National Rail Strike

Inflation does not necessarily go up further. Inflation in this instance is not being driven by wage rises. Just because people receive an inflationary pay rise to enable them to pay for food, fuel and utilities going through the roof does not drive further price increases.

Of course, that's the narrative our delightful government want us to believe.

Over a decade and more, public sector workers have been subject to huge real pay cuts vs inflation. They are due to claw some of that back
I know you will say I'm falling for govt narrative, but I guarantee that a lot of those rail workers are significantly out earning me, as I say in on theornside but I hope they keep it in check
 
You take a job as a teacher at their pay rates. See what you think after that.
Im not sure this is quite right, partly but not quite, my wife is a teacher as I say. She is (or was prior to recent inflation) reasonably happy with her rate of pay, she certainly works hard for her living. Having said that, she also feels that the pay increases have not kept up with inflation for a while, and certainly not now. The statement from the poster your responding too is just lazy though. I would also add that rail workers on average earn significantly more than teachers. I think that's what gets me about this, teachers, nurses, doctors, firemen, all grossly undervalued. I definitely do not feel the same about the rail workers. Having said all that, ill back anyone against bozza so I'm on their side lol!
 
Inflation does not necessarily go up further. Inflation in this instance is not being driven by wage rises.
You are right, the inflationary spark wasn't wage increases. But inflation is a spiral so constraining pay might help to stop the second round of the spiral. Like or loathe a Tory government, they aren't involved in most pay negotiations. It's up to employers to negotiate with their staff to arrive at an acceptable pay level.

It seems to me that the post Covid business landscape is a bit more optimistic. Bigger margins and more helpful technology to help. Staff should be pushing to get good increases based on productivity gains - and the gains generally have been big. But I don't know how unions fit into most of this picture. In big industries, like railways, it's clear there's a place and a need. But in so many industries the issue is company profitability not industry solvency. So what is the role of a trade union?
 
. I would also add that rail workers on average earn significantly more than teachers. I think that's what gets me about this, teachers, nurses, doctors, firemen, all grossly undervalued. I definitely do not feel the same about the rail workers.

But all that shows is that the professions you mentioned are underpaid, it doesn't necessarily mean the rail workers are overpaid.

And if the rail workers just roll over without a fight is that suddenly going to help the nurses and teachers? If the railworkers lose this fight you can guarantee the government will be coming for the rest of the public sector, especially those with weaker unions.
 
Although i can see this is about pay and conditions, I thought it was also about modernisation of the railways, and therefore some redundancies are being talked about. It seems like its all mixed together, so whilst I would support anyone trying to get a better deal, some of the modernisation plans seem reasonable in this time. Hopefully staff reductions could be voluntary.
 
But all that shows is that the professions you mentioned are underpaid, it doesn't necessarily mean the rail workers are overpaid.

And if the rail workers just roll over without a fight is that suddenly going to help the nurses and teachers? If the railworkers lose this fight you can guarantee the government will be coming for the rest of the public sector, especially those with weaker unions.
No I'm sure they are paid fairly, and I'm also sure they want 10% to make sure it is kept that way. They are not bad people, I just don't think they care for one second what impact they could be having on others, I.e increased rail fairs, again, this doesn't make them bad people. I just happen to disagree with them, whilst at the same time loathing the government so much ill still take their side 😆
 
Although i can see this is about pay and conditions, I thought it was also about modernisation of the railways, and therefore some redundancies are being talked about. It seems like its all mixed together, so whilst I would support anyone trying to get a better deal, some of the modernisation plans seem reasonable in this time. Hopefully staff reductions could be voluntary.

Modernisation has been happening on the railway for years, the union aren't daft, they know things are constantly changing. There's a number of issues being discussed but as I understand it the maintenance cuts are a safety concern. Network rail want to reduce things like track inspections by 50%, they want to do this so they can reduce staff numbers and save money. It isn't about modernisation, its compromising safety so they can reduce staff costs.

The union also want an agreement of no compulsory redundancies which the company are refusing to agree to.

I know some maintenance staff who have been told they are going onto permanent nights and not being paid extra for it. Some of these are people who have families with young children. Then they'll have to work in an environment where safety standards are being compromised.
 
No I'm sure they are paid fairly, and I'm also sure they want 10% to make sure it is kept that way. They are not bad people, I just don't think they care for one second what impact they could be having on others, I.e increased rail fairs, again, this doesn't make them bad people. I just happen to disagree with them, whilst at the same time loathing the government so much ill still take their side 😆

How do you know they want 10%?

