Bob Crowe RMT leader dies.

[Jon the Hat]

Did someone just mention minimum wage and tube drivers in the same sentence?  You lost me there.

[Rincewind]

You must have a very cushy job Moose? No worries. Good conditions. No health and safety issues, clean safe workplace a good rate of pay so why be concerned about those who do not have what you have?

[DennisNedry]

To be fair, if all tube drivers were sacked immediately, then all of the jobs were re-advertised with a 25k salary + on the job training for all new staff, I'm sure the roles would get filled very quickly. The wages they are on now is obscene, frankly.

[Guest MattP]

You must have a very cushy job Moose? No worries. Good conditions. No health and safety issues, clean safe workplace a good rate of pay so why be concerned about those who do not have what you have?

 

Beacuse everytime someone like Crow calls a strike it costs the economy about 500 million?

 

People are getting carried away here, these people are being paid 50k a year for a job a robot can do, as has been said the only reason they are paid that is because they can the nation to ransom.

 

It is about time that was stopped, hopefully it dies with Crow.

[ADK]

That would be true of a lot of jobs.

[Guest MattP]

That would be true of a lot of jobs.

 

Yes and 99% of those can't bring the capital to a standstill if they don't get their own way thank god.

 

We'd never get anything done or a country running properly if they could.

[leicsmac]

It would be no different to 99% of other jobs where if you simply stop turning up to work you would soon be out of job. That's what a job is. You do something and someone pays you for it. If you don't do anything then you can't expect to get paid. I don't think that concept is likely to cause any fear to be honest.

 

If that were the only reason people get fired or laid off then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately in this economic climate it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

If I was in a job where I knew I could be arbitrarily replaced/wages reduced at the whim of my boss, I'd be pretty scared, and I'm not sure how good that would be for productivity.

 

No collective bargaining in any job not only puts all the power in the hands of employers who may well only have their own financial interests at heart, it also removes the typically put-across idea of 'if you don't like it, you can switch jobs', because everywhere you go may well have the same power dynamic.

[Jon the Hat]

If that were the only reason people get fired or laid off then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately in this economic climate it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

If I was in a job where I knew I could be arbitrarily replaced/wages reduced at the whim of my boss, I'd be pretty scared, and I'm not sure how good that would be for productivity.

 

No collective bargaining in any job not only puts all the power in the hands of employers who may well only have their own financial interests at heart, it also removes the typically put-across idea of 'if you don't like it, you can switch jobs', because everywhere you go may well have the same power dynamic.

 

If that were the case you would be overpaid, which is not good for your company, as they would be prone to competition with a lower cost base. Ultimately unless you deliver additional value - n which case you would not be replaceable like that - then your company would fail.  Would you want that?

[MooseBreath]

You must have a very cushy job Moose? No worries. Good conditions. No health and safety issues, clean safe workplace a good rate of pay so why be concerned about those who do not have what you have?

It's typical of you as a lefty to support what you perceive as the working class underdog going up against The Man, but that's not what is happening here ken. Here we have people who are paid extraordinarily well relative to the difficulty of their job, using the fact that they can make life difficult for millions of ordinary average paid workers as leverage to fill their boots. It's a display of exactly the sort of greed and selfishness at the expense of others that you're not supposed to like.

[MooseBreath]

If that were the only reason people get fired or laid off then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately in this economic climate it doesn't seem to be the case.

If I was in a job where I knew I could be arbitrarily replaced/wages reduced at the whim of my boss, I'd be pretty scared, and I'm not sure how good that would be for productivity.

No collective bargaining in any job not only puts all the power in the hands of employers who may well only have their own financial interests at heart, it also removes the typically put-across idea of 'if you don't like it, you can switch jobs', because everywhere you go may well have the same power dynamic.

I've never had a job where my continued employment was guaranteed, and I can't really think of many jobs where that is the case, so I'm not really sure where you are comong from. We have employment laws which offer some protection but ultimately if your position is no longer viable then you're out of a job. This is a risk that 99% of people live with day in day out.

[Rincewind]

Not at all Moose i believe in a faid pay for a fair days work. I also believe in decent working conditions. That is not just a 'lefty' view. Do work within shit conditions amounts to slave labour. The employer holds allthe cards in a stacked deck. If you don't like it sod off is what you are saying. Employ others who will do the job for less in even worse conditions. I am not a tube driver so I do not know what the conditions are like. You are talking about 99% of other jobs. Many jobs the employer would prefer to have better pay and conditions for their employees because then they will have a satisfied workforce and get the best production and profit. Common sense really.

My sister runs a furniture making business. She bought the shares out of a partner who was contemplating retiring and being just a sleeping partner. She said she did not want to contact him for decisions all the time. Anyway there is a workforce of about six people. A cutter, carpenter and machinists. They all work together, share tasks if they need to and I assume get a decent wage. They don't mind doing extra work or staying late if they have a rush order. She can trust the others to lock up and open if she has other things to do. It seems to work well and she has a happy workforce because of the conditions. They will stay as long as the business survives. She has said she is not interested in expanding because it would mean getting more orders more staff which may not be substainable and makes enough money to pay a mortgage and bills and wages.

