The author presents this analysis as if it signified a kind of triumph for Wilson and Labour. The February 1974 general election resulted in a “hung parliament”. Wilson only became PM again because Heath was unable to form a coalition with the Liberals, but a lack of a majority forced Wilson into another election just a matter of months later, which produced a wafer-thin majority and within a couple of years he was gone, a broken man. Callaghan took over, culminating in the Winter of Discontent in 1978/79 which ushered in the Thatcher Era. The period from 1974-79 was one long humiliation for Labour, including having to beg for finance from the International Monetary Fund. We became “the sick man of Europe”. Some triumph.
If there’s a lesson to be drawn at all for Starmer, it’s ‘don’t cosy up to union power’. A sensible balance needs to be acheived, of course. Whether Sunak can acheive it is another matter, but this article – by focusing solely on 1970-74 – doesn’t even give half the true picture of events half a century ago. As a teenager with growing awareness, i remember it only too clearly.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
The author presents this analysis as if it signified a kind of triumph for Wilson and Labour. The February 1974 general election resulted in a “hung parliament”. Wilson only became PM again because Heath was unable to form a coalition with the Liberals, but a lack of a majority forced Wilson into another election just a matter of months later, which produced a wafer-thin majority and within a couple of years he was gone, a broken man. Callaghan took over, culminating in the Winter of Discontent in 1978/79 which ushered in the Thatcher Era. The period from 1974-79 was one long humiliation for Labour, including having to beg for finance from the International Monetary Fund. We became “the sick man of Europe”. Some triumph.
If there’s a lesson to be drawn at all for Starmer, it’s ‘don’t cosy up to union power’. A sensible balance needs to be acheived, of course. Whether Sunak can acheive it is another matter, but this article – by focusing solely on 1970-74 – doesn’t even give half the true picture of events half a century ago. As a teenager with growing awareness, i remember it only too clearly.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
John Riordan
1 year ago
I’m no fan of Sunak, but I think times have changed these days and there is greater scope for a Tory leader to bash the unions on principle. The reason, quite simply, is that there is no modern solidarity between unionised labour and the rest of the economy.
A few examples where it still exists, such as for NHS staff, are more to do with the specifics of the jobs in question: most people sympathise with nurses and paramedics simply because they are also average-paid and it’s the NHS. Train drivers, on the other hand, are sabotaging the average person’s ability to get to work as part of defending salary packages far higher than most of the people using public transport, and that isn’t making friends anywhere.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
I’m no fan of Sunak, but I think times have changed these days and there is greater scope for a Tory leader to bash the unions on principle. The reason, quite simply, is that there is no modern solidarity between unionised labour and the rest of the economy.
A few examples where it still exists, such as for NHS staff, are more to do with the specifics of the jobs in question: most people sympathise with nurses and paramedics simply because they are also average-paid and it’s the NHS. Train drivers, on the other hand, are sabotaging the average person’s ability to get to work as part of defending salary packages far higher than most of the people using public transport, and that isn’t making friends anywhere.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
This is not 1970, nor 1974 nor 1979, history neither repeats nor rhymes, and, unless you are planning to invade Russia, or Afghanistan, history holds no ‘lessons’. Sunak looks set to lose, but the least significant of the reasons why he loses, will be how he handles the unions. Or the Union.
Prashant Kotak
1 year ago
This is not 1970, nor 1974 nor 1979, history neither repeats nor rhymes, and, unless you are planning to invade Russia, or Afghanistan, history holds no ‘lessons’. Sunak looks set to lose, but the least significant of the reasons why he loses, will be how he handles the unions. Or the Union.
Edward Seymour
1 year ago
In following many other countries in outlawing blue light strikes, Sunack is aware that only a minority of the workforce are in a union and most of those are in the “public sector”. He will also be aware that the public are heartily sick of these very same “public sector” unions. He will also have noted that Labour (Streeting) is also urging NHS reform. The appalling sight of ambulance workers, yes ambulance workers, striking, has to stop. Clearly some of these people are in the wrong jobs.
Why shouldn’t they strike? They’re working in a sector with acute staff shortages, so why should they accept pay rises less than the rate of inflation, which is basically a pay cut?
I’m assuming BB that is a genuine question and NOT a ‘wind up’?
Because they are in totally secure jobs, with ridiculously generous indexed-linked pensions, and in some, if not all, cases overpaid already. Plus they completely avoided the C-19 cull that affected many in the Private Sector. In short they are GREEDY.
Fortunately, in my long life I have witnessed this ‘Prima Dona’ Trade Union behaviour before, and on each occasion it has had catastrophic results for the ‘workers’
eg:
1:The London Dockers. A real menace in their day, even going on strike during WWII! Where are they now? One with Nineveh and Tyre fortunately.
2: British Car Workers. Another menace who with the assistance of ‘Management’ managed to destroy the British Car Industry and themselves. (Off course now we now make cars for ‘other people’ but the workforce is supine and compliant.
3: The fabled Miners, the heroes of 1926, and the wreckers of more that one government. Despite the fact we sit on an “Island of Coal”*, where are they now?
Yes, these so-called public servants are no longer really providing a service. Everybody wants to work from home so that means that kids can stay at home and be schooled remotely – teachers will no longer be needed.
(Just out of interest, I was listening to a radio programme this morning and a request came from someone who is working from home – he boasted that he could use the week for decorating).
With working from home there will be less demand for trains. Ambulances for emergency cases only sit outside hospitals waiting for permission to enter. Doctors don’t see patients now so they could work from home. Dentists would be the exception perhaps.
Put all this to one side and let’s agree there will be some complete pee-takers. The more important question is arguably – what do we need to pay to attract people into these professions longer term? We need teachers. We need nurses and doctors. They all come out of Education with lots more debt than we did. Less chance of owning a home. Public sector pensions aren’t quite what they used to be. So what do we need to pay to make sure we don’t need to run round the world try to supplement these workforce with immigration? Calmy we just ought to ponder this before in our rage we make the medium term much worse.
You are quite right to ask this question and I thank you for it. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the answer…..
Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t. Today there are zillions of minority groups. If you paid student fees for doctors you could not ensure that good doctors came out of the process because:
* Pressure to pass exams leads to too much stress – in would come the ‘mental health’ people. Basically, all students would have to pass or we would have ‘naming and shaming’ and that would be bad.
* If, for example, a student was horrendously overweight but wanted to be a surgeon, you would have to re-design all functions to accomodate that person. Otherwise you would be picking on f*t people – not allowed.
*If the student became a doctor but wanted to work from home (mental issues), you would have to allow that.
*If the patient (me) refused to be operated on by a transperson, there could be no operation.
Etc, etc, etc.
So, the answer is an autocracy as we would have in a war.
Your statement “Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t” is wrong to me.
Capitalist democracies have done more to advance the lot of humans than any other system – despite its many flaws.
The secret sauce of capitalism is innovation (something stamped out in an autocracy). And the great thing is that innovation is free.
Change is the basis of all human existence .
Your statement “Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t” is wrong to me.
Capitalist democracies have done more to advance the lot of humans than any other system – despite its many flaws.
The secret sauce of capitalism is innovation (something stamped out in an autocracy). And the great thing is that innovation is free.
Change is the basis of all human existence .
You are quite right to ask this question and I thank you for it. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the answer…..
Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t. Today there are zillions of minority groups. If you paid student fees for doctors you could not ensure that good doctors came out of the process because:
* Pressure to pass exams leads to too much stress – in would come the ‘mental health’ people. Basically, all students would have to pass or we would have ‘naming and shaming’ and that would be bad.
* If, for example, a student was horrendously overweight but wanted to be a surgeon, you would have to re-design all functions to accomodate that person. Otherwise you would be picking on f*t people – not allowed.
*If the student became a doctor but wanted to work from home (mental issues), you would have to allow that.
*If the patient (me) refused to be operated on by a transperson, there could be no operation.
Etc, etc, etc.
So, the answer is an autocracy as we would have in a war.
Put all this to one side and let’s agree there will be some complete pee-takers. The more important question is arguably – what do we need to pay to attract people into these professions longer term? We need teachers. We need nurses and doctors. They all come out of Education with lots more debt than we did. Less chance of owning a home. Public sector pensions aren’t quite what they used to be. So what do we need to pay to make sure we don’t need to run round the world try to supplement these workforce with immigration? Calmy we just ought to ponder this before in our rage we make the medium term much worse.
It fascinates me as to how a post war generation of workers went straight from wartime service, and the values of loyalty, discipline, service, duty and rank hirearchy to apparent neo communism?
Could one factor have been that post war ” managers” were of an age who had been too young to serve in WW1 and too old for WW2, and therefore did not command any respect from their workforce?
The car industry demise was due to a number of factors: appalling management, strategy, design, engineering and innovation, and a blindness to consumer choice and demand, and also the financial pressure of losing the manufacturing revenue from making military/ aviation parts, post war which had kept them all going.
Ah, I know this one! My parents were of that generation, and returned to loud assurances that they had “won the war”, a claim which even then didn’t bear much scrutiny.
Having supposedly “won”, where’s the prize?
One thing not much discussed now, but the Conservatives were regarded as the “party of unemployment” who intended to “reset the clock to 1938”. The English aren’t much given to abstract political thought but when an idea DOES take root, it sticks. “No return to the 1930s” was just such an idea.
Ah, I know this one! My parents were of that generation, and returned to loud assurances that they had “won the war”, a claim which even then didn’t bear much scrutiny.
Having supposedly “won”, where’s the prize?
One thing not much discussed now, but the Conservatives were regarded as the “party of unemployment” who intended to “reset the clock to 1938”. The English aren’t much given to abstract political thought but when an idea DOES take root, it sticks. “No return to the 1930s” was just such an idea.
