Current Affairs Rail strikes

[Nightman]

That's the question though, "why" should train staff get a 5% pay rise? Have you become 5% more productive or will that 5% just be loaded onto the (already expensive) ticket prices of consumers and lead to stagflation in the economy? For the good of the economy, wage increases have to come about due to rises in productivity, and train travel is significantly lower than 2019 levels so it's impossible to make that case.

You've mentioned that wage increases should be aligned with production increase a number of times. That's complete nonsense mate.

And by the way, rail workers, like nurses, postal workers and teachers are not the enemy of the people. They ARE the people. Your thinking here, just like the government narrative is so fundamentally wrong.

 

[Nightman]

If that story makes the Mail, you just know those gullible arsehole readers are swallowing it.

 

[ClausThomsen]

That's the question though, "why" should train staff get a 5% pay rise? Have you become 5% more productive or will that 5% just be loaded onto the (already expensive) ticket prices of consumers and lead to stagflation in the economy? For the good of the economy, wage increases have to come about due to rises in productivity, and train travel is significantly lower than 2019 levels so it's impossible to make that case.

It depends on the definition of productive.

A lot of people are working a lot harder than they used to. They're doing more in the same time or for the same wage. They in themselves are being more 'productive'. But because of economic decisions made by a select few they're being told that they aren't being productive enough. Because some companies need to throw ever greater amounts of money at shareholders then again those workers are deemed to not be 'productive' enough.

The whole notion of wage levels being directly influenced by productivity seems to be one of those one-way economic streets. When companies post record profits do we by association see record rises in wages?

 

[ClausThomsen]

FWIW my dad did similar, got a job unloading lorries with Waitrose, and really enjoyed it. Used to work 0600-1400 and would golf every day after work. Suited him really well, he enjoyed it and they were sad to lose him.

Regular shift patterns and a defined work role in a single location???

For the good of the economy (All Hail The Economy!) that needs kicking in touch.

 

[catcherintherye]

That's the question though, "why" should train staff get a 5% pay rise? Have you become 5% more productive or will that 5% just be loaded onto the (already expensive) ticket prices of consumers and lead to stagflation in the economy? For the good of the economy, wage increases have to come about due to rises in productivity, and train travel is significantly lower than 2019 levels so it's impossible to make that case.

If you accept the premise of inflation though, they dont need to be 5% more productive. Prices are going up by an average of 11% so to maintain productivity, the service level will be worth 11% more.

Theres a broader question about who they are being productive too though, as they are essentially working for the public good, though shareholders do seem to benefit from it.

Re the stagflation, we are already in stagflation long before any workers got any pay rises matching inflation. A big cause of that is that we havent paid ordinary people well enough. Ensuring working people dont suffer further real terms pay erosion would go a long way to reduce aspects of stagflation.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Pretty damning.

That's like saying the roads were impassable because of snow. We put grit on the roads on those days that it snows. We don't do it all year round. If it's snowing and drivers can't see the doors, put someone on that can. You surely don't need them on days when the driver "can" see the doors? We probably get snow in the kind of places where trains go once or twice a year at max. Is that enough for the tail to wag the dog the remaining 364 days of the year?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You've mentioned that wage increases should be aligned with production increase a number of times. That's complete nonsense mate.

And by the way, rail workers, like nurses, postal workers and teachers are not the enemy of the people. They ARE the people. Your thinking here, just like the government narrative is so fundamentally wrong.

It depends on the definition of productive.

A lot of people are working a lot harder than they used to. They're doing more in the same time or for the same wage. They in themselves are being more 'productive'. But because of economic decisions made by a select few they're being told that they aren't being productive enough. Because some companies need to throw ever greater amounts of money at shareholders then again those workers are deemed to not be 'productive' enough.

The whole notion of wage levels being directly influenced by productivity seems to be one of those one-way economic streets. When companies post record profits do we by association see record rises in wages?