So you do not need to be a slave driver to have a well run business or be a right wing Tory as she has a lot of the thoughts about the vulnerable as I do.

[leicsmac]

If that were the case you would be overpaid, which is not good for your company, as they would be prone to competition with a lower cost base. Ultimately unless you deliver additional value - n which case you would not be replaceable like that - then your company would fail.  Would you want that?

 

Why would I be overpaid? Why not the boss deciding he can pay me less and gain more profit from the company while still being competitive? If they knew they could get someone else in who would accept lesser wages or reduce mine, surely they would do so?

 

Bringing into line with competition is most definitely not the only reason for an employer to lower wages.

 

I've never had a job where my continued employment was guaranteed, and I can't really think of many jobs where that is the case, so I'm not really sure where you are comong from. We have employment laws which offer some protection but ultimately if your position is no longer viable then you're out of a job. This is a risk that 99% of people live with day in day out.

 

My point is that collective bargaining is the reason those employment laws and protections actually came about for the most part, and to remove them would allow employers much more power over their employees, and the fear of being sacked would greatly increase as the risk of it would be far higher. This would have an adverse effect on productivity, unless you specifically employ people who thrive only when their arses are on the line. That's why I think collective bargaining is crucial as a communication tool and as a way of dividing power, and why it should remain a critical part of working life.

 

Of course no job is 100% secure in perpetuity, but some effort should be made to give people at least a little job security with which to plan for the future. After all, isn't that the basis of conservative fiscal policy, to plan for the future?

[MooseBreath]

Not at all Moose i believe in a faid pay for a fair days work. I also believe in decent working conditions. That is not just a 'lefty' view. Do work within shit conditions amounts to slave labour. The employer holds allthe cards in a stacked deck. If you don't like it sod off is what you are saying. Employ others who will do the job for less in even worse conditions. I am not a tube driver so I do not know what the conditions are like. You are talking about 99% of other jobs. Many jobs the employer would prefer to have better pay and conditions for their employees because then they will have a satisfied workforce and get the best production and profit. Common sense really.

My sister runs a furniture making business. She bought the shares out of a partner who was contemplating retiring and being just a sleeping partner. She said she did not want to contact him for decisions all the time. Anyway there is a workforce of about six people. A cutter, carpenter and machinists. They all work together, share tasks if they need to and I assume get a decent wage. They don't mind doing extra work or staying late if they have a rush order. She can trust the others to lock up and open if she has other things to do. It seems to work well and she has a happy workforce because of the conditions. They will stay as long as the business survives. She has said she is not interested in expanding because it would mean getting more orders more staff which may not be substainable and makes enough money to pay a mortgage and bills and wages.

So you do not need to be a slave driver to have a well run business or be a right wing Tory as she has a lot of the thoughts about the vulnerable as I do.

Well exactly ken. You believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work as do I. Train drivers already get exceptionally good pay for what they do. By striking they are preventing others from getting to work, thus standing in the way of the fair days pay for a fair days work principle. They want more and more for themselves and simply don't care about how difficult they are making life for thousands of people who are just trying to get to work.

Also consider that by having to pay train drivers the fortune they earn, ticket prices have to go up. It is an obvious truth that this greedy union will have made train travel unaffordable for thousands of people, who can no longer afford to get to where the jobs are, forcing them to become unemployed and according to some, having to choose between eating and heating, risking depression, homelessness and even death. It is no exaggeration to say that this union has the blood of a thousand innocent children on its hands. And for what? So train drivers can have an extra few grand to spend on top of their salary which is already more than twice the national average. And you support these people? Unbelievable hypocrisy.

[Rincewind]

I feel the same about those with obscene bonuses who then avoid paying tax like the rest of us by hiding it in overseas banks. Some are friends with politicians.

Like I said I do not know what the train drivers earn or what their conditions or hours are. All I am saying denying the right to decent conditions and pay for the working man is wrong and counter productive for running a business. An unhappy workforce leads to less motivation to do a good job.

 

Fares are already out of reach for a lot of people with a poor service in some areas.

[Guest MattP]

Well exactly ken. You believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work as do I. Train drivers already get exceptionally good pay for what they do. By striking they are preventing others from getting to work, thus standing in the way of the fair days pay for a fair days work principle. They want more and more for themselves and simply don't care about how difficult they are making life for thousands of people who are just trying to get to work.

Also consider that by having to pay train drivers the fortune they earn, ticket prices have to go up. It is an obvious truth that this greedy union will have made train travel unaffordable for thousands of people, who can no longer afford to get to where the jobs are, forcing them to become unemployed and according to some, having to choose between eating and heating, risking depression, homelessness and even death. It is no exaggeration to say that this union has the blood of a thousand innocent children on its hands. And for what? So train drivers can have an extra few grand to spend on top of their salary which is already more than twice the national average. And you support these people? Unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

Superbly put.

