There is nothing like extreme weather to snap a crisis into focus. During the icy winter of 1978-79, the government’s attempts to tackle inflation, and the ensuing wave of pay strikes, all played out amid snowdrifts, burst pipes and icebound roads, crystallising the sense that long-established systems no longer worked. The general mood was easy to gauge: things could not go on like this.
Today, it seems we are here again. Britain, we are told, is on the cusp of its Second Winter of Discontent. But if the struggle for power between government and unions 44 years ago seems eerily similar to today, look closer.
For a start, we are not used to all this — whereas in 1979, the chaos was wearily familiar. It marked a return to the years when governments of both parties had tried and failed to curb union power. A “winter of discontent” had been a long time coming: the Telegraph had warned one was imminent in 1972, as had union leader Hugh Scanlon in 1974, and the new Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher in 1975.
From the mid-Seventies, Labour seemed to have settled with the unions; but when a last-ditch deal broke down in 1978, the country was plunged back into crisis. As the post-war industrial relations consensus finally froze to death, the old images flashed before the public’s eyes one last time. Huge strikes in the car industry. Union leaders trooping into No 10. Strikes stopping trains and shutting down petrol stations and unheated schools. Jumpy talk of the government sending in the troops.
Today’s wave of strikes is a novelty precisely because of the new, less union-friendly consensus that slowly took shape in the years after 1978. The unions were then at the apex of their power, and rapidly losing public sympathy. Today, they are struggling to recover from decades of weakness, and attract much more support than at the end of the Seventies. In 1977, The Sun reported a Marplan poll which suggested 80% of the public thought “union leaders have ‘a lot’ of power and influence in governing the country”. Amid the strikes last August, a poll conducted by Ipsos found only 9% of the British public thought workers had too much power.
Since the war, governments’ main way of squashing wage inflation had been “incomes policy”, by which ministers asked, or ordered, workers to accept a limit on pay increases. The Winter of Discontent was triggered when the Prime Minister James Callaghan insisted on setting this at 5%, well below inflation. Something of this is visible in the Sunak administration’s insistence on below-inflation hikes for public sector workers. But the crucial difference is that Callaghan could reasonably expect the private sector to stick to his limit. In September 1978, the Ford car company was so keen to comply that it endured weeks of strike action before folding and coughing up 17% — even though it could have afforded that at the start. Imagine that now.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“the Government “is struggling to come up with a coherent message” to explain why it cannot afford to raise nurses’ pay to match inflation.”
Why? Because in a supply side inflationary environment, every pay rise that is equal to or greater than the rate of inflation sustains or adds to that inflation as long as the supply side constraints last.
When it comes to salaries which are under government control, pay rises which are close to matching inflation should only be offered to the lowest paid workers. Since, however, the majority of pubic sector workers are professionals who generally earn more than the national average, granting them a pay rise which matches or exceeds the inflation rate, means that the government is shielding the better off in society from inflation, at the price of inflicting greater inflation on those on lower wages, who do not enjoy the cast iron job security and high wages the public sector uses to leverage strike action.
That seems to me to be a perfectly fair reason as to not grant these pay rises to the public sector, though strangely, those on the left are outraged that people earning 35-40k a year should see their wages cut in real terms to help prevent those earning 20-25k being worse hit by inflation.
What is a ‘Director for Lived Experience’ anybody? NHS Management role £110k – is this role (and no doubt there are others) REALLY necessary? Nurses should be striking to stop all this grandiose and expensive empire building and for Management to get on with being supportive, useful, practical, efficient, skilled (purchasing key) and value for money.
I totally agree with your comments. I find the ‘blunt instrument’ of ‘across the board’ payrises in the public sector totally inappropriate (and LAZY) in our current economic situation. Taking the example of the monolith NHS, with its burden of well paid administrators overseeing outdated systems, is it really deserving of a pay hike at this precarious time for the economy? At ‘point of service’ – allowing for exceptions depending on your particular need, your wallet, where you live, the luck of the draw – access to competent and caring health services diminishes by the day. Not satisfied with limiting access to care, the local ‘businesses’ we must register with to receive it (euphemistically referred to as ‘our local GP surgery’) are becoming ever more dictatic through their well schooled ‘gatekeeper’ (aka the receptionist) This is the every day experiences of many I talk to. The NHS service stepped up when Covid hit, but, let’s be honest here. It was a relatively small cohort of the whole who took huge risks and worked ‘til they dropped’ to keep urgent services running, and no doubt would do so again. Nothing is ever mentioned about the whole remuneration package ‘enjoyed’ when public sector workers pay comes up. Most of the ‘working poor’ a category increasing numbers of competent, educated workers now find themselves in, would kill to have the sort of public sector benefits enjoyed (generous sick leave and sick pay perks for example – which are a valuable and, I am told, well-used and oft abused perk!
I agree with the ‘across the board’ criticism. And also that staff above Band 7 shouldn’t get the same as is eventually agreed for those Bands below. It is a problem with a national pay scale that see others benefit if differentials have to be maintained (they should not). The Govt has had 12 years though to untangle nurse pay, esp the lower band nurses where the shortage is greatest, from other staff groups. They haven’t done it, I suspect because it would undercut the argument that is used to suppress nurse pay that others would also get less deserved rises.
Putting aside the individual argument about whether a Band 5 nurse ‘deserves’ at least an inflation-proof pay rise, the arguably more important question is what pay rate do we need to reduce the number of nurse vacancies that is crippling health care services? And bear in mind we are already paying well above inflation when we have to use agency.
One can understand the Govt dilemma and need to hold the line on pay restraint or this just spirals out of control. But for nursing there is a different imperative also needing urgent consideration.
again no thought in this comment.
band five,is not paid the same as upper bands,that’s because band 7 etc are doing a different job.
it’s about the skills etc.
However if your happy with an untrained ,inexperienced lackey doing an interventional procedure on you or your family you deserve to suffer.
Note I said ‘above’ Band 7 and that’s the band for a Ward Sister or Nurse in Charge too. They should also get the same percentage uplift as the Band 5. However that bit of important detail to one side, your contention assumes the differentials were all fair and properly assessed in the first place. My view is they weren’t. In fact I strongly suspect if a majority of nurses were men the differential with other back office type roles would never have been so extensive in the first place. A financial accountant gets more than both.
Not sure what staff you are referring to re: interventional procedures. Can probably give you a thought on that if you indicate which.
Wouldn’t you sound so much more authorative if you knew the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ ? It’s simple English.
How the heck are we meant to take these threads seriously if the English can’t get English right ?
Note I said ‘above’ Band 7 and that’s the band for a Ward Sister or Nurse in Charge too. They should also get the same percentage uplift as the Band 5. However that bit of important detail to one side, your contention assumes the differentials were all fair and properly assessed in the first place. My view is they weren’t. In fact I strongly suspect if a majority of nurses were men the differential with other back office type roles would never have been so extensive in the first place. A financial accountant gets more than both.
Not sure what staff you are referring to re: interventional procedures. Can probably give you a thought on that if you indicate which.
Wouldn’t you sound so much more authorative if you knew the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ ? It’s simple English.
How the heck are we meant to take these threads seriously if the English can’t get English right ?
Your opening points are the nub of the problem and successive Governments know it but fear to take it on. From a resourcing perspective I believe the shortage of NHS nurses is partly as a result of the pull of the private / agency sectors where money in the pocket has a pull factor higher than the lower salary coupled with a generous secondary ‘benefits package offered by the NHS. I suspect that if one compares an NHS Nurse’s overall salary and benefits package it might not be that far off an agency nurse with a higher salary but with minimum benefits. However, in these austere times, money in the pocket as an agency nurse trumps the NHS’s lower salary plus the generous benefits package that may never be called on. I wonder what a poll would turn up if the question was to have much higher pay but with a less generous benefits. package….
The fact the agency nurse doesn’t usually have to take quite the same level of responsibility within a team is, unfortunately, another attraction DT. As is ability to pick when and where to work and thus avoid the most challenged places and shifts.
My wife is a retired nurse who trained under the apprenticeship scheme so she could carry out procedures during training and be paid. She says that even though nursing is more complex we should return to it. Doctors’ letters in the press agree. She says the drop out rate among student nurses is high because many are not suited to the profession. Jeremy Hunt saved money by reducing doctor and nurse training numbers…She also asks why nursing and HCA sickness is so high when that of doctors is not…
On the public sector, David Smith in the Sunday Times said private sector pay increases average 7% but public sector ones are 2%, so some of them have a case. The railway workers do not.
Why don’t media commentators point out that 75% of employees are in the private sector and pay, via their VAT and income taxes for 75% of the wage increases in the public sector?
They might also raise the disparity in the private sector where board members get a stonking rise when the share price or profits reduce….
The fact the agency nurse doesn’t usually have to take quite the same level of responsibility within a team is, unfortunately, another attraction DT. As is ability to pick when and where to work and thus avoid the most challenged places and shifts.
My wife is a retired nurse who trained under the apprenticeship scheme so she could carry out procedures during training and be paid. She says that even though nursing is more complex we should return to it. Doctors’ letters in the press agree. She says the drop out rate among student nurses is high because many are not suited to the profession. Jeremy Hunt saved money by reducing doctor and nurse training numbers…She also asks why nursing and HCA sickness is so high when that of doctors is not…
On the public sector, David Smith in the Sunday Times said private sector pay increases average 7% but public sector ones are 2%, so some of them have a case. The railway workers do not.
Why don’t media commentators point out that 75% of employees are in the private sector and pay, via their VAT and income taxes for 75% of the wage increases in the public sector?
They might also raise the disparity in the private sector where board members get a stonking rise when the share price or profits reduce….
again no thought in this comment.
band five,is not paid the same as upper bands,that’s because band 7 etc are doing a different job.
it’s about the skills etc.
However if your happy with an untrained ,inexperienced lackey doing an interventional procedure on you or your family you deserve to suffer.
Your opening points are the nub of the problem and successive Governments know it but fear to take it on. From a resourcing perspective I believe the shortage of NHS nurses is partly as a result of the pull of the private / agency sectors where money in the pocket has a pull factor higher than the lower salary coupled with a generous secondary ‘benefits package offered by the NHS. I suspect that if one compares an NHS Nurse’s overall salary and benefits package it might not be that far off an agency nurse with a higher salary but with minimum benefits. However, in these austere times, money in the pocket as an agency nurse trumps the NHS’s lower salary plus the generous benefits package that may never be called on. I wonder what a poll would turn up if the question was to have much higher pay but with a less generous benefits. package….
if its that easy why are we so short of nhs staff.
Thought so,your mouths engaged but brains not.
I cannot recall a comment to any recent article that I have more enthusiastically agreed with.
Thankyou!
Thankyou!
I agree with the ‘across the board’ criticism. And also that staff above Band 7 shouldn’t get the same as is eventually agreed for those Bands below. It is a problem with a national pay scale that see others benefit if differentials have to be maintained (they should not). The Govt has had 12 years though to untangle nurse pay, esp the lower band nurses where the shortage is greatest, from other staff groups. They haven’t done it, I suspect because it would undercut the argument that is used to suppress nurse pay that others would also get less deserved rises.
Putting aside the individual argument about whether a Band 5 nurse ‘deserves’ at least an inflation-proof pay rise, the arguably more important question is what pay rate do we need to reduce the number of nurse vacancies that is crippling health care services? And bear in mind we are already paying well above inflation when we have to use agency.
One can understand the Govt dilemma and need to hold the line on pay restraint or this just spirals out of control. But for nursing there is a different imperative also needing urgent consideration.
if its that easy why are we so short of nhs staff.
Thought so,your mouths engaged but brains not.
I cannot recall a comment to any recent article that I have more enthusiastically agreed with.
There is a problem with your argument which I find hard to reconcile- and that is pay relativity.
Certain roles attract higher rates- due to skills responsibility etc etc.
A real concern for those on the higher rate is the erosion of the gap between their pay and those on the lower rate- this is why pay increases are normally in percentage terms. ie I have earnt the right to relatively higher pay through hard work/long hours/ education (not earning)- why did I bother?
Yes, this a 100 times. In order to remain competitive workers are forced to re-skill, usually paying for this from their own pockets. It gets even more disheartening, especially here in the US, where organizational politics and diversity schemes, rather than merit or competency, play a greater role in who gets a promotion or a higher pay check.