Yes, these so-called public servants are no longer really providing a service. Everybody wants to work from home so that means that kids can stay at home and be schooled remotely – teachers will no longer be needed.
(Just out of interest, I was listening to a radio programme this morning and a request came from someone who is working from home – he boasted that he could use the week for decorating).
With working from home there will be less demand for trains. Ambulances for emergency cases only sit outside hospitals waiting for permission to enter. Doctors don’t see patients now so they could work from home. Dentists would be the exception perhaps.
It fascinates me as to how a post war generation of workers went straight from wartime service, and the values of loyalty, discipline, service, duty and rank hirearchy to apparent neo communism?
Could one factor have been that post war ” managers” were of an age who had been too young to serve in WW1 and too old for WW2, and therefore did not command any respect from their workforce?
The car industry demise was due to a number of factors: appalling management, strategy, design, engineering and innovation, and a blindness to consumer choice and demand, and also the financial pressure of losing the manufacturing revenue from making military/ aviation parts, post war which had kept them all going.
I’m assuming BB that is a genuine question and NOT a ‘wind up’?
Because they are in totally secure jobs, with ridiculously generous indexed-linked pensions, and in some, if not all, cases overpaid already. Plus they completely avoided the C-19 cull that affected many in the Private Sector. In short they are GREEDY.
Fortunately, in my long life I have witnessed this ‘Prima Dona’ Trade Union behaviour before, and on each occasion it has had catastrophic results for the ‘workers’
eg:
1:The London Dockers. A real menace in their day, even going on strike during WWII! Where are they now? One with Nineveh and Tyre fortunately.
2: British Car Workers. Another menace who with the assistance of ‘Management’ managed to destroy the British Car Industry and themselves. (Off course now we now make cars for ‘other people’ but the workforce is supine and compliant.
3: The fabled Miners, the heroes of 1926, and the wreckers of more that one government. Despite the fact we sit on an “Island of Coal”*, where are they now?
Why shouldn’t they strike? They’re working in a sector with acute staff shortages, so why should they accept pay rises less than the rate of inflation, which is basically a pay cut?
Edward Seymour
1 year ago
In following many other countries in outlawing blue light strikes, Sunack is aware that only a minority of the workforce are in a union and most of those are in the “public sector”. He will also be aware that the public are heartily sick of these very same “public sector” unions. He will also have noted that Labour (Streeting) is also urging NHS reform. The appalling sight of ambulance workers, yes ambulance workers, striking, has to stop. Clearly some of these people are in the wrong jobs.
Peter B
1 year ago
So Keir Starmer backed the print unions in the Wapping dispute. Don’t particularly like what he stands for, but I’d never had him down as stupid. But if he couldn’t see that the unions would not only lose, but absolutely deserved to (appalling luddism and restrictive practices, effectively price gouging the newspaper buying public for their own greed and laziness), you’ve got to seriously question the man’s judgement.
Wapping: Murdoch’s finest hour (and I’m no fan of Murdoch). Did us all a big favour.
Peter B
1 year ago
So Keir Starmer backed the print unions in the Wapping dispute. Don’t particularly like what he stands for, but I’d never had him down as stupid. But if he couldn’t see that the unions would not only lose, but absolutely deserved to (appalling luddism and restrictive practices, effectively price gouging the newspaper buying public for their own greed and laziness), you’ve got to seriously question the man’s judgement.
Wapping: Murdoch’s finest hour (and I’m no fan of Murdoch). Did us all a big favour.
Matt M
1 year ago
In my opinion all public sector workers should be prevented by law from striking. If the army and the police can’t strike, why can the ambulance drivers, nurses, civil servants or teachers? Their pay and conditions are entirely political questions – unlike a private company, the NHS won’t go bust if the nurses go on strike. If they pay is too low, it will become an issue at election time.
And by all means privatise the railways, but not until you pass legislation making it illegal for them to strike.
If you take away a persons right to strike, how can they bargain for better wages? Why would any government (especially one of a neoliberal bent) enter wage negotiations in good faith if they know the workers can’t withdraw their labour? Private sector workers are able to simply switch jobs in search of a pay rise for doing the same job, something that isn’t as simple in most public sector jobs. A nurse going to a different hospital is still going to be paid the same as she was before
Surely that is doubly true for a policeman or a soldier (you can’t just join another country’s army), yet they can’t strike.
Working for the state should be a vocation – you have dedicated your life to caring for the sick, teaching the young, protecting the law-abiding citizens from the villains, defending the country against her enemies.
The quid pro quo should be that the state looks after you both in terms of giving you a good quality of life but also in terms of status. I would, for instance, look to provide special discounts on housing to key public sector workers* and let them jump the queue in terms of NHS waiting lists, school places and council housing etc. Supermarkets should be encouraged (through the tax and planning systems) to give discounts on Key Workers’ groceries. We should have a new Bank Holiday called Key Worker Day when delegations are invited to a service of thanks in Westminster Abbey and a garden party at Buckingham Palace and every town and village has a parade. The list of things that could be done (at relatively low cost is endless).
We got a taste of this with the Key Workers treatment in the pandemic.
By building up the status and the perks available to these Key Workers we will increase recruitment and overcome our reliance on immigration to fill these roles.
But in return for this status and these perks, they must commit to doing their job in good times or bad.
*Of course this would only be for the actual “blue light” staff – not the office staff who work for the DVLA, for instance. They should be allowed to strike but then again they should be outsourced to an efficient private company (who would quickly replace them with ChatGPT 🙂 ) and not employed by the state.
I can’t agree with your “you have dedicated your life to…” argument, and i speak as someone who worked in the NHS for 35 years. It’s a career option – which isn’t to say that the majority who work in such services aren’t dedicated to their work – i was, and they are – but it’s not a life-dedicating issue.
Many work for a while in such services, then leave for other opportunities, having gained great professional and life experience, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s reasonably well paid, good career progression and a pretty decent pension.
Let’s stop this nonsense about NHS frontline staff being “angels”, it’s actually demeaning rubbish. Good people mainly doing a great job and certainly requiring certain qualities not everyone possesses, but at the end of each shift you go home and live; you don’t go into work to live. From that point of view, going on strike is the last option but should remain within the law.
I can’t agree with your “you have dedicated your life to…” argument, and i speak as someone who worked in the NHS for 35 years. It’s a career option – which isn’t to say that the majority who work in such services aren’t dedicated to their work – i was, and they are – but it’s not a life-dedicating issue.
Many work for a while in such services, then leave for other opportunities, having gained great professional and life experience, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s reasonably well paid, good career progression and a pretty decent pension.
Let’s stop this nonsense about NHS frontline staff being “angels”, it’s actually demeaning rubbish. Good people mainly doing a great job and certainly requiring certain qualities not everyone possesses, but at the end of each shift you go home and live; you don’t go into work to live. From that point of view, going on strike is the last option but should remain within the law.
When you work in a monopoly, you should have restrictions placed on your terms and conditions. Taking your argument, lead to disasters that we see now.
They can become private sector nurses or do another job. Most of us don’t go on strike if we want better pay – we look for a better paid job somewhere else. If our current employer wants to keep us, they’ll pay more.
The reason this doesn’t work today in the public sector is the union-backed rigidity of pay – by insisting on national pay rates regardless of regional market pay rates and “equal pay for equal work”.
But I’ve yet to meet two people in the same nominal role (or job grade) who do do “equal work”.
The only solution here is to move away from these over-rigid pay structures and start paying people market rates for their actual skills. And stop pretending that all have the same skills.
It should absolutely be possible for a hospital or school in a more expensive/higher labour rate area to pay more for someone on the same nominal job grade than they are paid in a less expensive area. It’s entirely predictable what happens if you don’t. Private sector activity is suppressed in the poorer area (public sector workers are relatively over-paid there). Richer areas can’t get the public sector workers they need.
As ever, the unions are protectionist and backward looking and obstructing progress.
Given the high vacancy rates what do you think the market rate might settle at?
Of course there isn’t a market – NHS is largely a monopoly provider which has pros and cons when it comes to things like this. What one could do is scrap the national pay rates and allow local agreement. Something in that as it’s true the value of salaries does vary a bit geographically. But so long as a shortage existed it could just lead to increased wage inflation under a ‘beggar thy neighbour’ approach. We need demand and supply much closer to hold wages steady.
And given we need more nurses/care workers/doctors for future demographics too the more sensible way to look at this is – what is going to attract and retain them into the professions? (especially if we want to wean ourselves off foreign supplementation). Short termism has got us here.
We need to train more British people and stop subsidising young people to study for negative value “degrees”. That, and remove the requirement for nursing degrees – get rid of the ridiculous credentialism which just forces up costs without improving quality or productivity. If there’s a need for higher skilled nurses, split nursing up into a higher skilled and lower skilled group. Those are – for me – obvious things to do. But doubtless there are many other things.
Lowering the cost of medical degrees and qualifications (e.g. bursaries) would also help. It’s sheer madness for government to treat all “degrees” as equally useful. Particularly when we have shortages.
Yes, there are certainly some cases where market forces probably won’t work in areas like the NHS. But pretending that they never apply and never work isn’t working either.
I honestly don’t know where the “market rate” might settle.
The “market rate” for a nurse is the amount of money paid to an agency nurse, hired to fill the role of the nurse you are unable to recruit because you’re not paying them enough. Seems to me that you might solve a lot of recruitment problems, from nursing to fruit picking if O-level Economics principles like supply and demand were observed. People will apply for jobs if the rewards are worth the effort. Wages need to go up. Particularly in the private sector where shareholders’ interests are paramount to the extent that taxpayers have to top-up derisory wage levels with Universal Credit.