[Jon the Hat]

I feel the same about those with obscene bonuses who then avoid paying tax like the rest of us by hiding it in overseas banks. Some are friends with politicians.

Like I said I do not know what the train drivers earn or what their conditions or hours are. All I am saying denying the right to decent conditions and pay for the working man is wrong and counter productive for running a business. An unhappy workforce leads to less motivation to do a good job.

 

Fares are already out of reach for a lot of people with a poor service in some areas.

 

Are these obscene bonuses paid for our of our taxes? No.  You are doing the usual lefty trick of trying to distract from the question.  If we can blame the bankers we dont have to ask the difficult question on the shocking waste that happens all over the public sector.  The reason you see the front line being cut is becuase self serving wankers line their own pockets and protect their own little empires and dont give a shit about the rest of the country.

[Parafox]

Yes I can see that working out well for everyone else. I might not turn up to work tomorrow and refuse to return until they give me a payrise, claiming I'm in dispute with my employer. See how long I last.

Obviously you would never have to actually sack all of the train drivers because the threat of the sack would cause them to back down. That's the natural state of things in my opinion. You accept a job as a train driver, you accept the pay and conditions. If sometime down the line you don't like it, you can leave. Plenty of people will be happy to take your place.

 

Your naivety is breathtaking.

 

You have said yourself that you are in a deadend, dull, boring job that pays just enough to feed your kids and pay your bills. You don't sound like Mr Happy to me.

So leave.

 

If your colleagues became so disgruntled that they decided to take action would you tell them to leave, there's plenty of people who would take your job?

 

Or would you support them?

 

You seem to want workers to have no rights to enable them to stand up to exploitation by unscrupulous companies. And don't tell me they don't exist.

[Jon the Hat]

Your naivety is breathtaking.

 

You have said yourself that you are in a deadend, dull, boring job that pays just enough to feed your kids and pay your bills. You don't sound like Mr Happy to me.

So leave.

 

If your colleagues became so disgruntled that they decided to take action would you tell them to leave, there's plenty of people who would take your job?

 

Or would you support them?

 

You seem to want workers to have no rights to enable them to stand up to exploitation by unscrupulous companies. And don't tell me they don't exist.

 

And you seem to be competely unable to see that this power can be too much, and the impact felt more widely.  Is it right that tube drivers get paid so much?  No.

[Parafox]

Well exactly ken. You believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work as do I. Train drivers already get exceptionally good pay for what they do. By striking they are preventing others from getting to work, thus standing in the way of the fair days pay for a fair days work principle. They want more and more for themselves and simply don't care about how difficult they are making life for thousands of people who are just trying to get to work.

Also consider that by having to pay train drivers the fortune they earn, ticket prices have to go up. It is an obvious truth that this greedy union will have made train travel unaffordable for thousands of people, who can no longer afford to get to where the jobs are, forcing them to become unemployed and according to some, having to choose between eating and heating, risking depression, homelessness and even death. It is no exaggeration to say that this union has the blood of a thousand innocent children on its hands. And for what? So train drivers can have an extra few grand to spend on top of their salary which is already more than twice the national average. And you support these people? Unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

 

Explain this, please.

[Jon the Hat]

In case you were wondering, I believe the deal they signed in 2011 earns them upt o £52k next year.

[Parafox]

And you seem to be competely unable to see that this power can be too much, and the impact felt more widely.  Is it right that tube drivers get paid so much?  No.

 

I didn't say there can't or shouldn't be a middle ground. Compromise is often, if not always the best and fairest solution.

[Jon the Hat]

Explain this, please.

 

He was winding Ken up.  Tube driver pay rises mean people cannot afford to get to work, so they are unemployed, and the woe is me cuts mean they are ALL GOING TO DIE!!! etc.

[leicsmac]

And you seem to be competely unable to see that this power can be too much, and the impact felt more widely.  Is it right that tube drivers get paid so much?  No.

 

Agreed. But the power shouldn't shift too much towards the employers either. The problem is, and always has been, balance, and peoples view of where it is.

[Rincewind]

It's when they do not pay tax on bonuses when it becomes obscene. We all pay tax in one form or another through what we buy. It is the avoidance (no matter who does it high earners middle earners low earners and no earners  you cannot have different rules for those at the top).that can be irritating when those who have the least and the average earner are being hammered. It is not a lefty thing but a moral thing.

[Jon the Hat]

It's when they do not pay tax on bonuses when it becomes obscene. We all pay tax in one form or another through what we buy. It is the avoidance (no matter who does it high earners middle earners low earners and no earners  you cannot have different rules for those at the top).that can be irritating when those who have the least and the average earner are being hammered. It is not a lefty thing but a moral thing.

 

Who doesn't pay tax on their bonuses Ken?  Do you have some examples?  Or is this just in fact some sort of tax evading bogeyman you have come up with?  You know that tax evasion is illegal right?