I would agree with your premise on pay increases but don’t feel the responsibilities or the technical skills on the admin side are justified. There is much that could be improved. One can be more thoroughly informed with up to date information on a medical issue through an internet search than on the NHS website. Yes Dr Google used to be a joke but more than one doctor I’ve consulted used it. Remember when the NHS computer system failed because the IT division didn’t bother installing an update? I had to explain a blood test to my GP who didn’t understand a particular part of the endocrine system but was ‘advising’ me with the aid of the NHS website. Fortunately he didn’t fall back on ‘The computer say no’ answer! I have no quarrel with a GP Googling a reputable medical website. But I’m wary when it’s off the NHS website. I don’t know if it’s lacklustre to it’s heart or it’s lazy management. Perhaps the NHS HR types could introduce a form of performance related pay instead of ever increasing pay deals for all support staff.
Having worked most of my life in the private sector that question of performance related pay has often seemed the biggest difference between private and public sectors, and is perhaps one of the biggest shortcomings of the latter. It rewards performance whereas the public sector rewards length of service.
Having worked most of my life in the private sector that question of performance related pay has often seemed the biggest difference between private and public sectors, and is perhaps one of the biggest shortcomings of the latter. It rewards performance whereas the public sector rewards length of service.
Yes, this a 100 times. In order to remain competitive workers are forced to re-skill, usually paying for this from their own pockets. It gets even more disheartening, especially here in the US, where organizational politics and diversity schemes, rather than merit or competency, play a greater role in who gets a promotion or a higher pay check.
I would agree with your premise on pay increases but don’t feel the responsibilities or the technical skills on the admin side are justified. There is much that could be improved. One can be more thoroughly informed with up to date information on a medical issue through an internet search than on the NHS website. Yes Dr Google used to be a joke but more than one doctor I’ve consulted used it. Remember when the NHS computer system failed because the IT division didn’t bother installing an update? I had to explain a blood test to my GP who didn’t understand a particular part of the endocrine system but was ‘advising’ me with the aid of the NHS website. Fortunately he didn’t fall back on ‘The computer say no’ answer! I have no quarrel with a GP Googling a reputable medical website. But I’m wary when it’s off the NHS website. I don’t know if it’s lacklustre to it’s heart or it’s lazy management. Perhaps the NHS HR types could introduce a form of performance related pay instead of ever increasing pay deals for all support staff.
Also it’s not only supply side pressure that’s fuelling inflation. Thatcher had a “Dash for Gas” which was a coherent energy policy that removed polluting coal from our power stations and removed the mineworkers union from having power over the government. The complete absence of an energy policy ever since coupled to net zero zealotry and excessive covid lockdowns and hand-outs had driven energy prices and hence inflation up before the supply side pinch happened. We must not let our moronic political elite hide using “Putin stole my dinner money” excuses for a situation they had a big hand in creating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6y-8kfjEWM
You’ve completely ignored the fact that the NHS is struggling to recruit nurses. In such circumstances, the free market solution is to raise nurses’ pay in order to increase the number of nurses offering their services.
This is the dilemma for the government. The government either continues to fail to offer adequate services through the NHS or it accepts a pay demand that it cannot afford and which would encourage others to demand more, leading to higher interest rates and lower house prices. The solution is to redirect funding in the NHS away from unproductive management and into the front line services. Unfortunately, no one in the government or the Civil Service seems to have a clue how to do this.
You speak as if higher interest rates and lower house prices would be a bad thing, when in my opinion that’s what the country should be aiming for. Lower house prices would see more young families own a home, and higher interest rates would wipe away many zombie companies currently holding back productivity.
Also I fully support any worker demanding their pay rises in line with inflation. Why should they take a pay cut to fix the mistakes of the wealthy?
Higher interest rates and lower house prices would be a good thing in the long run, but cause a lot of pain in the short term and no sitting government will risk that, nor any prospective government.
Higher interest rates and lower house prices would be a good thing in the long run, but cause a lot of pain in the short term and no sitting government will risk that, nor any prospective government.
Exactly!
You speak as if higher interest rates and lower house prices would be a bad thing, when in my opinion that’s what the country should be aiming for. Lower house prices would see more young families own a home, and higher interest rates would wipe away many zombie companies currently holding back productivity.
Also I fully support any worker demanding their pay rises in line with inflation. Why should they take a pay cut to fix the mistakes of the wealthy?
Exactly!
What is a ‘Director for Lived Experience’ anybody? NHS Management role £110k – is this role (and no doubt there are others) REALLY necessary? Nurses should be striking to stop all this grandiose and expensive empire building and for Management to get on with being supportive, useful, practical, efficient, skilled (purchasing key) and value for money.
I totally agree with your comments. I find the ‘blunt instrument’ of ‘across the board’ payrises in the public sector totally inappropriate (and LAZY) in our current economic situation. Taking the example of the monolith NHS, with its burden of well paid administrators overseeing outdated systems, is it really deserving of a pay hike at this precarious time for the economy? At ‘point of service’ – allowing for exceptions depending on your particular need, your wallet, where you live, the luck of the draw – access to competent and caring health services diminishes by the day. Not satisfied with limiting access to care, the local ‘businesses’ we must register with to receive it (euphemistically referred to as ‘our local GP surgery’) are becoming ever more dictatic through their well schooled ‘gatekeeper’ (aka the receptionist) This is the every day experiences of many I talk to. The NHS service stepped up when Covid hit, but, let’s be honest here. It was a relatively small cohort of the whole who took huge risks and worked ‘til they dropped’ to keep urgent services running, and no doubt would do so again. Nothing is ever mentioned about the whole remuneration package ‘enjoyed’ when public sector workers pay comes up. Most of the ‘working poor’ a category increasing numbers of competent, educated workers now find themselves in, would kill to have the sort of public sector benefits enjoyed (generous sick leave and sick pay perks for example – which are a valuable and, I am told, well-used and oft abused perk!
There is a problem with your argument which I find hard to reconcile- and that is pay relativity.
Certain roles attract higher rates- due to skills responsibility etc etc.
A real concern for those on the higher rate is the erosion of the gap between their pay and those on the lower rate- this is why pay increases are normally in percentage terms. ie I have earnt the right to relatively higher pay through hard work/long hours/ education (not earning)- why did I bother?
Also it’s not only supply side pressure that’s fuelling inflation. Thatcher had a “Dash for Gas” which was a coherent energy policy that removed polluting coal from our power stations and removed the mineworkers union from having power over the government. The complete absence of an energy policy ever since coupled to net zero zealotry and excessive covid lockdowns and hand-outs had driven energy prices and hence inflation up before the supply side pinch happened. We must not let our moronic political elite hide using “Putin stole my dinner money” excuses for a situation they had a big hand in creating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6y-8kfjEWM
You’ve completely ignored the fact that the NHS is struggling to recruit nurses. In such circumstances, the free market solution is to raise nurses’ pay in order to increase the number of nurses offering their services.
This is the dilemma for the government. The government either continues to fail to offer adequate services through the NHS or it accepts a pay demand that it cannot afford and which would encourage others to demand more, leading to higher interest rates and lower house prices. The solution is to redirect funding in the NHS away from unproductive management and into the front line services. Unfortunately, no one in the government or the Civil Service seems to have a clue how to do this.
“the Government “is struggling to come up with a coherent message” to explain why it cannot afford to raise nurses’ pay to match inflation.”
Why? Because in a supply side inflationary environment, every pay rise that is equal to or greater than the rate of inflation sustains or adds to that inflation as long as the supply side constraints last.
When it comes to salaries which are under government control, pay rises which are close to matching inflation should only be offered to the lowest paid workers. Since, however, the majority of pubic sector workers are professionals who generally earn more than the national average, granting them a pay rise which matches or exceeds the inflation rate, means that the government is shielding the better off in society from inflation, at the price of inflicting greater inflation on those on lower wages, who do not enjoy the cast iron job security and high wages the public sector uses to leverage strike action.
That seems to me to be a perfectly fair reason as to not grant these pay rises to the public sector, though strangely, those on the left are outraged that people earning 35-40k a year should see their wages cut in real terms to help prevent those earning 20-25k being worse hit by inflation.
The other difference between now and 1979 is we didn’t pay people to stay at home for two years based on a bed-wetting aversion to risk. This is one of the reasons we’re in an economic hole and, if I remember correctly, was fully supported by the Left and the Unions. Now that economic chicken has come home to roost they’re bleating about it.
Ironically the vast majority of those striking weren’t paid to stay at home. Quite the reverse in fact.
Unlike many of us currently bashing our keyboards during the normal working day, our nurses, rail workers, posties etc will be at work and won’t have the wonderful post Covid option of a day WFH! (unless of course on strike).
I suspect the bed wetters are much more likely to be likes of us.
‘Us?’ speak for yourself.
Well, not you and me, obviously. He means ‘them’ i.e. the Civil Service-MSM-political-academic-3rd sector-HR-Remain tuwatocracy.
Well, not you and me, obviously. He means ‘them’ i.e. the Civil Service-MSM-political-academic-3rd sector-HR-Remain tuwatocracy.
‘Us?’ speak for yourself.
Stupid comment. As J Watson says those on strike now were 100% those who worked and suffered through Covid; the transport workers, the nurses, the postal workers etc etc.
We didn’t suffer Glyn, we just went to work and did our jobs, as usual. Those who were locked down are now starting to realise the whole thing was pointless, I could have told them that 18 months ago.
My workplace sailed through the whole ‘pandemic’ with the staff ignoring most of the ludicrous regulations. I finally got covid last month, felt a bit crappy for a week then went back to work.
Essential workers don’t have the right to call for massive pay increases as some kind of ‘compensation’ for the mass covid mental breakdown.
Completely agree with you about the COVID hyperbole.
Completely agree with you about the COVID hyperbole.
Many wards were cleared and staff sent home – not all nurses were overworked and certainly not overwhelmed by the pandemic.
Two nurses in my family and they were furious and embarrassed by the fuss and absurdity of NHS worship during the lockdown. As my sister said, she was simply doing her job – a hospice nurse- and it was no harder than usual. She added that as usual the overwhelming majority of the dying were suffering from diseases such a cancer and organ failure and not covid… although all patients, no matter how advanced their illnesses, were tested for covid and if found positive then that would be on the death certificate even if they died covid symptom free yet riddled with cancer.
She was shocked by the manner in which so many nhs staff and management never questioned any of the inhumane ‘covid safe ’ protocols that were mindlessly enforced.
All that said, she would welcome a pay rise.
We didn’t suffer Glyn, we just went to work and did our jobs, as usual. Those who were locked down are now starting to realise the whole thing was pointless, I could have told them that 18 months ago.
My workplace sailed through the whole ‘pandemic’ with the staff ignoring most of the ludicrous regulations. I finally got covid last month, felt a bit crappy for a week then went back to work.
Essential workers don’t have the right to call for massive pay increases as some kind of ‘compensation’ for the mass covid mental breakdown.
Many wards were cleared and staff sent home – not all nurses were overworked and certainly not overwhelmed by the pandemic.
Two nurses in my family and they were furious and embarrassed by the fuss and absurdity of NHS worship during the lockdown. As my sister said, she was simply doing her job – a hospice nurse- and it was no harder than usual. She added that as usual the overwhelming majority of the dying were suffering from diseases such a cancer and organ failure and not covid… although all patients, no matter how advanced their illnesses, were tested for covid and if found positive then that would be on the death certificate even if they died covid symptom free yet riddled with cancer.
She was shocked by the manner in which so many nhs staff and management never questioned any of the inhumane ‘covid safe ’ protocols that were mindlessly enforced.
All that said, she would welcome a pay rise.
Good point. The entire political Establishment and public sector were united in willing a hard lockdown to ‘save’ the NHS. Now they want to exact a further penalty upon the nation and private sector in a de facto strike. Surely this stromg arming by the largely graduate whote collar public sector is v different from the 70s. Then it was a classic battle between labour and capital – armies of now non existent working class males. Labour has shrivelled into the party of these striking public sector workers. It is the party of this now workshy WFH under performing Blob. I do not see how Starmer can stay neutral. I do not see how his and Labour’s direct alliances with a public sector openly risking our lives and casually smashing our prosperity will not gravely harm his electoral prospects. They are warring on us. Take a stand Labour. We will not be happy with the Blob and you after this winter of discontent.