We agree we clearly want teachers, doctors, nurses well trained and we want to attract some of our best into these professions. As regards Care sector, entry qualification less the issue although good training essential. The question was what do we need to pay to get them to do it in sufficient numbers? Obviously if they haven’t incurred so much debt as a student that’s a start, but that isn’t going to be corrected quickly. The only correction we have immediately is wage rate increase and/or immediate debt relief. Instead teachers are 11% poorer than 2011 and nurses/doctors similar (not quite as much as Unions make out but significant)
NHS used to have alot of short term housing it could offer nurses/doctors in training. That’s largely gone too. Sold off to cover other capital shortfalls. A reinvestment in that would help but again not quick.
As regards care sector it’s more straightforward – we just got to pay significantly more. We can’t have 30k NHS beds blocked a day because of 100k vacancies in social care and then more people off long term sick waiting for their op. We also need to make this sector more attractive such that we get middle aged/early retirees back into the workforce enjoying the satisfaction these roles can give. Or we are inevitably going to need to prise open the immigration door to help. The current position is untenable and having a major drag on the wider economy.
Here’s an idea. Haven’t really thought it through. but let’s try it.
You don’t raise wages. Instead, you raise tax thresholds for critical professions (or lower tax rates). So you raise the “take home pay” (a phrase you don’t really here these days) without raising the salary a lot. That has several things in its favour. Firstly, it’s reversible if the labour shortages disappear. Secondly, it doesn’t lock even even more unfunded future pension liabilities.
Too complicated, you may say. But the employees in this case are the government’s own (health service workers) – so they should reliably know who they are (though we must never underestimate the ability of government to create a bad IT system !). And anyone employed at much higher cost through an agency won’t get the tax cut.
Yep the issue is take home pay as you rightly say. And certainly like the disincentive to work for an agency worker.
Putting aside the question of equity with other workers, which would be a major challenge for politicians, the problem might be how easy to administer? But I can’t think of a major issue. One can understand why means tested benefits etc sound reasonable but become impractical at an administration level (why we ended up originally with universal Child Benefit flat rate), but on this one it’s just a different tax code so simple one would think.
Yep the issue is take home pay as you rightly say. And certainly like the disincentive to work for an agency worker.
Putting aside the question of equity with other workers, which would be a major challenge for politicians, the problem might be how easy to administer? But I can’t think of a major issue. One can understand why means tested benefits etc sound reasonable but become impractical at an administration level (why we ended up originally with universal Child Benefit flat rate), but on this one it’s just a different tax code so simple one would think.
Here’s an idea. Haven’t really thought it through. but let’s try it.
You don’t raise wages. Instead, you raise tax thresholds for critical professions (or lower tax rates). So you raise the “take home pay” (a phrase you don’t really here these days) without raising the salary a lot. That has several things in its favour. Firstly, it’s reversible if the labour shortages disappear. Secondly, it doesn’t lock even even more unfunded future pension liabilities.
Too complicated, you may say. But the employees in this case are the government’s own (health service workers) – so they should reliably know who they are (though we must never underestimate the ability of government to create a bad IT system !). And anyone employed at much higher cost through an agency won’t get the tax cut.
The “market rate” for a nurse is the amount of money paid to an agency nurse, hired to fill the role of the nurse you are unable to recruit because you’re not paying them enough. Seems to me that you might solve a lot of recruitment problems, from nursing to fruit picking if O-level Economics principles like supply and demand were observed. People will apply for jobs if the rewards are worth the effort. Wages need to go up. Particularly in the private sector where shareholders’ interests are paramount to the extent that taxpayers have to top-up derisory wage levels with Universal Credit.
We agree we clearly want teachers, doctors, nurses well trained and we want to attract some of our best into these professions. As regards Care sector, entry qualification less the issue although good training essential. The question was what do we need to pay to get them to do it in sufficient numbers? Obviously if they haven’t incurred so much debt as a student that’s a start, but that isn’t going to be corrected quickly. The only correction we have immediately is wage rate increase and/or immediate debt relief. Instead teachers are 11% poorer than 2011 and nurses/doctors similar (not quite as much as Unions make out but significant)
NHS used to have alot of short term housing it could offer nurses/doctors in training. That’s largely gone too. Sold off to cover other capital shortfalls. A reinvestment in that would help but again not quick.
As regards care sector it’s more straightforward – we just got to pay significantly more. We can’t have 30k NHS beds blocked a day because of 100k vacancies in social care and then more people off long term sick waiting for their op. We also need to make this sector more attractive such that we get middle aged/early retirees back into the workforce enjoying the satisfaction these roles can give. Or we are inevitably going to need to prise open the immigration door to help. The current position is untenable and having a major drag on the wider economy.
The anomaly there are care workers. If you work in home care you only get paid for the time you enter a clients house to the time you leave having to phone in your arrival. Some people can be available during 10-12 hour shifts but be paid for 5-6 hours. In a care home you get paid for every hour you work and don’t travel wasting time or the deterioration of your car. It’s not difficult to see why there is a crisis in Home care that no other profession has to put up with.
I agree AM. It’s also why we can source a Care Home bed slightly quicker than a Care Package. But the former is usually much more expensive overall, both if a self-payer or if reliant on Local Authority. And thus we end up pushing people into Care Homes earlier than was really needed with all the decompensation in health and mental agility that accelerates. People prefer to stay in own home long as poss and do better generally for it. It’s also cheaper.
Personally I think the non payment for travelling time should be made illegal or remunerated in another way forthwith. I think were this workforce unionised this would have been resolved years ago and market rebalanced accordingly. Possible side argument/paradox therefore that we need the balance of employer-union to find sustainable market positions? Too much power either way and get the balance wrong.
I agree AM. It’s also why we can source a Care Home bed slightly quicker than a Care Package. But the former is usually much more expensive overall, both if a self-payer or if reliant on Local Authority. And thus we end up pushing people into Care Homes earlier than was really needed with all the decompensation in health and mental agility that accelerates. People prefer to stay in own home long as poss and do better generally for it. It’s also cheaper.
Personally I think the non payment for travelling time should be made illegal or remunerated in another way forthwith. I think were this workforce unionised this would have been resolved years ago and market rebalanced accordingly. Possible side argument/paradox therefore that we need the balance of employer-union to find sustainable market positions? Too much power either way and get the balance wrong.
We need to train more British people and stop subsidising young people to study for negative value “degrees”. That, and remove the requirement for nursing degrees – get rid of the ridiculous credentialism which just forces up costs without improving quality or productivity. If there’s a need for higher skilled nurses, split nursing up into a higher skilled and lower skilled group. Those are – for me – obvious things to do. But doubtless there are many other things.
Lowering the cost of medical degrees and qualifications (e.g. bursaries) would also help. It’s sheer madness for government to treat all “degrees” as equally useful. Particularly when we have shortages.
Yes, there are certainly some cases where market forces probably won’t work in areas like the NHS. But pretending that they never apply and never work isn’t working either.
I honestly don’t know where the “market rate” might settle.
The anomaly there are care workers. If you work in home care you only get paid for the time you enter a clients house to the time you leave having to phone in your arrival. Some people can be available during 10-12 hour shifts but be paid for 5-6 hours. In a care home you get paid for every hour you work and don’t travel wasting time or the deterioration of your car. It’s not difficult to see why there is a crisis in Home care that no other profession has to put up with.
Given the high vacancy rates what do you think the market rate might settle at?
Of course there isn’t a market – NHS is largely a monopoly provider which has pros and cons when it comes to things like this. What one could do is scrap the national pay rates and allow local agreement. Something in that as it’s true the value of salaries does vary a bit geographically. But so long as a shortage existed it could just lead to increased wage inflation under a ‘beggar thy neighbour’ approach. We need demand and supply much closer to hold wages steady.
And given we need more nurses/care workers/doctors for future demographics too the more sensible way to look at this is – what is going to attract and retain them into the professions? (especially if we want to wean ourselves off foreign supplementation). Short termism has got us here.
I challenge that. You can work in a BUPA or private hospital. Or do what many do and become agency nurses. When I was in hospital for a week last year, over 50% of the nurses were agency temps and openly told me they were earning way more than they would be if in a permanent position. We do need to recognise that more needs to be spent training nurses and doctors and indeed persuading young people to take these up as careers.
Surely that is doubly true for a policeman or a soldier (you can’t just join another country’s army), yet they can’t strike.
Working for the state should be a vocation – you have dedicated your life to caring for the sick, teaching the young, protecting the law-abiding citizens from the villains, defending the country against her enemies.
The quid pro quo should be that the state looks after you both in terms of giving you a good quality of life but also in terms of status. I would, for instance, look to provide special discounts on housing to key public sector workers* and let them jump the queue in terms of NHS waiting lists, school places and council housing etc. Supermarkets should be encouraged (through the tax and planning systems) to give discounts on Key Workers’ groceries. We should have a new Bank Holiday called Key Worker Day when delegations are invited to a service of thanks in Westminster Abbey and a garden party at Buckingham Palace and every town and village has a parade. The list of things that could be done (at relatively low cost is endless).
We got a taste of this with the Key Workers treatment in the pandemic.
By building up the status and the perks available to these Key Workers we will increase recruitment and overcome our reliance on immigration to fill these roles.
But in return for this status and these perks, they must commit to doing their job in good times or bad.
*Of course this would only be for the actual “blue light” staff – not the office staff who work for the DVLA, for instance. They should be allowed to strike but then again they should be outsourced to an efficient private company (who would quickly replace them with ChatGPT 🙂 ) and not employed by the state.
