Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
What’s the problem with Labour? Why can’t any of their front bench say that threatening to strike and striking are legitimate tools in the hands of trades unions? And if the broad array of railway workers unions have overwhelming support for strikes, if needed, from their members (as they have) the Labour Party would support them in this action even though they would, obviously, prefer a negotiated agreement which would void the need for stoppages.
Are you Tories in disguise?
Are you Tories in disguise?
Whatever they say will be twisted, if they state they agree with strike action the likes of the daily fail will jump on it suggesting they don’t want people getting to work/hospital appointments/want to ruin the economy.
The problem I see with the rail situation is the public support isn’t there. I see a lot of yes I support them… oh it might affect me? What ungrateful bastards. I’ve seen the Union fella on the tv a couple of times and rather than the interviews wanting to know more about things like safety concerns he’ll bring up, they have a go about getting to work and it not being the right time.
It is exactly the right time, as soon as they give in more and more workers rights will be stripped and the government seem to be pushing banning more and more aspects of protest.
Simply because our government/ parliament is no longer political it just sways with popular public opinion.
Labour can't say that as it would be unpopular and Boris would jump on it, waving his hands around ..and huffing..
Yes it is the right of workers when they feel that they are not being paid/ not getting the correct conditions to do their jobs and feed their families ( which exists at the moment).
I am sure Boris wants Stamer to say it...but he is too scared to.
I agree Stan, at this moment in time I would like a leader that would take the risk...
Labour can't say that as it would be unpopular and Boris would jump on it, waving his hands around ..and huffing..
Yes it is the right of workers when they feel that they are not being paid/ not getting the correct conditions to do their jobs and feed their families ( which exists at the moment).
I am sure Boris wants Stamer to say it...but he is too scared to.
I agree Stan, at this moment in time I would like a leader that would take the risk...
The people who take their lead from the Mail aren’t going to be voting Labour anyway. I’m not either of course, just wondering what the **** they are for. But your description fits exactly with Lynch’s description of Labour - ‘bland Democratic Party taking it’s instructions from the Daily Mail’.
Neither party can see, or more likely will own up to understanding, that we are in a re run of the 1970s. If you weren’t there they were pretty **** - huge inflation driven by external factors especially energy prices (making national monetary policy pretty toothless, low or no economic growth, ie stagflation, high employment but no wage growth, lots of strikes as workers got poorer. Solution? Thatcher, who added high unemployment and erosion of employment rights to the mix.
Sadly it seems people are driven with what the media choose the narrative is and that goes well beyond the mail, the current situation is a great example on one hand you have safety concerns, workers rights being erroded or you have people being inconvenienced in a time a lot of people are feeling their standards of living are dropping… but at least he got brexit done, that excused so much corruption and bullshit.
anyway the simple truth is there aren’t enough who believe in old school Labour to see a traditional Labour Party take power… so there’s no point it’ll only assure they won’t take power.
Might get time to read up on this tomorrow but if whatever safety concerns are fixed will the strike finish/not go ahead or is it mainly about money
Lisa Nandy's getting slaughtered for saying not very much at all.....
Lisa Nandy sides with rail union strikers who could grind country to a halt (msn.com)
"We want to avoid the strikes and we're on the public's side on this. We're also on the rail workers' side."
Wes Streeting (who I'd like to see as next Labour leader) was slightly less equivocal....
“Look, put it this way, if I were a member of the RMT and my jobs were at risk like this then I would be voting to go on strike and I would be voting to defend my job, terms and conditions. If I were a government minister right now, it’s not my job to be on the picket line, it’s not my job to be condemning unions – it’s my job to solve the problem, to get people around the table, to make sure passengers aren’t inconvenienced.”
Starmer, though, seems terrified of showing any support to the Unions, just as he is of criticising Brexit.
