Jump to content

The summer of discontent, 2022


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

All I can say is that IMO, giving blanket 9% pay-rises to everyone sounds like the right thing to do but it is going to make things worse. Much, much worse.

Again, can you provide evidence that wage push inflation is actually a major contributor to inflation in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of many employers, it absolutely is their fault. Too many punt increasingly large pay and bonuses etc to a select few whilst demanding more and more from staff and giving them less, all against a backdrop of record profits each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

They wont go on strike but will take action to make things difficult, the service has been cut to the bones and essentially the rank and file doing more than they are supposed to has made it work, like answering calls to come out and work rest days, taking pda devices home to respond to emails and victims to keep them updated, starting shifts early to reduce overtime claims etc. The actual pay claim requested was imo entirely reasonable. A 3.4% rise in pay coupled with a reduction in working week from 40-35 hours in line with other public sector work places. 

Full industrial right should be a universal right. 

In England as you can imagine a starting wage of 19k and working in the greater London area has led to some using foodbanks etc, that actually is an issue in terms of bribery etc. 

 

27 minutes ago, Left Back said:

So has anyone involved in the negotiations spun this yet as actually being a higher than 3.4% rise because of the reduction in working hours.

What's the reasons for refusal?

3.4% is a perfectly reasonable pay rise request.

I can only assume it's the cut in working hours which is the problem because it then requires extra money to be for staffing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people can't have wage increases because it would mean the cost of things has to rise (why incidentally? To ensure record profits yet again?) and therefore less people would buy things and cause some sort of loop.

Yet how are folk able to afford things, and prevent the above, when their pay is lagging way behind and they won't be getting any sort of significant wage rise?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Again, can you provide evidence that wage push inflation is actually a major contributor to inflation in general?

Get off your arse and search yourself instead of constantly asking me and you'll find people arguing both sides.

Make your own mind up and argue your case.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

Get off your arse and search yourself instead of constantly asking me and you'll find people arguing both sides.

Make your own mind up and argue your case.

You are making the claim that wage increases in line with inflation will cause further inflation. I am asking you to support your claim. That’s how debate works.

Correlation is not the same as causation. Keep that in mind when you provide evidence to back up your view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

So people can't have wage increases because it would mean the cost of things has to rise (why incidentally? To ensure record profits yet again?) and therefore less people would buy things and cause some sort of loop.

Yet how are folk able to afford things, and prevent the above, when their pay is lagging way behind and they won't be getting any sort of significant wage rise?

 

The economy works because there is a certain amount of balance which holds it roughly in place.

Any significant shove and things can quickly spiral into disaster.

A significant event such as wall-to-wall pay rises would be one such shock. Crippling fuel increases is another. Trying to cope with the latter shock to the system by introducing another shock to the system (the former) is unlikely to restore equilibrium.

You ask why pay rises cause prices to rise? That has already been answered by me and @scottsdad above but I'll repeat it.

Inflation is currently not being driven by growth. What that means is that companies are seeing pressure from staff for wage rises and pressure from suppliers in increased costs. Why are costs increasing? Because it costs more to manufacture and ship stuff right now because of covid-derived staff shortages, the fuel crisis and Brexit. Everything is inter-connected. The VAST majority of all UK businesses are small to medium sized operating on tight profit margins. Don't believe me? Start having a look at company accounts on Companies House and you'll see it for yourself. If costs to a business go up, the prices of their products goes up too. Nobody should be struggling with understanding this.

Now add in 9% wage increases across the board. A company on tight margins has a choice to either close down, lose staff or up their prices. Which of those do you want because you cannot have "none of the above".

It would be worthwhile remembering that not every company is a big bad beast looking to exploit their workers. That is true in a tiny number of cases but it absolutely isn't the case across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ross. said:

You are making the claim that wage increases in line with inflation will cause further inflation. I am asking you to support your claim. That’s how debate works.

Correlation is not the same as causation. Keep that in mind when you provide evidence to back up your view.

If you can be bothered to actually read the thread you'll find my reasoning in more than one place.

