Ok so housing and food are not subsidised then?
I have/had mates in the army, and they always said the above were nominal.
Current Affairs Rail strikes
- Thread starter Diogenes the Cynic
- Start date
- Status
Ok so housing and food are not subsidised then?
I have/had mates in the army, and they always said the above were nominal.
Mick Lynch talks a bit about the issues here. Now of course I know little to nothing about the truth of the matter and Lynch has a horse in the race so can't be seen as impartial but I'm not aware of anyone from either the rail companies or the Government who will come out and actually officially challenge these statements.
It is subsidised, but it’s a fallacy that troopers get it for free, as they’ll pay a charge per month. The cost varies on size of the property and quality (furnished etc.)
The quality varies hugely from newer, suitable properties to a lot of the housing stock being absolute dross and many you'd classify as uninhabitable.
We're talking about out of control damp, no heating, lack of maintenance causing structural instabilities and asbestos, which the army is slowly removing.
So yes, it's subsidised, but many with families will now choose (I use that loosely, as it's closer to forced) to move to the rental market. It's a very common problem.
Again, food is subsidised if you're eating in the mess, but again those with families can't always utilise this. If you're a single lad or lady, you can do quite well.
Once you start having a family, the money can be squeezed quite quickly. But anyway, we've digressed - you said the original poster was having a pop at nurses.
Maybe he was - perhaps he should clarify. Personally, I didn't take it like that, but rather took it as another sad part of the living crisis we're facing.
Last edited:
Lots of other people dont get the subsidies though, that's all my point was.
But either way, its not soldiers who have caused this mess, just as it's not teachers, nurses, ambulance drivers etc. Its the government. So not sure why the OP was having a pop at nurses.
Theyve done their bit, kept us all alive in woeful working conditions for years, and honestly they deserve better than people making snide remarks about them in my opinion. That's why it was challenged.
As I said above, I personally didn't take it as that. I took it as drawing attention to others who are unfortunately involved; I didn't see any overt crticism at nurses.
The last sentence is perhaps, arguably, questionable, but the rest of the post is referring to the suffering of soldiers, which is hardly if at all metioned.
That's kind of the point, isn't it? The unionised workforce represents about 20% of the entire workforce, but there's a distinct sense that as long as they're OK, too bad for the rest. I mean postal workers aren't campaigning for Hermes or DPD drivers. Hospital nurses aren't campaigning for care home workers. The standard response on this thread has been "too bad, they should join a union", which isn't exactly suggesting that they care about anyone but themselves.
Well all of it is. It's a list of things that soldiers may or may not do, the followed by the line that some are more equal than others.
The insinuation being that somehow nurses or NHS workers dont do this.
After the sacrifices they have made, that is nothing short of disgraceful in my eyes. They deserve better than that, and I responded forcefully in their defence, as someone has to.
Where is this sense from exactly? Certainly not the government, who is cutting their pay to cover for their own negligence.
And with respect, how do you know what workers are campaigning for who? I work in the private sector currently, and we are not unionised. I campaign for all workers, in all sectors to get a better deal, as frankly the last 12 years have been very poor.
When I was in a union, I actively made the case, that we needed to incorporate and support workers who are not in the union (and did so when I was a rep).
People should of course join a union. It's not a political point, but just an economical one, which is you are negotiating from weakness as labour, so working with others gives you a better chance of getting a fair deal.
You seem though, and I mean this politely, to hold employees to a far higher standard than anyone else in the process. I'm sure it's an unconscious bias on your part, but it is actually ok, and indeed imperative that employees stand up for themselves. One can probably make a good point that most of what's gone wrong over recent times boils down to peoples inability to do so.
They are negotiating with a PM, who visits a homeless shelter and tries to convince a homeless person his best option is to go and work for Goldman Sachs. Hes not going to do right by people. He, and his party are far too detached. If you want to look at who is the "I'm alright Jack" its blokes like him, not nurses who saved lives during the pandemic.
We'll have to agree to disagree. If the poster had directly compared the situation of soldiers to nurses etc (e.g. earn this vs this), I'd see it as you have.
But, from what I can see, they haven't. I saw it as a person who is frustrated with their own conditions and having to fulfil another role without any choice.
Drawing attention to their own cause because, as he mentioned, nobody had mentioned their own plight. Whether that's the right thing to do or not is questionable.
I didn't see it as a pop at the nurses, regardless.
I've actually said a number of times on this thread that I have no problem at all with people seeking a higher wage. Indeed, the labour shortage that has done so much to drive inflation has actually resulted in pay rising at unprecedented levels.
Worker shortages just forced employers to give out the biggest raises in 20 years | Fortune
Employers’ compensation costs, including worker wages and benefits, hit 20-year highs last month.
What I object to is going on strike to try and force through pay rises. The discussion is between employees and employers, so don't use customers or end users as bargaining chips. That's cheap. If you want better pay, then negotiate for that, as people have among the 80% of the rest of the economy.
What's the alternative when months of negotiations go nowhere and employers simply refuse to come to the table?I've actually said a number of times on this thread that I have no problem at all with people seeking a higher wage. Indeed, the labour shortage that has done so much to drive inflation has actually resulted in pay rising at unprecedented levels.
Worker shortages just forced employers to give out the biggest raises in 20 years | Fortune
Employers’ compensation costs, including worker wages and benefits, hit 20-year highs last month.fortune.com
What I object to is going on strike to try and force through pay rises. The discussion is between employees and employers, so don't use customers or end users as bargaining chips. That's cheap. If you want better pay, then negotiate for that, as people have among the 80% of the rest of the economy.
If things have broken down to such an extent then a new job would seem to be the best course of action. Imagine if an Everton player went on strike because they wanted to play somewhere else. You'd say it was best for them to be transferred.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
And with this single sentence, you show that you align yourself with the Tory Government, and IMO, you have been financially-cushioned for all of your life up to present. Thought so all along, you're on the wrong side of the barrier, mate...
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Tory, Tory, TORY!!!
Once you get to workforces numbering 100000+ on a uniform contract it's different to an individual on a specifically negotiated contract. The comparison is shaky to say the least. There isn't the structure in place to negotiate individually with huge workforces and unlike a PL footballer wanted by another club the employment opportunities or financial safety net aren't necessarily there.
If the entire workforces of the various companies or organisations currently filling the column inches heeded your advice and handed in their collective notices tomorrow they'd still be accused of 'holding the country to ransom' and a sizeable number of them wouldn't be able to keep a roof over their head.
- Status