Topic: Do you support the strikes?

[-HH-]

I see, not replying to every single point you make is going off topic while you ignore the detailed replys on why many of your points were wrong.

Just to be VERY clear, writing a lot of things doesn't equal detail. Just as an example "helping people with kids" - the last Labour administration's actions led to us having the highest childcare costs in Europe. Tax credits sound great but without adding any restrictions on what childcare providers could charge they basically just increased profits for childcare providers whilst not really helping those with kids. That's the kind of thing you're passing off as detail. But the point is, this is not the Labour thread, you have made it such. I tried to bring it back and you turned it back to the Labour thread, nothing to do with me ignoring your "detailed" answers.

This is a thread about industrial action. Labour aren't supporting the strikes, telling people they can't show support on pickets. They are saying they won't find the money for pay restoration.

That's the only context in which Labour should be being discussed in this thread. And none of it changes my vote because I couldn't vote Labour here even if I wanted to BECAUSE the main parties don't believe in democracy and like the rigged system that splits power between them and them alone. So you'll forgive me if I don't hop over to the Labour thread for a chat about the folks who won't even leave me in a position to possibly vote for them and who don't even leaflet here.

[oldfordie]

Just to be VERY clear, writing a lot of things doesn't equal detail. Just as an example "helping people with kids" - the last Labour administration's actions led to us having the highest childcare costs in Europe. Tax credits sound great but without adding any restrictions on what childcare providers could charge they basically just increased profits for childcare providers whilst not really helping those with kids. That's the kind of thing you're passing off as detail. But the point is, this is not the Labour thread, you have made it such. I tried to bring it back and you turned it back to the Labour thread, nothing to do with me ignoring your "detailed" answers.

This is a thread about industrial action. Labour aren't supporting the strikes, telling people they can't show support on pickets. They are saying they won't find the money for pay restoration.

That's the only context in which Labour should be being discussed in this thread. And none of it changes my vote because I couldn't vote Labour here even if I wanted to BECAUSE the main parties don't believe in democracy and like the rigged system that splits power between them and them alone. So you'll forgive me if I don't hop over to the Labour thread for a chat about the folks who won't even leave me in a position to possibly vote for them and who don't even leaflet here.

Read my posts again. I actually went into detail supporting the NHS strikes and how the Torys fobbed off NHS workers for years, how Labour values NHS workers and the NHS. it was about actually caring. trying to create a decent society, those points are all relevant to the strikes, the only reason we moved on was when you brought up Blair and now your trying to claim I derailed the thread. lets say we both went off topic. you took it off topic, I answered the points you were making so we both went off topic.

Read my reply's to your early posts, I answered the points you made you ignored my reply's, your now making some argument about detail doesn't mean I answered the point.
 I didn't think I needed to go into detail when talking about helping people with kids, nobody has to do that on this site, Labour supporters know this already, it's all been covered countless times.  so Labour bring higher benefits and tax credits to help parents, sure start and you chose to focus on some stat that may or not be true to attack them.
I also didn't go into detail on taking millions of kids out of poverty, education etc either,  same with the elderly and vulnerable. that's detail and shows some of the things you look for when deciding if someone is on the left and right so maybe you missed my point, all that detail was about how you judge if a party is left or right wing, it always gets ignored as people chose to focus on something abstract to claim they are right wing or Torys.
I don't need to hear someone tell me if it's left or right wing, I know what right wing policys are, the right will never bring in policys like the policys Labour brought in when in power.
It seems people think being left wing means you must oppose everything the Torys say or do.

You ignored the points I made in my replys and came out with other points, loads of different points and then accuse me of not answering all your points to claim I wasn't arguing in good faith.
I will leave it at that.

[-HH-]

Oh my God. Yes, you can have the last word. Christ on a bike.

[A-Bomb]

Is any of that about the strikes? Take it to PM you pair.

[-HH-]

Is any of that about the strikes? Take it to PM you pair.