I'm not interested in being "sea-lioned" thanks.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

If you can be bothered to actually read the thread you'll find my reasoning in more than one place.

I'm not interested in being "sea-lioned" thanks.

I’ve read your reasoning. I’m asking if there is actual real world evidence that supports your reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably pure coincidence that some folk are suddenly interested in the plight of people at the bottom of society since they've personally found themselves with less money to spend on life's frivolities.

No doubt their support will continue once they find themselves back in the pink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Left Back said:

So has anyone involved in the negotiations spun this yet as actually being a higher than 3.4% rise because of the reduction in working hours.

What's the reasons for refusal?

In fairness to the police federation they’ve put their costed and fully rationalised pay request in writing and its in the public domain yes. Couldn’t tell you the reason for the refusal, the ‘official side’ dont give reasons for their decisions.  

44 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

3.4% is a perfectly reasonable pay rise request.

I can only assume it's the cut in working hours which is the problem because it then requires extra money to be for staffing.

Not really, so your typical ‘response’ policing shift in Glasgow is 0700hrs-1600hrs sun-thurs or 0700hrs-1700hrs fri and sat, late shifts are 1400-0000hrs sun- thurs and 1600hrs - 0200hrs fri and sat. Nights are 2100hrs-0700hrs fri and sat and 2200hrs-0700hrs sun-thurs. The request is to drop an average of 5 hours per week which on the shift pattern can be done by shortening the shift times on early and late shift by finishing an hour earlier (with a 1 hour handover time) and starting nightshifts an hour later. Currently the handover between night to day shift relies on people coming in to start their shift early for no payment, PC’s are asked to ‘muster’ 20 minutes early and most Inspectors and Sergeants (ie shift management) will report for duty and get a handover from the previous shift between 45-30minutes before the start of shift without pay. The action proposed by the federation ‘ie removal of goodwill’ will lead to there being no handover time between night and day shift which will cause overtime to be incurred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aufc said:


This is only true for the well off/rich people. Think about it. The less well off spend most of their money on essentials (rent, food, electricity etc). Most of them lost their income during covid which was replaced by furlough. However, they still needed to spend the same money on the same essentials. Actually, a lot of them only got 80% of their normal income in line with furlough.

The well off are able to spend their money on holidays etc. However, during furlough, they were unable to go on these holidays so were able to accumulate this extra cash in their pocket.

It is the main reason why houses prices were crazy during lockdown as the well off were using the additional cash they accumulated to then accumulate more assets.

So most people won’t have been able to save massively. The savings increased because it was the rich getting richer.

Well no, this is only true if you expand 'well off' to mean the vast majority of the UK population. 

Most people benefited financially from no longer commuting and paying fares; petrol demand collapsed from households because no c**t was going anywhere; pubs, restaurants, live events etc. were all fucked over for ages. And the vast majority of people also didn't go on a holiday as usual - this is not some mark of elite privilege. 

The rich were already saving and investing money. The economic facts during the pandemic show that the majority of households were able to save disposable income that could no longer be used - there was practically nothing available to dispose of it. UK household and personal debt was paid off at record levels in spring 2020 - that was not being done by the rich, because the rich do not have long-term credit card debt that they're paying the bare minimum to cover each month.

It was a financial reset for most - but certainly not all - in society. And that chance event has actually left most UK households in a better place to ride out the current shock than they were in December 2019 because their existing borrowing burden is much lower.

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

40,000 BT call center workers withdrawing their labour. Nicely done.

Edit - Actually only 9000 folk on the phones and 30,000 openreach engineers so that could be damaging if connectivity it lost and there isn't enough engineers to restore the phone lines, they might even have responsibilities in the civil contingency act which presumably they have to meet either via staff not on strike or agency workers.

Edited by 101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 101 said:

40,000 BT call center workers withdrawing their labour. Nicely done.

I phoned Scottish Power and got through in 3 minutes. It was like being in the twilight zone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

I phoned Scottish Power and got through in 3 minutes. It was like being in the twilight zone. 

Hope they are getting paid for such efficiency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...