We'll *Do Something" about the strikes

(hastily adds I didn't vote for Thatcher, but just like voting for Brexit, no, few had real idea)

I couldn't abide Thatcher's ideology but I really don't think she imagined that so many of the newly privatised industries would end up being owned by foreign Governments.

Ilovecheese

Jeremy Hunt wants less regulation of the banks. I suppose we can look forward to another crash then.

I spotted that! Has he really not learnt anything?

The actions of Thatcher, once in power, and the ease with which she convinced people to vote against their interests, do lend credence (for me) to my belief that once a party is in power it can do whatever it choses to do, so long as it doesn't frighten the horses, i.e. upset most of the electorate.

I think that we probably all want a country where everyone is paid fairly and treated fairly. Practices like zero hour contract suit some people but not those lower paid workers who have to pay their bills.
There are so many professions, businesses and trades that are vital to our wellbeing.
My DH used to get up at 3am to milk cows and was never well paid although I would nave said that providing food was relatively important., we have a tradesman outside our house now who must be freezing so that we won’t be.

If we want good pay and conditions for the people who provide us with what we need then we have to be prepared to dig deeper into our pockets.

The vast majority of us go on holidays, buy clothes we don’t really need ( I could go on and on & I know that I am guilty too)perhaps we have to understand what is really important?

I know what I think is really important and that is Families being together at Christmas and some of these strikes will prevent that.

I definitely agree to people having a living wage I just do not think that striking is the correct way to achieve it.

GrannyGravy13

I know what I think is really important and that is Families being together at Christmas and some of these strikes will prevent that.

I definitely agree to people having a living wage I just do not think that striking is the correct way to achieve it.

So what do working people do when they have sat through meeting after meeting and seen their perfectly reasonable requests refused time after time? When they are being offered a tiny raise which won't cover their costs and leave them using food banks to be able to eat. What would you suggest?

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

I know what I think is really important and that is Families being together at Christmas and some of these strikes will prevent that.

I definitely agree to people having a living wage I just do not think that striking is the correct way to achieve it.

So what do working people do when they have sat through meeting after meeting and seen their perfectly reasonable requests refused time after time? When they are being offered a tiny raise which won't cover their costs and leave them using food banks to be able to eat. What would you suggest?

I have posted many times that I do not have the answer Glorianny I wish I did.

Maybe working to rule, no overtime?

I am not sure that those folks who cannot get to family due to strikes will side with the unions despite being sympathetic to their cause.

I don't think it is more important that families get together at Christmas than people being able to live a decent life during the whole year.
There has really been no alternative for people other than to withdraw their labour. I do hope most people will not turn against the strikers.
The Government won't help, the opposition gives little support. What are people to do?

GrannyGravy13

I know what I think is really important and that is Families being together at Christmas and some of these strikes will prevent that.

I definitely agree to people having a living wage I just do not think that striking is the correct way to achieve it.

The problem is, GG13, that if negotiations have no effect then withdrawing labour is the only strategy left for working people. This has been the case for the last 200 or so years. Have you ever read Mrs Gaskell's 'North and South' (mid 19th C) , or 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' (Early 20th C). They explore the theme of workers withdrawing their labour to obtain better pay and conditions from both the employers' and the workers' sides. There will always be a tension between the two 'sides', but I don't think that in this day and age, when we regard ourselves as an humane and advanced society, we should be expecting people to work in unregulated, adverse conditions, for wages that fail to keep pace with the cost of living, sometimes falling very short of the cost of living, while those higher up the company 'hierarchy' and the shareholders who contribute little or nothing to the company have first, very generous, call on company profits.

I know that you appear to be an excellent employer; you have said yourself that a company that cannot treat its workers fairly (by which I assume you mean both pay and conditions) and still be profitable might not really be a viable company...

I would add that keeping people near or below the poverty line does nothing to keep the domestic economy functioning well. It makes good economic sense to maintain a well paid, healthy work force.

Working to rule might be a possibility but the rail service relies on overtime because they don't employ enough drivers. The public might be nearly as badly inconvenienced as a full strike.

Christmas is just one day and it’s not important for families to get together, what is important at that people are able to feed, house and keep their families warm

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

I know what I think is really important and that is Families being together at Christmas and some of these strikes will prevent that.

I definitely agree to people having a living wage I just do not think that striking is the correct way to achieve it.