When you work in a monopoly, you should have restrictions placed on your terms and conditions. Taking your argument, lead to disasters that we see now.
They can become private sector nurses or do another job. Most of us don’t go on strike if we want better pay – we look for a better paid job somewhere else. If our current employer wants to keep us, they’ll pay more.
The reason this doesn’t work today in the public sector is the union-backed rigidity of pay – by insisting on national pay rates regardless of regional market pay rates and “equal pay for equal work”.
But I’ve yet to meet two people in the same nominal role (or job grade) who do do “equal work”.
The only solution here is to move away from these over-rigid pay structures and start paying people market rates for their actual skills. And stop pretending that all have the same skills.
It should absolutely be possible for a hospital or school in a more expensive/higher labour rate area to pay more for someone on the same nominal job grade than they are paid in a less expensive area. It’s entirely predictable what happens if you don’t. Private sector activity is suppressed in the poorer area (public sector workers are relatively over-paid there). Richer areas can’t get the public sector workers they need.
As ever, the unions are protectionist and backward looking and obstructing progress.
I challenge that. You can work in a BUPA or private hospital. Or do what many do and become agency nurses. When I was in hospital for a week last year, over 50% of the nurses were agency temps and openly told me they were earning way more than they would be if in a permanent position. We do need to recognise that more needs to be spent training nurses and doctors and indeed persuading young people to take these up as careers.
If you take away a persons right to strike, how can they bargain for better wages? Why would any government (especially one of a neoliberal bent) enter wage negotiations in good faith if they know the workers can’t withdraw their labour? Private sector workers are able to simply switch jobs in search of a pay rise for doing the same job, something that isn’t as simple in most public sector jobs. A nurse going to a different hospital is still going to be paid the same as she was before
Matt M
1 year ago
In my opinion all public sector workers should be prevented by law from striking. If the army and the police can’t strike, why can the ambulance drivers, nurses, civil servants or teachers? Their pay and conditions are entirely political questions – unlike a private company, the NHS won’t go bust if the nurses go on strike. If they pay is too low, it will become an issue at election time.
And by all means privatise the railways, but not until you pass legislation making it illegal for them to strike.
R Wright
1 year ago
The problem with the author’s argument is that unlike in the 1970s the train drivers on strike have an average pay of £58,256 while the average pay in the UK is £29,600. The sympathy just isn’t there when some of the strikers appear as mere opportunists.
Train drivers’ wages are good example of what can be protected if you have effective trade union representation. The question you need to ask is: why have average wages fallen so low?
Train drivers wages are only protected because the rail service is a quasi-public service and subsidised by Government.
If this was not the case there would be no train drivers or trains.
That is the hard economic reality for the rest of us.
The cake does not get bigger. For one person person to get more someone else has to get less
Train drivers wages are only protected because the rail service is a quasi-public service and subsidised by Government.
If this was not the case there would be no train drivers or trains.
That is the hard economic reality for the rest of us.
The cake does not get bigger. For one person person to get more someone else has to get less
Train drivers’ wages are good example of what can be protected if you have effective trade union representation. The question you need to ask is: why have average wages fallen so low?
R Wright
1 year ago
The problem with the author’s argument is that unlike in the 1970s the train drivers on strike have an average pay of £58,256 while the average pay in the UK is £29,600. The sympathy just isn’t there when some of the strikers appear as mere opportunists.
polidori redux
1 year ago
“Sunak, on the other hand, seems to be repeating Heath’s mistakes. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will not end industrial disruption,”
The author is fantasising. There is no industry to disrupt, and no trades union movement to disrupt it. Sunak will eventually surrender to the nurses (Get on with it man) and the rest will collapse.
I actually think there is not the universal support for striking nurses and doctors that people think. Going on strike seems a fundamental mistake for these groups – in my book professionals put their customers/clients/patients first and don’t strike. If you want to be considered a professional, you need to behave like one.
I actually think there is not the universal support for striking nurses and doctors that people think. Going on strike seems a fundamental mistake for these groups – in my book professionals put their customers/clients/patients first and don’t strike. If you want to be considered a professional, you need to behave like one.
polidori redux
1 year ago
“Sunak, on the other hand, seems to be repeating Heath’s mistakes. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will not end industrial disruption,”
The author is fantasising. There is no industry to disrupt, and no trades union movement to disrupt it. Sunak will eventually surrender to the nurses (Get on with it man) and the rest will collapse.
Last edited 1 year ago by polidori redux
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Ted Heath was Britain’s final transitional demise of the Servants taking over the Hall… The Old Tories panicked… the rest was the slide of Britain into the hands of the Pooter, the chief clerk and the line manager…
There’s a suggestion that Kenneth Widmerpool (in Anthony Powell’s “A Dance to the Music of Time”) was based on Edward Heath.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Ted Heath was Britain’s final transitional demise of the Servants taking over the Hall… The Old Tories panicked… the rest was the slide of Britain into the hands of the Pooter, the chief clerk and the line manager…
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
The Railways are bloated in “more ways than one” and need radical reform.
Now is the time to fully implement the proposals of the report* prepared by the late Sir David Serpell in 1982.
This is probably an unpopular idea, but I would nationalise the railways (and place it under the control of the army). You cannot have market competition where there is no market.
I actually read somewhere that post War at some point virtually the whole BR Board was ex-forces, incl the Chair, CEO etc. So in some regards we have had this before. I’m old enough to remember BR, and can’t recollect it being worse than it is now. It was heavily unionised.
As you’ll know Officers who don’t make the next tier of selection are retired earlier than in other professions – (stops time servers clogging things up and a separate discussion for another day perhaps). But I wonder where they all end up then for the final 10, sometimes 20+ years of their potential working life? It’s too long to just be walking the dog and the Golf links.
Well, and in reverse order, most retire at 50-55 and statistically have about 25 years left. Many used to head for the City, or various Arms Manufacturers, or even head of to Universities or Schools as Bursars. Many off course were quite happy to go on ‘gardening leave’ on a pension of 2/3rds final salary.
British Railways (BR) have been pretty awful throughout my lifetime. Occasionally there would be a spot of brilliance**, but most of the time it was a national embarrassment.
Then came that astounding deceit, PRIVATISATION! An oxymoron if ever there was one. Private Companies in receipt of Public Money, more in fact than in BR days astoundingly!
Result weak, pathetic management as shown by the chaos we now face.
Plaudits of Privatisation emphasise that Passengers numbers have increased, but only due to demographics, increases in leisure time, and unrealistic ticketing policies.
For example why should I receive a massive “old gimmers*” discount on my rail tickets just so I can indulge my interest in English Medieval Cathedrals? I haven’t earned it just by staying alive, the whole thing is a nonsense!
However let us now rejoice, the old Great Western Mainline is about to be electrified, a mere 75 years after the creation of BR in 1947. Hallelujah!
(*Senior Rail Card.)
(** The reinstatement of “The Bristolian” in 1954 for example.)
Well, and in reverse order, most retire at 50-55 and statistically have about 25 years left. Many used to head for the City, or various Arms Manufacturers, or even head of to Universities or Schools as Bursars. Many off course were quite happy to go on ‘gardening leave’ on a pension of 2/3rds final salary.
British Railways (BR) have been pretty awful throughout my lifetime. Occasionally there would be a spot of brilliance**, but most of the time it was a national embarrassment.
Then came that astounding deceit, PRIVATISATION! An oxymoron if ever there was one. Private Companies in receipt of Public Money, more in fact than in BR days astoundingly!
Result weak, pathetic management as shown by the chaos we now face.
Plaudits of Privatisation emphasise that Passengers numbers have increased, but only due to demographics, increases in leisure time, and unrealistic ticketing policies.
For example why should I receive a massive “old gimmers*” discount on my rail tickets just so I can indulge my interest in English Medieval Cathedrals? I haven’t earned it just by staying alive, the whole thing is a nonsense!
However let us now rejoice, the old Great Western Mainline is about to be electrified, a mere 75 years after the creation of BR in 1947. Hallelujah!
(*Senior Rail Card.)
(** The reinstatement of “The Bristolian” in 1954 for example.)
I actually read somewhere that post War at some point virtually the whole BR Board was ex-forces, incl the Chair, CEO etc. So in some regards we have had this before. I’m old enough to remember BR, and can’t recollect it being worse than it is now. It was heavily unionised.
As you’ll know Officers who don’t make the next tier of selection are retired earlier than in other professions – (stops time servers clogging things up and a separate discussion for another day perhaps). But I wonder where they all end up then for the final 10, sometimes 20+ years of their potential working life? It’s too long to just be walking the dog and the Golf links.
This is probably an unpopular idea, but I would nationalise the railways (and place it under the control of the army). You cannot have market competition where there is no market.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
The Railways are bloated in “more ways than one” and need radical reform.
Now is the time to fully implement the proposals of the report* prepared by the late Sir David Serpell in 1982.
The author presents this analysis as if it signified a kind of triumph for Wilson and Labour. The February 1974 general election resulted in a “hung parliament”. Wilson only became PM again because Heath was unable to form a coalition with the Liberals, but a lack of a majority forced Wilson into another election just a matter of months later, which produced a wafer-thin majority and within a couple of years he was gone, a broken man. Callaghan took over, culminating in the Winter of Discontent in 1978/79 which ushered in the Thatcher Era. The period from 1974-79 was one long humiliation for Labour, including having to beg for finance from the International Monetary Fund. We became “the sick man of Europe”. Some triumph.
