[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Thunder Bolt]

Of course, the other problem is this sort of thing. Convincing morons across the U.K. that people standing up for worker’s rights is the problem.

And it’s a nice sense article. Of course you can support Union action but still regret the impact it will have on people.

Nuance is lost on the Daily Mail readership.

Never mind nuance, many only read the two inch headlines.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There is a serious consideration for banning strikes by certain professions. NHS front line, police and fire, teaching and, yes, public transport. These are services and any strike in any of them puts people who are potentially vulnerable at risk.

For the government employees among them I could see a quid pro quo where they have a guaranteed annual salary rise tied to the annual RPI rate and performance related bonuses. I would pay for this by increasing the rate of income tax across the board. I'd also (and this may or may not exist) set up specialist tax evasion recovery teams in HMRC to look at the biggest cases and additionally incentivise those teams by offering a bonus based on amount recovered.

The only problems being

a) income tax rises are not popular (and some oddballs prefer flat rates )
b) some public transport is operated by the private sector which is, has always been and always will be mental, and those employers would have no legal reason to stick to the annual rise and
c) perhaps there are one or two within government doing very nicely out of "tax efficient schemes".

But the bottom line remains. I'm afraid I don't want my transport to work disrupted, my kids kept off school, vulnerable people put at risk or the rubbish to pile high in the streets just so someone's golden pension rights are ringfenced.

The Fire Service did it the legal way by taking the government to court. They won. You aren't helping with the rhetoric of 'golden pension rights'.
In the Fire Service, the members have paid in large amounts of 11% so they can retire at 55. The government wanted to keep the high contributions but make them work to 66. I don't know about you but if I'm in a fire, I don't want a firefighter aged 65 trying to rescue me.
Of course, they still had to maintain fitness levels, which many over 55 couldn't maintain so could be dismissed as unfit and not reach their optimum pension. Up to then if someone had been injured on duty or not well enough for active duty, they could go on the call service. That was privatised so civvies were running it. The firefighters were in a cleft stick but the courts upheld their claim.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The Fire Service did it the legal way by taking the government to court. They won. You aren't helping with the rhetoric of 'golden pension rights'.
In the Fire Service, the members have paid in large amounts of 11% so they can retire at 55. The government wanted to keep the high contributions but make them work to 66. I don't know about you but if I'm in a fire, I don't want a firefighter aged 65 trying to rescue me.
Of course, they still had to maintain fitness levels, which many over 55 couldn't maintain so could be dismissed as unfit and not reach their optimum pension. Up to then if someone had been injured on duty or not well enough for active duty, they could go on the call service. That was privatised so civvies were running it. The firefighters were in a cleft stick but the courts upheld their claim.

So....

- They didn't go on strike
- They won
- It was really a safety issue, rather than a payment issue.

I know a train driver who retired earlier than most private sector workers, has cheap travel for life and very little change to lifestyle. Meanwhile, most people in the private sector or running small businesses have almost no pension at all. And guess who can't go to work or run their business when the railway is on strike?

 

[Baldseagull]

So....

- They didn't go on strike
- They won
- It was really a safety issue, rather than a payment issue.

I know a train driver who retired earlier than most private sector workers, has cheap travel for life and very little change to lifestyle. Meanwhile, most people in the private sector or running small businesses have almost no pension at all. And guess who can't go to work or run their business when the railway is on strike?

What others do and get is nothing to do with it, they have a contract which offers certain benefits in return for their labour, and those benefits are being reduced.
It comes across a bit snobbish to suggest a Train Driver should not have an as good, or better package of pay and benefits than a small business owner or private sector employee.

 

[Grizz]

So....

- They didn't go on strike
- They won
- It was really a safety issue, rather than a payment issue.

I know a train driver who retired earlier than most private sector workers, has cheap travel for life and very little change to lifestyle. Meanwhile, most people in the private sector or running small businesses have almost no pension at all. And guess who can't go to work or run their business when the railway is on strike?