They are trying to protect against huge job cuts part of that will compromise the safety standards of rail travel. There are other issues as well one of which is money. Granted it’s similar in other industries but even with pay increases if the cost of living exceeds the increase that’s effectively a drop in wages due to inflation. Would you be happy if year one year you were becoming poorer?
Sir Kier has finally come up with his solution to end organised crime sending (mostly) male economic migrants across the Channel. Simply ask the French to stop the migrants reaching the north coast of France.
My God, why didn't anyone else think of that? The man's a ****ing genius...
My God, why didn't anyone else think of that? The man's a ****ing genius...
Mick Lynch is a modern day Arthur Scargill, desperate to cause any Tory government maximum pain.
He doesn't give a flying **** how many ordinary people these proposed strikes will adversely affect, missing important hospital appointments etc etc.
Got to feel for the poor train drivers though.........
Only on 67k a year. Bless!
He doesn't give a flying **** how many ordinary people these proposed strikes will adversely affect, missing important hospital appointments etc etc.
Got to feel for the poor train drivers though.........
Only on 67k a year. Bless!
67k and they were all on furlough during the pandemic. Industries with a monopoly whose industrial action will endanger the public or bring their normal lives to a damaging halt should be forced at law to choose mediation/arbitration over strikes imo
So you don’t think the people who work on the railway network should have the right to strike? Do you have a list of occupations that should have this restriction? Genuinely interested to learn.
Have either of you ever been a member of a trade union?
Train drivers are represented by ASLEF, not the RMT (Mick Lynch’s union).
These are their pay scales, so £67k is right at the top end and not so much in my view for people with lives in their hands. Just my opinion of course, and yes, nurses and care home workers should be paid lots more.
- London North Eastern Railway (LNER) – £30,000 to £70,000
- Transport for London (TfL) – £57,217 to £61,620
- Scotrail – £50,659 to £56,245
- Northern Rail – £40,104 to £57,546
- East Midlands Railway – £54,403 to £61,467
- Great Western Railway – £49,807 to £67,304
- Merseyrail – £50,572 to £55,415
- Southeastern Railway – £37,261 to £58,503
Police can't strike, nor I believe can prison officers. For me, it is, as I said, that the same principle should include occupations that have a monopoly and can effectively blackmail (I use the word loosely) government and the public simply by virtue of the type of service they perform. So rail and underground would be caught, and there should be a mechanism for their case to go to some kind of mediation or binding arbitration. In other monopoly situations, keeping a skeleton staff may be enough to allow limited strikes.
He’s fallen for the bullshit Andrew Pierce was one that tweeted it, think the figure in question relates to top end rates for train drivers, not rail workers. Like you’ve stated represented by a totally different union.
so if the strikes are made illegal.. workers pay in relation to cost of living go down, it’s gonna make the rail network jobs popular. So like the NHS, like the police the level of service will just drop.
on the plus side there will be money to be made somewhere.. no doubt by an associate of the government.
So, by that definition, nurses, doctors, all health and social care workers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, shop assistants (imagine a strike which closed all the shops), pilots/airport staff or any profession which, if they withheld their labour would inconvenience the public and embarrass the government, should be ‘forced’ to accept the conclusion of arbitration. Ok.
What about sanctions and restrictions going the other way? If the rail companies for example won’t pay their staff more, their profits (which are entirely paid by the taxpayer) are also frozen, or cut. Or their corporation tax is increased. Or trading in their shares is frozen and they are banned from issuing dividends. Let’s focus the mind in both directions.
Bring back collective bargaining!
Most of those occupations you quote don't have a monopoly. Shopkeepers striking would simply increase consumers use of internet companies. Nurses and doctors could run a skeleton staff. Surely you're not in favour of them going out on strike 100% for weeks or months? How many would die? Underground staff and rail staff can cause chaos around the country for an indefinite time not because of the strength of their industrial case, but simply because they have a monopoly on a key service. France, Italy and Spain don't allow strikes on their rail service apparently.
I would say an expert panel determining fair remuneration is the way to go.