Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:
Apologies for the late reply but I dont have much time of late.
The point is that the 'commercial realities' (as one poster calls them) that underpin the reasoning behind seeking to deplete wages in the unionised labour sector are nonsense. They do not exist. As is quite obvious from recent events there is no commercial requirement for the implementation of austerity measures. Neither is there any real requirement to cut costs across the public sector other than in an attempt to satisfy a quasi-Thatcherite ideological bias that advocates on behalf of the 1% who run the planet.
Indeed, given that the primary requirement of what are deemed high public sector wages is basically to afford shelter in a rigged housing market, and given the following posted on the Pin yesterday....
There's no requirement to cut costs - but we aren't talking about cutting costs. We're talking about increasing the wage bill by some 10%+
I do have sympathy for the drivers, in that housing costs spiralling have meant that the flat CPI index is actually not really all that helpful a gauge - living costs have risen. BUT this is an appalling way (big picture) of dealing with that. We should be concentrating on keeping costs of living down, not increasing wages, but the unions are an 800lb gorilla pushing in the opposite direction.
Ultimately it's other low skilled workers who will lose out long term, while we all lose out short term.
(For my part I have to travel between 3 or 4 venues for work most days, and the bus strike is directly impacting my ability to make a living - time in transit goes through the roof, so my normal "downtime", where I get deep work done, disappears. All I can do on those days is keep things ticking over, rather than actually making any real progress).