|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Jan 6, 2023 23:05:26 GMT
I let it slide yesterday, but I am offended that you associate me with the trash that is the Daily Mail. My opinions are my own and I have a right to them. I am not coming from a right wing position. I am looking at the effect of the strikes on the country as a whole. How people can't get to work. How people haven't received their help with energy bills. How people have missed important medical appointments. How wage increases will lead to price rises for all, or unemployment. Deeper recession. I didn't want to bring this up, but I buy for food banks because there are people in real need. As for your suggestion of policing welfare, how dare you! I have a life partner who faced discrimination and lived on benefits for most of her adult life - and that was even before she became disabled. Not that it's any of your business. I know about social injustice, the realities of low incomes and the benefit system, a lot more than I've said here! Yes and you direct your anger at people striking not the people who have caused the situation that has forced their hand. Can you not see why people think your values are line with the Daily Mail - because that is the exact approach they are taking. |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 7, 2023 5:09:40 GMT
I think what everyone needs to accept is that two conflicting views can both be reasonable from the individual's perspective.
It is reasonable for a person to strike because either they, or some of their colleagues / fellow union members, can't make ends meet on their current wages, and they see fat cats higher up the food chain creaming off profits.
It is also reasonable for a person, who may be equally struggling to make ends meet, to resent the strikes if they don't have recourse to such action in their profession, and if the strikes cause real harm to them and/or people they care about - not just inconvenience, but losing jobs or coming to physical harm.
It is not reasonable to ask the first group of people, who are unable to make ends meet on their current salary, to not strike for the sake of the people in the second group. They are at a point where they feel they have to strike.
It is also not reasonable to ask the second group of people, who aren't in a position to strike, to only be angry with the employers and the government, and have no ill feelings towards any of the strikers. That is like asking them not to be human.
Strikers shoudln't be labelled as greedy and selfish, and people who support the _right_ to strike but don't support every _decision_ to strike or every union demand shouldn't be labelled as right-wing Tories.
Also, what is a 'fair' wage anyway? Is it a relative or an absolute thing? Everyone (both in the striking sectors and the non-striking ones) says they want a 'fair' outcome. But _beyond_ the basic goal that everyone should be able to afford food and heating, what does that mean? Is fair even the right word to use?
When people say they want a fair wage, I think they tend either to mean that they want to have security, enough to get by on plus a little bit (and their current wages aren't providing that at present), or to mean that they they don't like seeing the fat cats at the top getting far more than their fair share. Both of which are reasonable asks, but not necessarily what the word 'fair' means. When people say they want fairness, I don't think they mean, for example, that they want rich countries' governments to pool all the world's wealth and life opportunities and share them out equally, or on a needs basis, with the entire global population, starting with those who by chance of birth don't have clean drinking water and who work in fields and factories in developing countries to service our consumer needs. If you did that, it probably wouldn't result in British nurses, teachers, postal workers and train drivers getting more than they do currently.
If the top executives and politicians gave up, or were stripped of all their wealth tomorrow and had it given to international aid charities to provide clean water, shelter and medical aid to those who have none, would the people in the struggling professions currently being driven to strike action to pay the bills now suddenly regard their salaries as fair, because they are suddenly fairer in a relative sense? Probably not. How much the rich in society have or don't have should be a secondary, not the primary concern for those hit by rising food and energy bills.
Is it fair that people in interesting, 'skilled' jobs earn more than people in less pleasant, 'unskilled' professions? Is it fair for two people to be paid equally by the taxpayer for doing the same job and providing the same service, when one of them is struggling due to having several family dependents, while the other is comfortable and has a large disposable income because they have no dependents? Should 'fair' salaries be based on how hard people work, how unpleasant or dangerous their job is, how many dependents they've got (maybe by choice, maybe not), what skills and talents they have, their performance, the usefulness of their job to society, how much pleasure they give the world, or by market forces, or by referenda, or by independent adjudicators, or by conflict between employers or employees? Where should the balance be struck between freedom and fairness? Between anarchy, democracy and dictatorship? Who decides how much is reasonable to borrow from future generations to pay the present?