Ironically the vast majority of those striking weren’t paid to stay at home. Quite the reverse in fact.
Unlike many of us currently bashing our keyboards during the normal working day, our nurses, rail workers, posties etc will be at work and won’t have the wonderful post Covid option of a day WFH! (unless of course on strike).
I suspect the bed wetters are much more likely to be likes of us.
Stupid comment. As J Watson says those on strike now were 100% those who worked and suffered through Covid; the transport workers, the nurses, the postal workers etc etc.
Good point. The entire political Establishment and public sector were united in willing a hard lockdown to ‘save’ the NHS. Now they want to exact a further penalty upon the nation and private sector in a de facto strike. Surely this stromg arming by the largely graduate whote collar public sector is v different from the 70s. Then it was a classic battle between labour and capital – armies of now non existent working class males. Labour has shrivelled into the party of these striking public sector workers. It is the party of this now workshy WFH under performing Blob. I do not see how Starmer can stay neutral. I do not see how his and Labour’s direct alliances with a public sector openly risking our lives and casually smashing our prosperity will not gravely harm his electoral prospects. They are warring on us. Take a stand Labour. We will not be happy with the Blob and you after this winter of discontent.
The other difference between now and 1979 is we didn’t pay people to stay at home for two years based on a bed-wetting aversion to risk. This is one of the reasons we’re in an economic hole and, if I remember correctly, was fully supported by the Left and the Unions. Now that economic chicken has come home to roost they’re bleating about it.
Conflated on striking, really don’t like strikes of any sort, especially around public service, after all this is what I pay quite a bit of tax for.
But, the low wage economy (in all areas) really annoys me. Especially around the comfortably off moaning when someone doesn’t provide the service said comfortably off person thinks they are entitled to and then goes on about the laziness of the bin man, delivery driver, shelf stacker or whatever.
And another but, the gap in wages has been growing for the past 30 years (at least) with percentage pay rises fueling this (10% of £20,000 is £2,000 whereas 10% of £50,000 is £5,000 so the “manager” is £3,000 better off than the lower paid person).
My solution, which could work in the Public Sector, would be a flat pay rise independent of salary. £5,000, say, would be a decent uplift if on £20K pa and worthwhile and this then steadily reduces as salary goes up.
Very good idea. Watch the zoom class squeal.
In my last job (private sector) they did once freeze salaries above £50k but gave an inflation increase to everybody else. The people at the top sucked it up without too much complaint. Not sure the ethos in the public sector is quite the same,
I’d add whilst we all fixate on public sector strikers the real criminals are laughing all the way to the bank. What was it £9-11b on wasted PPE contracts with private sector suppliers providing not fit for purpose products. £4.3b and counting on Covid Business Loan fraud. Etc
Strange isn’t how instead we get angry about a junior nurse who worked all through Covid fighting to maintain their standard of living.
Not to mention QE, which runs into trillions
The object of the exercise is to divert your attention away from the fat cats. You’re not playing the game here!
For once I agree with you. Why should the workers suffer with pay cuts for the mistakes of the wealthy who have benefitted enormously due to QE causing asset prices to skyrocket
For once I agree with you. Why should the workers suffer with pay cuts for the mistakes of the wealthy who have benefitted enormously due to QE causing asset prices to skyrocket
Not to mention QE, which runs into trillions
The object of the exercise is to divert your attention away from the fat cats. You’re not playing the game here!
You forget George Carlin’s line:
“The poor are there to scare the shit of of the low/ middle income group” …and divert their attention away from the greedy 1%.
Eliminating poverty would therefore scare the shit out of the 1%!
There is a tax burden difference in your example that needs to be considered. The manager on 50K would see a little less than half in take home salary whereas the 20K worker would see about three quarters. It would be about £1,500 vs about £2,300. Still a gap, but not quite so large.
Although it’s also fair to say that the increase any pay rise has is best viewed from disposable income. If inflation in the cost of a persons mandatory goods and bills is less than the overall increase in disposable income, then that person is doing a lot better out of the situation irrespective of what the gross pay rise is.
All of this aside, I don’t think we can fix a supply side calamity by printing money. If the government want to do something useful with that money, maybe spend it on infrastructure that will prevent these kinds of disaster in future.
Yes, well it’s high time we got back to the Gold Standard. Or bimetallism, at any rate. We need something to anchor the thugslobs who rule us to economic and fiscal reality.
Yes, well it’s high time we got back to the Gold Standard. Or bimetallism, at any rate. We need something to anchor the thugslobs who rule us to economic and fiscal reality.
Ah yes, you’re taking me back to the Trades Union Congress circa 1977, live all afternoon on BBC 2, and Rodney Bickerstaff of the PCSU- or perhaps it was Mick McGahey of the NUM – impassionedly screeching: ‘Comrades!! I say to you!!!! A percentage pay rise!!! Gives least!! To those!!!! Who need it MOST!!!!! And MOST to those!! Who!!!!!! Need!!!!!!!! It!!!!!!! LEASSSSTTT!!!!!!!!!
Very good idea. Watch the zoom class squeal.
In my last job (private sector) they did once freeze salaries above £50k but gave an inflation increase to everybody else. The people at the top sucked it up without too much complaint. Not sure the ethos in the public sector is quite the same,
I’d add whilst we all fixate on public sector strikers the real criminals are laughing all the way to the bank. What was it £9-11b on wasted PPE contracts with private sector suppliers providing not fit for purpose products. £4.3b and counting on Covid Business Loan fraud. Etc
Strange isn’t how instead we get angry about a junior nurse who worked all through Covid fighting to maintain their standard of living.
You forget George Carlin’s line:
“The poor are there to scare the shit of of the low/ middle income group” …and divert their attention away from the greedy 1%.
Eliminating poverty would therefore scare the shit out of the 1%!
There is a tax burden difference in your example that needs to be considered. The manager on 50K would see a little less than half in take home salary whereas the 20K worker would see about three quarters. It would be about £1,500 vs about £2,300. Still a gap, but not quite so large.
Although it’s also fair to say that the increase any pay rise has is best viewed from disposable income. If inflation in the cost of a persons mandatory goods and bills is less than the overall increase in disposable income, then that person is doing a lot better out of the situation irrespective of what the gross pay rise is.
All of this aside, I don’t think we can fix a supply side calamity by printing money. If the government want to do something useful with that money, maybe spend it on infrastructure that will prevent these kinds of disaster in future.
Ah yes, you’re taking me back to the Trades Union Congress circa 1977, live all afternoon on BBC 2, and Rodney Bickerstaff of the PCSU- or perhaps it was Mick McGahey of the NUM – impassionedly screeching: ‘Comrades!! I say to you!!!! A percentage pay rise!!! Gives least!! To those!!!! Who need it MOST!!!!! And MOST to those!! Who!!!!!! Need!!!!!!!! It!!!!!!! LEASSSSTTT!!!!!!!!!
Conflated on striking, really don’t like strikes of any sort, especially around public service, after all this is what I pay quite a bit of tax for.
But, the low wage economy (in all areas) really annoys me. Especially around the comfortably off moaning when someone doesn’t provide the service said comfortably off person thinks they are entitled to and then goes on about the laziness of the bin man, delivery driver, shelf stacker or whatever.
And another but, the gap in wages has been growing for the past 30 years (at least) with percentage pay rises fueling this (10% of £20,000 is £2,000 whereas 10% of £50,000 is £5,000 so the “manager” is £3,000 better off than the lower paid person).
My solution, which could work in the Public Sector, would be a flat pay rise independent of salary. £5,000, say, would be a decent uplift if on £20K pa and worthwhile and this then steadily reduces as salary goes up.
Private companies’ earnings go up and down. So do those of many of their employees.
Public sector pay rises given now will never go down. (Who has received a 7.7% pay reduction? Really?) And what about the benefits that nobody else gets? Weren’t these supposed to compensate for the relatively low pay? Wasn’t that the trade-off?
Meanwhile the rest of us will continue paying for the current and future pensions and benefits of public employees while watching our own funds dwindle.
It’s hardly escaped our notice that those screaming loudness for longer, deeper, harder, lockdowns and closures because “lives are more important than money” are now the ones screaming loudest for – guess what – more money.
I seem to recall that President Ronald Reagan started his ‘innings’ with a Public Sector contest. Air Traffic Controllers, smugly thought they were indispensable and ‘downed tools’.
Reagan “broke them”, and also denied then any further employment with the US Public Sector, FOREVER!
Sunak & shower should try to emulate this stunning victory forthwith or they are doomed.
Quite right Charlie.. and a little public flogging wouldn’t go amiss either methinks. If that doesn’t work then a little decimation and public hangings should be tried right?
Did you manage to visit ALCANTARA?
What’s that? Franco’s memorial tomb?
No, that was in the ‘Valle de los Caídos’, until it was desecrated fairly recently.
Alcantara is Arabic for ‘The Bridge’ and describes the finest surviving Roman Bridge that spans the River Tagus close to the Portuguese frontier.
…. and the roof lining material for Darren and Kayleighs smart Tesla
…. and the roof lining material for Darren and Kayleighs smart Tesla
Duplication due to slovenly censorship.
No.
(* Other reply Censored!)
No, that was in the ‘Valle de los Caídos’, until it was desecrated fairly recently.
Alcantara is Arabic for ‘The Bridge’ and describes the finest surviving Roman Bridge that spans the River Tagus close to the Portuguese frontier.
Duplication due to slovenly censorship.
No.
(* Other reply Censored!)
What’s that? Franco’s memorial tomb?
Did you manage to visit ALCANTARA?
As a matter of interest – and with direct application to, say, nursing and train driving and the like – what did the USSA then do for Air Traffic Controllers for the next couple of years?
They brought in retirees, and the military.…..it worked!
They brought in retirees, and the military.…..it worked!
Quite right Charlie.. and a little public flogging wouldn’t go amiss either methinks. If that doesn’t work then a little decimation and public hangings should be tried right?
As a matter of interest – and with direct application to, say, nursing and train driving and the like – what did the USSA then do for Air Traffic Controllers for the next couple of years?
Ironically, public sector workers who can’t strike have seen cuts to real-terms pay before the recent inflationary spiral. Since 2012, police officers have seen their pay cut by nearly 11% and their pensions altered significantly. But, as I said, they can’t strike. Armed forces pay rises run roughly -10% below inflation. Again, can’t strike and of course are required to fill in for better paid public sector workers who can.
What are you referring to by “real-terms”?
Do you mean actual contracted pay amounts , or buying power adjusted for inflation?
Do you realise that most people don’t have their pay automatically adjusted for inflation, by any percentage, and do not refer to this as a “pay cut”?
So far as I can see, the Police have largely been on strike for years. Or Work to Rule, anyway.
no such thing as a police ” officer” they are all ” other ranks”.
What are you referring to by “real-terms”?
Do you mean actual contracted pay amounts , or buying power adjusted for inflation?
Do you realise that most people don’t have their pay automatically adjusted for inflation, by any percentage, and do not refer to this as a “pay cut”?
So far as I can see, the Police have largely been on strike for years. Or Work to Rule, anyway.
no such thing as a police ” officer” they are all ” other ranks”.
Are you really unaware that public sector wages have been below inflation for many years and are now below private sector wages? And are you also really not aware that the train workers ( and postal workers ) are actually in the private sector??? Btw a private sector that is bankrolled by the taxpayer, but where a significant % of that money is simply shovelled to shareholders instead of to the workers. https://www.ft.com/content/48dafbb9-371d-4683-9afb-26652add888c
You may be confusing the Civil service with the Public service?
I seem to recall that President Ronald Reagan started his ‘innings’ with a Public Sector contest. Air Traffic Controllers, smugly thought they were indispensable and ‘downed tools’.
Reagan “broke them”, and also denied then any further employment with the US Public Sector, FOREVER!
Sunak & shower should try to emulate this stunning victory forthwith or they are doomed.
Ironically, public sector workers who can’t strike have seen cuts to real-terms pay before the recent inflationary spiral. Since 2012, police officers have seen their pay cut by nearly 11% and their pensions altered significantly. But, as I said, they can’t strike. Armed forces pay rises run roughly -10% below inflation. Again, can’t strike and of course are required to fill in for better paid public sector workers who can.