If there’s a lesson to be drawn at all for Starmer, it’s ‘don’t cosy up to union power’. A sensible balance needs to be acheived, of course. Whether Sunak can acheive it is another matter, but this article – by focusing solely on 1970-74 – doesn’t even give half the true picture of events half a century ago. As a teenager with growing awareness, i remember it only too clearly.
The author presents this analysis as if it signified a kind of triumph for Wilson and Labour. The February 1974 general election resulted in a “hung parliament”. Wilson only became PM again because Heath was unable to form a coalition with the Liberals, but a lack of a majority forced Wilson into another election just a matter of months later, which produced a wafer-thin majority and within a couple of years he was gone, a broken man. Callaghan took over, culminating in the Winter of Discontent in 1978/79 which ushered in the Thatcher Era. The period from 1974-79 was one long humiliation for Labour, including having to beg for finance from the International Monetary Fund. We became “the sick man of Europe”. Some triumph.
If there’s a lesson to be drawn at all for Starmer, it’s ‘don’t cosy up to union power’. A sensible balance needs to be acheived, of course. Whether Sunak can acheive it is another matter, but this article – by focusing solely on 1970-74 – doesn’t even give half the true picture of events half a century ago. As a teenager with growing awareness, i remember it only too clearly.
I’m no fan of Sunak, but I think times have changed these days and there is greater scope for a Tory leader to bash the unions on principle. The reason, quite simply, is that there is no modern solidarity between unionised labour and the rest of the economy.
A few examples where it still exists, such as for NHS staff, are more to do with the specifics of the jobs in question: most people sympathise with nurses and paramedics simply because they are also average-paid and it’s the NHS. Train drivers, on the other hand, are sabotaging the average person’s ability to get to work as part of defending salary packages far higher than most of the people using public transport, and that isn’t making friends anywhere.
I’m no fan of Sunak, but I think times have changed these days and there is greater scope for a Tory leader to bash the unions on principle. The reason, quite simply, is that there is no modern solidarity between unionised labour and the rest of the economy.
A few examples where it still exists, such as for NHS staff, are more to do with the specifics of the jobs in question: most people sympathise with nurses and paramedics simply because they are also average-paid and it’s the NHS. Train drivers, on the other hand, are sabotaging the average person’s ability to get to work as part of defending salary packages far higher than most of the people using public transport, and that isn’t making friends anywhere.
This is not 1970, nor 1974 nor 1979, history neither repeats nor rhymes, and, unless you are planning to invade Russia, or Afghanistan, history holds no ‘lessons’. Sunak looks set to lose, but the least significant of the reasons why he loses, will be how he handles the unions. Or the Union.
This is not 1970, nor 1974 nor 1979, history neither repeats nor rhymes, and, unless you are planning to invade Russia, or Afghanistan, history holds no ‘lessons’. Sunak looks set to lose, but the least significant of the reasons why he loses, will be how he handles the unions. Or the Union.
In following many other countries in outlawing blue light strikes, Sunack is aware that only a minority of the workforce are in a union and most of those are in the “public sector”. He will also be aware that the public are heartily sick of these very same “public sector” unions. He will also have noted that Labour (Streeting) is also urging NHS reform. The appalling sight of ambulance workers, yes ambulance workers, striking, has to stop. Clearly some of these people are in the wrong jobs.
Why shouldn’t they strike? They’re working in a sector with acute staff shortages, so why should they accept pay rises less than the rate of inflation, which is basically a pay cut?
“Why shouldn’t they strike?”
I’m assuming BB that is a genuine question and NOT a ‘wind up’?
Because they are in totally secure jobs, with ridiculously generous indexed-linked pensions, and in some, if not all, cases overpaid already. Plus they completely avoided the C-19 cull that affected many in the Private Sector. In short they are GREEDY.
Fortunately, in my long life I have witnessed this ‘Prima Dona’ Trade Union behaviour before, and on each occasion it has had catastrophic results for the ‘workers’
eg:
1:The London Dockers. A real menace in their day, even going on strike during WWII! Where are they now? One with Nineveh and Tyre fortunately.
2: British Car Workers. Another menace who with the assistance of ‘Management’ managed to destroy the British Car Industry and themselves. (Off course now we now make cars for ‘other people’ but the workforce is supine and compliant.
3: The fabled Miners, the heroes of 1926, and the wreckers of more that one government. Despite the fact we sit on an “Island of Coal”*, where are they now?
(* Attributed to Charles de Gaulle.)
Yes, these so-called public servants are no longer really providing a service. Everybody wants to work from home so that means that kids can stay at home and be schooled remotely – teachers will no longer be needed.
(Just out of interest, I was listening to a radio programme this morning and a request came from someone who is working from home – he boasted that he could use the week for decorating).
With working from home there will be less demand for trains. Ambulances for emergency cases only sit outside hospitals waiting for permission to enter. Doctors don’t see patients now so they could work from home. Dentists would be the exception perhaps.
Put all this to one side and let’s agree there will be some complete pee-takers. The more important question is arguably – what do we need to pay to attract people into these professions longer term? We need teachers. We need nurses and doctors. They all come out of Education with lots more debt than we did. Less chance of owning a home. Public sector pensions aren’t quite what they used to be. So what do we need to pay to make sure we don’t need to run round the world try to supplement these workforce with immigration? Calmy we just ought to ponder this before in our rage we make the medium term much worse.
You are quite right to ask this question and I thank you for it. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the answer…..
Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t. Today there are zillions of minority groups. If you paid student fees for doctors you could not ensure that good doctors came out of the process because:
* Pressure to pass exams leads to too much stress – in would come the ‘mental health’ people. Basically, all students would have to pass or we would have ‘naming and shaming’ and that would be bad.
* If, for example, a student was horrendously overweight but wanted to be a surgeon, you would have to re-design all functions to accomodate that person. Otherwise you would be picking on f*t people – not allowed.
*If the student became a doctor but wanted to work from home (mental issues), you would have to allow that.
*If the patient (me) refused to be operated on by a transperson, there could be no operation.
Etc, etc, etc.
So, the answer is an autocracy as we would have in a war.
Who’s ‘we’ CW?
Your statement “Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t” is wrong to me.
Capitalist democracies have done more to advance the lot of humans than any other system – despite its many flaws.
The secret sauce of capitalism is innovation (something stamped out in an autocracy). And the great thing is that innovation is free.
Change is the basis of all human existence .
Who’s ‘we’ CW?
Your statement “Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t” is wrong to me.
Capitalist democracies have done more to advance the lot of humans than any other system – despite its many flaws.
The secret sauce of capitalism is innovation (something stamped out in an autocracy). And the great thing is that innovation is free.
Change is the basis of all human existence .
You are quite right to ask this question and I thank you for it. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the answer…..
Democracy doesn’t work unles you have some sort of advantage in the world and we don’t. Today there are zillions of minority groups. If you paid student fees for doctors you could not ensure that good doctors came out of the process because:
* Pressure to pass exams leads to too much stress – in would come the ‘mental health’ people. Basically, all students would have to pass or we would have ‘naming and shaming’ and that would be bad.
* If, for example, a student was horrendously overweight but wanted to be a surgeon, you would have to re-design all functions to accomodate that person. Otherwise you would be picking on f*t people – not allowed.
*If the student became a doctor but wanted to work from home (mental issues), you would have to allow that.
*If the patient (me) refused to be operated on by a transperson, there could be no operation.
Etc, etc, etc.
So, the answer is an autocracy as we would have in a war.
Put all this to one side and let’s agree there will be some complete pee-takers. The more important question is arguably – what do we need to pay to attract people into these professions longer term? We need teachers. We need nurses and doctors. They all come out of Education with lots more debt than we did. Less chance of owning a home. Public sector pensions aren’t quite what they used to be. So what do we need to pay to make sure we don’t need to run round the world try to supplement these workforce with immigration? Calmy we just ought to ponder this before in our rage we make the medium term much worse.
It fascinates me as to how a post war generation of workers went straight from wartime service, and the values of loyalty, discipline, service, duty and rank hirearchy to apparent neo communism?
Could one factor have been that post war ” managers” were of an age who had been too young to serve in WW1 and too old for WW2, and therefore did not command any respect from their workforce?
The car industry demise was due to a number of factors: appalling management, strategy, design, engineering and innovation, and a blindness to consumer choice and demand, and also the financial pressure of losing the manufacturing revenue from making military/ aviation parts, post war which had kept them all going.
Ah, I know this one! My parents were of that generation, and returned to loud assurances that they had “won the war”, a claim which even then didn’t bear much scrutiny.
Having supposedly “won”, where’s the prize?
One thing not much discussed now, but the Conservatives were regarded as the “party of unemployment” who intended to “reset the clock to 1938”. The English aren’t much given to abstract political thought but when an idea DOES take root, it sticks. “No return to the 1930s” was just such an idea.
Ah, I know this one! My parents were of that generation, and returned to loud assurances that they had “won the war”, a claim which even then didn’t bear much scrutiny.
Having supposedly “won”, where’s the prize?
One thing not much discussed now, but the Conservatives were regarded as the “party of unemployment” who intended to “reset the clock to 1938”. The English aren’t much given to abstract political thought but when an idea DOES take root, it sticks. “No return to the 1930s” was just such an idea.
Yes, these so-called public servants are no longer really providing a service. Everybody wants to work from home so that means that kids can stay at home and be schooled remotely – teachers will no longer be needed.
(Just out of interest, I was listening to a radio programme this morning and a request came from someone who is working from home – he boasted that he could use the week for decorating).
With working from home there will be less demand for trains. Ambulances for emergency cases only sit outside hospitals waiting for permission to enter. Doctors don’t see patients now so they could work from home. Dentists would be the exception perhaps.