The problem is, GG13, that if negotiations have no effect then withdrawing labour is the only strategy left for working people. This has been the case for the last 200 or so years. Have you ever read Mrs Gaskell's 'North and South' (mid 19th C) , or 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' (Early 20th C). They explore the theme of workers withdrawing their labour to obtain better pay and conditions from both the employers' and the workers' sides. There will always be a tension between the two 'sides', but I don't think that in this day and age, when we regard ourselves as an humane and advanced society, we should be expecting people to work in unregulated, adverse conditions, for wages that fail to keep pace with the cost of living, sometimes falling very short of the cost of living, while those higher up the company 'hierarchy' and the shareholders who contribute little or nothing to the company have first, very generous, call on company profits.

I know that you appear to be an excellent employer; you have said yourself that a company that cannot treat its workers fairly (by which I assume you mean both pay and conditions) and still be profitable might not really be a viable company...

I would add that keeping people near or below the poverty line does nothing to keep the domestic economy functioning well. It makes good economic sense to maintain a well paid, healthy work force.

I agree with your last paragraph 100% MaizieD

I also get that strikes should be the last resort when all else breaks down.

I said upthread in one of my rambles that along with pay it’s terms and conditions which are important. Any company should be able to take their workforce with them when the business model needs modernisation. They should re-train (excuse the pun) where necessary.

I totally understand the need for companies to be profitable however, I do not get why these bosses do not understand that a happy workforce is for more productive than an unhappy one . This should be in every boardroom across the land both private and public sector!!!

Wyllow3

(Just a note - Ambulance are not emergency services, they new a class below, "essential services")

Yes, they are classed as an emergency service, but it depends on the category of response.

There was a thread not long ago about nominating GNers for government roles. I'm nominating you to be Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy GrannyGravy.

Over the last few years all the railway engineering work undertaken at Christmas has made travelling by train either a misery or impossible, so no change there.
I think the delay in / lack of Christmas post will be more noticeable.

It’s a long time since I’ve visited and even longer since I last posted, being driven away by some very spiteful posters. However, I’m now laid up after ankle surgery so I’ll give it another go!
I see these strikes equalling a discontent with the world at large rather than just about being rewarded adequately by an employer. For too long we’ve seen the few benefit and the majority get by. However, the majority can no longer do the getting by and feel they want a bigger cut of the cake. And why not - when you see salaried bosses of near-failing firms (and even worse, those in the public sector) taking massive salaries for little obvious benefit to delivered service.
I work in the MoD civil service, have a degree, and receive a mid£30k salary. I work hard, I get things done, I make a difference. Just how is my value so much less than some 20 something graduate with diddly experience raking in 3 times as much? Our world has changed so much over the last 50 years and with it, all understanding of the value of such experience. We’ve been in a race to the bottom - and having reached that very bottom, are now agitating. Who’s to blame? The establishment at large.

growstuff

There was a thread not long ago about nominating GNers for government roles. I'm nominating you to be Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy GrannyGravy.

Seconded

Some of the robot accounts that the government are using to spread false propaganda.

Oh I haven’t had time to follow lately but I’m sure gg13 deserves the nomination🙂

Who's mainly to blame? - the Conservative Party, their billionaire funders and proprietors of the right wing press.

What is in the interests of the ultra-rich is not in the interests of the country but for too many years the overwhelming bias of the UK press has been very effective in fooling too many people too much of the time.

It must not continue.

The UK has the highest profits in Europe.

The U.K. has the lowest living standard

“ The financial sector has its place but it's a parasite on the sectors that actually produce goods and services.”

So I guess all those of us with pensions or ISAs have to accept that we are parasites.

Katie59

“ The financial sector has its place but it's a parasite on the sectors that actually produce goods and services.”

So I guess all those of us with pensions or ISAs have to accept that we are parasites.

That's just being a drama queen!

The UK economy has sunk in comparison with France, Germany, The Netherlands, Australia and Canada. We are now at the bottom of that list in terms of productivity.

Because we also have the highest level of inequality, the standard of living of almost all UK citizens is also lower than most people in these countries.

If we compare the UK with France, only the very richest Brits are on the same level as their French counterparts.

Middle income French citizens are 20% better off than middle income Brits and the very poorest French people are 25% better off than the poorest in the UK.