Are you really unaware that public sector wages have been below inflation for many years and are now below private sector wages? And are you also really not aware that the train workers ( and postal workers ) are actually in the private sector??? Btw a private sector that is bankrolled by the taxpayer, but where a significant % of that money is simply shovelled to shareholders instead of to the workers. https://www.ft.com/content/48dafbb9-371d-4683-9afb-26652add888c
You may be confusing the Civil service with the Public service?
Private companies’ earnings go up and down. So do those of many of their employees.
Public sector pay rises given now will never go down. (Who has received a 7.7% pay reduction? Really?) And what about the benefits that nobody else gets? Weren’t these supposed to compensate for the relatively low pay? Wasn’t that the trade-off?
Meanwhile the rest of us will continue paying for the current and future pensions and benefits of public employees while watching our own funds dwindle.
It’s hardly escaped our notice that those screaming loudness for longer, deeper, harder, lockdowns and closures because “lives are more important than money” are now the ones screaming loudest for – guess what – more money.
Inflation is Tax. The Gov wants to spend more than IRS Taxes brings, to buy votes, and to buy favors for important friends, or to not lose them to the other party, And to not raise ‘Taxes’
They (say) spend £2 Trillion into a 8 £Trillion economy – Borrowed from themselves. (Print Gilts, sell them as a promise of money and interest in the future, then having the money from the sale – ‘Print’ off the Trillions of £ and spend them. (monetize the debt))
Friedman said ” Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon’ ”
Say: 2 £Trillion ‘borrowed’ pounds spent out into the 8 £Trillion economy – same (or less) goods and services, pies, barbers, TVs, beer and houses – but now 20% more £ – Bang – and every £ in your savings, pension, bank, wallet is now worth 80 pence. You just lost 20% of everything you own in ‘Real Terms’. An 80 pence can of beans is now £1. (It does not really go quite like this)
Inflation is the expanding of money supply without expanding the amount of goods and services.
This ‘Inflates away the gov Debt. (and private debt – but remember every debt is someone else’s income/wealth) Your wealth was taxed away by stealth at 20%, as is your income unless you can force a pay rise.
So you abuse your position of power and extort a %20 pay rise so you do not have to share the pain going forward that everyone in the country does. You refuse the ‘all in this hard thing together’ and get a rise so your income is free of this stealth tax – and you let the Less Well Off and small business pay their stealth Tax – and your share too. (a tax called inflation)
Your increased wages mean more money printed – so you have a ‘Wage/Price Death Spiral’ and inflation increases. But it is OK – you have a vital job – strike for more next year. Now – everyone on a private pension, or cannot strike for more wages, small business, and so on – they go 40% behind next year – but no worries, You went on strike – you are fine. You do not share in the national belt tightening – in fact you make it worse – Because you can – Right Train drivers and Border Control and Ambulance, and others who can?, you get a pass….because you can withhold your work as it is needed and you are all organized, and can extort for a pay rise. (plus the fact poor workers could not get to work and lost a weeks pay for Christmas)
..that’s half the story. Tell the other half please: say where the wealth is, went, gas been syphoned off for decades.. You seem to be an ‘agitator’ ie your role is to set the poor against the not so poor thereby diverting attention from the real villains.
Follow the money….
Qui bono (maximo)..
You focus on crumbs while the fat cats gorge themselves!
Exactly so. Who got the £39 billion (yes, not £39 million, not £390m, not £3.9 billion, £39 BILLION) allegedly spent (how!!!) on a Test & Trace System (a piece of software!) that never even properly materialised? Where did that TAXPAYERS’ money go? Who received it, and why such an unbelievably vast sum? Where is it now?
‘Lady’ Mone and her alleged £29m family trust fund allegedly provided by PPE contractors is small fry by comparison.
I must admit, through no fault of my own, that I was a grateful beneficiary of a minute amount of that largesse!
“Every cloud etc………”
I must admit, through no fault of my own, that I was a grateful beneficiary of a minute amount of that largesse!
“Every cloud etc………”
Exactly so. Who got the £39 billion (yes, not £39 million, not £390m, not £3.9 billion, £39 BILLION) allegedly spent (how!!!) on a Test & Trace System (a piece of software!) that never even properly materialised? Where did that TAXPAYERS’ money go? Who received it, and why such an unbelievably vast sum? Where is it now?
‘Lady’ Mone and her alleged £29m family trust fund allegedly provided by PPE contractors is small fry by comparison.
..that’s half the story. Tell the other half please: say where the wealth is, went, gas been syphoned off for decades.. You seem to be an ‘agitator’ ie your role is to set the poor against the not so poor thereby diverting attention from the real villains.
Follow the money….
Qui bono (maximo)..
You focus on crumbs while the fat cats gorge themselves!
Inflation is Tax. The Gov wants to spend more than IRS Taxes brings, to buy votes, and to buy favors for important friends, or to not lose them to the other party, And to not raise ‘Taxes’
They (say) spend £2 Trillion into a 8 £Trillion economy – Borrowed from themselves. (Print Gilts, sell them as a promise of money and interest in the future, then having the money from the sale – ‘Print’ off the Trillions of £ and spend them. (monetize the debt))
Friedman said ” Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon’ ”
Say: 2 £Trillion ‘borrowed’ pounds spent out into the 8 £Trillion economy – same (or less) goods and services, pies, barbers, TVs, beer and houses – but now 20% more £ – Bang – and every £ in your savings, pension, bank, wallet is now worth 80 pence. You just lost 20% of everything you own in ‘Real Terms’. An 80 pence can of beans is now £1. (It does not really go quite like this)
Inflation is the expanding of money supply without expanding the amount of goods and services.
This ‘Inflates away the gov Debt. (and private debt – but remember every debt is someone else’s income/wealth) Your wealth was taxed away by stealth at 20%, as is your income unless you can force a pay rise.
So you abuse your position of power and extort a %20 pay rise so you do not have to share the pain going forward that everyone in the country does. You refuse the ‘all in this hard thing together’ and get a rise so your income is free of this stealth tax – and you let the Less Well Off and small business pay their stealth Tax – and your share too. (a tax called inflation)
Your increased wages mean more money printed – so you have a ‘Wage/Price Death Spiral’ and inflation increases. But it is OK – you have a vital job – strike for more next year. Now – everyone on a private pension, or cannot strike for more wages, small business, and so on – they go 40% behind next year – but no worries, You went on strike – you are fine. You do not share in the national belt tightening – in fact you make it worse – Because you can – Right Train drivers and Border Control and Ambulance, and others who can?, you get a pass….because you can withhold your work as it is needed and you are all organized, and can extort for a pay rise. (plus the fact poor workers could not get to work and lost a weeks pay for Christmas)
When I started work in the 70s in part of the Civil Service (later privatised) it was understood that the pay was appreciably less than the private sector but also that the jobs were more secure and the pensions much better. The impetus for a substantial pay rises was limited to that necessary to stem people leaving for better paid jobs in ‘outside industry’.
So one option, for say NHS workers and managers, would be to increase pay but align job security, manning levels and pensions with private industry. This change need not be brutal but it should be inexorable. Do the politicians have enough moral strength for such a task? Or will they defer the problem to a Royal Commission and leave the ongoing problems for someone else to solve?
The answer to your last point is no, but it’s unfair to characterise it as a lack of moral fibre in politicians (which isn’t to say they’re brimming with it). It’s more a question of what might be politically possible. An attempt to rebalance public/private sector job remunerations would be characterised as “an attack on the nurses” or suchlike and i very much doubt we as an electorate have the moral fibre to withstand the media onslaught that would ensue. When i say “we”, i mean in general of course.
The moral of all this is that we, the general public, are not just the recipients of a sub-standard service, but part of the reason its the way it is. Those GPs and their receptionists are also part of the same public, and given a bit of power have taken liberties with the rest of us, as tends to happen. Similarly in acute services (hospitals) throughout the land, where during my NHS career the same ‘little Hitler’ syndrome was prevalent, alongside the good people who wanted to do their best without it going to their heads. Unfortunately, the tyrants tended to elbow their way to positions of authority.
We see this also with the hierarchy in unions. The issue then, is human nature. To change the system would indeed require the neutrality of something like a Royal Commission, or the collapse of the current system which appears to be an ever-increasing possibility.
Do the politicians have enough guile to reverse any such benefits? The same people who saw to dismantling the few labour rights laws we had? “By their works shall ye know them”..
It is happening, but slowly, and employer contributions are still very high – eg move pensions to average earnings instead of final earnings.
It doesn’t seem to have kept up with pay increases which jumped hugely during the Blair years to the point where public sector pay was higher than private (like for like).
The answer to your last point is no, but it’s unfair to characterise it as a lack of moral fibre in politicians (which isn’t to say they’re brimming with it). It’s more a question of what might be politically possible. An attempt to rebalance public/private sector job remunerations would be characterised as “an attack on the nurses” or suchlike and i very much doubt we as an electorate have the moral fibre to withstand the media onslaught that would ensue. When i say “we”, i mean in general of course.
The moral of all this is that we, the general public, are not just the recipients of a sub-standard service, but part of the reason its the way it is. Those GPs and their receptionists are also part of the same public, and given a bit of power have taken liberties with the rest of us, as tends to happen. Similarly in acute services (hospitals) throughout the land, where during my NHS career the same ‘little Hitler’ syndrome was prevalent, alongside the good people who wanted to do their best without it going to their heads. Unfortunately, the tyrants tended to elbow their way to positions of authority.
We see this also with the hierarchy in unions. The issue then, is human nature. To change the system would indeed require the neutrality of something like a Royal Commission, or the collapse of the current system which appears to be an ever-increasing possibility.
Do the politicians have enough guile to reverse any such benefits? The same people who saw to dismantling the few labour rights laws we had? “By their works shall ye know them”..
It is happening, but slowly, and employer contributions are still very high – eg move pensions to average earnings instead of final earnings.
It doesn’t seem to have kept up with pay increases which jumped hugely during the Blair years to the point where public sector pay was higher than private (like for like).
When I started work in the 70s in part of the Civil Service (later privatised) it was understood that the pay was appreciably less than the private sector but also that the jobs were more secure and the pensions much better. The impetus for a substantial pay rises was limited to that necessary to stem people leaving for better paid jobs in ‘outside industry’.
So one option, for say NHS workers and managers, would be to increase pay but align job security, manning levels and pensions with private industry. This change need not be brutal but it should be inexorable. Do the politicians have enough moral strength for such a task? Or will they defer the problem to a Royal Commission and leave the ongoing problems for someone else to solve?
It’s refreshing to see a commentator setting out the vast difference between people in 1979 and 2022. In 1979 the working classes (as they were called) lived on income alone. Now they have assets, cars, homes, pensions, aspiration. It’s wrong to compare the two.
Regarding the lack of voice or strategy from the conservatives this is what happens when you put suits in charge. As CS Lewis said ‘close shaving quiet men in suits planning and implementing through others’ The Managerial Class.
Leadership has all to do with character and f*** all to do with management.
Nobody voted for the Cult of Hunt. In fact he was voted out of the leadership race. Sunak is a manager. Together they are a dangerous act.
The Tory party needs to fail before it can reinvent itself.
It’s refreshing to see a commentator setting out the vast difference between people in 1979 and 2022. In 1979 the working classes (as they were called) lived on income alone. Now they have assets, cars, homes, pensions, aspiration. It’s wrong to compare the two.
Regarding the lack of voice or strategy from the conservatives this is what happens when you put suits in charge. As CS Lewis said ‘close shaving quiet men in suits planning and implementing through others’ The Managerial Class.
Leadership has all to do with character and f*** all to do with management.
Nobody voted for the Cult of Hunt. In fact he was voted out of the leadership race. Sunak is a manager. Together they are a dangerous act.
The Tory party needs to fail before it can reinvent itself.
Absolutely right that people should blame the strikers.
First, they are in receipt of salaries/benefits that the majority of people employed in the private sector can only dream of.
Second, those of us in the private sector realise that our employers do what they can but cannot afford to give pay increases that match the rate of inflation. Moreover, if we were to go on strike to demand inflation matching pay increases the response would be redundancies.