It was originally - before I had to swear undying allegiance to Keir Starmer or be a communist. See below - this is all I really want to say and it goes for other strikes too. People have had enough for themselves, but they have also had enough of nefarious interests affecting the quality of service they can provide - that goes for the trains, for royal mail and for the various public sector strikes happening everywhere:

As a Radiographer who voted to strike I absolutely support the strikes. And what anyone who doesn't needs to realise is that there is a chronic shortage of staff in both Radiography and the NHS. There are various reasons for that and one of those is how much our pay has been eroded over the last 15 years in real terms. Every time they give a real terms pay cut it hits a little more and eventually you do get fed up as an individual or for those in worse positions struggle to support yourself. That's the selfish (but still valid) angle.

But there's a wider issue which is that if the staffing shortages and the waiting lists pre-date the latest pay deal (which they do) then what effect does another real terms pay cut have on an already stretched situation?

I *completely* respect anyone who is waiting for scans or treatment (or with family in that boat) feeling at least conflicted about the strikes if not outright against them - but I would say to those people that you or your family has had worse delays already because the service is stretched to (or often beyond) its limits by a mendacious government that either wants it to fail or simply to use it as a vessel to funnel money to their friends and donors.

They are the people responsible. The people like myself who are striking - yes we want better for ourselves but we want better for you too. They are letting us down and they are letting you down. We are fighting as much for you as for ourselves.

[-HH-]

https://twitter.com/MarkBallard4/status/1710022996620967965?t=Rw6_4Z1w02GFgiAx54tzhg&s=19

Got interviewed on the Radiographers picket by BBC South East on Tuesday. Obviously it's a snippet of a longer chat but gets to the crux of it.

[PaulF]

https://twitter.com/MarkBallard4/status/1710022996620967965?t=Rw6_4Z1w02GFgiAx54tzhg&s=19

Got interviewed on the Radiographers picket by BBC South East on Tuesday. Obviously it's a snippet of a longer chat but gets to the crux of it.

The media very much are the kingmakers here, if they give voice to your message the government have to cave. Less clear if they paint you all as greedy militants.
Love the hashtag. Noraisenorays 😄

With inflation now seemingly falling the government case is weaker too.

--edit-- for clarity. I definitely don't see you as greedy militants.

[-HH-]

The media very much are the kingmakers here, if they give voice to your message the government have to cave. Less clear if they paint you all as greedy militants.
Love the hashtag. Noraisenorays 😄

With inflation now seemingly falling the government case is weaker too.

--edit-- for clarity. I definitely don't see you as greedy militants.

Don't worry, I got what you meant. The militant thing would make me laugh if it weren't so serious. All us militant NHS workers asking for pay to be restored to previous levels so that we can hire more people.

In our department alone we have lost 2 people to Australia/New Zealand and 4 people who have left the profession altogether (all 6 in their 20s or early 30s). This is not a coincidence and isn't sustainable.

[Clint Eastwood]

There were no rail strikes this last week were there?

Probably the best time for them to strike - when trainloads of Tories came up to Manchester - and no strikes.

[Craig S]

There were no rail strikes this last week were there?

Probably the best time for them to strike - when trainloads of Tories came up to Manchester - and no strikes.

Yes, last Saturday. Made spurs away a mission, but still supported it.

[-HH-]

Yes, last Saturday. Made spurs away a mission, but still supported it.

👍

[PaulF]

Someone suggested discussing the rail nationalisation in a new thread instead of polluting the Labour one.  I'll try it here first as one of the first things Labour will need to sort is how to deal with the unions.  I half listened late last night to a program about it and if the unions are having national strikes instead of ones in regions / against specific to, that gives them more power.  Thus harder for Labour to deal with.

