Labour caves in to Union demands

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In terms of conditions at work please can you be specific as to "outdated working practices", which group are you referring to, as working conditions have actually been a key feature of some disputes and discussions, ie the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.

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It has long been known that there needed to be changes to the outdated working practices - yet the Labour party ignored those and just gave the unions what they wanted - an above inflation rise.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

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.

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

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

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.

Ilovecheese

Public sector pay rises don't cause inflation

Absolutely right as almost all economists would argue.

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)

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.

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

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?

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.

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 . . .

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

Public sector pay rises don't cause inflation

Grantanow

The Tories wasted years not negotiating and the public were seriously inconvenienced (and probably some ill people's lives worsened), Labour have had to resolve various disputes as a consequence. Just because there are messy side issues and leftovers doesn't mean the government has failed as the Torygraph would like us to believe. It's evidence that action was taken. More to do is always a government task but at least Labour is not sitting on its hands like the Tories did.

Not only have the tories wasted years not negotiating but they have actively suppressed any attempt by the rail companies to come to any agreement with the rail unions as they have refused to allow solutions negotiated between the unions and the train companies (TOCs) to be implemented. The Transport minister had the ultimate say in allowing them to be implemented.

This was widely publicised in the early days of the disputes a couple of years ago.

always the same when labour get into power, who is going to pay for it all?

Spinnaker

I couldn't find it in DM online either - their headline is about Huw Edwards

It was on the BBC news site. It will be the print version now in the shops.

What else do we except from hostile newspapers? They don't give the individual facts as I did regarding different disputes, neither do they take account of which unions actually have a relationship to the Labour Party.

They hint its all about pay - but thats simply not the case.

I've a new meme -

"Half Baked Headlines"

The Tories wasted years not negotiating and the public were seriously inconvenienced (and probably some ill people's lives worsened), Labour have had to resolve various disputes as a consequence. Just because there are messy side issues and leftovers doesn't mean the government has failed as the Torygraph would like us to believe. It's evidence that action was taken. More to do is always a government task but at least Labour is not sitting on its hands like the Tories did.

Very disingenuous repeats of the O/P, as I have laid out in detail above in a case by case look at the agreements reached.

Also

Who expected that the strikes would stop or the grievances magically disappear just because a Labour government came in

Its just the oh so predicable smears on the Labour Party.

It's also a mistake to assume that the Labour Party have that kind of relationship with the unions.

Neither the BMA nor the Teachers Unions have any association with them at all, for example.

Thanks Wyllow3 for the info/facts

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 😂😂😂

Here’s a few more headlines. MaizieD. No doubt none will suit. 🤣🤣🤣

Telegraph. Britain's middle classes will be forced to foot bill for Unions’ pay rises.

Independent. Unions will keep demanding more as fresh rail strikes planned days after drivers deal.

Express. Labour is a national embarrassment as Union announces strike days after bumper pay rise.

The Times. Has Labour been played by rail unions?

winterwhite

So do you think, Primrose that junior doctors, teachers and train drivers were adequately paid and had appropriate working conditions in the first place?

Thirty grand for newly qualified teacher going up to 46,000on upper pay scale
Drs foundation Training 32,000 to 37,000 +
Dr's specialist training 43,000 to 63,000
Train drivers 60,000 now up to just under 70. Because it's backdated those who have now quit will still get their pay.
Many people have to survive on much less, but still do public service work, bus drivers for instance, similar responsibility as train drivers, carrying passengers, get abused, one recently murdered, yet only get a quarter of the pay. Their union don't have the clout of aslef.