Third, most rational people realised that there would be a price to pay for the Covid lockdowns, namely, inflation and a fall in living standards. Apparently, the public sector expect privileged treatment and economic reality does not apply to them.
Fourth, not only do public sector workers expect privileged treatment but they believe that they are entitled to it at the expense of further impoverishing the rest of us. Who do they think to going to fund their pay increases?
Fifth, so far as the rest of the world is concerned, if you don’t like your terms and conditions find another job. Trouble is it is a hard world out there and better remunerated jobs are hard to find, particularly if you work in the public sector. Public sector workers know which side their bread is buttered.
Another mug who believes the Tory lies. 1) Majority of workers the RMT represents are on shit wages – the are the dogsbodies who clean and maintain the railways 2) The railway workers are in the private sector! 3) Why do the poorest have to pay when the richest have trillions stashed offshore? 4) Private sector wages are higher that public sector. https://www.ft.com/content/48dafbb9-371d-4683-9afb-26652add888c 5) Pathetic attitude
I am so please I got this reply.
No the majority of RMT employees are not on shit wages. I hve been there. They are on legacy terms which mean back in the day, when the Government could not be seen to cave in, wage increases were dressed up. There is the shift allowance, the dirty jobs allowance, rest day, off day an the rest. Throw in the pension and you have a nice package.
The rail workers are most certainly not in the private sector. The whole thing is propped up by public money. If this were not the case there would already have been significant rationalization across the industry and they would be subject to the same hard reality as the rest of us.
Then we have the mythical richest who have trillions stashed offshore. Who are these mythical rich? I do not know any. Sure there are always going to be a few rich people and these day you have likes of Gates and Musk. But they are irrelevant to the debate. First, the UK does not have that many truly wealthy individuals in so far as what they have would not make any material difference. Second, the really wealthy are portable. if they don’t like the tax regime here they can just find another country. Third, there is no moral case for the wealth to pay penal taxes in order to provide the feckless and work shy with a comfortable life.
As to the private sector paying higher wages, well if that were true then logically most of the rail workers would have made the move. However, as I say above, once you take into account the additional payments and pension the public sector package does not look half bad by comparison.
Of course, even if the private sector paid a bit more, public sector workers would hesitate to move because they are not so foolish that they do not know that life in the private sector is a lot harder. I will let you in as a clue, part of my job as a 17 year old was to clock on and off people who never turned up work. The managers knew this was happening but did not do anything about it. The public sector has not changed.
“Private sector wages are higher that public sector.”
Just out of interest, what private sector jobs are duplicated in the public sector?
I am so please I got this reply.
No the majority of RMT employees are not on shit wages. I hve been there. They are on legacy terms which mean back in the day, when the Government could not be seen to cave in, wage increases were dressed up. There is the shift allowance, the dirty jobs allowance, rest day, off day an the rest. Throw in the pension and you have a nice package.
The rail workers are most certainly not in the private sector. The whole thing is propped up by public money. If this were not the case there would already have been significant rationalization across the industry and they would be subject to the same hard reality as the rest of us.
Then we have the mythical richest who have trillions stashed offshore. Who are these mythical rich? I do not know any. Sure there are always going to be a few rich people and these day you have likes of Gates and Musk. But they are irrelevant to the debate. First, the UK does not have that many truly wealthy individuals in so far as what they have would not make any material difference. Second, the really wealthy are portable. if they don’t like the tax regime here they can just find another country. Third, there is no moral case for the wealth to pay penal taxes in order to provide the feckless and work shy with a comfortable life.
As to the private sector paying higher wages, well if that were true then logically most of the rail workers would have made the move. However, as I say above, once you take into account the additional payments and pension the public sector package does not look half bad by comparison.
Of course, even if the private sector paid a bit more, public sector workers would hesitate to move because they are not so foolish that they do not know that life in the private sector is a lot harder. I will let you in as a clue, part of my job as a 17 year old was to clock on and off people who never turned up work. The managers knew this was happening but did not do anything about it. The public sector has not changed.
“Private sector wages are higher that public sector.”
Just out of interest, what private sector jobs are duplicated in the public sector?
You make no mention of record profits, huge dividends, price gouging, market manipulation, bankster and other super rich remuneration.
The MSM have you well schooled and you’re doing a sterling job turning on your own and allowing the obscenely greedy oligarch class get richer and richer and your expense! Well done!
Se my above response
Se my above response
Private sector salaries are above those in the public sector when you’re talking about comparable industries, and in Britain they’re growing further apart. This used to be offset by generous pension schemes in the public sector but these are also being wound down, with final salary schemes all but extinct.
Those striking are generally low paid, and are simply trying to prevent their employers forcing them to take what is essentially a pay cut
Another mug who believes the Tory lies. 1) Majority of workers the RMT represents are on shit wages – the are the dogsbodies who clean and maintain the railways 2) The railway workers are in the private sector! 3) Why do the poorest have to pay when the richest have trillions stashed offshore? 4) Private sector wages are higher that public sector. https://www.ft.com/content/48dafbb9-371d-4683-9afb-26652add888c 5) Pathetic attitude
You make no mention of record profits, huge dividends, price gouging, market manipulation, bankster and other super rich remuneration.
The MSM have you well schooled and you’re doing a sterling job turning on your own and allowing the obscenely greedy oligarch class get richer and richer and your expense! Well done!
Private sector salaries are above those in the public sector when you’re talking about comparable industries, and in Britain they’re growing further apart. This used to be offset by generous pension schemes in the public sector but these are also being wound down, with final salary schemes all but extinct.
Those striking are generally low paid, and are simply trying to prevent their employers forcing them to take what is essentially a pay cut
Absolutely right that people should blame the strikers.
First, they are in receipt of salaries/benefits that the majority of people employed in the private sector can only dream of.
Second, those of us in the private sector realise that our employers do what they can but cannot afford to give pay increases that match the rate of inflation. Moreover, if we were to go on strike to demand inflation matching pay increases the response would be redundancies.
Third, most rational people realised that there would be a price to pay for the Covid lockdowns, namely, inflation and a fall in living standards. Apparently, the public sector expect privileged treatment and economic reality does not apply to them.
Fourth, not only do public sector workers expect privileged treatment but they believe that they are entitled to it at the expense of further impoverishing the rest of us. Who do they think to going to fund their pay increases?
Fifth, so far as the rest of the world is concerned, if you don’t like your terms and conditions find another job. Trouble is it is a hard world out there and better remunerated jobs are hard to find, particularly if you work in the public sector. Public sector workers know which side their bread is buttered.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t any of the people striking on quite reasonable incomes already ? And are these strikes always about pay ? The RMT strike appears to be also be about resistance to more efficient working practices (which could allow higher pay). And there is certainly a political undercurrent to some of the strikes.
There’s certainly a case for being more generous to lower paid workers right now as some have argued here (and in fact the budget’s minimum wage increase will do just this). I’m not convinced that that is the point at issue in most of the strikes though.
Most strikes are the same, especially where the RMT’s concerned. Many of the drivers simply want more dosh / more preferable Ts & Cs. The leadership want that too, but they’re also marinated in hoary 70s style class warfare Marxism. Listen to Lynch – he can’t help himself. Neither can the others. It’s why strikes fail, just like this one; as the pay offer rises (it’s now 9%) the non-ideologue members begin to buckle and the strike begins to lose momentum (nobody wants to lose pay near Christmas). Lynch and Co’s job is to keep them on strike to fight their pound shop class war. How they do that is for a union member to tell us. In any case, this strike will be resolved at a fraction of a percent under 10%, the drivers will continue to earn excellent money for operating legacy technology and Lynch can go home and admire his bust of Lenin. #
Until next time.
Yet another muppet who has probably spent months moaning about these strikes and still doesn’t realise the drivers are and always have been in ASLEF. idiot. Are you ToryBoy Pierce by any chance?
It’s just leftist acronym soup to me, sweetie.
It’s just leftist acronym soup to me, sweetie.
Yet another muppet who has probably spent months moaning about these strikes and still doesn’t realise the drivers are and always have been in ASLEF. idiot. Are you ToryBoy Pierce by any chance?
You are wrong. The RMT represents the low paid workers on the railways, as does the RCN predominantly under-paid nurses and postal workers aren’t well paid either!
And you are wrong about ‘working practices’. It’s not efficiency but simply coats cutting to increase profits for shareholder.
If you think railway staff are low paid, I’d love to know what your annual income is.
The staff represented by the RMT are generally low paid, the drivers who earn the good money (which have been sneakily included by those against the strikes to push up the average earnings in the sector to make the strikers appear greedy) are represented by a different union
The well-paid ones are the drivers. And the main reason for that is that they are time-consuming and expensive to train. And all the privatised, here-today-gone-tomorrow chancer franchise operators brought into being by the cockeyed privatisation under Major – who essentially collected a fat guaranteed management fee for painting a new livery on their leased trains every three years or so – were too cheap and ephemeral to train their own, so instead they just poached drivers from other franchisees. That bid up the pay rates. They had to raise pay to recruit them, then raise it further to keep the ones they poached. Still, it was cheaper in the short run than training their own. But there were never enough to go round.
A squaddie can easily drive a Green Goddess or operate a fire engine, but he can hardly drive the KX to Waverley express.
Most train staff aren’t train divers on £80k a year. Most are hapless ticket collectors, guards, cleaners, signalmen and buffet car attendants. They don’t see what their modest living standards should be crushed as a result of 12 years of selfish laptop-class/ ruling elite posturing, nest-feathering and serial financial incompetence, particularly with a billionaire like Sunak in No 10 and frankly, neither do I.
The staff represented by the RMT are generally low paid, the drivers who earn the good money (which have been sneakily included by those against the strikes to push up the average earnings in the sector to make the strikers appear greedy) are represented by a different union
The well-paid ones are the drivers. And the main reason for that is that they are time-consuming and expensive to train. And all the privatised, here-today-gone-tomorrow chancer franchise operators brought into being by the cockeyed privatisation under Major – who essentially collected a fat guaranteed management fee for painting a new livery on their leased trains every three years or so – were too cheap and ephemeral to train their own, so instead they just poached drivers from other franchisees. That bid up the pay rates. They had to raise pay to recruit them, then raise it further to keep the ones they poached. Still, it was cheaper in the short run than training their own. But there were never enough to go round.
A squaddie can easily drive a Green Goddess or operate a fire engine, but he can hardly drive the KX to Waverley express.
Most train staff aren’t train divers on £80k a year. Most are hapless ticket collectors, guards, cleaners, signalmen and buffet car attendants. They don’t see what their modest living standards should be crushed as a result of 12 years of selfish laptop-class/ ruling elite posturing, nest-feathering and serial financial incompetence, particularly with a billionaire like Sunak in No 10 and frankly, neither do I.
If you think railway staff are low paid, I’d love to know what your annual income is.
Most strikes are the same, especially where the RMT’s concerned. Many of the drivers simply want more dosh / more preferable Ts & Cs. The leadership want that too, but they’re also marinated in hoary 70s style class warfare Marxism. Listen to Lynch – he can’t help himself. Neither can the others. It’s why strikes fail, just like this one; as the pay offer rises (it’s now 9%) the non-ideologue members begin to buckle and the strike begins to lose momentum (nobody wants to lose pay near Christmas). Lynch and Co’s job is to keep them on strike to fight their pound shop class war. How they do that is for a union member to tell us. In any case, this strike will be resolved at a fraction of a percent under 10%, the drivers will continue to earn excellent money for operating legacy technology and Lynch can go home and admire his bust of Lenin. #
Until next time.
You are wrong. The RMT represents the low paid workers on the railways, as does the RCN predominantly under-paid nurses and postal workers aren’t well paid either!
And you are wrong about ‘working practices’. It’s not efficiency but simply coats cutting to increase profits for shareholder.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t any of the people striking on quite reasonable incomes already ? And are these strikes always about pay ? The RMT strike appears to be also be about resistance to more efficient working practices (which could allow higher pay). And there is certainly a political undercurrent to some of the strikes.
There’s certainly a case for being more generous to lower paid workers right now as some have argued here (and in fact the budget’s minimum wage increase will do just this). I’m not convinced that that is the point at issue in most of the strikes though.