It fascinates me as to how a post war generation of workers went straight from wartime service, and the values of loyalty, discipline, service, duty and rank hirearchy to apparent neo communism?
Could one factor have been that post war ” managers” were of an age who had been too young to serve in WW1 and too old for WW2, and therefore did not command any respect from their workforce?
The car industry demise was due to a number of factors: appalling management, strategy, design, engineering and innovation, and a blindness to consumer choice and demand, and also the financial pressure of losing the manufacturing revenue from making military/ aviation parts, post war which had kept them all going.
“Why shouldn’t they strike?”
I’m assuming BB that is a genuine question and NOT a ‘wind up’?
Because they are in totally secure jobs, with ridiculously generous indexed-linked pensions, and in some, if not all, cases overpaid already. Plus they completely avoided the C-19 cull that affected many in the Private Sector. In short they are GREEDY.
Fortunately, in my long life I have witnessed this ‘Prima Dona’ Trade Union behaviour before, and on each occasion it has had catastrophic results for the ‘workers’
eg:
1:The London Dockers. A real menace in their day, even going on strike during WWII! Where are they now? One with Nineveh and Tyre fortunately.
2: British Car Workers. Another menace who with the assistance of ‘Management’ managed to destroy the British Car Industry and themselves. (Off course now we now make cars for ‘other people’ but the workforce is supine and compliant.
3: The fabled Miners, the heroes of 1926, and the wreckers of more that one government. Despite the fact we sit on an “Island of Coal”*, where are they now?
(* Attributed to Charles de Gaulle.)
Why shouldn’t they strike? They’re working in a sector with acute staff shortages, so why should they accept pay rises less than the rate of inflation, which is basically a pay cut?
In following many other countries in outlawing blue light strikes, Sunack is aware that only a minority of the workforce are in a union and most of those are in the “public sector”. He will also be aware that the public are heartily sick of these very same “public sector” unions. He will also have noted that Labour (Streeting) is also urging NHS reform. The appalling sight of ambulance workers, yes ambulance workers, striking, has to stop. Clearly some of these people are in the wrong jobs.
So Keir Starmer backed the print unions in the Wapping dispute. Don’t particularly like what he stands for, but I’d never had him down as stupid. But if he couldn’t see that the unions would not only lose, but absolutely deserved to (appalling luddism and restrictive practices, effectively price gouging the newspaper buying public for their own greed and laziness), you’ve got to seriously question the man’s judgement.
Wapping: Murdoch’s finest hour (and I’m no fan of Murdoch). Did us all a big favour.
So Keir Starmer backed the print unions in the Wapping dispute. Don’t particularly like what he stands for, but I’d never had him down as stupid. But if he couldn’t see that the unions would not only lose, but absolutely deserved to (appalling luddism and restrictive practices, effectively price gouging the newspaper buying public for their own greed and laziness), you’ve got to seriously question the man’s judgement.
Wapping: Murdoch’s finest hour (and I’m no fan of Murdoch). Did us all a big favour.
In my opinion all public sector workers should be prevented by law from striking. If the army and the police can’t strike, why can the ambulance drivers, nurses, civil servants or teachers? Their pay and conditions are entirely political questions – unlike a private company, the NHS won’t go bust if the nurses go on strike. If they pay is too low, it will become an issue at election time.
And by all means privatise the railways, but not until you pass legislation making it illegal for them to strike.
If you take away a persons right to strike, how can they bargain for better wages? Why would any government (especially one of a neoliberal bent) enter wage negotiations in good faith if they know the workers can’t withdraw their labour? Private sector workers are able to simply switch jobs in search of a pay rise for doing the same job, something that isn’t as simple in most public sector jobs. A nurse going to a different hospital is still going to be paid the same as she was before
Surely that is doubly true for a policeman or a soldier (you can’t just join another country’s army), yet they can’t strike.
Working for the state should be a vocation – you have dedicated your life to caring for the sick, teaching the young, protecting the law-abiding citizens from the villains, defending the country against her enemies.
The quid pro quo should be that the state looks after you both in terms of giving you a good quality of life but also in terms of status. I would, for instance, look to provide special discounts on housing to key public sector workers* and let them jump the queue in terms of NHS waiting lists, school places and council housing etc. Supermarkets should be encouraged (through the tax and planning systems) to give discounts on Key Workers’ groceries. We should have a new Bank Holiday called Key Worker Day when delegations are invited to a service of thanks in Westminster Abbey and a garden party at Buckingham Palace and every town and village has a parade. The list of things that could be done (at relatively low cost is endless).
We got a taste of this with the Key Workers treatment in the pandemic.
By building up the status and the perks available to these Key Workers we will increase recruitment and overcome our reliance on immigration to fill these roles.
But in return for this status and these perks, they must commit to doing their job in good times or bad.
*Of course this would only be for the actual “blue light” staff – not the office staff who work for the DVLA, for instance. They should be allowed to strike but then again they should be outsourced to an efficient private company (who would quickly replace them with ChatGPT 🙂 ) and not employed by the state.
I can’t agree with your “you have dedicated your life to…” argument, and i speak as someone who worked in the NHS for 35 years. It’s a career option – which isn’t to say that the majority who work in such services aren’t dedicated to their work – i was, and they are – but it’s not a life-dedicating issue.
Many work for a while in such services, then leave for other opportunities, having gained great professional and life experience, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s reasonably well paid, good career progression and a pretty decent pension.
Let’s stop this nonsense about NHS frontline staff being “angels”, it’s actually demeaning rubbish. Good people mainly doing a great job and certainly requiring certain qualities not everyone possesses, but at the end of each shift you go home and live; you don’t go into work to live. From that point of view, going on strike is the last option but should remain within the law.
Please do not insult the soldier with comparison to a policeman!
I can’t agree with your “you have dedicated your life to…” argument, and i speak as someone who worked in the NHS for 35 years. It’s a career option – which isn’t to say that the majority who work in such services aren’t dedicated to their work – i was, and they are – but it’s not a life-dedicating issue.
Many work for a while in such services, then leave for other opportunities, having gained great professional and life experience, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s reasonably well paid, good career progression and a pretty decent pension.
Let’s stop this nonsense about NHS frontline staff being “angels”, it’s actually demeaning rubbish. Good people mainly doing a great job and certainly requiring certain qualities not everyone possesses, but at the end of each shift you go home and live; you don’t go into work to live. From that point of view, going on strike is the last option but should remain within the law.
Please do not insult the soldier with comparison to a policeman!
When you work in a monopoly, you should have restrictions placed on your terms and conditions. Taking your argument, lead to disasters that we see now.
They can become private sector nurses or do another job. Most of us don’t go on strike if we want better pay – we look for a better paid job somewhere else. If our current employer wants to keep us, they’ll pay more.
The reason this doesn’t work today in the public sector is the union-backed rigidity of pay – by insisting on national pay rates regardless of regional market pay rates and “equal pay for equal work”.
But I’ve yet to meet two people in the same nominal role (or job grade) who do do “equal work”.
The only solution here is to move away from these over-rigid pay structures and start paying people market rates for their actual skills. And stop pretending that all have the same skills.
It should absolutely be possible for a hospital or school in a more expensive/higher labour rate area to pay more for someone on the same nominal job grade than they are paid in a less expensive area. It’s entirely predictable what happens if you don’t. Private sector activity is suppressed in the poorer area (public sector workers are relatively over-paid there). Richer areas can’t get the public sector workers they need.
As ever, the unions are protectionist and backward looking and obstructing progress.
Given the high vacancy rates what do you think the market rate might settle at?
Of course there isn’t a market – NHS is largely a monopoly provider which has pros and cons when it comes to things like this. What one could do is scrap the national pay rates and allow local agreement. Something in that as it’s true the value of salaries does vary a bit geographically. But so long as a shortage existed it could just lead to increased wage inflation under a ‘beggar thy neighbour’ approach. We need demand and supply much closer to hold wages steady.
And given we need more nurses/care workers/doctors for future demographics too the more sensible way to look at this is – what is going to attract and retain them into the professions? (especially if we want to wean ourselves off foreign supplementation). Short termism has got us here.
We need to train more British people and stop subsidising young people to study for negative value “degrees”. That, and remove the requirement for nursing degrees – get rid of the ridiculous credentialism which just forces up costs without improving quality or productivity. If there’s a need for higher skilled nurses, split nursing up into a higher skilled and lower skilled group. Those are – for me – obvious things to do. But doubtless there are many other things.
Lowering the cost of medical degrees and qualifications (e.g. bursaries) would also help. It’s sheer madness for government to treat all “degrees” as equally useful. Particularly when we have shortages.
Yes, there are certainly some cases where market forces probably won’t work in areas like the NHS. But pretending that they never apply and never work isn’t working either.
I honestly don’t know where the “market rate” might settle.
The “market rate” for a nurse is the amount of money paid to an agency nurse, hired to fill the role of the nurse you are unable to recruit because you’re not paying them enough. Seems to me that you might solve a lot of recruitment problems, from nursing to fruit picking if O-level Economics principles like supply and demand were observed. People will apply for jobs if the rewards are worth the effort. Wages need to go up. Particularly in the private sector where shareholders’ interests are paramount to the extent that taxpayers have to top-up derisory wage levels with Universal Credit.
We agree we clearly want teachers, doctors, nurses well trained and we want to attract some of our best into these professions. As regards Care sector, entry qualification less the issue although good training essential. The question was what do we need to pay to get them to do it in sufficient numbers? Obviously if they haven’t incurred so much debt as a student that’s a start, but that isn’t going to be corrected quickly. The only correction we have immediately is wage rate increase and/or immediate debt relief. Instead teachers are 11% poorer than 2011 and nurses/doctors similar (not quite as much as Unions make out but significant)
NHS used to have alot of short term housing it could offer nurses/doctors in training. That’s largely gone too. Sold off to cover other capital shortfalls. A reinvestment in that would help but again not quick.
