19 Aug
8:57am, 19 Aug 2024
25,380 posts
|
larkim
It's one of those correlation <> causation arguments with Unions isn't it? Union wins battle whilst Labour in power = down to Union subscription / payments / influence. Union that loses battle whilst Labour in power = clearly some other factor despite the relationship.
|
19 Aug
9:16am, 19 Aug 2024
17,658 posts
|
jda
Of course I’m sure there is plenty of mutual back-scratching and nodding and winking going on too. But it’s a bit silly to link every annual pay rise to a union donation.
|
19 Aug
9:58am, 19 Aug 2024
22,033 posts
|
Chrisull
The LNER strike is not to do with wages (although some speculation an even bigger pay offer would help), it's about understaffing, and the bullying of existing staff taking on extra hours. As a nationalised company (which LNER were in 2018), it's a reminder nationalisation does not fix the problems of capitalism, it is no waving of a magic wand and making everything better. independent.co.uk |
19 Aug
10:12am, 19 Aug 2024
45,757 posts
|
SPR
Yakima Canutt wrote: But I'm not sure that the name change was "propaganda" Given the cost of living didn't factor into the calculation, that's all it could be as it wasn't what it was called and they'd have known that. |
19 Aug
10:55am, 19 Aug 2024
28,975 posts
|
richmac
Yakima Canutt wrote: As we are settling into a new parliament we now see that when it comes to gravy we are in a different boat, but there is still gravy in it, and Aslef member are reaping the rewards of their donation and support of Labour through the years and they've played a blinder. UK train drivers are the best paid in Europe by a country mile even before this dispute was settled. And they are in strike again. So next time we hurl news of busineses and individuals paying for peerages and contracts remember that all politicians are cheap investment. Even labour. thecritic.co.uk Yes, Let's resent those with a decent union doing its job effectively and not celebrate that we have 1 small area where we reward our workers well and while we're at it equate that wage with those who have the wealth to buy themselves a peerage because the 2 things are entirely the same. |
19 Aug
11:05am, 19 Aug 2024
22,947 posts
|
DeeGee
Let us remember that "Union Paymasters" are funded by "Union Members", and that those "Union Members" are "Ordinary Working People Like You and Me". So we really shouldn't be complaining about the Labour government making conditions better for ordinary working people should we? Unless we don't like ordinary working people... |
|
19 Aug
11:18am, 19 Aug 2024
25,381 posts
|
larkim
There is scope to wonder about the equity with which different categories of workers have their causes settled, of course. Largely because of the way the media portrays both train drivers and their union, there's a perception that that cohort of workers is "overpaid" and "overly militant" (e.g. quoting regulations about microwave oven exposure testing, regulations about breaks etc). I sincerely doubt that that simplism about the railway staff is true, but it's definitely the line that is peddled. That said, I'm not sure that train staff would be top of my list as the highest priority pay settlement to be agreed, and there are many other cohorts who may have more of their staff on lower average wages and who have equally (if not more) deserving cases to achieve higher pay settlement funded by the taxpayer. |
19 Aug
11:26am, 19 Aug 2024
189 posts
|
Yakima Canutt
The current minimum living wage was based on target 60% median UK wage and Labour have said that the remit should be widened to include cost of living. On the basis that median wage growth is increasing due to cost of living (because employers across UK public and private will also factor in cost of living in pay settlements) then to some extent the original remit of the low pay commission would indirectly take into account this impact surely. I still don't see how you can label it "propaganda" in the same was other labels like "fascist" gets thrown around so freely. If median wage growth is not fully taking into account cost of living change then the minimum will be pushing up and I get that. |
|
19 Aug
11:35am, 19 Aug 2024
25,382 posts
|
larkim
Its propaganda as it effectively took the key elements of a name used by a campaigning body to rebrand something that already existed with an existing name. National Minimum Wage was (and would still be) fine as the name for the legal rate of pay that is the minimum required by law. The "National Living Wage" is now the name for the rates of pay which apply to everyone aged 21 or older, as distinct from the "National Minimum Wage" which applies for school leavers to 20 year olds. NLW was brought in to name the 25+yo bracket only, when at the time it was brought in there were already three separate rates of NMW, so there was no need for a new name other than political propaganda / political capital. And it almost certainly deliberately stole from the terminology of the Living Wage Foundation to try to kill their "living wage" concept off through confusion and obfuscation. |
|
19 Aug
11:44am, 19 Aug 2024
45,758 posts
|
SPR
You can call it something else if you want but the point is they changed the name to the living wage when it was just a minimum wage. They changed the name to signal something didn't they? The phrase real living wage wouldn't need to exist if a minimum wage wasn't just rebranded as a living wage.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