A few very basic facts loom in the background to the nitty gritty of specific cases with multiple arguments this way and that. They are…
1. Huge transfer of wealth from the 90% to the 10% and especially the 1% on recent decades. Sure, this was done legally: however, “legally” simply means laws were enacted, manipulated, by-passed, ignored by (or under irresistible pressure from) the very people who benefitted. That is simply theft via the legal route!
2. Gross profiteering and price gouging is now normal: it used to be a crime but as laws are tools made, owned and used exclusively for the benefit of the 1% they too are “legal”.
3. Draconian labour laws allowing for zero hours contracts and a host of other abuses have been passed by/for the 1% to screw the 90% into real poverty, homelessness, cold and hunger.
4. The class war is in full swing with no legal support for the screwed working poor while the greed of the 1% is now unlimited.
5. With police and army in the role of Orwell’s dogs the evil oligarchs feel as unassailable as did the French aristocracy just before the 1789 revolution.
Whether turning commuter against driver or patient against nurse etc. will work this time remains to be seen. My money is on all the screwed finally waking up and seeing the light.
Yup and interesting how those who call themselves conservatives are accelerating the UKs descent into chaos.
Some bizarre fantasy history here. Was there really a time when “Gross profiteering and price gouging” were a crime ? What were those laws ? And when were they repealed ?
Didn’t zero hours contracts emerge some time during the New Labour era ?
A lot of this wealth transfer came about through the effects of global technology advances and far less some conspiracy of exploitative oligarchs. When there’s a single global market for things like mobile phones, the winners will get bigger. Success always brings with it some new problems and challenges.
The way I read your comments, you’re just as committed to class war and setting one group of people against another as anyone else ! You’ll probably need to be rather more thoughtful and open-minded if you hope to persuade anyone of your case.
Laws on monopoly, cartels, blackmarketeering, price fixing etc. largely dismantled by the EU!
..sorry: I mean the EU created and enforced laws opposing those abuses. That was the real reason for Brexit, ie so the obscenely rich would not be exposed!
You are truly delusional.
The real reason for Brexit was that sensed it was the only opportunity to reverse some of the trends that have done damage to this country over the last 4 decades. Whether this can be delivered remains to be seen.
Reverse the damaging trends? Assume this is tongue in cheek ER. What trends have got better may one ask? Immigration? GDP? Trade deals?
I think you even used ‘delusional’ in the same comment. British humour is at it’s best when irony to the fore. Chapeau.
Reverse the damaging trends? Assume this is tongue in cheek ER. What trends have got better may one ask? Immigration? GDP? Trade deals?
I think you even used ‘delusional’ in the same comment. British humour is at it’s best when irony to the fore. Chapeau.
Didn’t the votes of 17.4 million people have something to do with it?
And if – as you suggest – the corrupt Establishment was aiming for a Brexit win, they certainly put one hell of a lot of effort and resources and rigging of the campaign rules into the campaign for Remain. And then, indeed, into three or four years trying to ignore or reverse the result.
Please list the relevant EU laws that have been repealed and the dates those occurred. I have no recollection of any such events. But happy to be corrected.
Also worth noting that this country had a monopolies and mergers commission well before the EU was formed. In fact, we regularly used to hear about takeover bids being referred in the 1980s and even 1990s. Funnily enough, it seemed to stop doing any useful work around the time of New Labour and the advent of the EU.
Your perspective on business and law is certainly interesting. But not it would appear based on any historical record.
You are truly delusional.
The real reason for Brexit was that sensed it was the only opportunity to reverse some of the trends that have done damage to this country over the last 4 decades. Whether this can be delivered remains to be seen.
Didn’t the votes of 17.4 million people have something to do with it?
And if – as you suggest – the corrupt Establishment was aiming for a Brexit win, they certainly put one hell of a lot of effort and resources and rigging of the campaign rules into the campaign for Remain. And then, indeed, into three or four years trying to ignore or reverse the result.
Please list the relevant EU laws that have been repealed and the dates those occurred. I have no recollection of any such events. But happy to be corrected.
Also worth noting that this country had a monopolies and mergers commission well before the EU was formed. In fact, we regularly used to hear about takeover bids being referred in the 1980s and even 1990s. Funnily enough, it seemed to stop doing any useful work around the time of New Labour and the advent of the EU.
Your perspective on business and law is certainly interesting. But not it would appear based on any historical record.
..sorry: I mean the EU created and enforced laws opposing those abuses. That was the real reason for Brexit, ie so the obscenely rich would not be exposed!
I note you made no mention of the failure of huge corporations – not least the high tech ones – that pay virtually no taxes! Is it just coincidence that tax laws seem to allow this or might political contributions, lobbying and the revolving doors not be playing a part? How naïve can you be?
A major role of government used too be redistribution of wealth since the rich and powerful are best placed to hover up all the wealth created through work. But now govt is intent on doing the opposite! ie assisting the super rich to hover up all the wealth and keep it, tax free!
Redistribution is no longer from the ultra rich: instead they take it all.. and there is no end to their greed except a full blown class war. There are millionaires out there asking to be taxed lest the pitchforks and burning torches get them first but govts won’t tax them because most of the super rich are super greedy and won’t permit it.
Where did I offer any opinion on large corporations and taxes ? How do you know what my opinion on these is ?
Where did I offer any opinion on large corporations and taxes ? How do you know what my opinion on these is ?
I haven’t noticed Mr O’Mahony defending the sleazy, Big Corporate-friendly policies of the shysters of New Labour. Blair and Mandelson, as is well known, have banked £ tens of millions since leaving office. Cameron and Osborne monetised office to the tune of millions too.
Laws on monopoly, cartels, blackmarketeering, price fixing etc. largely dismantled by the EU!
I note you made no mention of the failure of huge corporations – not least the high tech ones – that pay virtually no taxes! Is it just coincidence that tax laws seem to allow this or might political contributions, lobbying and the revolving doors not be playing a part? How naïve can you be?
A major role of government used too be redistribution of wealth since the rich and powerful are best placed to hover up all the wealth created through work. But now govt is intent on doing the opposite! ie assisting the super rich to hover up all the wealth and keep it, tax free!
Redistribution is no longer from the ultra rich: instead they take it all.. and there is no end to their greed except a full blown class war. There are millionaires out there asking to be taxed lest the pitchforks and burning torches get them first but govts won’t tax them because most of the super rich are super greedy and won’t permit it.
I haven’t noticed Mr O’Mahony defending the sleazy, Big Corporate-friendly policies of the shysters of New Labour. Blair and Mandelson, as is well known, have banked £ tens of millions since leaving office. Cameron and Osborne monetised office to the tune of millions too.
I don’t think you understand what “draconian” means. Literally “harsh and excessive” but it’s more about “forbidding” than “allowing”. I worked for many years on “day rates” aka “freelancing” labouring jobs which afforded me far fewer benefits and protection than current “zero hours contracts”.
But guess what ? Nobody forced me to, the money was good enough, and it paid the bills. I learned a lot of job-knowledge and technical know-how in the process and built up a good reputation, both of which helped me later in life.
I doubt the jobs would even had existed if the employers had not been allowed to employ this way and been forced to take me on permanently.
Exactly. Yet the comments on the DT are full of spittle-flecked loons ranting at the weevil thieving oligarchs of Russia. Well, they may have screwed the Russians, but the people who have done much the equivalent to the peoples of ‘the west’ are a lot closer to home – and the same dullards who vomit daily spleen on Deripaska et al seem remarkably blind to it.
I guess they imagine that owning their own home and having a modest private pension fund places them on the UK oligarch side. Wait till they see what 2023 does to the real value of both…
Yup and interesting how those who call themselves conservatives are accelerating the UKs descent into chaos.
Some bizarre fantasy history here. Was there really a time when “Gross profiteering and price gouging” were a crime ? What were those laws ? And when were they repealed ?
Didn’t zero hours contracts emerge some time during the New Labour era ?
A lot of this wealth transfer came about through the effects of global technology advances and far less some conspiracy of exploitative oligarchs. When there’s a single global market for things like mobile phones, the winners will get bigger. Success always brings with it some new problems and challenges.
The way I read your comments, you’re just as committed to class war and setting one group of people against another as anyone else ! You’ll probably need to be rather more thoughtful and open-minded if you hope to persuade anyone of your case.
I don’t think you understand what “draconian” means. Literally “harsh and excessive” but it’s more about “forbidding” than “allowing”. I worked for many years on “day rates” aka “freelancing” labouring jobs which afforded me far fewer benefits and protection than current “zero hours contracts”.
But guess what ? Nobody forced me to, the money was good enough, and it paid the bills. I learned a lot of job-knowledge and technical know-how in the process and built up a good reputation, both of which helped me later in life.
I doubt the jobs would even had existed if the employers had not been allowed to employ this way and been forced to take me on permanently.
Exactly. Yet the comments on the DT are full of spittle-flecked loons ranting at the weevil thieving oligarchs of Russia. Well, they may have screwed the Russians, but the people who have done much the equivalent to the peoples of ‘the west’ are a lot closer to home – and the same dullards who vomit daily spleen on Deripaska et al seem remarkably blind to it.
I guess they imagine that owning their own home and having a modest private pension fund places them on the UK oligarch side. Wait till they see what 2023 does to the real value of both…
A few very basic facts loom in the background to the nitty gritty of specific cases with multiple arguments this way and that. They are…
1. Huge transfer of wealth from the 90% to the 10% and especially the 1% on recent decades. Sure, this was done legally: however, “legally” simply means laws were enacted, manipulated, by-passed, ignored by (or under irresistible pressure from) the very people who benefitted. That is simply theft via the legal route!
2. Gross profiteering and price gouging is now normal: it used to be a crime but as laws are tools made, owned and used exclusively for the benefit of the 1% they too are “legal”.
3. Draconian labour laws allowing for zero hours contracts and a host of other abuses have been passed by/for the 1% to screw the 90% into real poverty, homelessness, cold and hunger.
4. The class war is in full swing with no legal support for the screwed working poor while the greed of the 1% is now unlimited.
5. With police and army in the role of Orwell’s dogs the evil oligarchs feel as unassailable as did the French aristocracy just before the 1789 revolution.
Whether turning commuter against driver or patient against nurse etc. will work this time remains to be seen. My money is on all the screwed finally waking up and seeing the light.
I had the opportunity to discuss with some Border Force people at Heathrow, their version of the reason for the strike. My understanding is that the government are trying to cut the hours of Border Force workers, to reduce costs, so creating the long queues and inefficiency, and putting the blame on Border Force. They also told me that the electronic passport gates dont work, and that the goverment had wasted money on low rent IT, and refuse to put it right. I know who I believe!
I had the opportunity to discuss with some Border Force people at Heathrow, their version of the reason for the strike. My understanding is that the government are trying to cut the hours of Border Force workers, to reduce costs, so creating the long queues and inefficiency, and putting the blame on Border Force. They also told me that the electronic passport gates dont work, and that the goverment had wasted money on low rent IT, and refuse to put it right. I know who I believe!
Not the workers who have trashed this country but the thieves and traitors of the 10% with their hidden offshore billions. This country needs a serious righting, it’s tipped so far in the interests of the uber-rich it’s falling into total chaos.
Do you mean the 1% ? Or 0.1% ? Or 0.01% ?
The top 10% are paying most of the taxes for public services and are hardly “uber rich”.
Everyone who has a job is a “worker”, regardless of income. How about showing some respect and thanks for those workers who pay the most in taxes ? It’s not a zero sum game here, nor a class war. However much you might wish to believe that. The real world’s a far more complex and interesting place than your slogans claim it is.
Well said Peter.
Well said Peter.
Wrong Glyn, you mean top 0.01%
Apparently you need a net wealth of around 1 million (inc house equity) to be in the top 1%, and these people and others similar ARE paying the majority of taxis. Btw I am self employed my partner is in recruitment and has had one pay rise of 5% in the last 5 years (its an important job) I do not raise my prices because inflation has gone up, why should I pass this on to my customers who are also struggling?
I didn’t vote Tory and a lot of my wealthy customers don’t vote Tory, yet who keeps putting them in power? Fools is the answer and they are easily parted from their money…. Boris Johnson with an 80 seat majority????? God help us! (ps I doubt he votes Tory either)
Which were it here invested in UK equities, lent to governments via the purchase of gilts, and here on shore would make a massive contribution to the economy, hence why low taxes on such funds, as in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and offshore tax havens are so attractive, but not if WE attracted them instead.
