[Misc] Will the Unions bring everyone to their knees?

[CHAPPERS]

Too many NUT workers spend time looking around to attack anyone outside of their group. Lets take money from the bosses, the shareholders, the government, the tax payers, commuters etc etc.

All I am suggesting is that some of their own workers seem very happy to take more from the pot. Think of the public kudos if the train drivers for example gave up demanding more on what is already a pretty healthy wage.

Probably not worth responding to this but since when was getting paid wages 'taking from the pot'?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Too many NUT workers spend time looking around to attack anyone outside of their group. Lets take money from the bosses, the shareholders, the government, the tax payers, commuters etc etc.

All I am suggesting is that some of their own workers seem very happy to take more from the pot. Think of the public kudos if the train drivers for example gave up demanding more on what is already a pretty healthy wage.

The train drivers aren't on strike. Their union is ASLEF.

 

[beorhthelm]

Probably not worth responding to this but since when was getting paid wages 'taking from the pot'?

there is a budget. think his point is, some of the higher paid members could take a lower %, so the lower paid workers get a higher %, for the same total pay rise budget. obviously with collective bargining everyone wants the same % though so this isnt likely.

 

[wuntbedruv]

Too many NUT workers spend time looking around to attack anyone outside of their group. Lets take money from the bosses, the shareholders, the government, the tax payers, commuters etc etc.

All I am suggesting is that some of their own workers seem very happy to take more from the pot. Think of the public kudos if the train drivers for example gave up demanding more on what is already a pretty healthy wage.

Too many feckless employers paying peanuts wages whilst expecting the working tax payer to subsidise their companies with state benefits.

How such people cannot choke on their ale stuns me, how can you pour beer down your throat whilst someone else is picking up your tab.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The train drivers aren't on strike. Their union is ASLEF.

Isn't NUT the National Union of Teachers?

Also what [MENTION=2393]Uncle C[/MENTION] is off

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Isn't NUT the National Union of Teachers?

Also what [MENTION=2393]Uncle C[/MENTION] is off

Yes, the RMT is the railway workers union.

 

[joydivisionovengloves]

Union members vote for leaders, vote for policy, vote for or against industrial action
Closed shops don't exist.
Unions are democracy in action.
Unions have fought for pretty much all the work place benefits we all enjoy.
Join a union.

 

[cunning fergus]

May I ask. Do people on this thread think there should be a max wage or those on very high earnings pay a higher tax rate. If so what %

When you say higher rate of tax, remember that for some in this country that rate is effectively 62%, as delivered under a Tory Govt (Osbourne).

https://barnesroffe.com/are-you-paying-the-62-tax-rate/

Im sure that won’t be enough for some…..

 

[A1X]

The NUR (National Union of Railwaymen) hasn't existed in it's own right sine 1990, so either the Uncle is living very firmly in the past, isn't actually talking about the same subject as everyone else or he thinks the trains themselves are on strike (like some sort of mass Thomas the Tank Engine style hissy fit). None of these options are great for him.

The train drivers aren't on strike. Their union is ASLEF.

Indeed. Almost like the Government and their media cheerleaders are desperate to try and paint the strikers in as bad a light as possible. A bit like how they try and blur the lines between refugees and asylum seekers to keep people furious about that.

 

[Uncle C]

Yes, the RMT is the railway workers union.

Shows how much impact their strikes have had.

Just change the initials to fit most unions. At the moment we have railworkers, barristers, nhs, doctors, teachers, airport staff all heading for the trough.

 

[amexer]

I think we’re missing the point if we’re looking at income, we need to be looking at how we tax wealth.

So how should wealth be taxed

 

[T.G]

Shows how much impact their strikes have had.

Just change the initials to fit most unions. At the moment we have railworkers, barristers, nhs, doctors, teachers, airport staff all heading for the trough.

I guess by trough you mean trying to secure a decent wage and working conditions for their hard work and value to society?

 

[rippleman]

there is a budget. think his point is, some of the higher paid members could take a lower %, so the lower paid workers get a higher %, for the same total pay rise budget. obviously with collective bargining everyone wants the same % though so this isnt likely.

So let's start with the CEO, the MD, the Board members, the senior management team.....and once we've done that, see whether we need to go any further down. I don't think we would.