[gazzalfc]

Someone suggested discussing the rail nationalisation in a new thread instead of polluting the Labour one.  I'll try it here first as one of the first things Labour will need to sort is how to deal with the unions.  I half listened late last night to a program about it and if the unions are having national strikes instead of ones in regions / against specific to, that gives them more power.  Thus harder for Labour to deal with.

When you say 'deal with' what you you mean?

Do you mean listen meaningfully to the concerns of unions that have got a clear mandate from their members to propose and go through with industrial action after months (and even years) of stages of pay and terms consultation that have failed? Then once listened to, actually come to the table and negotiate pay and terms under a fair process and maybe compromise in a way that benefits both sides? Yes I absolutely agree

Or do you mean deal with them like the Tories are currently doing by failing to negotiate or even come to the table, and then just reducing their powers to unionise, collectively bargain for improved pay and terms and if failure to agree, ballot for industrial action which would cost not only businesses but striking members money as well?

[oldfordie]

When you say 'deal with' what you you mean?

Do you mean listen meaningfully to the concerns of unions that have got a clear mandate from their members to propose and go through with industrial action after months (and even years) of stages of pay and terms consultation that have failed? Then once listened to, actually come to the table and negotiate pay and terms under a fair process and maybe compromise in a way that benefits both sides? Yes I absolutely agree

Or do you mean sort them out like the Tories are currently doing by failing to negotiate or even come to the table, and then just reducing their powers to unionise, collectively bargain for improved pay and terms and if failure to agree, ballot for industrial action which would cost not only businesses but striking members money as well?

Labour have been tearing into the Torys for not getting around the negotiating table for as long as I can remember, they've torn into the last couple of Tory transport secratary's for refusing to meet the unions, they've also made it clear why. rail bosses need the governments permission to agree to the unions demands, the Torys refuse because they want to politicise the strikes.
Labour are hardly going to do the same are they.
I think Labour will support the safety demands from the unions. rates off pay will always be a stumbling block in all pay disputes. unions will obviously want as much as possible with no conditions, government will want more reform and co-operation for pay improvements, that's just the way it works.
The concern for me is not a Labour government working with the Unions, it's the unions  doing what the Torys are doing now, politicising the strikes to make Labour look bad, we shall see.

[gazzalfc]

Labour have been tearing into the Torys for not getting around the negotiating table for as long as I can remember, they've torn into the last couple of Tory transport secratary's for refusing to meet the unions, they've also made it clear why. rail bosses need the governments permission to agree to the unions demands, the Torys refuse because they want to politicise the strikes.
Labour are hardly going to do the same are they.
I think Labour will support the safety demands from the unions. rates off pay will always be a stumbling block in all pay disputes. unions will obviously want as much as possible with no conditions, government will want more reform and co-operation for pay improvements, that's just the way it works.
The concern for me is not a Labour government working with the Unions, it's the unions  doing what the Torys are doing now, politicising the strikes to make Labour look bad, we shall see.

Unions want the best possible deal to take to their members to vote on. I have got no problem if my union reps want to stir the pot to get there. Every person regardless on if they are unionised should want the maximum pay for the work they do.

I'll give an example of my current union pay negotiations. We asked for an 8% pay rise at the end of last year (that was based upon the RPI inflation figures from October last year). Our offer (after 3 rounds of negotiation) was 4.5%, a £200 tax free one off payment and a commitment to improve role progression throughout the year. That offer was taken back to the union membership and was voted on (we accepted on Friday last week).

That offer was higher than any of the company sites that are not unionised (2.5%). Now I work in the private sector so the pay 'pot' comes from profits

I don't want to see Mick Lynch on my TV but only because if he isn't, then it means his membership have been offered a fair deal and his  membership are happy.

[oldfordie]

Unions want the best possible deal to take to their members to vote on. I have got no problem if my union reps want to stir the pot to get there. Every person regardless on if they are unionised should want the maximum pay for the work they do.

