Labour caves in to Union demands

Spinnaker

Think we could safely say that the pay "awards" are actually pay offs ?

What is the difference between the Labour Party supporting their supporters ( which, I think you are inferring) and the conservatives supporting theirs?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/money-matters-elections-tories-ultra-rich-brexit-donors

What is the difference between the Labour Party supporting their supporters ( which, I think you are inferring) and the conservatives supporting theirs?

Evidently one is right and the other is wrong. I thought they were both wrong, but . . .

surely the key point is to ask, "

if the conservatives had come back in, what would have happened with the strikes would they have just conveniently disappeared as som seem to suggest?

The answer would have had to be "more, and fierce", and very damaging - and at some point had to be addressed.

Yet Labour get down to it asap and just get mud slung.

Who are the some who you say have suggested the strikes would have conveniently disappeared, Wyllow3?

That’s a smear if ever I saw one.

I don’t believe anyone in any party believed that, so where has it been said?

No, nobody has said it mollygo. Fair comment. Muddled point.

The point I was trying to make but badly was that it seemed as if the O/P implies the strikes (and need to settle) are Labours fault

"junior doctors, train drivers now Border Force threatening strikes."

whereas the strikes were pre-existing and some have now been settled not "threatened".

So I ask again if the conservatives had come back in, what would have happened with the strikes

Reading these comments, I am remembering that this is the strike the Conservative govt DID choose to settle: www.gov.uk/government/news/end-of-nhs-consultant-strike-action-as-government-offer-accepted#:~:text=Consultants%20in%20England%20have%20voted,on%20their%20pay%20progression%20arrangements ......when I had foolishly thought the consultants had come out on strike to support the junior doctors! As I have said elsewhere more than once: I was horrified to discover that "so- called" junior doctors are earning less now than I was working as a hospital social worker 12 years ago.

I think what people are talking about is the speed at which Labour gave into the unions demands for pay increases - without imposing any conditions which are obviously needed. Also it seems unfair that the WFA was immediately stopped for pensioners who have an income of less than £12,000 pa while insisting others need an income of almost £70,000. While we are at it why isn't the government looking at the £300+ per day being paid to those unelected people who turn up at the House of Lords, also I note that MPs will be keeping their "energy" allowance for constituency offices and homes (if they represent a non-London constituency)

Ilovecheese

Public sector pay rises don't cause inflation

Absolutely right as almost all economists would argue.

This thread isn't another one about causing of inflation - it's about Labour caving into their union paymasters within such a short time in power with nothing in return.

Beckett

I think what people are talking about is the speed at which Labour gave into the unions demands for pay increases - without imposing any conditions which are obviously needed. Also it seems unfair that the WFA was immediately stopped for pensioners who have an income of less than £12,000 pa while insisting others need an income of almost £70,000. While we are at it why isn't the government looking at the £300+ per day being paid to those unelected people who turn up at the House of Lords, also I note that MPs will be keeping their "energy" allowance for constituency offices and homes (if they represent a non-London constituency)

I'm not clear on what you say here, " without imposing any conditions which are obviously needed"
What conditions?

Rather than saying there was a speedy "cave in", as if it were a new issue that had suddenly come up - I think the government has to be praised for a quick resolution of what was a very long term issue, and had undoubtedly been discussed for some time too.

It was had to be resolved asap, , (as did the teachers),

We had a situation where doctors who had been praised - by the Pm and down - and given their all, and had suffered a higher % of Covid found themselves demonised by the Conservatives

MaizieD

You'll never guess what the big banner front page headline is in the Daily Mail today?

"Labour Has Lost Control Of The Unions"

And up pops this thread.

Well, what a surprise 😂😂😂

A complete surprise! Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

I would totally accept strong criticisms about both strikes and immigrants IF we’d had both under control for the last 14 years!

I’m going to take my own advice, and others, and simply not rise to the bait!

Have a fabulous weekend, wherever you are and whomever you support

twinnytwin

This thread isn't another one about causing of inflation - it's about Labour caving into their union paymasters within such a short time in power with nothing in return.

Simply not factually true. The NEC, which is the "governing body" of the Labour Party has a minority of Trade Union representatives, outnumbered by ordinary Labour Party representatives such as my local CLP (constituency Labour Party).

As for the 'nothing in return" I'd say that stabilising the situations where there were long term strikes is a great deal in return, given the parlous situation in the NHS.

I'm wondering why it seems to be so offensive to some that working people should get a pay rise.

Working people contribute just as much to the functioning of our society and the wealth it produces as do, say, company CEOs, with their £xmillions pay, or bankers with their huge uncapped bonuses which go unremarked. Remove all our workers and we would be in a very sorry state.