Why is it worker pitted against worker? I don't get that, so why should they! We get decent money on the Underground, there's no denying it. The pension scheme is one of the reasons on leaving Uni I stuck with the Underground and not go elsewhere after 6 months. The free travel, after retiring, is a perk earned after 20 years service. After working extreme shift patterns and night shifts for 35 years, dealing with all sorts of incidents from people chucking themselves under trains, to dealing with those who carry knives and guns on the system, I've no qualms at retiring at 56 years old, I'm thoroughly looking forward to it.

What people should be asking is why aren't these other public services paid the same as us. If they were you'd not have a recruitment shortage, you'd not have umpteen thousands vacancies countrywide. But no, let's blame another sector of workers for being greedy, for trying to improve their lot with collective bargaining through the Union.

As to small business owners. That's a choice they made, just like working for a public service is. I wouldn't want to run my own business, just as many small business owners wouldn't want to work under the conditions I work under.

As to the RMT, I don't agree with everything they do, in fact I left the Union and joined another over it, but at least they have the balls to stand up for their members when it does count. Rather than castigating them for standing up for their membership, what people should be doing is holding the Government to account for the wasted billions over the last two years on PPE contracts, and now the workers are having to take the hit. How can doing away with 2900 track maintenance jobs be safe? Nothing has changed technology wise to substitute what those workers do, but cost cutting means they feel they can justify it and hope nothing serious happens in the meantime.

It frustrates me so much that the same lines are trotted out again and again regarding those who stand up for their working rights.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It comes across a bit snobbish to suggest a Train Driver should not have an as good, or better package of pay and benefits than a small business owner or private sector employee.

You've missed the point by miles.

People are being stopped from going to work by people with a FAR better pension package than them (and with many drivers on over 60k a year).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Seems I was quite right. RMT will never win when middle or slightly left members of the public think that public sector workers are on a golden pension ticket. I did notice, buried in the comments, that:

"For the government employees among them I could see a quid pro quo where they have a guaranteed annual salary rise tied to the annual RPI rate and performance related bonuses. I would pay for this by increasing the rate of income tax across the board. I'd also (and this may or may not exist) set up specialist tax evasion recovery teams in HMRC to look at the biggest cases and additionally incentivise those teams by offering a bonus based on amount recovered. The only problems being..."

that the conservatives are more than happy to squeeze the public sector, 'blamelessly' by proxy by setting up bodies like TFL to do the dirty work. The conservatives know very well that even reasonable fair minded people start jumping up and down when inconvenienced.

Quickly one forgets that the public sector does NOT have any arrangement for fair and regulated pay rises, and other benefits given in exchange for ceding the right to strike. The conservatives don't what that!

That would mean there would be no stick left with which to beat the public sector, and blame greedy public sector workers with their golden pensions for ruining the lives of ordinary men and women and their families.

Which is why I suggested that unions like RMT need to sort out their PR or they will simly be playing into the conservatives' hands at every turn.

I should add that I was a UCU member for more than 35 years, always voted against strike action and never went on strike. Since I never received a word of criticism from the union or my colleagues, I suspect that the union is mainly concerned about being seen to be on strike, and having selfies with Jeremy Corbyn, than actually implementing an effective strike.

If I were a conservative I would regard the labour movement, especially public sector unions, as unwitting fifth columnists in the anti-union anti public sector cause. I would be giving them tacit encouragement by allowing pointless reforms and trivial reorganizations to blend in with the major erosion of terms and conditions, in the certain knowledge that the union leadership (which, in my union, is riddled with SWP fools - my local rep is one) will react incontinently and in a disorganized and poorly presented way. Then I would sit back, like Shapps is doing now, gently shaking my head and tut tutting about how sad it is that the hardworking British public are being so needlessly inconvenienced.

Rinse, and repeat.

It will take people more clever than the son of Bob Crow to work out a better approach...

 

[Guinness Boy]

Seems I was quite right. RMT will never win when middle or slightly left members of the public think that public sector workers are on a golden pension ticket. I did notice, buried in the comments, that:

"For the government employees among them I could see a quid pro quo where they have a guaranteed annual salary rise tied to the annual RPI rate and performance related bonuses. I would pay for this by increasing the rate of income tax across the board. I'd also (and this may or may not exist) set up specialist tax evasion recovery teams in HMRC to look at the biggest cases and additionally incentivise those teams by offering a bonus based on amount recovered. The only problems being..."

that the conservatives are more than happy to squeeze the public sector, 'blamelessly' by proxy by setting up bodies like TFL to do the dirty work. The conservatives know very well that even reasonable fair minded people start jumping up and down when inconvenienced.