I'll give an example of my current union pay negotiations. We asked for an 8% pay rise at the end of last year (that was based upon the RPI inflation figures from October last year). Our offer (after 3 rounds of negotiation) was 4.5%, a £200 tax free one off payment and a commitment to improve role progression throughout the year. That offer was taken back to the union membership and was voted on (we accepted on Friday last week).

That offer was higher than any of the company sites that are not unionised (2.5%). Now I work in the private sector so the pay 'pot' comes from profits

I don't want to see Mick Lynch on my TV but only because if he isn't, then it means his membership have been offered a fair deal and his  membership are happy.

Of course, ive made those same points myself, don't knock the unions, it's there job to get the best deal for their members, if it wasn't for unions then our standard of living wouldn't be anywhere near as high today and that applies to people who are not it a union who think they got where they are today all down to hard work. naïve beyond belief.
One of considerations Unions have working out their demands is the health of the companys itself. they employ top accountants to come up the facts and figures to justify their demands, this is not a criticism of Mick Lynch as it applies to all big unions but I doubt if he works out all these facts, they are given to him by accountants, so this also has to be recognised when wage demands are made, the Union has their job to do and that's fighting for the best pay and conditions for it's members, the management has their job to do and that's keeping the company solvent by refusing to pay more than the company can afford, that's what I mean when I say that's just the way things are.

The question was would a Labour government have the same attitude as this Tory government, no they wouldn't as they've explained what the Torys are doing, the Torys are politicising the strikes,  that's a very dangerous game, it's taking us back to the 60s/70s, the last thing we want to do is to force the unions to react the same, I hated the unions when they went political but what do they expect if the Torys are making the strikes political. I still hate it today but the Torys can't have it both ways, they can't make wage demands political to win votes and expect union bosses like Mick Lynch not to fight back by fighting politically as well.
Labour will be reasonable, they will meet the unions, they will not orchestrate strikes for political gain that would never be a vote winner for Labour anyway.
Will the unions be reasonable, we shall see.

[thaddeus]

Will the unions be reasonable, we shall see.

I think the problem may be that what the unions deem to be reasonable and what the government can afford will be some way apart.

Whilst the headlines have been of pay going up by x% those figures almost always outstrips any of the public sector pay deals so public sector unions will have seen the pay of their members fall further behind from what was already a low starting point compared to 2010.  It's not unreasonable for those unions to see a Labour government as being the opportunity to right that but if they go in demanding 20%+ pay awards then they'll struggle to reach an agreement.

I really, really hope we don't end up with battle lines being drawn between Labour and the unions!

[PaulF]

I don't have any idea why it happens, but asking for a double digit pay rise to bring you back into line with several years single digit pay rises in the private sector is always a hard sell.  And I doubt the unions can negotiate a triple lock or something similar to achieve standard pay rises throughout a period of 'steady' growth.

Comparison to the private sector in general is fraught with issues, you'd have to find comparable sectors and factor in the lack of risk with working in a nationalised industry.

Glad I bought up the topic though, it's going to be really interesting to see how the unions and labour mix.  My suspicion would be that the unions accept the low end of fair and labour agree to regular, not drawn out reviews , maybe a pay review body.  Labour's biggest risk at the following election will be if they are seen to have been bent over by the unions.

[RedDeadRejection]

Can't say the unions are being political when the government wanted less permanent way staff checking the safety of the railway line for a real terms pay cut. I hope every union sees labour as a means to get fairer pay and the bastards who don't pay tax can foot the bill.

Being realistic only seems to be for the poorer in society.

[oldfordie]

I don't have any idea why it happens, but asking for a double digit pay rise to bring you back into line with several years single digit pay rises in the private sector is always a hard sell.  And I doubt the unions can negotiate a triple lock or something similar to achieve standard pay rises throughout a period of 'steady' growth.

Comparison to the private sector in general is fraught with issues, you'd have to find comparable sectors and factor in the lack of risk with working in a nationalised industry.