If you accept the premise of inflation though, they dont need to be 5% more productive. Prices are going up by an average of 11% so to maintain productivity, the service level will be worth 11% more.

Theres a broader question about who they are being productive too though, as they are essentially working for the public good, though shareholders do seem to benefit from it.

Re the stagflation, we are already in stagflation long before any workers got any pay rises matching inflation. A big cause of that is that we havent paid ordinary people well enough. Ensuring working people dont suffer further real terms pay erosion would go a long way to reduce aspects of stagflation.

But it does matter because the income generated by the railways since 2019 (so comparing non-pandemic years) has fallen by several hundred million and traffic volume has shrunk by around 25%. I get very much that inflation has raised costs for workers, but in many businesses, if revenue fell by that much there would be significant layoffs, much as we're seeing across the tech sector, for instance (who I don't see many tears being shed for btw). They've also enjoyed impressive wage growth as their skills are in demand. In recent years there has been a widespread shortage of workers across a range of sectors, which has seen wages rise as organisations struggle to fill vacancies (the national living wage has gone up by 21% since 2016). Indeed, this supply-side shortage is, in my opinion, largely what's driving inflation at the moment.

Changing trends and recent shortages in the labour market, UK - Office for National Statistics

Changing trends and shortages in the labour market and how this affects different occupations and demographic groups. We look at where workers have entered or left the workforce and how this has changed in recent years.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[Jebus_lives]

But it’s so bad, it just can’t be serious

It's not.

 

[Hickson9]

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Perhaps something to keep in mind when discussing nurses at the moment. It's possible that any of those top 5 factors (that were derived at from studies in America, UK, Australia, Canada, and France so are pretty robust and universal) have been discussed by the nurses union, so I'm happy to be pointed in that direction... *this isn't to say that I don't think nurses are underpaid btw, merely that paying them more isn't going to fix the problem.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

It's not.

Ffs

 

[Nightman]

@Bruce Wayne , when you say productivity, do you mean income/profit? Wages are linked to profit and loss, as are redundancies. Productivity as a metric is kind of immeasurable in most industries, no?

 

[grandjoeblue]

Good luck to the nurses and rail workers fighting for what they deserve.

You have to also bare in mind that some of these industries aren't even asking for inflation matching wages, they're effectively willing to take a wage cut. (Before anyone mentions the Nurses high starting position, they'd probably accept 7-8% like they have in Scotland).

With the rail workers the train operating companies want to completely ruin their conditions along with the pitiful wage increases.

 

[Hickson9]

@Bruce Wayne , when you say productivity, do you mean income/profit? Wages are linked to profit and loss, as are redundancies. Productivity as a metric is kind of immeasurable in most industries, no?

I don't think he ever answered the question as to why I should receive a massive pay cut (pay offer was just a 3%, increase), as a civil servant on Whitehall whose work can't be linked to income/profit and for which there is no usable metric of productivity at a collective level.

And at a time when pay increases in the private sector are far greater, i.e. public sector workers are being told to bear a hugely disproportionate part of the pain.

And all of that after an entire decade of my pay being eroded.

@Bruce Wayne Let's hear your answer. Why should my family's living standards decline far more than the average?

 

[Nightman]

I don't think he ever answered the question as to why I should receive a massive pay cut (pay offer was just a 3%, increase), as a civil servant on Whitehall whose work can't be linked to income/profit and for which there is no usable metric of productivity at a collective level.

And at a time when pay increases in the private sector are far greater, i.e. public sector workers are being told to bear a hugely disproportionate part of the pain.

And all of that after an entire decade of my pay being eroded.

@Bruce Wayne Let's hear your answer. Why should my family's living standards decline far more than the average?

3% doesn't seem right at all. Is that being challenged? How should it be worked out? Linking to Inflation seems the most obvious, but perhaps that's a lazy take from me.

I would say that for the majority in the private sector, people need to move company in order to achieve a pay rise. I'm not sure they're so forthcoming in the current climate.