Quickly one forgets that the public sector does NOT have any arrangement for fair and regulated pay rises, and other benefits given in exchange for ceding the right to strike. The conservatives don't what that!

That would mean there would be no stick left with which to beat the public sector, and blame greedy public sector workers with their golden pensions for ruining the lives of ordinary men and women and their families.

Which is why I suggested that unions like RMT need to sort out their PR or they will simly be playing into the conservatives' hands at every turn.

I should add that I was a UCU member for more than 35 years, always voted against strike acton and never went on strike. Since I never received a word of criticism from the union or my colleagues, I suspect that the union is mainly concerned about being seen to be on strike, and having selfies with Jeremy Corbyn, than actually implementing an effective strike.

If I were a conservative I would regard the labour movement, especially public sector unions, as unwitting fifth columnists in the anti-union anti public sector cause. I would be giving them tacit encouragement by allowing pointless reforms and trivial reorganizations to blend in with the major erosion of terms and conditions, in the certain knowledge that the union leadership (which, in my union, is riddled with SWP fools - my local rep is one) will react incontinently and in a disorganized and poorly presented way. Then I would sit back, like Shapps is doing now, gently shaking my head and tut tutting about how sad it is that the hardworking British public are being so needlessly inconvenienced.

Rinse, and repeat.

It will take people more clever than the son of Bob Crow to work out a better approach...

It's not "buried in the comments". It's a genuine attempt at a solution.

When nurses, teachers and emergency service staff cannot get into work because there are no trains and they can't afford to fill their car up, the only people the RMT are hurting is the general public. They should be taking the moral high ground, there's absolutely no chance that Boris et al will meet their demands when they are directly playing into the Tories' electoral hands.

 

[Baldseagull]

You've missed the point by miles.

People are being stopped from going to work by people with a FAR better pension package than them (and with many drivers on over 60k a year).

No, I understand it is inconvenient, but what has the wage of the passengers got to do with it?
You chose to make it a point about inconveniencing people who possibly don't earn as much or have a pension as good as a train drivers, to me that is irrelevant. There will be many well paid guys in the city that are also stuffed, it isn't about the pay conditions of the passengers. It is about an employer reducing the benefits that an employee had, whilst asking them to do the same job.
The value of the work done by all those people transported safely on trains is massive in comparison to a Train Drivers salary, the value of what a train driver does could then be argued as massively important for the economy, and should be well rewarded. I think it is well rewarded, and should remain so, not be eaten away.

 

[vegster]

No, I understand it is inconvenient, but what has the wage of the passengers got to do with it?
You chose to make it a point about inconveniencing people who possibly don't earn as much or have a pension as good as a train drivers, to me that is irrelevant. There will be many well paid guys in the city that are also stuffed, it isn't about the pay conditions of the passengers. It is about an employer reducing the benefits that an employee had, whilst asking them to do the same job.
The value of the work done by all those people transported safely on trains is massive in comparison to a Train Drivers salary, the value of what a train driver does could then be argued as massively important for the economy, and should be well rewarded. I think it is well rewarded, and should remain so, not be eaten away.

I saw a post elsewhere so I can't claim it as my own which opined that year on year ticket prices go up by the rate of inflation plus another 1-2% yet a, the service never seems to improve and b, the staff never get the same pay increase so constantly fall behind. Fair play to them for standing up.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

There is a serious consideration for banning strikes by certain professions. NHS front line, police and fire, teaching and, yes, public transport. These are services and any strike in any of them puts people who are potentially vulnerable at risk.

For the government employees among them I could see a quid pro quo where they have a guaranteed annual salary rise tied to the annual RPI rate and performance related bonuses. I would pay for this by increasing the rate of income tax across the board. I'd also (and this may or may not exist) set up specialist tax evasion recovery teams in HMRC to look at the biggest cases and additionally incentivise those teams by offering a bonus based on amount recovered.