Glad I bought up the topic though, it's going to be really interesting to see how the unions and labour mix.  My suspicion would be that the unions accept the low end of fair and labour agree to regular, not drawn out reviews , maybe a pay review body.  Labour's biggest risk at the following election will be if they are seen to have been bent over by the unions.

I remember a conversation I had with someone many years ago that's stayed with me to this day.
Any soft bas.. can make cuts, any soft git can come in and chop chop chop. that takes no skill. the real skill is creating, creating jobs and growth in the company or the country in this case, always did my head in when these Torys were given credit for taking what they called difficult decisions. boll.  it wasn't difficult to chop, anyone can do that. it's being able to cut out inefficiency while continuing to grow that should impress.
Wes Streeting was talking about cutting out the STUPID in the NHS, he gets it. about time too, ask the NHS workers themselves for imput, what annoys them the most when it comes to wastage and money thrown down the drain.
The same attitude should apply to all nationalised company's, cut out the inefficient practices but don't chop just to get profits bigger. it's also about providing a service.
I don't know about anyone else but I don't look at our Railways as in the same group as the NHS, Electricity+Gas and maybe Water. another set of wage negotiations should be set up for them.

[PaulF]

Railways do feel less 'essential' than the other sectors you mentioned there.

I guess 'cutting' is in a way increasing profits, but those profits are never seen, just re-invested in the areas that need to grow.
Knowing where and how you can do that is the trick.

I read somewhere, that was bizzarely saying the NHS needs more managers, not fewer.  Definitely an argument for that if it frees up medical staff from spending time 'managing' things.  Possibly managers / admin is a better description!

[oldfordie]

Railways do feel less 'essential' than the other sectors you mentioned there.

I guess 'cutting' is in a way increasing profits, but those profits are never seen, just re-invested in the areas that need to grow.
Knowing where and how you can do that is the trick.

I read somewhere, that was bizzarely saying the NHS needs more managers, not fewer.  Definitely an argument for that if it frees up medical staff from spending time 'managing' things.  Possibly managers / admin is a better description!

My opinion on strikes changed after the grave diggers went out on strike back in 1978/79, my opinion now is has everyone got the right to strike? it's not so simple. in theory yes but we should come up with a system that treats them fairly if we think they should never do it.  the Torys took advantage of the NHS etc for years thinking they would never take serious industrial action, the NHS workers right to strike was justified once the government did this. if your going to take away someone's right to strike then they have to be treated fairly not exploited.
I think that's the difference between the NHS, Elec, Gas and Water. they are all vital to life. some will argue the railways are as well in modern life, nahh, I think we know the difference.

[west_london_red]

I don't have any idea why it happens, but asking for a double digit pay rise to bring you back into line with several years single digit pay rises in the private sector is always a hard sell.  And I doubt the unions can negotiate a triple lock or something similar to achieve standard pay rises throughout a period of 'steady' growth.

Comparison to the private sector in general is fraught with issues, you'd have to find comparable sectors and factor in the lack of risk with working in a nationalised industry.

Glad I bought up the topic though, it's going to be really interesting to see how the unions and labour mix.  My suspicion would be that the unions accept the low end of fair and labour agree to regular, not drawn out reviews , maybe a pay review body.  Labour's biggest risk at the following election will be if they are seen to have been bent over by the unions.

We used to have something not far off the triple lock before austerity (although it was a single lock), we would get 3 or 4 year deals of RPI plus x, so if you got a rating of 3/5 (the average) in your end of year review you got say RPI plus 0.5%, if you got a 4/5 it would be RPI plus 1% and if it was 5/5 you got RPI plus 1.5%, that worked fine, since Austerity we’ve had about 3 years where the rise has been above RPI and most years below. For me personally, the if they had maintained pay levels between 2010 and 2020 I would have happily accepted less then RPI for the last 2 years when inflation was so high it’s when it’s been the same for most of the last 10 years it gets ridiculous.