The Right to Strike?

Incredible levels of ignorance on here.

As @Bigrod pointed out, private sector strikes are currently running at many times the usual rate. So it's not just the public sector workers who have had enough of seeing their wages eroded for over a decade while company execs and shareholders get increased rewards and property owners, developers and landlords see their returns consistently outstripping wages. Why is it only wages that are seen as 'unaffordable' and ''inflationary'? And why is capital gains tax on unearned income lower than that paid by workers in income tax?

But, quite apart from the strikes, private sector companies are consistently awarding pay increases to their workers at two or even three times the rates being offered to those in essential public-facing services. Decent settlements have been made to (eg) Liverpool dockers, cardboard packaging industry workers, G4 cash services, transport and refuse companies, etc, etc. BT have recently settled a wage dispute with a 10% pay award. If the nurses, ambulance drivers, posties, rail staff, border guards, firefighters etc, were getting the same wage settlements as the current average private sector settlement' then there would be no strikes in essential services.

The wave of strikes in public services is what happens when an incompetent government mismanages the economy for twelve years and forces ordinary employees to bear the brunt while allowing the already wealthy to get richer.

 

The private sector strikes generally come from an increase in their companies earning capabilities and the workers wanting a part of that - similar to the RMT to a degree - and that is an easier argument to make.

The issue with people like NHS workers, border guards, firefighters, etc, etc is that they're pushing for a pay increase without there being a corresponding increase in funds available to the people that pay them while the industries are already short staffed and the unions are uninterested in reforms - understandably given than they are only interested in the interests of their members rather than benefitting wider society,

 

I have no evidence to back this up without looking, but in my current experience pay increases in SMEs are nothing like the public companies you quote.

 

I can't account for your experience. But these figures speak for themselves. As I said, private sector pay deals have consistently been 2 to 3 times that of the public sector over the past year. In fact, the disparity is worse than I thought - it's nearly 3.5X over the past year.

 

It's up to governments to find the money from somewhere. That's why we need a more progressive tax system so that those who can afford it contribute more to the maintenance of our essential services - which includes paying those who work in them a decent remuneration for their labour. It's simply unacceptable that those who work in essential services should be treated as second class services and have their wages treated as elements of government economic management, while those who have increasing unearned income pay minimal taxes on it.

Public sector/essential services wages stagnated, and in some cases fell, during the past decade when inflation was at a record low. We were told then that wasn't the time to rebalance the disparity between wages and profits/shareholder returns. Now that inflation is high we're being told that this isn't the right time either. So when is? People are leaving essential services in droves because they can't afford to live on the pittance they're being paid. We can't go on indefinitely with the standard of living of ordinary people being further and further eroded while profits, unearned income and executive salaries keep rising.

 

Lesson to be learnt here...........get a job in the private sector .. !!

 

But that's the issue isn't it? The logical conversation stops at "Well they have to find it from somewhere" and there becomes a never ending battle between ideology and reality.

If the unions want basically every aspect of the public sector to be paid more individually while also wanting to recruit more then there has to be a balance to it. It's why people like Mick Lynch don't get more traction because in general everyone agrees that the people who facilitate the crucial infrastructure of our country should be paid fairly, but when the question comes up on the cost of the the additional money he says "not my problem" or some vacuous response about CEO pay that wouldn't make a dent in what he's asking for. It's okay giving the easy souindbites that every one agrees with but you can't ignore reality that most people in these types of jobs are a financial cost with no direct financial benefit.

And of course the detailed economics of more progressive taxation and wealth distribution are always welcomed to be discussed but these often follow the same lines of "tax the rich" and "X has got more money than Y so they should have it taken off them" and it's just as flippant as "it has to come from somewhere".

So the strikers are well within their right to do so & the unions are well within their rights to focus on their members but equally the government has to be mindful of the cost and the companies involved (if there are any) still need to be allowed to push reforms forward even if sometimes they don't marry up with keeping all the workforce happy.

And that's the issue isn't it? There will never actually be a good time because it will always be a pure cost where profits/shareholder returns are always going to be a factor of the success/failure of those enterprises.

 

Was the starting point the same or were they equalising over time?

 

Thanks for that, but what I said was that pay rises in SMEs were nothing like the 10% you quoted. I think the figures you have provided do show that. Even if they are skewed by higher increases at some of the major PLCs, they are still consistently well short of that figure.

 

Given that most public sector workers have had a succession of wage freezes and below inflation settlements for the past twelve years, it's extremely unliklely that this was just the private sector workers playing catch-up.

 

And postal workers

 

Is it?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900

 

Yep, owns 27% with a put & call option to purchase Gold and Sullivan's shares after March 2023 ( Sullivan and Gold have to pay a 20% penalty to the taxpayer if the club is sold for more than £300m before then.)
He also has a 10% holding in Sainsbury's

 

And a 26 year old girlfriend.

 

The working class can’t afford the Guardian. I can though!

I heard the VParade ticket office is closing next week….for good.

Is that the Guardians fault ?

 

I was a rail worker for 20 years , up to senior manager level for 16 of em, so I know how the industry works BACKWARDS.

Fundamentally I knew of Government plans 7 years ago and it didn’t make pretty reading then.

Ladies and Gents, you really need to be aware of what rail employees , 99% of them superb people , are being asked to vote on the latest proposal.

4% rise this year, 4 % rise next year and the closure of 99% of all English booking offices. Approx 1600 of them. They are being asked to vote for their own redundancy!! We wonder why the RMT say no. It’s impossible, on safety grounds as we stand.
The claim that industry is making alternative plans for trains to become DOO ( Driver Operated Only) is fantasyland. It would cost , £billions and billions of investment to provide station infrastructure to achieve this.

There are quite a number on here who have fallen for the smoke and mirror LIES the Gov are feeding you.

Remember, I know how the railway works, I know who runs it, and who OWNS it.

It’s not UK plc!

 

Which one? The old one that is open on match days or the new one in the shop?

 

I might be misunderstanding this but appreciate your inside knowledge about the industry.

How do either if those things affect safety?