As regards care sector it’s more straightforward – we just got to pay significantly more. We can’t have 30k NHS beds blocked a day because of 100k vacancies in social care and then more people off long term sick waiting for their op. We also need to make this sector more attractive such that we get middle aged/early retirees back into the workforce enjoying the satisfaction these roles can give. Or we are inevitably going to need to prise open the immigration door to help. The current position is untenable and having a major drag on the wider economy.
Here’s an idea. Haven’t really thought it through. but let’s try it.
You don’t raise wages. Instead, you raise tax thresholds for critical professions (or lower tax rates). So you raise the “take home pay” (a phrase you don’t really here these days) without raising the salary a lot. That has several things in its favour. Firstly, it’s reversible if the labour shortages disappear. Secondly, it doesn’t lock even even more unfunded future pension liabilities.
Too complicated, you may say. But the employees in this case are the government’s own (health service workers) – so they should reliably know who they are (though we must never underestimate the ability of government to create a bad IT system !). And anyone employed at much higher cost through an agency won’t get the tax cut.
Generally agree on this (our Brexit dispute is still raging on in another comment section !).
Yep the issue is take home pay as you rightly say. And certainly like the disincentive to work for an agency worker.
Putting aside the question of equity with other workers, which would be a major challenge for politicians, the problem might be how easy to administer? But I can’t think of a major issue. One can understand why means tested benefits etc sound reasonable but become impractical at an administration level (why we ended up originally with universal Child Benefit flat rate), but on this one it’s just a different tax code so simple one would think.
Yep the issue is take home pay as you rightly say. And certainly like the disincentive to work for an agency worker.
Putting aside the question of equity with other workers, which would be a major challenge for politicians, the problem might be how easy to administer? But I can’t think of a major issue. One can understand why means tested benefits etc sound reasonable but become impractical at an administration level (why we ended up originally with universal Child Benefit flat rate), but on this one it’s just a different tax code so simple one would think.
Here’s an idea. Haven’t really thought it through. but let’s try it.
You don’t raise wages. Instead, you raise tax thresholds for critical professions (or lower tax rates). So you raise the “take home pay” (a phrase you don’t really here these days) without raising the salary a lot. That has several things in its favour. Firstly, it’s reversible if the labour shortages disappear. Secondly, it doesn’t lock even even more unfunded future pension liabilities.
Too complicated, you may say. But the employees in this case are the government’s own (health service workers) – so they should reliably know who they are (though we must never underestimate the ability of government to create a bad IT system !). And anyone employed at much higher cost through an agency won’t get the tax cut.
Generally agree on this (our Brexit dispute is still raging on in another comment section !).
The “market rate” for a nurse is the amount of money paid to an agency nurse, hired to fill the role of the nurse you are unable to recruit because you’re not paying them enough. Seems to me that you might solve a lot of recruitment problems, from nursing to fruit picking if O-level Economics principles like supply and demand were observed. People will apply for jobs if the rewards are worth the effort. Wages need to go up. Particularly in the private sector where shareholders’ interests are paramount to the extent that taxpayers have to top-up derisory wage levels with Universal Credit.
We agree we clearly want teachers, doctors, nurses well trained and we want to attract some of our best into these professions. As regards Care sector, entry qualification less the issue although good training essential. The question was what do we need to pay to get them to do it in sufficient numbers? Obviously if they haven’t incurred so much debt as a student that’s a start, but that isn’t going to be corrected quickly. The only correction we have immediately is wage rate increase and/or immediate debt relief. Instead teachers are 11% poorer than 2011 and nurses/doctors similar (not quite as much as Unions make out but significant)
NHS used to have alot of short term housing it could offer nurses/doctors in training. That’s largely gone too. Sold off to cover other capital shortfalls. A reinvestment in that would help but again not quick.
As regards care sector it’s more straightforward – we just got to pay significantly more. We can’t have 30k NHS beds blocked a day because of 100k vacancies in social care and then more people off long term sick waiting for their op. We also need to make this sector more attractive such that we get middle aged/early retirees back into the workforce enjoying the satisfaction these roles can give. Or we are inevitably going to need to prise open the immigration door to help. The current position is untenable and having a major drag on the wider economy.
The anomaly there are care workers. If you work in home care you only get paid for the time you enter a clients house to the time you leave having to phone in your arrival. Some people can be available during 10-12 hour shifts but be paid for 5-6 hours. In a care home you get paid for every hour you work and don’t travel wasting time or the deterioration of your car. It’s not difficult to see why there is a crisis in Home care that no other profession has to put up with.
I agree AM. It’s also why we can source a Care Home bed slightly quicker than a Care Package. But the former is usually much more expensive overall, both if a self-payer or if reliant on Local Authority. And thus we end up pushing people into Care Homes earlier than was really needed with all the decompensation in health and mental agility that accelerates. People prefer to stay in own home long as poss and do better generally for it. It’s also cheaper.
Personally I think the non payment for travelling time should be made illegal or remunerated in another way forthwith. I think were this workforce unionised this would have been resolved years ago and market rebalanced accordingly. Possible side argument/paradox therefore that we need the balance of employer-union to find sustainable market positions? Too much power either way and get the balance wrong.
I agree AM. It’s also why we can source a Care Home bed slightly quicker than a Care Package. But the former is usually much more expensive overall, both if a self-payer or if reliant on Local Authority. And thus we end up pushing people into Care Homes earlier than was really needed with all the decompensation in health and mental agility that accelerates. People prefer to stay in own home long as poss and do better generally for it. It’s also cheaper.
Personally I think the non payment for travelling time should be made illegal or remunerated in another way forthwith. I think were this workforce unionised this would have been resolved years ago and market rebalanced accordingly. Possible side argument/paradox therefore that we need the balance of employer-union to find sustainable market positions? Too much power either way and get the balance wrong.
We need to train more British people and stop subsidising young people to study for negative value “degrees”. That, and remove the requirement for nursing degrees – get rid of the ridiculous credentialism which just forces up costs without improving quality or productivity. If there’s a need for higher skilled nurses, split nursing up into a higher skilled and lower skilled group. Those are – for me – obvious things to do. But doubtless there are many other things.
Lowering the cost of medical degrees and qualifications (e.g. bursaries) would also help. It’s sheer madness for government to treat all “degrees” as equally useful. Particularly when we have shortages.
Yes, there are certainly some cases where market forces probably won’t work in areas like the NHS. But pretending that they never apply and never work isn’t working either.
I honestly don’t know where the “market rate” might settle.
The anomaly there are care workers. If you work in home care you only get paid for the time you enter a clients house to the time you leave having to phone in your arrival. Some people can be available during 10-12 hour shifts but be paid for 5-6 hours. In a care home you get paid for every hour you work and don’t travel wasting time or the deterioration of your car. It’s not difficult to see why there is a crisis in Home care that no other profession has to put up with.
Given the high vacancy rates what do you think the market rate might settle at?
Of course there isn’t a market – NHS is largely a monopoly provider which has pros and cons when it comes to things like this. What one could do is scrap the national pay rates and allow local agreement. Something in that as it’s true the value of salaries does vary a bit geographically. But so long as a shortage existed it could just lead to increased wage inflation under a ‘beggar thy neighbour’ approach. We need demand and supply much closer to hold wages steady.
And given we need more nurses/care workers/doctors for future demographics too the more sensible way to look at this is – what is going to attract and retain them into the professions? (especially if we want to wean ourselves off foreign supplementation). Short termism has got us here.
The practical reality for most of us is that if we chose to go on strike there would be no job to go back to.
The only option is to look elsewhere
I challenge that. You can work in a BUPA or private hospital. Or do what many do and become agency nurses. When I was in hospital for a week last year, over 50% of the nurses were agency temps and openly told me they were earning way more than they would be if in a permanent position. We do need to recognise that more needs to be spent training nurses and doctors and indeed persuading young people to take these up as careers.
Surely that is doubly true for a policeman or a soldier (you can’t just join another country’s army), yet they can’t strike.
Working for the state should be a vocation – you have dedicated your life to caring for the sick, teaching the young, protecting the law-abiding citizens from the villains, defending the country against her enemies.
The quid pro quo should be that the state looks after you both in terms of giving you a good quality of life but also in terms of status. I would, for instance, look to provide special discounts on housing to key public sector workers* and let them jump the queue in terms of NHS waiting lists, school places and council housing etc. Supermarkets should be encouraged (through the tax and planning systems) to give discounts on Key Workers’ groceries. We should have a new Bank Holiday called Key Worker Day when delegations are invited to a service of thanks in Westminster Abbey and a garden party at Buckingham Palace and every town and village has a parade. The list of things that could be done (at relatively low cost is endless).
We got a taste of this with the Key Workers treatment in the pandemic.
By building up the status and the perks available to these Key Workers we will increase recruitment and overcome our reliance on immigration to fill these roles.
But in return for this status and these perks, they must commit to doing their job in good times or bad.
*Of course this would only be for the actual “blue light” staff – not the office staff who work for the DVLA, for instance. They should be allowed to strike but then again they should be outsourced to an efficient private company (who would quickly replace them with ChatGPT 🙂 ) and not employed by the state.
When you work in a monopoly, you should have restrictions placed on your terms and conditions. Taking your argument, lead to disasters that we see now.