At the bottom of it all is belief in how the nation's wealth should be distributed. The wealthy think they should get most of it while the workers think that their contribution should be fairly recognised. A civilised society should be able to reconcile these views.

Wyllow3

Beckett

I think what people are talking about is the speed at which Labour gave into the unions demands for pay increases - without imposing any conditions which are obviously needed. Also it seems unfair that the WFA was immediately stopped for pensioners who have an income of less than £12,000 pa while insisting others need an income of almost £70,000. While we are at it why isn't the government looking at the £300+ per day being paid to those unelected people who turn up at the House of Lords, also I note that MPs will be keeping their "energy" allowance for constituency offices and homes (if they represent a non-London constituency)

I'm not clear on what you say here, " without imposing any conditions which are obviously needed"
What conditions?

Rather than saying there was a speedy "cave in", as if it were a new issue that had suddenly come up - I think the government has to be praised for a quick resolution of what was a very long term issue, and had undoubtedly been discussed for some time too.

It was had to be resolved asap, , (as did the teachers),

We had a situation where doctors who had been praised - by the Pm and down - and given their all, and had suffered a higher % of Covid found themselves demonised by the Conservatives

It has long been known that there needed to be changes to the outdated working practices - yet the Labour party ignored those and just gave the unions what they wanted - an above inflation rise.

I note you haven't made any comment about the rest of my post regarding the government apparently having no problem giving £300+ per day per person to a large group of unelected people or the fact that MPs will continue to receive their "energy" allowance for constinuency offices and for their homes (if they represent a non-London constituency), but still take away the small amount which helped many pensioners meet the bills to heat their homes in the winter.

I'm staying on topic because throwing in a "list" off on other topics - all perfectly valid in an appropriate thread and indeed covered in GN - often means the topic to hand is lost.

In terms of conditions at work please can you be specific as to "outdated working practices", which group are you referring to, as working conditions have actually been a key feature of some disputes and discussions, ie the difference between updating working practices versus "updating" to where it becomes dangerous as in the LNER dispute.

Junior doctors, trained by the UK in the UK have been leaving the service for years because their pay and working conditions have been so bad. Whilst at the same time ignoring this problem, the Tories have been denigrating and trying to limit the very immigrants who now dedicate their lives to running the health service in our clinics and hospitals.

Were Labour to do nothing? .... to let the situation continue as their predecessors had?

Wyllow3

surely the key point is to ask, "

if the conservatives had come back in, what would have happened with the strikes would they have just conveniently disappeared as som seem to suggest?

The answer would have had to be "more, and fierce", and very damaging - and at some point had to be addressed.

Yet Labour get down to it asap and just get mud slung.

They get down to it by giving huge pay increases which aren’t always warranted.

💁💁💁

twinnytwin

This thread isn't another one about causing of inflation - it's about Labour caving into their union paymasters within such a short time in power with nothing in return.

The very first post following the opening post talked about these pay deals leading to inflation.

The Chancellor was interviewed this week; she would not answer the question, posed three times, regarding funding of the pay awards made. There were to be 're adjustments' etc. We all know what they will be; train fares will go up yet again and the hapless commuter will be hit even harder, and the scrapped winter fuel allowance together with the proposed tax on pensions will no doubt boost the coffers.

(my emoji was addressed to Luckygirl3.)

Given that they had lost 35% in real terms on their incomes, I believe the just over 10% over 2 years was fair for the junior doctors.

twinnytwin

Why have Labour not negotiated a change to working practices along side the pay increases? Now all the unions will be expecting huge rises to be automatic. And who's going to be suffering due to strikes and paying for it all I wonder? The customers and taxpayers of course. The voters have been taken for fools in my opinion. Labour planned to do this all along, but couldn't tell us as they'd never have won the election.

One of the working practices that the Conservative Govt wanted to impose on the rail workers was driver only trains. I am very, very glad that this new Government is not insisting on that practice.

Wyllow3

I'm staying on topic because throwing in a "list" off on other topics - all perfectly valid in an appropriate thread and indeed covered in GN - often means the topic to hand is lost.

In terms of conditions at work please can you be specific as to "outdated working practices", which group are you referring to, as working conditions have actually been a key feature of some disputes and discussions, ie the difference between updating working practices versus "updating" to where it becomes dangerous as in the LNER dispute.

The money for these pay awards has to be garnered from somewhere - I was merely asking why pensioners are targeted and not those who are paid much higher benefits.

Wyllow3

(my emoji was addressed to Luckygirl3.)

Given that they had lost 35% in real terms on their incomes, I believe the just over 10% over 2 years was fair for the junior doctors.

Everybody has lost big percentages in real terms.

This situation was inherited from the Tory government.
That’s all there is to say really unless you are a bash the Labour government before they can get off the blocks kind of person.