Scotrail

[Detournement]

57 minutes ago, 54_and_counting said:

Same place as their current wage? You mean the public purse that has a limited amount of money

Do you use the train services? 

It will be paid for by the economic activity that their labour enables.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/politics/scottish-politics/4322283/msp-hopes-scotrail-dispute-resolved-soon-amid-warning-of-80m-a-week-cost/

 

[Detournement]

Just now, Left Back said:

Look at the furore over the recent NI hike.

For years people have complained about NHS funding.  A tax rise is put in place ring-fenced for that.  Result is moans about tax rises.

NI is a regressive tax, that's why people complained.

[Bairnardo]

48 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting anyone can't ask for more, only that those who are right behind them in doing so acknowledge that these increases need to be paid for either by further increases to prices, increased taxes, or a reduction in services elsewhere.

My support for them is about my support for the principle of organised workforces using the tools at their disposal to get themselves a fair deal. 

[54_and_counting]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Yeah, obviously. 

So are we adding "source of funds" to class distinction and salary as perceived by others to the list of reasons why certain unionised employees shouldn't ask for a higher annual wage increase than that offered by their employer?

Can someone please provide the definitive list of who is ok to ask for more, and who needs to first apply this moral code?

So you use the train services, how would you feel if the service was reduced from what it was pre strike levels, or the prices went up a considerable amount but no change in services, all because people on a good wage wanted more

Maybe you are in a position where you can get more travel expenses or whatever, but many wont be in that situation, and will face poorer services or higher costs to fund the same level of services

[54_and_counting]

6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

My support for them is about my support for the principle of organised workforces using the tools at their disposal to get themselves a fair deal. 

And whats a fair deal given train drivers aren't exactly on minimum wage already

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, 54_and_counting said:

So you use the train services, how would you feel if the service was reduced from what it was pre strike levels, or the prices went up a considerable amount but no change in services, all because people on a good wage wanted more

Maybe you are in a position where you can get more travel expenses or whatever, but many wont be in that situation, and will face poorer services or higher costs to fund the same level of services

So instead, here you are advocating for train drivers to face less money to fund the same level of expenses/lifestyle. 

[invergowrie arab]

 

45 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I agree, but we all know that won't happen.

Except it did when the Scottish Govt started setting income tax rates. 

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, 54_and_counting said:

And whats a fair deal given train drivers aren't exactly on minimum wage already

That is entirely for them to decide, via rejection and subsequent action, or acceptance of what they are offered. Certainly not for the public to pontificate on based on their perceptions of the worth of a train driver. 

[54_and_counting]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

So instead, here you are advocating for train drivers to face less money to fund the same level of expenses/lifestyle. 

Its not less money, they arent getting a wage cut

[54_and_counting]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

That is entirely for them to decide, via rejection and subsequent action, or acceptance of what they are offered. Certainly not for the public to pontificate on based on their perceptions of the worth of a train driver. 

And if they asked for a 50% pay rise would you still back them? 

[Bairnardo]

Just now, 54_and_counting said:

And if they asked for a 50% pay rise would you still back them? 

I would back their right to do so. I would also call them stupid for doing so. Trade unions aren't immune from criticism from myself. This isnt a black and white issue. 

[54_and_counting]

6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I would back their right to do so. I would also call them stupid for doing so. Trade unions aren't immune from criticism from myself. This isnt a black and white issue. 

Do you think a driver asking for a rise, when they earn over 2.5x the minimum wage, isnt worth criticising? 

[Detournement]

I just had to book a flight to London on Friday. 

Inconvenient and expensive for me but it's down Westminster and Holyrood, not the workers. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Detournement

[Bairnardo]

Just now, 54_and_counting said:

Do you think a driver asking for a rise, when they earn over 2.5x the minimum wage, isnt worth criticising? 

No mate. Most jobs, and I imagine all who are unionised, go in for yearly pay negotiations, which generally entail wrangling over a rise. This has happened to me in every workplace, for every year of my 20 year working life. Where they sit in relation to the minimum wage is completely and utterly irrelevant, and I have genuinely no idea why it keeps on getting mentioned on here other than some rather weird attempt to shame people for their salary. 