They can become private sector nurses or do another job. Most of us don’t go on strike if we want better pay – we look for a better paid job somewhere else. If our current employer wants to keep us, they’ll pay more.
The reason this doesn’t work today in the public sector is the union-backed rigidity of pay – by insisting on national pay rates regardless of regional market pay rates and “equal pay for equal work”.
But I’ve yet to meet two people in the same nominal role (or job grade) who do do “equal work”.
The only solution here is to move away from these over-rigid pay structures and start paying people market rates for their actual skills. And stop pretending that all have the same skills.
It should absolutely be possible for a hospital or school in a more expensive/higher labour rate area to pay more for someone on the same nominal job grade than they are paid in a less expensive area. It’s entirely predictable what happens if you don’t. Private sector activity is suppressed in the poorer area (public sector workers are relatively over-paid there). Richer areas can’t get the public sector workers they need.
As ever, the unions are protectionist and backward looking and obstructing progress.
The practical reality for most of us is that if we chose to go on strike there would be no job to go back to.
The only option is to look elsewhere
I challenge that. You can work in a BUPA or private hospital. Or do what many do and become agency nurses. When I was in hospital for a week last year, over 50% of the nurses were agency temps and openly told me they were earning way more than they would be if in a permanent position. We do need to recognise that more needs to be spent training nurses and doctors and indeed persuading young people to take these up as careers.
If you take away a persons right to strike, how can they bargain for better wages? Why would any government (especially one of a neoliberal bent) enter wage negotiations in good faith if they know the workers can’t withdraw their labour? Private sector workers are able to simply switch jobs in search of a pay rise for doing the same job, something that isn’t as simple in most public sector jobs. A nurse going to a different hospital is still going to be paid the same as she was before
In my opinion all public sector workers should be prevented by law from striking. If the army and the police can’t strike, why can the ambulance drivers, nurses, civil servants or teachers? Their pay and conditions are entirely political questions – unlike a private company, the NHS won’t go bust if the nurses go on strike. If they pay is too low, it will become an issue at election time.
And by all means privatise the railways, but not until you pass legislation making it illegal for them to strike.
The problem with the author’s argument is that unlike in the 1970s the train drivers on strike have an average pay of £58,256 while the average pay in the UK is £29,600. The sympathy just isn’t there when some of the strikers appear as mere opportunists.
Train drivers’ wages are good example of what can be protected if you have effective trade union representation. The question you need to ask is: why have average wages fallen so low?
Train drivers wages are only protected because the rail service is a quasi-public service and subsidised by Government.
If this was not the case there would be no train drivers or trains.
That is the hard economic reality for the rest of us.
The cake does not get bigger. For one person person to get more someone else has to get less
Train drivers wages are only protected because the rail service is a quasi-public service and subsidised by Government.
If this was not the case there would be no train drivers or trains.
That is the hard economic reality for the rest of us.
The cake does not get bigger. For one person person to get more someone else has to get less
Train drivers’ wages are good example of what can be protected if you have effective trade union representation. The question you need to ask is: why have average wages fallen so low?
The problem with the author’s argument is that unlike in the 1970s the train drivers on strike have an average pay of £58,256 while the average pay in the UK is £29,600. The sympathy just isn’t there when some of the strikers appear as mere opportunists.
“Sunak, on the other hand, seems to be repeating Heath’s mistakes. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will not end industrial disruption,”
The author is fantasising. There is no industry to disrupt, and no trades union movement to disrupt it. Sunak will eventually surrender to the nurses (Get on with it man) and the rest will collapse.
I actually think there is not the universal support for striking nurses and doctors that people think. Going on strike seems a fundamental mistake for these groups – in my book professionals put their customers/clients/patients first and don’t strike. If you want to be considered a professional, you need to behave like one.
I actually think there is not the universal support for striking nurses and doctors that people think. Going on strike seems a fundamental mistake for these groups – in my book professionals put their customers/clients/patients first and don’t strike. If you want to be considered a professional, you need to behave like one.
“Sunak, on the other hand, seems to be repeating Heath’s mistakes. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will not end industrial disruption,”
The author is fantasising. There is no industry to disrupt, and no trades union movement to disrupt it. Sunak will eventually surrender to the nurses (Get on with it man) and the rest will collapse.
Ted Heath was Britain’s final transitional demise of the Servants taking over the Hall… The Old Tories panicked… the rest was the slide of Britain into the hands of the Pooter, the chief clerk and the line manager…
There’s a suggestion that Kenneth Widmerpool (in Anthony Powell’s “A Dance to the Music of Time”) was based on Edward Heath.
Where did ‘Grocer’ get his money from?
Where did ‘Grocer’ get his money from?
There’s a suggestion that Kenneth Widmerpool (in Anthony Powell’s “A Dance to the Music of Time”) was based on Edward Heath.
Ted Heath was Britain’s final transitional demise of the Servants taking over the Hall… The Old Tories panicked… the rest was the slide of Britain into the hands of the Pooter, the chief clerk and the line manager…
The Railways are bloated in “more ways than one” and need radical reform.
Now is the time to fully implement the proposals of the report* prepared by the late Sir David Serpell in 1982.
(* To be precise, Plan A.)
This is probably an unpopular idea, but I would nationalise the railways (and place it under the control of the army). You cannot have market competition where there is no market.
An excellent idea. The Army has certainly ran railways before and used to have its own at Bordon, Hants some years ago.
The present system of subsidising ‘private rail companies’ is ridiculous.
and a new sixth Household Division regiment ? The Train Guards?
Or eighth, depending how you count them?
Or eighth, depending how you count them?
I actually read somewhere that post War at some point virtually the whole BR Board was ex-forces, incl the Chair, CEO etc. So in some regards we have had this before. I’m old enough to remember BR, and can’t recollect it being worse than it is now. It was heavily unionised.
As you’ll know Officers who don’t make the next tier of selection are retired earlier than in other professions – (stops time servers clogging things up and a separate discussion for another day perhaps). But I wonder where they all end up then for the final 10, sometimes 20+ years of their potential working life? It’s too long to just be walking the dog and the Golf links.
Well, and in reverse order, most retire at 50-55 and statistically have about 25 years left. Many used to head for the City, or various Arms Manufacturers, or even head of to Universities or Schools as Bursars. Many off course were quite happy to go on ‘gardening leave’ on a pension of 2/3rds final salary.
British Railways (BR) have been pretty awful throughout my lifetime. Occasionally there would be a spot of brilliance**, but most of the time it was a national embarrassment.
Then came that astounding deceit, PRIVATISATION! An oxymoron if ever there was one. Private Companies in receipt of Public Money, more in fact than in BR days astoundingly!
Result weak, pathetic management as shown by the chaos we now face.
Plaudits of Privatisation emphasise that Passengers numbers have increased, but only due to demographics, increases in leisure time, and unrealistic ticketing policies.
For example why should I receive a massive “old gimmers*” discount on my rail tickets just so I can indulge my interest in English Medieval Cathedrals? I haven’t earned it just by staying alive, the whole thing is a nonsense!
However let us now rejoice, the old Great Western Mainline is about to be electrified, a mere 75 years after the creation of BR in 1947. Hallelujah!
(*Senior Rail Card.)
(** The reinstatement of “The Bristolian” in 1954 for example.)
Well, and in reverse order, most retire at 50-55 and statistically have about 25 years left. Many used to head for the City, or various Arms Manufacturers, or even head of to Universities or Schools as Bursars. Many off course were quite happy to go on ‘gardening leave’ on a pension of 2/3rds final salary.
British Railways (BR) have been pretty awful throughout my lifetime. Occasionally there would be a spot of brilliance**, but most of the time it was a national embarrassment.
Then came that astounding deceit, PRIVATISATION! An oxymoron if ever there was one. Private Companies in receipt of Public Money, more in fact than in BR days astoundingly!
Result weak, pathetic management as shown by the chaos we now face.
Plaudits of Privatisation emphasise that Passengers numbers have increased, but only due to demographics, increases in leisure time, and unrealistic ticketing policies.
For example why should I receive a massive “old gimmers*” discount on my rail tickets just so I can indulge my interest in English Medieval Cathedrals? I haven’t earned it just by staying alive, the whole thing is a nonsense!
However let us now rejoice, the old Great Western Mainline is about to be electrified, a mere 75 years after the creation of BR in 1947. Hallelujah!
(*Senior Rail Card.)
(** The reinstatement of “The Bristolian” in 1954 for example.)
and a new sixth Household Division regiment ? The Train Guards?
I actually read somewhere that post War at some point virtually the whole BR Board was ex-forces, incl the Chair, CEO etc. So in some regards we have had this before. I’m old enough to remember BR, and can’t recollect it being worse than it is now. It was heavily unionised.
As you’ll know Officers who don’t make the next tier of selection are retired earlier than in other professions – (stops time servers clogging things up and a separate discussion for another day perhaps). But I wonder where they all end up then for the final 10, sometimes 20+ years of their potential working life? It’s too long to just be walking the dog and the Golf links.
Personally I’d tell the Unions, here you are, you can have the lot, you are now a co-operative. Good luck!
An excellent idea. The Army has certainly ran railways before and used to have its own at Bordon, Hants some years ago.
The present system of subsidising ‘private rail companies’ is ridiculous.
Personally I’d tell the Unions, here you are, you can have the lot, you are now a co-operative. Good luck!
This is probably an unpopular idea, but I would nationalise the railways (and place it under the control of the army). You cannot have market competition where there is no market.
The Railways are bloated in “more ways than one” and need radical reform.
Now is the time to fully implement the proposals of the report* prepared by the late Sir David Serpell in 1982.
(* To be precise, Plan A.)