Do you mean the 1% ? Or 0.1% ? Or 0.01% ?
The top 10% are paying most of the taxes for public services and are hardly “uber rich”.
Everyone who has a job is a “worker”, regardless of income. How about showing some respect and thanks for those workers who pay the most in taxes ? It’s not a zero sum game here, nor a class war. However much you might wish to believe that. The real world’s a far more complex and interesting place than your slogans claim it is.
Wrong Glyn, you mean top 0.01%
Apparently you need a net wealth of around 1 million (inc house equity) to be in the top 1%, and these people and others similar ARE paying the majority of taxis. Btw I am self employed my partner is in recruitment and has had one pay rise of 5% in the last 5 years (its an important job) I do not raise my prices because inflation has gone up, why should I pass this on to my customers who are also struggling?
I didn’t vote Tory and a lot of my wealthy customers don’t vote Tory, yet who keeps putting them in power? Fools is the answer and they are easily parted from their money…. Boris Johnson with an 80 seat majority????? God help us! (ps I doubt he votes Tory either)
Which were it here invested in UK equities, lent to governments via the purchase of gilts, and here on shore would make a massive contribution to the economy, hence why low taxes on such funds, as in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and offshore tax havens are so attractive, but not if WE attracted them instead.
Not the workers who have trashed this country but the thieves and traitors of the 10% with their hidden offshore billions. This country needs a serious righting, it’s tipped so far in the interests of the uber-rich it’s falling into total chaos.
I’d be more sympathetic to the mailmen if my office mail came regularly (now & for last 2 years about once a week at best – in London) or my home mail (about 3x a week).
and to the railways if trains weren’t so often cancelled due to staff shortages….just after matchdays and highdays.
If the trains are being cancelled due to staff shortages, then surely that implies the pay and conditions aren’t sufficient to attract the workers and therefore need to improve? That’s how our supply and demand economy is supposed to function is it not?
Maybe, or maybe people know they’ll get paid anyway, and commitment to work is slackening off. Maybe both are true at the same time. The trains issue is likely not actually a staff shortage – the people would have been rostered in, and then did not turn up for work. Similarly, 2 days a week post for 2 years, in locations in central London – and I’ve heard nothing of shortages of posties, as such.
Most of the railways have been privatised, so are you accusing the private sector employees of being lazy and entitled? Also if the company hasn’t got enough staff to cover sickness then either the company is incompetent and should be heavily fined for failing to provide the service it’s handsomely paid for, or there is indeed a staff shortage caused by low pay and poor working conditions.
Most of the railways have been privatised, so are you accusing the private sector employees of being lazy and entitled? Also if the company hasn’t got enough staff to cover sickness then either the company is incompetent and should be heavily fined for failing to provide the service it’s handsomely paid for, or there is indeed a staff shortage caused by low pay and poor working conditions.
Last winter our local bus company union members went on strike for better pay and conditions and succeeded in getting them. Now we regularly have buses cancelled because of a lack of staff. Go figure!
If they still can’t attract staff after a pay rise, the wages must have been truly appalling beforehand. If they can’t get staff then they need to pay higher wages, it’s how supply and demand works
Sorry Bob, but I think you’re being a tad naive. Again, both things can be true at the same time; private/public is largely irrelevant to my points; and its not character that is the fault (lazy etc) but the system – one which lately has dissolved into one where actually working is often unnecessary, and many jobs manual or office, private or public, are non productive.
Sorry Bob, but I think you’re being a tad naive. Again, both things can be true at the same time; private/public is largely irrelevant to my points; and its not character that is the fault (lazy etc) but the system – one which lately has dissolved into one where actually working is often unnecessary, and many jobs manual or office, private or public, are non productive.
If they still can’t attract staff after a pay rise, the wages must have been truly appalling beforehand. If they can’t get staff then they need to pay higher wages, it’s how supply and demand works
Maybe, or maybe people know they’ll get paid anyway, and commitment to work is slackening off. Maybe both are true at the same time. The trains issue is likely not actually a staff shortage – the people would have been rostered in, and then did not turn up for work. Similarly, 2 days a week post for 2 years, in locations in central London – and I’ve heard nothing of shortages of posties, as such.
Last winter our local bus company union members went on strike for better pay and conditions and succeeded in getting them. Now we regularly have buses cancelled because of a lack of staff. Go figure!
The postmen – as we call them here in little old Englandshire – take your post round when those managing their shift-rosters tell them to. It’s no good blaming THEM. Don’t shoot the messenger, Guv. You’ll be blaming bus drivers because the bus is clapped out next.
With respect Peter, you haven’t had my experience. For example, in my office, over the last three years, the postman comes between twice a week, and once a month – really. Moreover, they use this building’s postbox as a dump for all misaddressed mail (I assume it’s the last building on their route – actually, there are three business further up the road, along a pedestrian path, I guess they ca’t be bothered with that little extra walk). This was before strikes, before covid. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you. I don’t just blame the postie either – clearly management is egregious too – just look at the IT scandal.
With respect Peter, you haven’t had my experience. For example, in my office, over the last three years, the postman comes between twice a week, and once a month – really. Moreover, they use this building’s postbox as a dump for all misaddressed mail (I assume it’s the last building on their route – actually, there are three business further up the road, along a pedestrian path, I guess they ca’t be bothered with that little extra walk). This was before strikes, before covid. I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you. I don’t just blame the postie either – clearly management is egregious too – just look at the IT scandal.
If the trains are being cancelled due to staff shortages, then surely that implies the pay and conditions aren’t sufficient to attract the workers and therefore need to improve? That’s how our supply and demand economy is supposed to function is it not?
The postmen – as we call them here in little old Englandshire – take your post round when those managing their shift-rosters tell them to. It’s no good blaming THEM. Don’t shoot the messenger, Guv. You’ll be blaming bus drivers because the bus is clapped out next.
I’d be more sympathetic to the mailmen if my office mail came regularly (now & for last 2 years about once a week at best – in London) or my home mail (about 3x a week).
and to the railways if trains weren’t so often cancelled due to staff shortages….just after matchdays and highdays.
It was interesting to hear on Woman’s Hour (I think) and ambulance driver complaining of struggling on low pay who it emerged was earning just over £27,000 a year. The ONS statistics suggest £27,000 to be the median pay in the UK this year. If the average worker is to receive more he will not be better off if it merely embeds inflation so that he needs a bigger rise next year to keep up post tax with an inflationary cost of living. Many of those striking are in fact on better than average salaries.
The problem is that there is a shortage of nurses who should receive a rise to attract more back into the NHS but this should not feed through to jobs for which there is no shortage.Unfortunately in a stratified pay scale industry like the NHS that is difficult to achieve. Of course, part of the shortage is the result of shutting out otherwise competent candidates for nursing who for one reason or another are not in a position to get a degree in nursing.
OK, so I’ll say it and get ready for the incoming flak … having national pay deals in the public sector where there is market-linked regional pay in the private sector is a recipe for labour shortages in some parts of the public services. In richer areas which are not accorded “London weighting”, staff will be relatively underpaid while in less wealthy areas, they will be relatively overpaid.
In some respects then one solution to these labour shortages is available. But not while government and unions conspire to prioritise “fairness” goals and protecting the relatively privileged position of some sub-groups above others over the needs of public sector users.
The primary goal of public services should be to efficiently provide those services. Not to engage in wealth redistribution efforts which distort labour markets. I’m generally in favour of “levelling up”, but doing it through inflexible public sector labour markets isn’t the way to go about it. Just my view.
Minor detail: the median pay will be significantly below the average.
Median IS an average.
There is the MEAN average.
There is the MEDIAN average.
There is the MOAL average.
You should look them up.
Media is a a centre point of all wages from bottom to top and the centre value is picked, the mean is a total of all values divided by the number of instances ie people. The Mode (not Moal) is the most common value. Mean is affected upwards because very few earn enormous amounts.
WRRRRONNNNGGGG! YOU should look them up. This is sub-GCSE stuff. Mean is synonymous with average. Median is the amount 50% of people earn less than, and 50% earn more than. Thanks to the disproportionate effect of a small number of very large earners, the median figure is therefore significantly below the average, or mean figure.
Media is a a centre point of all wages from bottom to top and the centre value is picked, the mean is a total of all values divided by the number of instances ie people. The Mode (not Moal) is the most common value. Mean is affected upwards because very few earn enormous amounts.
WRRRRONNNNGGGG! YOU should look them up. This is sub-GCSE stuff. Mean is synonymous with average. Median is the amount 50% of people earn less than, and 50% earn more than. Thanks to the disproportionate effect of a small number of very large earners, the median figure is therefore significantly below the average, or mean figure.
Median IS an average.
There is the MEAN average.
There is the MEDIAN average.
There is the MOAL average.
You should look them up.
I suspect there are also many non-financial reasons why nurses leave the NHS and don’t wish to return and that throwing more money at them won’t made any difference for many. If we look at the NHS from the outside and ask ourselves just why it’s needed to recruit so heavily from overseas for decades (all our lives in many cases) it’s very hard to argue that the NHS is a world class organisation where people love to work.
None of these problems are new. Nor especially anything specific to this government or alleged austerity policies. Real terms funding for the NHS only ever increases. I’m deeply sceptical that money is the only or even main problem.
There is no absolute shortage of either nurses or teachers in this country. There are lots of trained and skilled nurses and teachers sitting on the sidelines because they no longer wish to work in public sector organisations.
We are not asking the right questions.
What’s happening with nurses is the same as what’s happening to teachers: long hours, low pay, difficult ‘customers’, obnoxious supervisors, and ideological takeover. Bloated managerialism is often at the center of this.
That rather begs the question why the RCN don’t have establishing a decent working environment up there with pay. Unless – like everything government seems to touch – it’s not really about trying to address the root causes.
That rather begs the question why the RCN don’t have establishing a decent working environment up there with pay. Unless – like everything government seems to touch – it’s not really about trying to address the root causes.
What’s happening with nurses is the same as what’s happening to teachers: long hours, low pay, difficult ‘customers’, obnoxious supervisors, and ideological takeover. Bloated managerialism is often at the center of this.
A lot of ambulance drivers would work in hospitals, the bulk of which would be in more heavily populated cities which generally have higher rents and house prices. Therefore I could see why only earning the median wage would be a struggle in that situation, especially if they had a family to keep.
When all those drivers decide they can earn more as couriers and leave the service then you’ll no doubt complain about ambulance wait times, which are already far too high as it is
OK, so I’ll say it and get ready for the incoming flak … having national pay deals in the public sector where there is market-linked regional pay in the private sector is a recipe for labour shortages in some parts of the public services. In richer areas which are not accorded “London weighting”, staff will be relatively underpaid while in less wealthy areas, they will be relatively overpaid.
In some respects then one solution to these labour shortages is available. But not while government and unions conspire to prioritise “fairness” goals and protecting the relatively privileged position of some sub-groups above others over the needs of public sector users.
The primary goal of public services should be to efficiently provide those services. Not to engage in wealth redistribution efforts which distort labour markets. I’m generally in favour of “levelling up”, but doing it through inflexible public sector labour markets isn’t the way to go about it. Just my view.
Minor detail: the median pay will be significantly below the average.
I suspect there are also many non-financial reasons why nurses leave the NHS and don’t wish to return and that throwing more money at them won’t made any difference for many. If we look at the NHS from the outside and ask ourselves just why it’s needed to recruit so heavily from overseas for decades (all our lives in many cases) it’s very hard to argue that the NHS is a world class organisation where people love to work.
None of these problems are new. Nor especially anything specific to this government or alleged austerity policies. Real terms funding for the NHS only ever increases. I’m deeply sceptical that money is the only or even main problem.
There is no absolute shortage of either nurses or teachers in this country. There are lots of trained and skilled nurses and teachers sitting on the sidelines because they no longer wish to work in public sector organisations.
We are not asking the right questions.
A lot of ambulance drivers would work in hospitals, the bulk of which would be in more heavily populated cities which generally have higher rents and house prices. Therefore I could see why only earning the median wage would be a struggle in that situation, especially if they had a family to keep.