Most Unions go in for an RPI rise, maybe if they have some specific axe to grind they might tag something esle on there. Most companies obviously cite CPI with it being lower and obviously try to low ball. Generally they meet somewhere in the middle. 

It happens, every single year. 

Its whats happening now. And yet for some reason its suddenly completely out of order and is now taking food off the table of lower earners. Absolute pish.

[Cairn Terrier]

Do you think a driver asking for a rise, when they earn over 2.5x the minimum wage, isnt worth criticising? 

Do you think that nobody should ever ask for a rise until the minimum wage catches up with their wage?
The logical conclusion of this of course is that everyone will be paid the same wage, brain surgeon, prime minister,bin man.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

So instead, here you are advocating for train drivers to face less money to fund the same level of expenses/lifestyle. 

Train drivers were offered more money, went on strike, and are set to accept ba higher rate of pay. At no point did they face 'less money'. 

2 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

That is entirely for them to decide, via rejection and subsequent action, or acceptance of what they are offered. Certainly not for the public to pontificate on based on their perceptions of the worth of a train driver. 

It's really not up to them because they are now working for a government-owned organisation and so it is the public that now pays their wages and expects a service that isn't a total fucking omnishambles in exchange. 

[Bairnardo]

Just now, virginton said:

Train drivers were offered more money, went on strike, and are set to accept ba higher rate of pay. At no point did they face 'less money'. 

It's really not up to them because they are now working for a government-owned organisation and so it is the public that now pays their wages and expects a service that isn't a total fucking omnishambles in exchange. 

Everyone who gets lower than inflation (and that will be pretty much everyone including the train drivers) faces less money in their hand in the current climate. Again, every pay rise discussion proceeds on the basis of "we want RPI, because less than RPI is an effective decrease in pay. 

Working for a govt organisation doesnt preclude anyone from unionising themselves, and never has done. Firemen, teachers, council workers... Theres a fairly extensive list of workers who have been, or have been close to striking in the recent past. Quite why train drivers should suddenly feel some sense of civic duty because Scotgov have had to step in and take over a shambles of their own making is beyond me. Thats a severe reach. Neither the drivers nor any other public facing employee of Scotrail is responsible for the service being a pile of shite. 

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Everyone who gets lower than inflation (and that will be pretty much everyone including the train drivers) faces less money in their hand in the current climate.

No, that depends entirely on their circumstances. House price inflation for example does not impact the income of people who already own their home - while making their asset more valuable. At the same time, inflation rising above interest rate increases will make mortgage repayments less in real terms than before. 

There will be winners at any rate of inflation, never mind with a 5% pay rise into the bargain. 

Quote

Working for a govt organisation doesnt preclude anyone from unionising themselves, and never has done. Firemen, teachers, council workers... Theres a fairly extensive list of workers who have been, or have been close to striking in the recent past.

The fireman strike was a complete and utter failure and there are branches of the public sector that are not permitted to strike. And rail staff - being an essential service - should be added to that list. 

This doesn't preclude all industrial action but prevents narrow syndicalists from vandalising the economy. 

Quote

Quite why train drivers should suddenly feel some sense of civic duty because Scotgov have had to step in and take over a shambles of their own making is beyond me. Thats a severe reach. Neither the drivers nor any other public facing employee of Scotrail is responsible for the service being a pile of shite. 

They quite clearly are though by striking and the only pile of shite here is the idea that they're gaining any significant public support for their grievances. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by vikingTON

[Bairnardo]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

They quite clearly are though by striking and the only pile of shite here is the idea that they're gaining any significant public support for their grievances. 

They clearly didn't reach the threshold at which they felt any the loss of public support was really all that material to them. The stewards and officials are trying to strike a balance (or should be) throughout all of this to get the best deal they can for their paying members. The members themselves drive this by voting one way or another and making their voices heard. Public perception is only really a small consideration at best. 

Unions/collectivised workforces live and die by how good their elected representatives are. If they push too far or too hard, eventually they will f**k up a good thing for themselves. That may yet happen on the railways. But the idea that these people should accept their lot without question because some folk are jealous of their wage is just pure, distilled Tory. 

 

[Lyle Lanley]

Alcohol ban kept in place for the summer.