The outgoing M&S CEO (who oversaw the chain breaking covid restrictions and their continuing to trade in Russia) just got a "bugger off" bonus of £1.6m. Now that would have been a nice bit of wedge to the lowest paid M&S employees eh?

 

[rippleman]

So how should wealth be taxed

IMO the most efficient method would be through IHT. Retain the current exemptions and increase the rate to 75%.

But I totally agree with an earlier poster (Springal possibly) that it is the corporates that the government and HMRC should be going after first. The likes of perennial tax evaders Starbucks. Last year a gross profit of 95m and tax of just 5m. It paid out "royalty payments" of 26.5m resulting in a group global profit of 3.7bn.

That's obscene.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’m sure he is tough enough to deal with it….i just seem to remember a post by our leader asking people to be a bit kinder to each other…maybe I’m being ultra sensitive ….but when i see this happening i think more than twice about offering a view that doesnt quite ‘fit in’

Mate....I have been careful to not do what I used to do and be horribly rude to Mouldy. I like Mouldy, even though we differ in our views. I have however pointed out that this thread appears to be ill-judged and, once this became apparent, his continued grinding of the same axe has become unwise. In the end if he wants to devalue the currency of his opinion further by clinging on to the prejudice that made the thread pointless from the off, that is his choice.

Others have shown a deal of exasperation with all this. All the while that Mouldy keeps coming back with further whataboutery, the degree of exasperation is likely to increase rather than subside.

It's interesting to posit views that don't 'fit in' but pursuing them even when the last vestiges of their flesh have been flayed off them with relentless facts is foolhardy. You will also recall that the thread was started by Mouldy asking a question. You shouldn't ask questions if you are unwilling to take note of the answers.

 

[Badger Boy]

In October 1945, despite all the war debt, and the NHS being planned, income tax thresholds were raised so over 2million fewer people paid income tax. Lower paid workers need income to be able to spend, whereas higher paid workers can afford to pay tax, and still have enough to live on, and save.

Hidden amongst the noise, the bluster and the nonsense in this thread is this simple truth. The top end wage earners are absolutely able to pay more and they should on a reasonable, sliding scale.

 

[Bold Seagull]

When you say higher rate of tax, remember that for some in this country that rate is effectively 62%, as delivered under a Tory Govt (Osbourne).

https://barnesroffe.com/are-you-paying-the-62-tax-rate/

Im sure that won’t be enough for some…..

In a cost of living crisis I'm sure there are plenty of violins for those earning £100k and over that start to lose their tax allowance. #pray4the700k

 

[Uncle C]

I guess by trough you mean trying to secure a decent wage and working conditions for their hard work and value to society?

Depends which end of the telescope you look through.

Every strike inconveniences another worker, sends a small business into bankruptcy, increases prices, pushes up inflation, and costs the taxpayer more. And so the circle of wage demands goes round again.

Way to go

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

there is a budget. think his point is, some of the higher paid members could take a lower %, so the lower paid workers get a higher %, for the same total pay rise budget. obviously with collective bargining everyone wants the same % though so this isnt likely.

And yet people mocked me for proposing that income tax be set at a fixed %

Personally I would expect salary increases within a union membership/trade to be sought in terms of % increase. Increasing the % to a greater extent for lower paid earners is a communistic agenda designed to (eventually) have everone earn the same on a £ basis. I am very certainly not a communist, and would contemplate a higher % increase for lower paid workers only if the within-union differential across trades is palpably 'unfair'. I don't buy the latter as a generality, albeit there will be some unfairness due to the relentless jockying for position that goes on between unions, within workforces, between workforces and between employers, sometimes know as the operation of free collective bargaining in a market economy.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The idea of levelling up is a good one.

Its a shame the Unions are not applying the same principles within their own membership. With train drivers etc getting in excess of £70 K wouldn't it be a nice gesture if they gave up a pay rise so the money can be given to rail cleaners etc.

But no, they have their noses in the trough like everyone else, and are using the collective power of the lowest paid workers to get more for themselves.

Just a minor point on the post that kicked this all off, but do carry on regardless



Maybe it's the etc's who are actually getting in excess of 70K