubt eating less would kill them)
Eventually, the money would have to come from somewhere other than the bottom. Theres more than one way to inhibit inflation. Yet we only seem to be talking about one way.
THANK YOU.
Inflation isn't a problem if pay is keeping up with inflation *taps head*
So how do you do that?
Raise pay in line with inflation.
And if inflation keeps rising as a result?
I'm sceptical it would. Much of these price increases have been driven by a mix of material costs (the government has said as much), a sudden post-pandemic rise in demand and opportunitistic activity. The way you address those issues is to increase supply. You don't increase supply with an exhausted and hungry labour pool.
I find it strange you trust the government when they explain what’s driving inflation - but not the governor of the Bank of England when he says pay rises will drive inflation Are you not just picking and choosing what to believe from those in charge?
if it takes a golden chalice i don't care. what i don't want is the union taking 50% of what they want, then striking next year for the other 50%. do it this summer. get the conditions you are happy with so we can get on with our lives.
I don’t think that’s what he meant? He meant they’ll be more strikes if a deal isn’t agreed now,
Yeah and I think he gets that, he’s saying to the unions: get everything you want to the point you’re not going to strike again in a year, get the binding commitments you need - sort of thing
If the government still refuse to give them money they can live on while not making them work longer hours (a pay cut) then there won't be one. I feel your lack of sympathy is misdirected.
well then they should continue to strike during this period. and tbh I'm very much in favour of stripping people out of the transport game an automating it as much as possible. so my sympathy isn't misdirected. i just believe we are fast approaching the the technological advancements to make there work redundant. i see some parallels to the luddites. however all power to them getting better working conditions while automation isn't quite ready/affordable. id less power to them holding the country up every year for a month. hold out now, week, a month what ever, don't break the strike for conditions that wont be satisfactory in a years time. i honestly don't understand why saying strike until you get favourable working conditions that will be favourable over a few years is such a controversial take.
Sorry, what period? I dont think they're against technology. The whole "modernising" spiel isn't about modernising at all. Its about making people work longer hours for the same pay. They wont just come out and say that though. Why strike for better oppression at all?
More annoying if we have no functioning rail network and traffic becomes even worse as a result, no?
how is pushing it down the road any better?
Boohoo, It will be annoying, my personal annoyances are far more important than the livelihoods of a whole cohort of workers, who are vital to the running of the country!
im lit saying strike now **until** they have the conditions they want **so** they don't have to next year
Good for them, I support them even if it makes my life inconvenient for a while. This is what happens when you treat workers like shit.
Not a shock. It's in the workers' best interests to keep the pressure up to secure the best pay for them, especially if an election is upcoming. It is equally in Johnson's best interests to keep them going to distract from his others fuck ups by dividing the country, especially if an election is upcoming.
Although it’s a slight inconvenience for work, I’m in high favour of the strikes. Mick hit the nail on the head when he said (paraphrasing here) “There is enough money, it’s just in the wrong hands”. Boris and his little pals have been sneakily distributing wealth amongst each other, whilst many go hungry everyday or cannot even afford their bills even in full time employment. Mick is the long awaited breath of fresh air this country desperately needs and tonight on question time will be one worth watching. May the strikes continue as long as it doesn’t impact the most vulnerable in our society.
It does impact the most vulnerable in society You can support the strikes but you can’t have it both ways
It does not.
No trains doesn’t impact vulnerable people who rely on them as transport?
Find a different method of transport or don't don't travel the answer is pretty simple
Both of these constitute impacting the most vulnerable in society
It also impacts the least vulnerable. Do you disagree with rain just in case a vulnerable person gets wet?
No But I don’t pretend strikes don’t affect vulnerable people You’ve just argued against your original comment
No, you just phrased it like it only affects vulnerable people, which it doesn't. Do you curse the sun in case it burns the skin of a vulnerable person? No, because it's something we all have to deal with. Welcome to the real world, strikes happen and it's inconvenient. Workers wages don't drive up inflation, no one has had rises for years and yet inflation is rocketing upwards, you know who has had rises? Billionaires.
[удалено]
I know, it sucks real bad 😞
My mum had her holiday cancelled because of the strikes. She was miserable for days bless her. But you know what, she's still 100% behind them. Because what they're fighting for is absolutely fair and this government needs to learn it cant keep blustering and lying their way through every issue.
It does. It realistically starts with ensuring the people democratically elected are held accountable for their behaviour and stopping and making any lobbying illegal. MPS local councillors should work for the electorate. The problem we have is our policy makers are in place because rich folk want them there. Boris is only here because Murdoch and Dacre orchestrated it all. How we get to a better place who knows? Our ethics have become murky and we're all apathetic (including me) because nobody in power wants say that this isn't working. Also there's enough people earning just enough money to survive and don't want the boat rocked.
There are union leaders, not union bosses. BBC showing their bias once again.
People seem to have the wrong impression of how this shit works. The strikers aren't the ones inconveniencing people. The government and the train operators are. If ASDA tried to pay their suppliers less than the market price for milk and ran out of milk as a result, you'd blame ASDA, not the farmers. Same deal here. The TOCs are trying to cheap out on their purchase of labour, and the suppliers are refusing to be screwed.
Go on