Who has the wisdom of Solomon to know exactly what the fair thing would be to do if they were boss of the world? (The entire Internet puts up its hand and shouts, "Me!")
We're just trying to muddle through as individuals on a shared planet, sometimes co-operating, sometimes competing, all with differing perspectives on things based on our individual circumstances and backgrounds, and we hope it will work out OK in the end. Nobody has a monopoly on saying what's right or wrong, or where the point of principle or compromise should fall at any given time.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Jan 7, 2023 6:59:35 GMT
Not sure about "fair" but is the current rate enough to recruit and retain neccesary numbers of staff? If no and we as the public/customers want the neccesary numbers of staff then pay and or benefits and or conditions need to be improved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 7, 2023 7:21:25 GMT
Not sure about "fair" but is the current rate enough to recruit and retain neccesary numbers of staff? Evidently not, in some important roles and professions. But in other professions which we all benefit from (often labelled as 'unskilled'), it's only the law (whether the law on minimum wages etc. or the post-Brexit law on immigration) that prevents employers paying even less than they do currently and still being able to maintain their businesses. So it can't be right to set wages purely on the basis of what we need to pay to get the services we want/need - or _only_ care about the terms and conditions of people in sectors able to strike when they need to. Martin |
|
Rich
Protoform
Posts: 880
|
Strikes
Jan 7, 2023 8:17:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rich on Jan 7, 2023 8:17:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Strikes
Jan 7, 2023 10:19:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by The Doctor on Jan 7, 2023 10:19:11 GMT
I was doing to dig out some philosophy resources to help inform the debate, but Martin beat me to it (essentially)!
-Ralph
|
|
chrisl
Empty
I still think its the 1990s - when I joined TMUK
Posts: 1,097
|
Post by chrisl on Jan 9, 2023 14:35:18 GMT
As the Doctor asked to bring some philosophical light on the matter - I might as well dust off the old PhD and draw on some observations on philosophical method. The question "what is a fair wage?" invites a particular type of response ("X per hour, etc") as if it were a question like "how many sides has a triangle?" rather than a more sensible object of comparison such as "what is an adequate length of rope?". Without the particular context in which the sentence is uttered, it makes no sense to ask. However, what a lot of individuals towards the right of the political spectrum play on in this type of discussion are philosophical confusions in the grammar of our language which lead people into emotionally charged ways of seeing things as being how things MUST be, rather than acknowledging that "what is a fair wage" will mean different things in different contexts. Even though some people may agree on some generally salient aspects about what "a fair wage" may involve (i.e. would lift someone out of poverty, would in some way reflect the work they do, etc), these aspects could be switched on/off as relevant considerations or be more/less relevant in different contexts. For example, in determining a 'fair' wage for a Premier League Footballer, they would be pretty irrelevant. In the case of someone in a low-skill job the former consideration may hold more weight than the latter as a consideration. In the case of someone in a high-skill essential job such as a nurse, the first is a minimum expectation and the latter is a massively salient consideration.
Back on track - nobody in work should be paid a wage which results them having to visit food banks, or choose between heating or eating. It is an even bigger disgrace that anyone performing essential services (especially those in high skilled, essential roles like nurses) is in this position and then abused by right-wing cretins and their apologists for daring to say "hold on a minute, this isn't right and I'm going on strike".