When all those drivers decide they can earn more as couriers and leave the service then you’ll no doubt complain about ambulance wait times, which are already far too high as it is
It was interesting to hear on Woman’s Hour (I think) and ambulance driver complaining of struggling on low pay who it emerged was earning just over £27,000 a year. The ONS statistics suggest £27,000 to be the median pay in the UK this year. If the average worker is to receive more he will not be better off if it merely embeds inflation so that he needs a bigger rise next year to keep up post tax with an inflationary cost of living. Many of those striking are in fact on better than average salaries.
The problem is that there is a shortage of nurses who should receive a rise to attract more back into the NHS but this should not feed through to jobs for which there is no shortage.Unfortunately in a stratified pay scale industry like the NHS that is difficult to achieve. Of course, part of the shortage is the result of shutting out otherwise competent candidates for nursing who for one reason or another are not in a position to get a degree in nursing.
Aren’t ALL Public Sector Pensions Indexed Linked?
So what is the fuss? These ‘pampered poodles’ must be brought to heel, NO ifs, NO buts.
‘We’ all know what Lady T would have done!
But then she didn’t, did she ?
The ideal solution is probably for indexed linked public sector pensions and unprotected pensions (for the rest of us) to converge on a position somewhere in the middle where we all enjoy a similar level of protection and are all invested in the same sort of system. I can’t see that happening though. Once this becomes a zero sum game (which it is today), we’ll just end up fighting each other.
The practical alternative is to gradually increase the employee contributions for indexed linked pensions (public or private sector) much closer to the real cost. I suspect your real complaint here is not necessarily that public sector workers get better pensions, but rather that they only paid for a small proportion of these benefits are are being cross-subsidised by people like you who probably have unoprotected pensions. My understanding is that government is slowing ramping up employee contributions in many parts of the public sector.
I sympathise with your view. But I don’t see it getting us closer to any solution.
Fortuitously, although through NO fault of my own, I am a beneficiary of both systems, and really need a new planet to squander this bounty.
However your are sadly correct about the late, lamented Lady T, she sadly “bottled it”, as she also did with the dreaded Barnett Formula.
There are only so many battles you can fight. Better to credit her for those she did (more than anyone else ever did) than dwell on what didn’t get done. Her successors have had 30 years to do those.
Clever to work “bottled it” in with her – my first memory of her was the school milk.
Wouldn’t want to have been the person who told her she’d “bottled it” though.
Happy to relieve you of any bounty you wish to squander …
Yes, “Thatcher the Milk Snatcher” was one of the first ragtop headlines that brought her to our attention, and possibly one of the earliest versions of the ubiquitous vitriol we now have across the MSM.
We could argue till the cows come home about the policy, but by that time i’d already had my fill of slurping the cream that settled at the top of spare mini milkbottles!
Yes, “Thatcher the Milk Snatcher” was one of the first ragtop headlines that brought her to our attention, and possibly one of the earliest versions of the ubiquitous vitriol we now have across the MSM.
We could argue till the cows come home about the policy, but by that time i’d already had my fill of slurping the cream that settled at the top of spare mini milkbottles!
There are only so many battles you can fight. Better to credit her for those she did (more than anyone else ever did) than dwell on what didn’t get done. Her successors have had 30 years to do those.
Clever to work “bottled it” in with her – my first memory of her was the school milk.
Wouldn’t want to have been the person who told her she’d “bottled it” though.
Happy to relieve you of any bounty you wish to squander …
Fortuitously, although through NO fault of my own, I am a beneficiary of both systems, and really need a new planet to squander this bounty.
However your are sadly correct about the late, lamented Lady T, she sadly “bottled it”, as she also did with the dreaded Barnett Formula.
The problem with your point is conflating all public sector workers and pensions into one. Some public sector workers do good work on poor pay and deserve every penny of their pension. Other public sector workers do ridiculously pointless jobs on spectacular salaries and pensions. I would happily see those jobs culled.
FYI, public sector pensions are usually index-linked depending on the age of the person at the point of retirement.
Feel free to reply with some more Peter Hitchens-style copslay, it’s quite amusing.
A perfect, if depressing synopsis, thank you.
A perfect, if depressing synopsis, thank you.
in times of yore the great unionised pension funds such as Coal Board, Merchant Navy and others were the biggest single shareholders in British quoted companies, buyers of gilts, so therefore providers of goverment borrowing, and suppliers of invested funds…. so the brothers and co-workers of both the capitalist and benevolence system. It is simply staggering that so few know this and what a great partnership system it was?
But then she didn’t, did she ?
The ideal solution is probably for indexed linked public sector pensions and unprotected pensions (for the rest of us) to converge on a position somewhere in the middle where we all enjoy a similar level of protection and are all invested in the same sort of system. I can’t see that happening though. Once this becomes a zero sum game (which it is today), we’ll just end up fighting each other.
The practical alternative is to gradually increase the employee contributions for indexed linked pensions (public or private sector) much closer to the real cost. I suspect your real complaint here is not necessarily that public sector workers get better pensions, but rather that they only paid for a small proportion of these benefits are are being cross-subsidised by people like you who probably have unoprotected pensions. My understanding is that government is slowing ramping up employee contributions in many parts of the public sector.
I sympathise with your view. But I don’t see it getting us closer to any solution.
The problem with your point is conflating all public sector workers and pensions into one. Some public sector workers do good work on poor pay and deserve every penny of their pension. Other public sector workers do ridiculously pointless jobs on spectacular salaries and pensions. I would happily see those jobs culled.
FYI, public sector pensions are usually index-linked depending on the age of the person at the point of retirement.
Feel free to reply with some more Peter Hitchens-style copslay, it’s quite amusing.
in times of yore the great unionised pension funds such as Coal Board, Merchant Navy and others were the biggest single shareholders in British quoted companies, buyers of gilts, so therefore providers of goverment borrowing, and suppliers of invested funds…. so the brothers and co-workers of both the capitalist and benevolence system. It is simply staggering that so few know this and what a great partnership system it was?
Aren’t ALL Public Sector Pensions Indexed Linked?
So what is the fuss? These ‘pampered poodles’ must be brought to heel, NO ifs, NO buts.
‘We’ all know what Lady T would have done!
Why not a quick referendum? 10% pay rises for all public sector employees; to be funded by 3p/£1 income tax increase in basic rate. Yes or No?
..or introduce a higher rate for the uber rich or, better still, forget about income tax for a minute and tax wealth. Just check out how much wealth there is in the UK and see how much a 2% wealth tax would bring in! A huge sum.. but don’t take my word for it.. check it out yourself!
And when the wealth has gone – and much of it will be gone before even the first draft of the Finance Bill is printed – and the entrepreneurs have gone, and the economy has crashed into a gully of no return; then what? We all starve together, chewing our boots and singing the Red Flag?
I take your point, to a degree – but is this ‘wealth’ in the form of electronic balances in London accounts – or is it held largely in the form of tangible UK physical assets, such as property? It seems to me the latter. The former is mainly Offshore, nu?
Of course, a wealth tax would quickly and significantly reduce the notional paper value of Mayfair palazzos, country estates, league football clubs etc. London’s openness to dodgy non-noms with dodgy billions is the main reason these things are so staggeringly expensive (‘valuable’) in the first place.
The real source of sustainable national prosperity, of course, is a productive and successful economy. On that, we’ve spent the past 12 years, the past 25 years, really the last 60 years, going backwards.
I take your point, to a degree – but is this ‘wealth’ in the form of electronic balances in London accounts – or is it held largely in the form of tangible UK physical assets, such as property? It seems to me the latter. The former is mainly Offshore, nu?
Of course, a wealth tax would quickly and significantly reduce the notional paper value of Mayfair palazzos, country estates, league football clubs etc. London’s openness to dodgy non-noms with dodgy billions is the main reason these things are so staggeringly expensive (‘valuable’) in the first place.
The real source of sustainable national prosperity, of course, is a productive and successful economy. On that, we’ve spent the past 12 years, the past 25 years, really the last 60 years, going backwards.
Actually wrong: lower taxes simply release cash to be invested and spent in an economy, and yes, I have done the research, along with London Business School and a big insurer sponsor, and we proved that only lowering income tax down to 18% had a negative impact: until then the actual gross take to HM Treasury via lower oercentage rates increased net revenue from many more people paying the lower taxes, and more businesses making higher profits and so ditto.
And when the wealth has gone – and much of it will be gone before even the first draft of the Finance Bill is printed – and the entrepreneurs have gone, and the economy has crashed into a gully of no return; then what? We all starve together, chewing our boots and singing the Red Flag?
Actually wrong: lower taxes simply release cash to be invested and spent in an economy, and yes, I have done the research, along with London Business School and a big insurer sponsor, and we proved that only lowering income tax down to 18% had a negative impact: until then the actual gross take to HM Treasury via lower oercentage rates increased net revenue from many more people paying the lower taxes, and more businesses making higher profits and so ditto.
..or introduce a higher rate for the uber rich or, better still, forget about income tax for a minute and tax wealth. Just check out how much wealth there is in the UK and see how much a 2% wealth tax would bring in! A huge sum.. but don’t take my word for it.. check it out yourself!
Why not a quick referendum? 10% pay rises for all public sector employees; to be funded by 3p/£1 income tax increase in basic rate. Yes or No?
?
As one of my brothers in law mentioned, all the power and oil companies raised prices to a phenomenal degree, creating a financial crisis and the government did nothing to stop them. In France they put a cap on it. No wonder everybody and their horse is going on strike. The government wouldn’t have needed to bail anyone out, if they had acted sooner and as sensibly as the French government did. The chaos after Boris going and Liz Truss failing, didn’t help either
Give them their pay rises. A third will be collected back in tax and NIC. The rest will get spent in shops so there’s another 20% in VAT, or saved for investment – money freed for borrowing. Growth in other words.
The bad news about public sector collective bargaining is that lazy and incompetent people get the same pay award as the best and most hatd-working – and probably never get sacked either.
At least half pay awards should be merit based – that alone should raise standards.
wouldn’t it be much cheaper to hire more care home staff, to take pressure off nurses? And ti allow in more immigrant workers to the sector?
wouldn’t it be much cheaper to hire more care home staff, to take pressure off nurses? And ti allow in more immigrant workers to the sector?
I blame the strikers, Putin, global warming, and Brexit – in that order.
What about the dreaded CORONA BEAST!
I blame the fat cat puppeteers, the puppet politicians Orwell’s dogs..
All innocent parties. The real culprits are: Clinto-Blairite Corporate Factory-&-Industrial-Job-Exportism and associated hopelessness and oxycontin/ cocaine addiction; mass 3rd World Immigration; the bailing out of the Wall Street shysters – which only emboldened them – and failure to take the 2008 financial crisis on the chin; the new religion of Corporate Woke; obscene QE; the abandonment of any rational finance and economics; a total absence of ANY economic or State reform over the past 15 years; rampant economic concentration and the death of competition; millions of expensive but worthless bullshot ‘degrees’; massive State bloat and squandering, much but not all on the lockdown bullocks; an ageing and demotivated, taxed-to-idleness population; yep, and now, the UK and EU boss-people cutting off our own noses to spite Putin with barmy energy sanctions; and all that now finally coming home to roost, now.
What about the dreaded CORONA BEAST!
I blame the fat cat puppeteers, the puppet politicians Orwell’s dogs..
All innocent parties. The real culprits are: Clinto-Blairite Corporate Factory-&-Industrial-Job-Exportism and associated hopelessness and oxycontin/ cocaine addiction; mass 3rd World Immigration; the bailing out of the Wall Street shysters – which only emboldened them – and failure to take the 2008 financial crisis on the chin; the new religion of Corporate Woke; obscene QE; the abandonment of any rational finance and economics; a total absence of ANY economic or State reform over the past 15 years; rampant economic concentration and the death of competition; millions of expensive but worthless bullshot ‘degrees’; massive State bloat and squandering, much but not all on the lockdown bullocks; an ageing and demotivated, taxed-to-idleness population; yep, and now, the UK and EU boss-people cutting off our own noses to spite Putin with barmy energy sanctions; and all that now finally coming home to roost, now.
I blame the strikers, Putin, global warming, and Brexit – in that order.