The only problems being

a) income tax rises are not popular (and some oddballs prefer flat rates )
b) some public transport is operated by the private sector which is, has always been and always will be mental, and those employers would have no legal reason to stick to the annual rise and
c) perhaps there are one or two within government doing very nicely out of "tax efficient schemes".

But the bottom line remains. I'm afraid I don't want my transport to work disrupted, my kids kept off school, vulnerable people put at risk or the rubbish to pile high in the streets just so someone's golden pension rights are ringfenced.

Plenty of consultants and even myself would not be working for the NHS if it wasn’t for the ‘golden’ pension, as we have seen over the last 20 years with GPs, if that is changed then people leave and the service comes to a standstill.

Too many of the public have little or no understanding of the pressures of the NHS, whether it’s senior managers, nursing teams or consultants. I would suggest, a decent pension is about the only incentive left for staying in the NHS or other public service.

You may not want services to come to a standstill or services to be disrupted (neither do I, and I wouldn’t strike myself), but if the government whether it’s conservative or labour mess with the pensions, that is what will happen, as the 1995 scheme is about the only thing keeping senior consultants/manager/nurses in the service.

Without them and their goodwill the public would be fecked, and a privatised service would follow very quickly (as that’s where the staff would be).

Be careful what you wish for…

 

[darkwolf666]

Reading some of the most recent posts on here I can only conclude we have developed a society of envy.

If I can’t have it, why should anyone else, seems to be the maxim.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Plenty of consultants and even myself would not be working for the NHS if it wasn’t for the ‘golden’ pension, as we have seen over the last 20 years with GPs, if that is changed then people leave and the service comes to a standstill.

Too many of the public have little or no understanding of the pressures of the NHS, whether it’s senior managers, nursing teams or consultants. I would suggest, a decent pension is about the only incentive left for staying in the NHS or other public service.

You may not want services to come to a standstill or services to be disrupted (neither do I, and I wouldn’t strike myself), but if the government whether it’s conservative or labour mess with the pensions, that is what will happen, as the 1995 scheme is about the only thing keeping senior consultants/manager/nurses in the service.

Without them and their goodwill the public would be fecked, and a privatised service would follow very quickly (as that’s where the staff would be).

Be careful what you wish for…

But you (like others) are only concentrating on the pension comment and not the solution I proposed and replayed again to Harry.

If you were to give up a right to strike for a guaranteed Index Linked pay rise every year and a performance related bonus is that something you'd consider?

Unfortunately, in an aging population, pensions are going to have to take a hit.

 

[The Clamp]

But you (like others) are only concentrating on the pension comment and not the solution I proposed and replayed again to Harry.

If you were to give up a right to strike for a guaranteed Index Linked pay rise every year and a performance related bonus is that something you'd consider?

Unfortunately, in an aging population, pensions are going to have to take a hit.

For once, I respectfully disagree. Now more than ever we must stand together and fight the Tory vendetta against the working man.


The Tory’s want us blaming the worker and saying “they don’t know how good they’ve got it”. That is playing right into their grubby hands.

Anyone who faces down this appalling government is a friend of mine, no matter how inconvenient.

 

[rogersix]

as soon as this incompetent shower is out it's time to nationalize the railways

 

[Motogull]

as soon as this incompetent shower is out it's time to nationalize the railways

That's rolled the ball across the 6 yard line nicely for me.

 

[franks brother]

all over twitter

 

[beorhthelm]

as soon as this incompetent shower is out it's time to nationalize the railways

you know the railways were fully nationalised in Scotland early this year? went on strike the first month.

 

[rogersix]

you know the railways were fully nationalised in Scotland early this year? went on strike the first month.

what was the result?

 

[Stat Brother]

View attachment 148989
all over twitter

The reason it's all over Twitter isn't because it's news - this clearly isn't news to anyone who has a pulse for the last 5 years.

It's news because depiffel' people got the story pulled post production.
Unfortunately for the PM a few copies had already left the building.