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Jan 9, 2023 15:27:54 GMT
Not sure about "fair" but is the current rate enough to recruit and retain neccesary numbers of staff? Evidently not, in some important roles and professions. But in other professions which we all benefit from (often labelled as 'unskilled'), it's only the law (whether the law on minimum wages etc. or the post-Brexit law on immigration) that prevents employers paying even less than they do currently and still being able to maintain their businesses. So it can't be right to set wages purely on the basis of what we need to pay to get the services we want/need - or _only_ care about the terms and conditions of people in sectors able to strike when they need to. Martin I cant talk about all "unskilled" but in terms of retail, I dont think any big companies pay minimum wage and I would say they do pay based on whats needed to maintain levels. Theres a wide enough pool of those willing and able to work retail that its not exactly competetive wages, but thats partly offset by the flexibility of hours and days worked and lack of qualifications needed. And we recieved regular pay increases over the last decade at around inflation and generally maintained the gap above minimum wage (although that has varied quite a bit over time and by company). So I dont think retail workers saw a real terms drop in wages, at least not in the way public service workers have during austerity. Obviously we have now, but so has everyone. |
|
Cullen
Empty
Cat Stabber
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by Cullen on Jan 9, 2023 22:54:24 GMT
I feel Martin's statements on fairness are a bit of a strawman. A fully fair society is not achievable along the lines you laid out, for logistical reasons if nothing else. As Chris points out fairness is relative. It also implies (and you probably didn't intend this), that people should be happy with their lot as there is always someone who is more deserving. But in that world nothing ever gets better. The 'stop complaining there's starving children in Africa' argument is perpetuated by those who benefit from the status quo.
And this is something observed (in this thread a little but definitely more widely) on strikes, is that there's some notion that there are good strikes and bad strikes. That the only people who are entitled to improve their lot are those on the breadline. Or that some occupations (nurses) are more deserving on them than others (postmen) because of their perceived contribution to society. This is more or less how Nigel framed it in his original post. The media are constantly framing the strikes in terms of whether people like them or not - they ask it of people on high streets up and down the country constantly. It heartens me to see that people are generally in favour of them even though I think their, and my, opinion is irrelevant.
People have to work within the systems they are given and withdrawal of labour is one of the most powerful tools we have to demand better of our employers. So my position is that I always support strikes because I never know when I will need to make use of that right, and won't judge people on their decision whether they are 'worthy' of them in the court of public opinion or not. That feels fairest to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 10, 2023 3:37:45 GMT
Do you mean you always support the right to strike, or you support every decision to strike? Do you mean that if you're a union member, you would always vote to strike or keep striking and never against? (I assume not!) Do you always want to see government agree to a striking unions' initial demands in full, or is a negotiated compromise better? Would you support a strike by senior civil servants protesting that it was unfair they weren't getting as high a percentage pay rise as those on lower pay grades in a given year? Remember that every strike is based on a vote of union members, a minority of whom voted against striking. Every time a strike is ended by a union voting to accept a deal, there will be a minority who voted to reject the deal and continue striking. And every time a strike is proposed but not implemented because a majority of union members voted against striking, there will be a minority who voted to strike. Do you always support the will of the prevailing majority of union members and oppose the view of the minority, or do you always support those who wish to strike / reject pay offers even when they're a minority and so aren't able to put that strike into practice, or do you equally support the decisions of those who want a strike and those who don't want a strike? Although not a union member (I'm in an organisation where some choose to join a union and some don't, for all I know it's roughly a fifty-fifty split), I support the right of unions to strike when there is a majority of members in favour. But I support individual members' decisions not to strike, or to vote against striking, if they don't want to strike, as much as I support decisions in favour of it. So I won't ever make a general statement that I support strikers without adding that I equally support those who don't strike. When people say 'I support our posties' or 'I support our nurses' during times of strike, I hope/assume they mean all of them, whether the ones voting to strike or the ones voting not to. You shouldn't _only_ support the ones who are themselves in favour of striking. (Another question to which I don't have an answer: What should be the rights of those who would like to strike but either don't have a union to join or are in one where the majority are solidly against striking? In which case an individual decision to strike amounts to taking unauthorised, presumably unpaid leave, presumably in breach of contract and grounds for dismissal. If you made the rules, what should be the extent of those individuals' rights, if any, to withdraw their labour from their employer as individuals, for however long, and not be fired?) Martin |