Scotrail have recently had a similar dispute and settled for a 5% payrise. If the unions ask for 5% they'll get offered far less. If they ask for 10% then they might get 5%, thats how negotiation works.

Also, how do you know that those on strike don't care about those inconvenienced? Maybe there's a happy medium where railworkers get a fair pay rise, fares don't increase and shareholders don't take 100's of millions out of a company?

I'm sure plenty of railworkers have partners who can't use the trains for work this week, I'm sure they have children who can't get trains to schools for exams. But its literally two days out of this week and the general public have had weeks to make alternative arrangements for travel.

The government have had over 2 years to deal with this and they've let this run and run. Its not the railworkers who are to blame.
 
How do you know they want 10%?

Scotrail have recently had a similar dispute and settled for a 5% payrise. If the unions ask for 5% they'll get offered far less. If they ask for 10% then they might get 5%, thats how negotiation works.

Also, how do you know that those on strike don't care about those inconvenienced? Maybe there's a happy medium where railworkers get a fair pay rise, fares don't increase and shareholders don't take 100's of millions out of a company?

I'm sure plenty of railworkers have partners who can't use the trains for work this week, I'm sure they have children who can't get trains to schools for exams. But its literally two days out of this week and the general public have had weeks to make alternative arrangements for travel.

The government have had over 2 years to deal with this and they've let this run and run. Its not the railworkers who are to blame.
Well I think (could be wrong) that this is the starting position in negotiations, if they settle at 5 then i think that is fair, at present it just comes across a tad like a hostage situation, rather than going for whats fair. All relativel I do understand, I guess after working in the private sector my entire life, where pay increases only happen with promotion mostly, occasionally you may get the odd 1%, i have become cynical.
 
Teachers working conditions are children's learning conditions.

And just as I'd not like a disgruntled track safety specialist working on the rail network, I'd not like a disgruntled teacher.
The levell of teaching in the UK is very worrying , in many schools teachers are barely older than the pupils.
 
True words, who are we saying is poor though? Rail workers or teachers?
All workers are poorer than they have been in for decades. The establishment, corporations, rich company owners and investors are demanding a greater share of profits and thus increasing their wealth and leaving the coffers empty to service the needs of the employees, whilst putting nothing back into society.

If the government pursued corporations for tax as ardently as they will chase an individual for a few hundred pounds of unpaid tax, there would be more in the coffers for public pay increases.
 
Last edited:
RMT members who are cleaners earning the minimum wage and having to use food banks to eat?

Do they deserve a payrise even though they are holding us all hostage?
Yes all cleaners deserve a payrise, not what I was getting at. Plus its not the workers doing it, its the union. Plus even despite low paid cleaners working for network rail, the rail industry averages 40k plus, that may well be deserved but as an overall industry I wouldn't consider that to be a low wage at all, its a lot more than I earn. That number will be relative to where people live so for some it may be difficult. But I have to say, I don't look at a person earning 40k per year and think "well they need a pay rise urgently", I do with cleaners. Also I would add that these workers may well deserve their 40k, but people earning that are certainly not poor.
 
Yes all cleaners deserve a payrise, not what I was getting at. Plus its not the workers doing it, its the union. Plus even despite low paid cleaners working for network rail, the rail industry averages 40k plus, that may well be deserved but as an overall industry I wouldn't consider that to be a low wage at all, its a lot more than I earn. That number will be relative to where people live so for some it may be difficult. But I have to say, I don't look at a person earning 40k per year and think "well they need a pay rise urgently", I do with cleaners. Also I would add that these workers may well deserve their 40k, but people earning that are certainly not poor.

It’s all relative though, isn’t it?
Someone earning 40k may not seem ‘poor’ to you, or deserving of a decent pay rise, but their mortgage may be 2 or 3 x yours because of where they live, their commute costs may be 1000s more per year, their council tax etc etc.
So they earn more than you, but you are richer than them with more expendable income. So you don’t actually need a pay rise as much as they do, by your reasoning, no?
Do you see the flaws of your argument? If inflation is rising by x %, everyone, unless they are properly rich, deserves a pay rise in line with that as a minimum. You can’t pick and choose who should get it, based on whether they earn 30k or 40k, without considering all the other factors. It’s not black and white
 
Back
Top