• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Keir Starmer at it again..

No, I didn't say that, but it has to also be tempered with a little bit of balance and bigger picture. A smaller pay rise is rather better than everyone on the dole if the company goes belly up.
 
We are heading for a vote for industrial action because Network Rail are (as usual) being a set of cunts.

Every year they drag out the talks into the middle of the year hoping that the lure of the back pay will make us weaker, make low-ball offers and try to make cuts to staff and conditions We asked that the talks start in October (the pay rise is from 1st Jan). They rocked up in October and immediately adjourned the meeting when we made our demand, delayed and cancelled 3 further meetings till 2nd December and then adjourned again to the 18th for after the interest rates came out.

RPI is 3.8 so they offered 3.5 saying we will have to make savings to get any more than that…

Okay, get rid of the bonus scheme because the only people who get it every year are the managers and the top ones get an insane amount
Nope, can’t do that, can’t stop the big bosses getting their 300k plus bonuses on top of their obscene wages

Fuck the managers
 
Now, that is different. What I am trying to say is that OUTLANDISH demands that will actually put a business in danger isn't really a good negotiating tool. But, a demand that is at the top end of acceptable (or even beyond, so you negotiate back to the top end of what you want) is absolutely a union doing its job well. Push for what is the best you can get absolutely, but asking for the moon and the stars is not the same.
 
Nor I off hand, but the point is that what unions ask for has to balance the needs of their members to at least some degree with what is affordable for their employer. Now, they will obviously want to tip the balance of that equation toward their members and that is perfectly well and good, but every union will be aware of that balance and what is realistic in pay demands.
 
Many issues blamed on unions are and were driven by broader economic shifts (e.g. high interest rates in the 80s causing capital investment to dry up), increased competition, and global market pressures. I remember in the 70s, the 'Social Contract' being drawn up between the government of the day and the TUC to control wage infation.
 
I see how the CWU negotiate with Royal Mail as my wife is a postie and contrast that with how our company negotiates with the equivalent union in France. The negotiation in France is much more about the long term well being of the employee and the employer. The UK negotiations just seem to be a lot of pointless posturing on both sides
 
I was in SOGAT 82 and went through the whole militant union thing, the closed shop paralysis, the creation of Wapping, it’s subsequent vicious dispute and ultimately the introduction of the much heralded/much needed (depending on your point of view) ‘flexible working’, culminating in the several decades later polar opposite with things we see today like zero hour contracts, no overtime and so on.

Impossible to directly pin the blame on the unions when any individual company goes bust but they certainly didn’t help with their inflexible attitudes with those I had any involvement with.

I’ve seen both sides have the boot on their foot and I don’t know if it’s a U.K. cultural thing, but unfortunately whoever has it doesn’t want to negotiate with the other for mutual benefit, they seem to just want to give the other side a good kicking.
 
Back
Top