What's with all the strikes?

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

With respect, the best (relatively) paid public servants are Police Constables who have no right to strike.

What rather bowls the "holding the public to ransom" argument for a duck.

It doesn't bowl it for a duck. It merely holds up one example where other forces dominate.

If there is nothing in the "holding the public to ransom" argument, would you care to explain why tube drivers are paid more than nurses?

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

It doesn't bowl it for a duck. It merely holds up one example where other forces dominate.

If there is nothing in the "holding the public to ransom" argument, would you care to explain why tube drivers are paid more than nurses?

Neither are easy jobs and both involve shift work.

Tube drivers are paid more because train drivers wages have become much higher than in the days of BR - there are competing companies now which makes it esasier for drivers to change jobs to get higher wages. This also pushes up the wages of tube drivers. Therefore tube drivers are paid more because of market forces.

Perhaps you would like to explain why agency nurses are paid more than NHS nurses?

I recall that you are not keen on personal debt. Yet products need to be bought by somebody. Now if you allow wages to reduce as a share on GDP (which has happened since the 1970s) and you don't want high personal debt, where does aggregate demand come from?

lemonjelly

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

EDIT: A lot of people are missing the bigger picture: Workers are the same people as the consumers. If you carry on reducing wages, then you just make high consumer debt more and more vital for the future of the economy.

Henry Ford understood full well that you HAVE to pay your workers enough to buy your products. And he was not exactly a commie.

A lot of historical entre-preneurs were well aware that their employees were people, not statistics/costs/inconveniences. Look at how they provided good suitable housing & estates for their workers, social clubs and sports facilities to ensure their staff had access to sports facilities, & could stay fit, healthy & therefore be more productive, and therefore take less time off work, thus being more profitable.

Since the 80's, with a particular eye on asset strippers, we've seen companies cut all these costs - or even sell them off or outsource them. Social cohesion isn't what it was, & general health is also worse than it was.

False economy in my view.

Sir_Humphrey

One of the most successful retailers in the UK has terms and conditions that make mine look Dickensian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/16/john-lewis

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Neither are easy jobs and both involve shift work.

Tube drivers are paid more because train drivers wages have become much higher than in the days of BR - there are competing companies now which makes it esasier for drivers to change jobs to get higher wages. This also pushes up the wages of tube drivers. Therefore tube drivers are paid more because of market forces.

Perhaps you would like to explain why agency nurses are paid more than NHS nurses?

I recall that you are not keen on personal debt. Yet products need to be bought by somebody. Now if you allow wages to reduce as a share on GDP (which has happened since the 1970s) and you don't want high personal debt, where does aggregate demand come from?

I don't want aggregate wages to reduce. I just don't want to wages to be determined by the 'hold-the-country-to-ransom-bility' of a job. It allocates resources inefficiently and it impairs the prosperity of the country.

If you're worried about aggregate wages falling just increase the minimum wage. Much better that those earning the least benefit rather than tube drivers who find themselves in a cushy union job.

(BTW, I find it interesting that you attribute their high wages to market forces. In that case, why do they strike so often? And do you assert that when they do strike it has no impetus on wages?)

mardatha

What a lot of people in here forget (or choose to ignore) is that bank workers/IT workers/teachers/nurses - EVERYBODY is working class ! You work for a wage-=you a re a worker= you are working class. The only people in the country who are not are rich landowners, aristocracy, footballers and lottery winners!
If you stand by and sneer at binmen or railway workers who are fighting unfairness.. then you can't whine when one day, its you !

torontoboy45

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I don't want aggregate wages to reduce. I just don't want to wages to be determined by the 'hold-the-country-to-ransom-bility' of a job. It allocates resources inefficiently and it impairs the prosperity of the country.

If you're worried about aggregate wages falling just increase the minimum wage. Much better that those earning the least benefit rather than tube drivers who find themselves in a cushy union job.

(BTW, I find it interesting that you attribute their high wages to market forces. In that case, why do they strike so often? And do you assert that when they do strike it has no impetus on wages?)

if anyone wants the facts about train driving and the union that reps drivers make sure to contact me. ( I know I'm in for a kicking but I've got past caring).

JayScottGreenspan

mardatha wrote: »

What a lot of people in here forget (or choose to ignore) is that bank workers/IT workers/teachers/nurses - EVERYBODY is working class ! You work for a wage-=you a re a worker= you are working class. The only people in the country who are not are rich landowners, aristocracy, footballers and lottery winners!
If you stand by and sneer at binmen or railway workers who are fighting unfairness.. then you can't whine when one day, its you !

Fairness has got nothing to do with it. BA cabin crew already get paid loads more than those of other airlines. Are they striking to fight unfairness?

No. They just want more money.

Whatever you pay them, if they can get more by striking they will. There is not wage high enough where they would say "no, this is just taking the pee, we don't need another 5%, let's not strike".

Under current legislation they'll only stop striking when BA is on the brink of bankruptcy. Tube drivers, on the other hand, will never stop striking - I mean, why would they?

ukcarper

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Fairness has got nothing to do with it. BA cabin crew already get paid loads more than those of other airlines. Are they striking to fight unfairness?

No. They just want more money.

Whatever you pay them, if they can get more by striking they will. There is not wage high enough where they would say "no, this is just taking the pee, we don't need another 5%, let's not strike".

Under current legislation they'll only stop striking when BA is on the brink of bankruptcy. Tube drivers, on the other hand, will never stop striking - I mean, why would they?

I didnt think the dispute was about a pay rise.

JayScottGreenspan

ukcarper wrote: »

I didnt think the dispute was about a pay rise.

I thought it was about BA trying to reduce the number of cabin crew per flight, freeze their pay for two years, and pay new recruits a mere 10% above market rate.

All very unfair, obviously.