|
Cullen
Empty
Cat Stabber
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by Cullen on Jan 10, 2023 18:03:03 GMT
Do you mean you always support the right to strike, or you support every decision to strike? Well gee I thought there was a whole other part of that sentence and indeed a whole post that explained it  But to be clear I support right to strike as a point of principle, as you said. My default position is that I support the decision of anyone to strike (and equally to not to) because my default assumption will be that they had good reason to, and that other reasonable avenues have been exhausted. I won't assume that they are lazy or greedy to do so. I do this not only because I'd like to trust in basic human decency but also because I see supporting the decision to strike necessary to supporting the right to strike, which is under direct attack by this government with their proposed legisation. But ultimately I see my opinion on someone else's decision to strike as irrelevant as it's not my decision to make. Now I'm sure you could construct some hypothetical strike scenario where I would not support the decision to strike but my default will be to until proven otherwise. And it would take a lot to do that I'd hope. So far all strikes I've seen in my lifetime that I'm aware of, it's been rather easy to back the strikers. Not that I think public backing is in anyway a prerequisite for someone exercising their rights. They can disagree with the outcome but that's a separate issue. To address you other questions: Do you mean that if you're a union member, you would always vote to strike or keep striking and never against? (I assume not!) Do you always want to see government agree to a striking unions' initial demands in full, or is a negotiated compromise better? No of course not, if it was my decision to strike I'd look at the fact on the ground and weigh it against my own position and priorities. The latter is down to the parties involved and none of my business unless directly involved. Remember that every strike is based on a vote of union members, a minority of whom voted against striking. Every time a strike is ended by a union voting to accept a deal, there will be a minority who voted to reject the deal and continue striking. And every time a strike is proposed but not implemented because a majority of union members voted against striking, there will be a minority who voted to strike. Do you always support the will of the prevailing majority of union members and oppose the view of the minority, or do you always support those who wish to strike / reject pay offers even when they're a minority and so aren't able to put that strike into practice, or do you equally support the decisions of those who want a strike and those who don't want a strike? Supporting the will of the majority does not imply opposing the view of the minority. Decisions in life are rarely that black and white. It's equally valid to want to strike and to want not to. Again my point is it's really none of my business unless I'm directly involved. Although not a union member (I'm in an organisation where some choose to join a union and some don't, for all I know it's roughly a fifty-fifty split), I support the right of unions to strike when there is a majority of members in favour. But I support individual members' decisions not to strike, or to vote against striking, if they don't want to strike, as much as I support decisions in favour of it. So I won't ever make a general statement that I support strikers without adding that I equally support those who don't strike. When people say 'I support our posties' or 'I support our nurses' during times of strike, I hope/assume they mean all of them, whether the ones voting to strike or the ones voting not to. You shouldn't _only_ support the ones who are themselves in favour of striking. I did not say that nor do I think I implied it. I said I support strikes not just strikers. And to be clear that means once they've been voted into existence. If individuals don't want to or voted against it that's their decision. (Another question to which I don't have an answer: What should be the rights of those who would like to strike but either don't have a union to join or are in one where the majority are solidly against striking? In which case an individual decision to strike amounts to taking unauthorised, presumably unpaid leave, presumably in breach of contract and grounds for dismissal. If you made the rules, what should be the extent of those individuals' rights, if any, to withdraw their labour from their employer as individuals, for however long, and not be fired?) Yeah I don't have answers here either. Currently only unions can strike - it can't be unilaterally done by individuals. My inclination is that should change to give more power to workers but I've not researched the implications of doing so. In general more workers rights is a good thing in my book. But of course one of our Brexit benefits is that we are almost certainly going to have less at the end of this year. |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 10, 2023 18:58:51 GMT
Good effort at answering questions that weren't really aimed solely at you, and many of which were rhetorical or just intended to make people think! Martin |
|
But to be clear I support right to strike as a point of principle, as you said. My default position is that I support the decision of anyone to strike (and equally to not to) because my default assumption will be that they had good reason to, and that other reasonable avenues have been exhausted. I won't assume that they are lazy or greedy to do so. I do this not only because I'd like to trust in basic human decency but also because I see supporting the decision to strike necessary to supporting the right to strike, which is under direct attack by this government with their proposed legisation. But ultimately I see my opinion on someone else's decision to strike as irrelevant as it's not my decision to make.