Comrade Crow's 12% pay increase

chucky

Comrade Crow's 12% pay increase

not a fan of Mr Crow but you could argue that his pay increase is justified.

he represents a union that is succesful as far as representing the workers goes, he has their support so he must be doing something right. the union seem to get what they demand.

frothing about the "12% increase" is irrelevent.

N1AK

chucky wrote: »

not a fan of Mr Crow but you could argue that his pay increase is justified.

he represents a union that is succesful as far as representing the workers goes, he has their support so he must be doing something right. the union seem to get what they demand.

frothing about the "12% increase" is irrelevent.

Aren't those arguments also exactly the same as those for managers of businesses? I can certainly see why it is newsworthy to know that the person encouraging his workers to go out on unpaid strike is not only not losing money to the strikes himself but actually increasing his pay by 12%!

People expressed a lot of anger at senior managers at the major banks for risking long term stability for short term profit. Crowe is no different. He is playing a high stakes game and all he is risking is his members jobs.

chucky

N1AK wrote: »

Aren't those arguments also exactly the same as those for managers of businesses? I can certainly see why it is newsworthy to know that the person encouraging his workers to go out on unpaid strike is not only not losing money to the strikes himself but actually increasing his pay by 12%!

People expressed a lot of anger at senior managers at the major banks for risking long term stability for short term profit. Crowe is no different. He is playing a high stakes game and all he is risking is his members jobs.

but that's the point, he is playing a high stakes game but for now he has been "winning" as far as the unions are concerned. hence the pay rise.

all jobs are based on results - he must achieved what his goals were if you agree or disagree what the objectives were.

the article is a bit of a hatchet job on the man - not that he doesn't deserve it btw

bendix

In the same way that Arthur Scargill did a really good job by increasing the pay of his members during the early 1980s and giving them power way beyond the value of their industry.

Now, remind me again, how did making the miners much more militant work out for the NUM?

Masomnia

bendix wrote: »

In the same way that Arthur Scargill did a really good job by increasing the pay of his members during the early 1980s and giving them power way beyond the value of their industry.

Now, remind me again, how did making the miners much more militant work out for the NUM?

Yup, and just as Scargill emerged from the miners' strike unscathed and ended up in a million pound flat in London paid for by the NUM, so Crow will be just dandy collecting the union subs whilst his members struggle to feed their kids. Sickening really.

Wookster

ILW wrote: »

I have to agree with the above, I am not keen on what Bob Crow stands for but he is brilliant at what he does and as long as his salary is paid out of union subs, who is to argue?

I just find it a bit hypocritical that he complains about bankers who earn bucket loads of cash for doing very little.

I can't see much difference other than bankers wear suits and if they are balding, occasionally wear a toupee.

blueboy43

bendix wrote: »

In the same way that Arthur Scargill did a really good job by increasing the pay of his members during the early 1980s and giving them power way beyond the value of their industry.

Now, remind me again, how did making the miners much more militant work out for the NUM?

1) The miners strike was about closures not pay.

2) Next to impossible to compete with open cast coal imports no matter what UK miners were paid.

3) Scargill was right in his assertion that there was a plan to close a significant number of pits.

4) The strike probably just accelerated what would have happened anway (see Germany where approx 600k people worked in the Coal Industry in 1960 and its now less than 30k)

5) There is little competition to having to travel by rail or tube if you live in London.

6) Many Unions / professional bodies help their members get great pay deals, with seemingly no long term ill effects for their members. Doctors would be a prime example.

hillcats

blueboy43 wrote: »

If you worked on the railways who would you want to represent you ?

I for one, will stand up and state that I am very happy with my RMT membership status and Mr Crow, and all others who put in a tremendous amount of their own time into my union that I am PROUD to be a member of.
Just need Mr Crow to get my salary on par with his now and then everything will be perfect....

A._Badger

blueboy43 wrote: »

1)
6) Many Unions / professional bodies help their members get great pay deals, with seemingly no long term ill effects for their members. Doctors would be a prime example.

For their patients, on the other hand... ?

The mishandling of GP services has been one of the unsung scandals of the last government. But the GPs themselves deserve as much flak for their greed as do government ministers and their ciivl sevants, for rank incompetence.

blueboy43

A._Badger wrote: »

For their patients, on the other hand... ?

The mishandling of GP services has been one of the unsung scandals of the last government. But the GPs themselves deserve as much flak for their greed as do government ministers and their ciivl sevants, for rank incompetence.

I wouldn't disagree.

People are selfish, groups of special interest are often more selfish than a collection of individuals.

A lot of the problems stem from trying to put 'incentives' into a huge monolithic state service. Many GP's are running rings round the system maximising their income providing useless services.

It is a scandal - but we should not be surprised.